|
|
|
|
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 7/30/2009 3:41:32 PM | | ^^^^^Two thoughts on that. First, any state that overhauls its corporations laws to do that is going to cause most of its corporations to do business somewhere else. Would a state's voters choose to chase away their own jobs? And second, even if this were done by federal law, it would increase personal risk--and so increase the cost of doing business. Why would anyone still want to incorporate? And even if corporations survived, how could they compete with foreign corporations? | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 7/30/2009 5:00:02 PM | ACE I will pick up the Omnivore's Dilemma. This looks very interesting. I am certified by the FBI in Agro Terrorism and this would be a great addition to my knowledge base where the food chain is concerned and the political and social impacts.
PS if you really want to get scared do some research into Agro Terrorism, the entire country has only 3 days worth of food if it all goes bad. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 7/30/2009 5:09:26 PM |
Conservatives do not trust appeals to charitable aims and higher purposes coming from the government. When combined with the police power, good intentions are either outright deceptions or quickly devolve into coercion.
Charity is making a gift of your own property to someone. As a completely voluntary and private act, it's not a legitimate subject for government regulation. When a government starts claiming to know what's best for the people it represents, they have reason to distrust it. It has no legitimate powers other than the ones they choose to give it. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 7/30/2009 5:12:43 PM |
I offer you three options:
I was going to suggest John Rawls' A Theory of Justice . . . | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 7/31/2009 10:45:39 AM | the entire country has only 3 days worth of food if it all goes bad.
I knew it was bad, with the average piece of produce traveling 1,100 miles from field to table, but I didn't realize it was quite that bad.
I am busy right now converting my yard into a market garden. I will not be planting anything that doesn't produce something edible, and will be changing out everything ornamental that is already there over time.
From a strategic standpoint, I look at it like this:
We can last about 4 minutes without fresh air, but there's not much we can do about the air supply except restrict pollution.
We can last a few days without water. My city gets water from wells, so the only thing to be done about that is to prevent overpopulation/overuse of the aquifer and to ensure that storm, irrigation, and gray-water runoff once again replenishes it.
We can last a few weeks without food. I and my immediate neighbors will eat better than most by the time I'm done. Buckwheat greens might not be popular at the moment, but they're mild, slightly nutty, and have a soft, lovely texture. They flourish in the So Cal heat--unlike lettuce or other conventional cool-season greens.
We can last quite a while with improvised shelter if need be, but standard housing that requires massive inputs of fuel to buffer temperature extremes won't do us much good when fuel gets tight. The radiant heat barrier (perforated, reinforced aluminum foil) and improved ventilation in my attic will be installed next week. That should probably do it, but if it isn't enough to eliminate the need for an AC I'm going to wrap the exterior walls with an envelope of the stuff and stucco over it with cob or papercrete. I'll use battens to create a 1" dead-air space for increased insulation between the existing wall and the new sheathing. Or, maybe I'll just stack straw bales.
We will still need communication, so making sure that the Internet isn't co-opted is very important.
Clothing travels even farther than food. We are idiots for not growing our own hemp. When the round-up resistant pigweed finally makes cotton uneconomic to grow here, perhaps we'll wake up and change that stupid law. Cotton is a very energy-intensive crop anyway--a very heavy feeder that depletes the soil. Cotton fiber is flower tissue: very expensive for the plant to produce. Hemp fiber is stem tissue: much easier for the plant to produce in quantity. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 7/31/2009 11:09:31 AM | I read Rawls. Thought it was a fairly weak. Struck me as implicitly socialist, but mostly just muddy.
I think a better take on what he was trying to articulate comes from the people who have explored the concept of privilege. I've already summarized that line at length several times. But the basic premise is this: If we're all equal, no one is entitled to any material advantage. The only legitimate basis for granting anyone a privilege is if everyone else is made better off by doing so. The classic example is that of a doctor. Why should we allow someone an exclusive privilege to diagnose, treat, and prescribe medicine, and in the process get rich off of our misfortune? Well, because: we'd be worse off without the treatment; it requires training, talent, and expertise to do well; and, no one would go to that extra trouble unless we made it worth their while. So, we all get good medical care and the doctor gets rich. It places the doctor at a relative advantage, but everyone else is also better off too.
Legitimate privileges are contingent upon qualifications and performance. The qualifications must be relevant to the ability to perform. Nonperformance must result in the loss of the privilege.
That's it in a nutshell. If a representative legislature performs, the lawmakers can continue in their careers. If not, perhaps not. If the People's Revolutionary Party performs to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority, it might well rule with the consent of the governed. If it doesn't, out it should go.
Where it gets tricky, and where elections come in, is when you combine privilege with the police power. When those who hold a privilege without proper qualification or accountability for their performance, also have recourse to the police power, tyranny can ensue.
Marx might have been a better call on my part. Das Kapital. Might as well just get to the heart of it, because that type of tyranny is exactly what he claims goes on under Capitalism.
Be that as it may, my sense is that if we can achieve long term food security independent of oil, we'll have time to figure the rest out. So Jack, that's how I want to respond to your concern about foreign oil. --by doing what I can to make sure we can all still eat without it.
Who was the Libertarian philosopher who talked about the inevitable consolidation of the police power into the hands of a single entity (because otherwise there'd be competition, instability, violence, and a climate of fear)? Now that was an interesting line of reasoning. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 7/31/2009 2:32:36 PM | Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp Hemp, this would solve ALLOT of issues in today's economy. Huge supporter of it. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 7/31/2009 4:49:21 PM | There's another initiative in the works to make personal posession of hemp's surreal cousin legal in CA. By 2010--with or without a doctor's note. I figure the odds are good that it will pass.
Just say, "legalize and tax." I would say, "legalize, regulate, and tax," but I don't want to get all the conservatives in a tizzy--even though the war on drugs is perhaps the most massive and brutal form of regulation imaginable.
Hemp and bamboo would make great substitutes for wood pulp. Can you say, softer, stronger, more absorbent TP for starters? I knew you could. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/1/2009 8:46:33 AM | Well hemp and Pot are two completely different crops from the same family, smoke the hemp and all you will get is a bad headache.
Hemp (from Old English hænep, see cannabis (etymology)) is the common name for plants of the entire genus Cannabis, although the term is often used to refer only to Cannabis strains cultivated for industrial (non-drug) use.
Industrial hemp has been tried for many uses, including paper, textiles, biodegradable plastics, construction, health food, and fuel,[1] with modest commercial success.[2][3] In the past three years, commercial success of hemp food products has grown considerably.[4][5]
Hemp is one of the fastest growing biomasses known,[6] producing upto 25 tonnes of dry matter per hectare per year,[7] and one of the earliest domesticated plants known.[8] For a crop, hemp is relatively environmentally friendly as it requires few pesticides[9] and no herbicides.[10]
Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa is the variety grown for industrial use in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere, while C. sativa subsp. indica generally has poor fiber quality and is primarily used for production of recreational and medicinal drugs. The major difference between the two types of plants is the appearance and the amount of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) secreted in a resinous mixture by epidermal hairs called glandular trichomes. Strains of Cannabis approved for industrial hemp production produce only minute amounts of this psychoactive drug, not enough for any physical or psychological effects. Typically, Hemp contains below 0.3% THC, while Cannabis grown for marijuana can contain anywhere from 6 or 7 % to 20% or even more.
Industrial hemp is produced in many countries around the world.[11] Major producers include Canada, France, and China. While more hemp is exported to the United States than to any other country, the United States Government does not consistently distinguish between marijuana and the non-psychoactive Cannabis used for industrial and commercial purposes. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/1/2009 5:17:33 PM | What I'm finding so interesting about this exchange re: hemp is that fz and I are in such strong disagreement on some point and yet we have a commong interest in food security and a similar perspective regarding hemp. It would have been so easy for me to just dismiss him as a right-wing wacko, but then I would have missed out. I found the same thing to be true with Pirateheaven and zero-based budgeting. And Match is just brilliant in general. He's very fun to disagree with!
My point and its relevance?
When our legislators place their ideology above the things they can agree on, they do the same thing we do, with the same, useless result.
Now I'm wondering what Golfcoast and I will wind up having in common. LOL!!! | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/1/2009 6:33:36 PM | ACE LMAO so true and that is why open HONEST debate and discussion is needed.
Be careful with the wacko comments I am a right wing extremest, haven't you read the Homeland Security report. If your gonna call me names call me the right one. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/2/2009 7:45:23 AM | Hmm, well, I don't make you for someone who'd go in for bombing federal buildings or murdering abortion service providers.
You might well finish a fight, but I just don't see you as running off to start one by going after civilians.
If a paranoid federal government can't tell the difference, it's par for the course I guess. They can't seem to tell the difference between hemp and it's peacemaking cousin either.
In a way it's too bad that the Native Americans didn't have that to put in their peace pipes. It really would have worked! Can you imagine a world in which the European settlers had exported pot instead of tobacco?
Ah, it probably wouldn't have mattered. There is a reason why coffee is the largest traded commodity after oil. If you want to disable world commerce through agroterrorism, that's the place to hit.
Meanwhile, speaking of indica, California's largest cash crop is still untaxed and badly regulated. We are ideological idiots. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/2/2009 10:31:12 AM | ACE we probably agree on more than you might think, we just have differences in how we get there.
Allot of the answers we both have center around some type of common sense. Like the current debate over health care. We both probably would agree people need it. But I for one want the the politicians to show they can fix the problems with the current systems, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SOCIAL SECURITY before they jam a another big one down our throats. On that note why do we need all three of them why not combine them and the money coming into them and see if we can set up one program for all that qualify. No not a single payer system. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/2/2009 11:57:34 AM | ACE we probably agree on more than you might think, we just have differences in how we get there.
I think you're probably right about that, which is why I hate that f'ing cokehead for popularizing the politics of disdain. I don't hate his content. But his theme? Sucks the big one, daily.
No, ***hole (Mr. Toots, that is, who knows he's only in it for sport, which is why he calls himself an "entertainer") --feeling superior and being superior are not the same thing. Playing politics as though it was a competitive sport guarantees that everyone loses.
When we're talking about health care and social security, what we're really talking about is insurance. In theory, private, for-profit insurers whose success depends on performance that matches or beats their competitors should guarantee the most affordable coverage for the most people. But does it really?
Two problems with it:
1) It's not a binary transaction. When you have intermediaries, the market model breaks down. That's not liberal ideology talking. That's how markets work. When the conditions for the market are not met, you have to do something else to achieve the highest ROI. You have to turn to a quasi-market approach, such as a regulated monopoly where would-be providers competitively bid on contracts to provide the needed services. When direct competition doesn't work, you have to structure the industry around indirect competition if you can. Sometimes, you just can't. As with social security, collecting health care premiums from everyone who can pay might be one of those things. Delivering health care? I'm not convinced that delivery cannot be quasi-competitive, especially since it is that way now. Single payer is not necessarily the same thing as a national health service.
2) It is not adequate to cover the most people most affordably. The demand is to cover _everyone._ When you have to cover even the most exensive-to-treat conditions and indigent clients, the way to keep individual rates lowest is to spread the costs among the widest possible pool. That means everyone who can pay.
Your idea to include more forms of insurance in the pool could also reduce costs by spreading them over multiple domains. However, it could also increase them if the other domain has a higher payout rate. And anyway, sometimes two bureaucracies are cheaper and more effective than one--which is why GE sold off any line of business in which it was not ranked 1st or 2nd in market share. Somebody else was able to do it better.
