hatman | I'm feeling blue...

I hope you get your sleep schedule worked out. :) Limbo sucks. I know... I live there most of the time. ;)

(and wow, I had no idea there were so many people in the run for presidency. dang! Thought about answering the meme, figured it was probably useless: I know only 3 of these people and I don't really know what they stand for anyway...*lol* I betcha in the end, the meme would show I don't even support their ideas. haha!)

Schedule never actually gets worked out as such, but hopefully it'll improve in the next few days. Right now, I'm just tired and dizzy. (Also, what with errands, Dad needing to do stuff, etc., only sort of at the keys.)

As for the candidates... We're in primaries right now. When the two big parties pick which candidates they'll each back. So there are a bunch of them and there hasn't really been a clear, lasting frontrunner in either case. But come elections, there'll be one red and one blue (plus a bunch of third party candidates with zero chance of actually winning).

Right now, tentatively, it looks like it'll be Obama and Huckabee. But we'll see.

As for the meme... give it a try. You don't have to know anything about the candidates. That's the whole point. You just tell it what you think about the various issues (and how much you actually care about each one) and it generates the list, telling you which candidates you most agree with.

Aw, Paul! *Hugs*

I got Huckabee at 61%, followed by John Edwards at 60%.
Some of the questions (like #15 on Healthcare) just didn't have options I agreed with. =/
Others I didn't quite understand, like Privatizing Social Security. Does that mean sticking corporations in charge of it? I do not like that idea.

I'm probably already 3rd party. o_o.
Or just really, really politically naive. O_o

Huckabee and Edwards tied? Wow. Yeah, that kind of puts you in third party territory, I think. Well, centrist territory, anyway (neither definitively left nor right).

And no, 3-5 options aren't going to be able to cover everything. You kind of have to go with what seems closest to your views, even if it's not quite right.

Privatization... Yes, it means letting a private company handle the program's operations. The company pays the employees, decides where and how to invest the program's funding, mails out the checks, etc. They still have to play by the rules (give everyone the money they're due, etc), but they can run things outside of the bureaucracy.

There's a lot of debate over whether or not that's a good idea. A lot of the time, it doesn't work out so well.

On the other hand, it's worked absolute wonders for the NJ DMV (now MVC). The lines went from hours long to almost non-existent, the licenses were redesigned with much better security, etc. Everything seems to be working more smoothly and efficiently.

As for Social Security... It's a mess.

It's kind of an enforced retirement plan. You pay a portion of your wages into the system until you're 65. Then you start getting it back in small monthly installments. So, from the individual's POV, you put the money aside with the gov't, and then they give it back to you down the road.

From the program's POV, the money collected from current workers is supposed to cover the payments to the current 65+ crowd.

But...

1. The baby boomer generation is turning 65. We're going to have a lot more people to pay.

2. Average lifespan has gone up considerably since the program was created. We're going to have to pay people longer.

3. Other gov't programs have been "borrowing" money from social security for decades. The social security office literally has an entire filing cabinet filled with IOUs.

All of which means that the program is heading for an imminent and major crisis. They're going to run out of money just when they have more people to pay than ever.

Clearly, something needs to be done.

Options:

1. Raise the retirement age. People are living longer, working longer. If you start paying them back later, you can put the crisis off a bit and ease the overall burden on the system.

2. Lower the payments. If you don't have enough money to give and there are too many people to give it to, give everyone less.

3. Privatize it. A private company could probably do a better job investing what money the program has available (without their hands tied by gov't restrictions and the management done by gov't bureaucracy). And they might do a better job of keeping the money they're supposed to have and maybe even getting back some of what they're owed. They could also offer more flexibility to individuals in how their money is invested.

4. Make some other big changes.

5. Some combination of the above.

I agree that #3 sounds dubious at best. But there are those who think it'd be the best way. And, like I said, I have seen it actually work to good effect.

1 and 2 aren't really fair to the people who have been paying out in expectation of a certain return when they hit 65, but still... better than not having money for anyone.

Of course, finding a way to cash in those IOUs would really help. But we're already in debt. Have been for ages. But Clinton actually reduced our debt. Our first budget surplus in years. Bush squandered that almost immediately, and has since raised our debt more than any president in history. We need to balance our current budget before we can even think of squeezing more money out to pay off Social Security.

And health care... well, what would you do? The system is clearly broken. How would you fix it? What would you consider "fixed"?

Hm. I would go for #3 *if* Social Security was no longer mandatory. It really shouldn't be, anyway. If you want SS, pay for it. Otherwise, keep your money and take your chances.

As for health care; bearing in mind that I still know little about the system, beyond what I learned in school and at my parents' knees plus a couple 20/20 specials...I'd say ban insurance. Its presence has driven the cost of health care up, so that people *need* to have it in order to go to the doctor, and yet people have to jump through hoops in order to get said insurance. *Then* there's the matter of what they will and won't pay for. I say, "Chuck the whole thing!"

If doctors have to deal with patients instead of companies, they'll have to lower their rates in order to stay in business. At the same time, the fact that this is still capitalism means that they'll still have incentive to get the job done right and done best.

...right?

...Of course, getting to a doctor is only half of health care. If we're truly to be healthy, we need cleaner air and water plus better foods in proper portions. These things are not without their effects, and like the old adage goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I think if we had a cleaner environment and better access to food that wasn't crap, we'd be able to afford the times when we do need a doctor (assuming an economy in which insurance does not exist, and the cost have therefore plummeted. If not, then at least it's not a problem *as frequently*).

I'm into holistic solutions. What can I say?

Less pollution would be good. And getting people to take care of themselves would, too.