And that is the problem with having the government provide social services directly: one bureaucracy trying to do too many jobs.
If universal health care insurance is what we want to have as a nation--if that is our public policy--then every possible form for providing it should be explored and examined--first in thought experiments, then in econometric models (better than nothng), then in pilot trials, and then in full deployment for a set period with some sort of referendum at the end.
The "single payer" vs. "status quo," "my way or the highway," debate prevents us from thinking through all of our options. And that is another reason why I hate divisive ***holes who project ulterior motives on those who are trying to solve real problems--however misguidedly they might appear.
I am sorry, but paying more per month for health insurance than I paid for rent when was no testament to the free market's ability to deliver on health security--especially when I'm in perfect health. (Now that I get employer-paid bennies again, it's not such an issue for me.)
As a liberal, I think we can and should do better.
BTW, if someone in their 60s is still doctrinaire, is shows that the don't have any wisdom. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:39:21 PM |
If universal health care insurance is what we want to have as a nation--if that is our public policy--then every possible form for providing it should be explored and examined--first in thought experiments, then in econometric models (better than nothng), then in pilot trials, and then in full deployment for a set period with some sort of referendum at the end.
I couldn't agree more with this, but hey want it all and they want it now and DC will crap out some form of it and it will be a mess.
I have never understood why one person that buys health insurance shouldn't pay the same as a group under an employer. I understand the bulk buy thing and group policies but it just seems stupid.
If me and you are identical and we go to buy car, life etc. insurance we will pay the same, won't matter if you belong to a group or not.
Her is my logic, of you are goin to demand that everyone in the country have health insurance then it should be one price across the board. If not I see many a law suit under ADA or something else. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/2/2009 1:40:40 PM | It isn't so much the California collapse that worries me.....
It's the whole sliding out into the ocean part!
Good thing I have that beach front property in Death Valley. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/3/2009 9:59:27 AM | I couldn't agree more with this, but hey want it all and they want it now and DC will crap out some form of it and it will be a mess.
No. The demand has been there since before Hillary got slapped down. We've spent at least a decade in a useless, ideological, "black vs. white," "us vs. them" debate between two extreme positions: "no government at all (e.g., free market)" vs. "single payer/nationalized health care service." Both extremes are, well, extreme. Both are ideological and impractical. We _could_ have been having a reasoned discussion and come up with a creative and workable plan, but we'd rather feel superior in our entrenched positions--and that is why we're going to get a crappy, unworkable, ill-considered compromise that will most likely leave us worse off.
If me and you are identical and we go to buy car, life etc. insurance we will pay the same, won't matter if you belong to a group or not.
That's not true about the car. What we each pay will depend upon our ability to negotiate. Same for health insurance.
Her is my logic, of you are goin to demand that everyone in the country have health insurance then it should be one price across the board. If not I see many a law suit under ADA or something else.
You can't both advocate for this and for the free market. Stable prices are a _product_ of the market. The market does not mandate them. They simply tend to emerge when things are going well. The market does not guarantee fairness to any individual. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/3/2009 10:18:23 AM | ACE I do want free market, but if DC is going to mandate that all people must have it and if you don't, they will fine you, that is the current plan running around DC. Then it should be one price for all. I am probably beating both sides of the bush here but am high opposed to anything government mandated.
Fix the current system's the fed has, then ask me about, a new one. Not one congress person or the President has asked for an audit of currently running programs.
The only trade off I can see is that if we have a federal mandate would that absolve states from picking up the extra expenses. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/3/2009 10:29:27 AM |
That's not true about the car. What we each pay will depend upon our ability to negotiate. Same for health insurance.
It's even a lot more than that, There is also your credit history, your driving record, when it come to car insurance, even where you live determines what you pay.
In everything we do, it cannot be equal, it is stupid to think it can. If someone struggles and pays their bills all their life... They should be rewarded over someone who doesn't care or doesn't maintain good credit for what ever reason. And I'm saying this as one on the short end of this stick. Just being honest, to make my point. I don't expect it to be equal, it just means I need to work harder.
People shouldn't be forced to pay someone else's way. No matter what it is. I know I got off the topic a bit, but part of our problem is that our government thinks they need to take charge to level the playing field. But this isn't true... They need to get out of the way, because they are throwing a big wrench in the playing field. We need opportunity, we need jobs and an environment that strives on success... not one that complains about success to make those who are misfortunate feel better about their struggles. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/3/2009 10:46:01 AM | Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Sen. Arlen Specter got a preview Sunday of the tough sell lawmakers will face over health care as audience members booed and jeered them during a town hall meeting in Philadelphia.
Among those at odds with the officials touting the $1 trillion, 10-year plan was a woman who earned loud applause when she said she doesn't want Washington interfering with her health care choices.
"I look at this health care plan and I see nothing that is about health or about care. What I see is a bureaucratic nightmare, senator. Medicaid is broke, Medicare is broke, Social Security is broke and you want us to believe that a government that can't even run a cash for clunkers program is going to run one-seventh of our U.S. economy? No sir, no," she said.
While supporters offered courteous applause to the officials, Sebelius didn't earn any fans when she said that if lawmakers say they don't understand the legislation voters should urge them to go back and read it.
Specter was shouted down when he said that lawmakers divide up the bills into sections and have their staffs read portions because, "We have to make judgments very fast."
He then said he will have read the Senate bill before he votes on it, which Sebelius pointed out hasn't been written yet.
"The Senate bill isn't written so don't boo the senator for not reading a bill that isn't written," she said.
That explanation, which undermined an earlier failed argument that the legislation should be passed quickly, didn't satisfy many of the more than 400 people estimated in attendance.
Dozens in the back shouted at Sebelius when she said the bill would stop the system of rationing that insurance companies use. Sebelius then scolded the audience who jeered her, saying she would take questions if people could stop shouting at each other.
The anger is just a sample of the reaction lawmakers are bracing for as they try to sell the massive plan wending its way through Congress. The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed its version -- one of five in Congress - late Friday before the House broke for the August recess.
They are using that month's time to sell the plan to voters. For those Democrats who haven't read the 1,000 pages of legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has handed out cards with talking points to address constituents' concerns.
The card, labeled "health insurance reform to hold insurance companies accountable" drives home two points -- one, that the health care bill is good for consumers, and two, that Congress will hold the insurance industry accountable.
But while insurance companies are low on voter opinion polls, Congress is viewed even less favorably. And Republicans are seeking to capitalize on the intense scrutiny President Obama is facing over his top priority, issuing a new ad out Monday that tries to make light of the situation.
"Like the old joke goes, President Obama isn't a doctor, but he plays one on TV," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, calling the ad lighthearted but pinpointing a serious issue.
"Americans want lower health care costs -- not a trillion-dollar government takeover of health care that increases costs and lets Washington bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by doctors and patients." | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/3/2009 11:39:52 AM | Seems to me there are simple things to reduce the cost of healthcare... making the premiums tax deductible would be a nice start!
The insurance costs are just a result of the higher medical fees we're paying. Why is it so expensive here vs. say Mexico? How is our government involvement inflating these costs by more and more regulations?
Doctors, hospitals and insurance companies are not making more compared to the increase in prices we are paying... why? | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/3/2009 12:21:19 PM |
Seems to me there are simple things to reduce the cost of healthcare
Just like it seems easy we should control our borders better and not allow the drugs, guns and illegals from coming and going like it does.
But too many people don't want to solve the problem. They believe they are being politically correct, or more sensitive or just don't care. Instead... They want to legalize the illegals and the drugs.
Same with health care... instead of fixing the problems... Cutting out fat and over regulated head aches and bureaucracy, and finding a cure for a system that has worked (It's broken... not busted) The idea is to toss it away and have more regulation, more bureaucracy... and adding a lot more fat.
Remember... this is a government who pays $500.00 for a $35.00 hammer. And than pays someone to do a report on why they do that.... Our government who is wanting to unionize everything... to create equality for all workers, to live in a humdrum life, and exterminating (degrading) the efforts of those who wish to achieve more.
Now, I'm not saying our government is terrible, and that it is all doom and gloom... It's just, it can be... if we keep heading in the direction we are going.
Nothing will ever be perfect, there will always be two sides of an issue... even more... but when one extreme side of an issue takes control... things will not work.
Like they say... You can please some of the people some of the time... you may even please some of the people all of the time... or all of the people some of the time.... but you will never please all of the people all of the time. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/3/2009 12:22:45 PM | I think there are several factors at work in the high cost of health care.
1. Medical costs skyrocketed almost simultanously with the beginning of defensive medicine, in other words doc's fear of lawsuits. So doc's in defense ordered more tests than might be called for, paid insurance premiums that one could easily call excessive. For example a neurosurgeons annual insurance can be $200K. So that surgeon is essentially paying $1,000 a day to open his doors. Do we really think neurosurgeons are careless people? Really? Do we think every bad outcome in something as complex as the brain that is not positive is a likely lawsuit.
Any healthcare cost reduction that doesn't lead with this item is a fraud. Curiously Obama's new proposals make no mention of this item. Go figure!
2. I've read recently that 50% of the health care increase (above inflation) is as a result of technology, MRI's, ultrasound machines that smack your kidney stones without opening you up, etc. The cost of bringing a drug to market is estimated at $800M and over a period of 14 years.
3. Too much access. Like college educations, one could argue we are not intelligent consumers of health care. This is the only area I think Obumbler and company have a leitimate argument. It is said we spend 50% of our lifetime health care expense in the last year of life. Worse yet I've read we spend 50% of that amount (25% of our lifetime spend) in the last 10 days of life. On the other hand if we are willing to spend our own money on our care, or our loved ones, it is none of these commies business about "our healthcare spending".
4. I think the use of insurance is misplaced. When I was a younger, handsomer, more hirsute Golfcoaster, medical insurance was not used for everyday care. Like dentistry we paid for our care out of our own pockets. Insurance was a "major" event, not checkups or runny noses. Even docs will admit that 90% of visits are repaired by 48 hours and a good nights sleep. So the idea of insurance causes us to consume too much healthcare. Again incorporation of my deep thoughts in #3 above should solve that.
If we had oil change insurance, we'd probably change our oil every 500 miles. Since we mostly pay for it out of our own pockets, cept for the BMW crowd and their 'free" maintenance plan, we make a 3,000 to 7500mile calculation based upon our own thoughts on reliability and durability (different concepts). | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/3/2009 12:30:49 PM | | Doctors and hospitals aren't. Insurance and pharma companies are. Part of the higher costs has to do with malpractice liability and prevention. Part of it has to do with demand for treatment caused by our corn-syrup saturated diet. Part of it has to do with regulation. Part of it has to do with our increased lifespan and ability to treat conditions that could not be treated in the past--which also increases demand. | |
|
| The California Collapse
Posted: 8/3/2009 12:41:35 PM | Worse yet I've read we spend 50% of that amount (25% of our lifetime spend) in the last 10 days of life. On the other hand if we are willing to spend our own money on our care, or our loved ones, it is none of these commies business about "our healthcare spending".
You make a good point about overuse. There is also overuse of emergency room facilities by those who are underinsured. You also make a good point about malpractice insurance. Perhaps what we need is a single-payer system for that!
If that last 10 days amounts to luxury care that is breaking the bank and preventing others from receiving needed care that will actually help them, it becomes the business of those whose care is denied.
If you want to pay for heroic measures during those last 10 days without recourse to insurance, have at it. However, when you pool resources with others to provide for medical coverage, you are participating in ... communism. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