But how would you make it happen? You're not willing to enforce Social Security. How would you make sure that people eat healthy? Have what's good for them, not overindulge in junk, keep to decent portion sizes, get regular exercise... Not exactly things you can control without managing someone's entire life.

Even if you just wanted to make reasonably priced healthy food more available... how would you go about it?

I don't want to infringe on the rights of the average grocery-shopping American . I want to infringe on the liberties of those big farming *industries* that keep so many animals packed together in one small space, that they have to pump them full of antibiotics to combat the sickness that would otherwise run rampant. I want to restrict the companies that cram tons of sugar and corn syrup into every stupid can of vegetables. I want food that's already been cooked for you to accordingly cost more than the non-preservative-laced raw materials.

I don't want to take away your right to eat cheezy-puffs. I just want to guard the rights of people (like me, often) who want to by a loaf of bread without having to scan the ingredients list for long, nonfood-sounding words like Monosodoglutehythetaminoxidate. =/

Yeah. That makes sense. Farming reform would be a good thing. And we're getting it, to some degree, with the growth of organic farming and greater awareness of stuff like what went into that whole spinach crisis last year.

The cramming sugar thing is a good point, too, though it's a dicier issue.

As for you... you can shop at Whole Foods or something. ... You just have to be able to afford it...

Social Security is one of the last programs left over from the great depression. A whole bunch of socialist measures were put into effect because people hadn't prepared properly for the crisis. They needed immediate help... and help to make sure it didn't happen again (or that they could deal with it if it happened again).

Many of those programs were ruled unconstitutional, even as they helped alleviate the crisis. Social Security is one of the few that survived.

Just to give you some context. Make of it what you will.

But... you'd accept privately run retirement investing programs if they weren't manditory? As it happens, those exist. 401(K), IRA... It's just that there's Social Security, too.

So you'd just get rid of the whole thing, then? If people haven't planned properly for the future, that's their problem, and we as a society have no obligation to help the elderly get by. Or, if they do need help, they can go to a charity. Is that how you'd have it? It's a valid viewpoint. Just trying to see what you really think/believe.

As for health care... No. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. Before HMOs, the cost of health care was considerably higher. In fact, they were created because the rising cost of health care and traditional insurance was rapidly moving out of reach of the average worker. As things stand now, the insurance companies give the doctors whatever they feel like, even if it's at or below cost. If the doctor isn't happy with that, well, he can just not accept that insurance... and lose all the patients who have it. (And, thanks to lobbyists, there are a lot of laws protecting insurance companies and restraining doctors. To rediculous degrees.)

The other thing with insurance is that it's... insurance. Hospital visits can be very expensive. As can diagnostic testing like MRIs and treatments like surgery, chemotherapy, and dialisis. Insurance is there to protect you in case something like that comes along.

So, while I'll be the first to say that insurance companies are evil and have messed everything up for doctors and patients, I can't agree that we'd be better off without them. Not unless there was something else in place to make sure that that all patients can afford treatment... and that doctors can still get paid.

Health care should be a basic right. If you say that doctors will have to set their own rates so that they can stay in business, you'll leave the poor behind. Actually, even with insurance companies controling the costs to some degree, you still have that. People who are not quite poor enough to qualify for medicaid (the government's charity health plan, more or less) but not rich enough to be able to afford even basic insurance.

The system needs to change. Insurance companies have way too much power and they're seriously abusing it. But... no. Simply abolishing them isn't going to do it.

"If people haven't planned properly for the future, that's their problem, and we as a society have no obligation to help the elderly get by. Or, if they do need help, they can go to a charity. Is that how you'd have it?"

Gee, Paul. When you put it that way, it sounds like I'm some kind of evil-vampire-dictator or something. o_O

Still, it's like the seatbelt laws that my parents are always ranting about. "Sure, it may be for my own good, but I shouldn't be *forced* to do it!"

Maybe if the worker was presented early on with an option: Do you want Social Security? Check Yes or No.
That way, it isn't like we're abandonning people who simply didn't have enough foresight. They chose their own path.

As for HC: ...it doesn't work that way? Darn. There goes my whole, magnificent plan. =/
Perhaps we could replace all doctors with robots....? Although, I guess that wouldn't work either. (Kidding about robots, btw).
Like I said, I guess I'm just naive. But still, aren't the people who *have* socialized medicine coming over *here*? o_O
That has to mean something.

Well, no. Not a dictator. But it's something to think about, anyway.

And, really, it comes down to a moral debate. The extent of personal freedom. Should you have the right to harm yourself? Do we, as a society, have a responsibility to shield people from dangerous mistakes, to provide a safety net, etc? I don't know that there are clear, definitive answers. A lot of fuzzy lines, more like.

As for health care... We've yet to find the perfect system. Socialized medicine solves a lot of the problems we have. But you have to do it carefully. Because, yes, it does come with some of its own problems. Or it can, anyway. And the socialized medicine system that we do have (Medicare), needs some fixing, too...

Hrm. Maybe th answer, then, is to do the farming reform and other stuff before touching the health care issue. That way, we suffer less for our mistakes. I.E., Johnny's mom will not have to worry about the price of Ecoli-pills if Johnny does not have Ecoli.
Sure, there will be broken bones and pregnancies--there always are. But if we first ease the burden on public health, then maybe we can sort out the other end later without having to worry so much?

It would help. I don't know how much it would help. But it'd be a step in the right direction, anyway.

I don't think health care reform is something which can really wait, though. Then again, my dad's a doctor and I'm a patient. It's kind of a priority for me...

Oog. Good point. O_O

I'm feeling blue...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject