General US Politics

[Nobody]

Also, something that I forgot to adress is that healthcare systems fully funded by the State are far from being the only form of universal healthcare. Two-tier healthcare systems are also extremely common through the world, and if America adopted that model, the private sector would still be very involved in that area, while poor people in general would have much better access to health care.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Nobody

[Time the Crestfallen]

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I'm not talking about small subsidies.  I'm talking about the people on this thread that want the elimination of private sector health care in favor of a single payer system.

You haven't really addressed the point I was making though. My point was that a) the innovation of medicine in the US has less to do with capitalism and more so to do with the US being am extremely wealthy nation and b) that socialised medicine wouldn't have that much effect on innovation, even if it was a direct result of the capitalist system. Even if I took your Bill Gates example at face value, how does the US having socialised medicine prevent him from single-handedly curing Polio?

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

<Snip>

I mean, you can't even use Clean Coal as a defense, because if cleanliness is such a big concern you should be using renewable energies.

14 minutes ago, Lushen said:

My view on energy as a whole is why the hell are we not going into Nuclear more?  It would make environmental enthusiasts happy because it is a form of clean energy and it would make me happy because I'm tired of people who are scared of Nuclear Power Plants.  For those who don't know, I'm just going to throw it out there - a meltdown just means the walls literally melted down and released an explosion of HEAT.  It has no relation to a nuclear bomb and has killed far less than any other energy source.  U-235 is enriched to 90+% in nuclear weapons whereas it is sometimes not even enriched at all (.07%) in power plants so there is no danger of people using it for nuclear weapons or it "accidentally exploding".  Finally, to those concerned with irradiation of workers, there's something called hormesis which has found that people who are exposed to small amounts of radioactive materials throughout their life have lower risk of cancer than those who do not.  It's likely similar to when people wash their hands all the time and they get sick because they don't develop an immune system.

I mean, I do think the dismissing nuclear is a problem (and The Simpsons is heavily to blame in a way), but Nuclear isn't flawless; waste disposability, costs, uranium supply, ETC. Renewable energy is the way to go forth imo.

[Moblin Major General]

11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

My view on energy as a whole is why the hell are we not going into Nuclear more?  It would make environmental enthusiasts happy because it is a form of clean energy and it would make me happy because I'm tired of people who are scared of Nuclear Power Plants.  For those who don't know, I'm just going to throw it out there - a meltdown just means the walls literally melted down and released an explosion of HEAT.  It has no relation to a nuclear bomb and has killed far less than any other energy source.  U-235 is enriched to 90+% in nuclear weapons whereas it is sometimes not even enriched at all (.07%) in power plants so there is no danger of people using it for nuclear weapons or it "accidentally exploding".  Finally, to those concerned with irradiation of workers, there's something called hormesis which has found that people who are exposed to small amounts of radioactive materials throughout their life have lower risk of cancer than those who do not.  It's likely similar to when people wash their hands all the time and they get sick because they don't develop an immune system.

Sorry, but I don't want radioactive Cesium in my groundwater supply. I know using it isn't a problem if done safely, but trying to store the waste in places where it won't hurt people or wildlife is stupidly difficult. Granted, I get my power hydroelectrically, which is harmful to wildlife, but at least I won't have to worry about Cesium giving me radiation poisoning.

[The Geek]

43 minutes ago, Lushen said:

America's land isn't rich in resources if you're referring to minerals and such.  Which is why we are always looking at Alaska and the Middle East when it comes to getting more natural resources.  The reason people come here is because our society promotes innovation more than most other societies.  

 

Hey, uh... I don't know if you're aware of this, but Alaska is part of the US. 

And the US absolutely became the economic powerhouse it is today because of the natural resources that we have access to.  Lumber, coal, rivers, metals, oil, minerals, etc. the US is absolutely rich in resources.

[Lushen]

14 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Also, something that I forgot to adress is that healthcare systems fully funded by the State are far from being the only form of universal healthcare. Two-tier healthcare systems are also extremely common through the world, and if America adopted that model, the private sector would still be very involved in that area, while poor people in general would have much better access to health care.

 

10 minutes ago, Archer of Red said:

You haven't really addressed the point I was making though. My point was that a) the innovation of medicine in the US has less to do with capitalism and more so to do with the US being am extremely wealthy nation and b) that socialised medicine wouldn't have that much effect on innovation, even if it was a direct result of the capitalist system. Even if I took your Bill Gates example at face value, how does the US having socialised medicine prevent him from single-handedly curing Polio?

I mean, you can't even use Clean Coal as a defense, because if cleanliness is such a big concern you should be using renewable energies.

I mean, I do think the dismissing nuclear is a problem (and The Simpsons is heavily to blame in a way), but Nuclear isn't flawless; waste disposability, costs, uranium supply, ETC. Renewable energy is the way to go forth imo.

LOL @The Simpsons.  

I honestly base my entire hatred for Bill Clinton on how he attacked Nuclear Energy.

And it is actually rather flawless.  I think I remember reading we have enough Uranium in reserves to power the United States for 100 years or something crazy.  Alaska is also a huge untouched goldmine when it comes to Uranium.  Also this is just Uranium, there are other fissionable materials we could use in addition to fusion which may be profitable by the time we run out of Uranium.  As for waste Disposal, back to Bill Clinton, we had a solution with Nuclear Waste.  We were going to bury it in a giant mountain.  Bill Clinton said no, so now it just sits outside the reactors - literally.  There are also ways to reuse waste but it is not economical in the United States because we do not have government controlled energy (it works in Europe).  Bill Clinton's administration also ended up shutting down a lot of nuclear reactors including ones in colleges that were meant to educate people which is why it's so hard to get a degree in Nuclear Engineering.

If a company can produce clean coal, the EPA needs to get off its back, is my point.  Plenty of companies are doing it but there are still people screaming at them to shut down.  Obviously if it is not profitable a company should not be doing it, but they wouldn't be doing that anyways would they?  

 

a)  There are countries that are more wealthy than the US that do nothing with medical innovation.  
b)   Well I was saying if he personally took the socialist approach and paid for everyone's health care in these third world countries instead of putting it towards companies that are innovating new vaccines.  It's the same principal I have with charity.  I will never pay to feed a starving African child.  I would much rather put my money towards a new well in an African village (infrastructure).  

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen

[Nobody]

19 minutes ago, Lushen said:

You're right that it wasn't really exlusive to Bill Gates.  I just have a lot of respect for him (and Steve Jobs).  He did however, play a huge role in it with his charity, spending over $1,000,000.00.  But really my source is just that I have never heard the term polio mentioned without Bill Gates.  Here's some info on what his organization did, he was certainty "particularly important".  https://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Polio

Anyways, America doesn't to my knowledge actually have the greatest Universities around the world - they just have affordable universities.  I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of researchers went to school outside of the US.

edit:  Isn't it just laughable that I just said America has affordable college?  Like this is how low the bar is set?

I don't want to be rude or mean, but seriously, the reason you never heard of Polio before Bill Gates is due to ignorance on the subject and a sheltered background. It was never an unknown disease, and as the gates foundation site mentioned, cases began decreasing highly starting in 1988. You seem to be mistaking informations here: Bill Gates is not claiming that he was involved with the start of the widespreading of the vaccine in 1988, the site is just mentioning how it quickly decreased the prevalence of it. Bill Gates's (great) inniciative is about eradicating Polio in the few countries that STILL have it. He was not responsible for eradicating it in the US, in Europe and in other places such as Latin America, that happened without his help. I'm not saying his charity work isn't important, quite the contrary, it's of fundamental importance for the countries where it still happens, but he did not create the vaccine, nor did he eradicate polio from most places, he's working on eradicating it from the few places where it's still left.

[The Geek]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 

LOL @The Simpsons.  

I honestly base my entire hatred for Bill Clinton on how he attacked Nuclear Energy.

And it is actually rather flawless.  I think I remember reading we have enough Uranium in reserves to power the United States for 100 years or something crazy.  Alaska is also a huge untouched goldmine when it comes to Uranium.  Also this is just Uranium, there are other fissionable materials we could use in addition to fusion which may be profitable by the time we run out of Uranium.  As for waste Disposal, back to Bill Clinton, we had a solution with Nuclear Waste.  We were going to bury it in a giant mountain.  Bill Clinton said no, so now it just sits outside the reactors - literally.  There are also ways to reuse waste but it is not economical in the United States because we do not have government controlled energy (it works in Europe).

If a company can produce clean coal, the EPA needs to get off its back, is my point.  Plenty of companies are doing it but there are still people screaming at them to shut down.  Obviously if it is not profitable a company should not be doing it, but they wouldn't be doing that anyways would they?  

 

a)  There are countries that are more wealthy than the US that do nothing with medical innovation.  
b)   Well I was saying if he personally took the socialist approach and paid for everyone's health care in these third world countries instead of putting it towards companies that are innovating new vaccines.  It's the same principal I have with charity.  I will never pay to feed a starving African child.  I would much rather put my money towards a new well in an African village (infrastructure).  

Actually, it was the representatives of the district the mountain was in that put the ax to that plan.  They didn't want it near them.

And the thing with coal is that burning it isn't the only way it affects the environment.  You might want to look at the ecological impacts of mining.

[Lushen]

19 minutes ago, The Geek said:

Hey, uh... I don't know if you're aware of this, but Alaska is part of the US. 

And the US absolutely became the economic powerhouse it is today because of the natural resources that we have access to.  Lumber, coal, rivers, metals, oil, minerals, etc. the US is absolutely rich in resources.

Lol you think I don't know that?  Many in the United States have wanted to increase mining in Alaska which is why I was saying we could have a lot more Uranium than people think.

Yea what's your excuse for Japan becoming what it is today?  Because...Japan was literally built on a giant rock.

 

Annnnd....We got some nuclear phobia.  I guarantee you Nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy production in terms of the environment and the lives of those who work in them.  The major incidents you hear about did not occur in the US and the way our reactors are set up could not have occurred in the US.  In addition, it's because some reactors outside of the US decided to shut off all their safety features because they didn't think they needed them and then preceded to leave some valves open that weren't supposed to be.  It was complete idiocy.  

 

If you don't want to mine you need to explain to me how you're going to make up the remaining 90% of our power consumption.  Or should we just shut it all off and have people die from a lack of power?

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen

[Time the Crestfallen]

3 minutes ago, Lushen said:

LOL @The Simpsons.

I mean, Matt Groening has stated himself to be anti-nuclear and it shows. Unless this is an agreement lol? I dunno, this read kinda weird.

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

And it is actually rather flawless.  I think I remember reading we have enough Uranium in reserves to power the United States for 100 years or something crazy.  Alaska is also a huge untouched goldmine when it comes to Uranium.  Also this is just Uranium, there are other fissionable materials we could use in addition to fusion which may be profitable by the time we run out of Uranium.  As for waste Disposal, back to Bill Clinton, we had a solution with Nuclear Waste.  We were going to bury it in a giant mountain.  Bill Clinton said no, so now it just sits outside the reactors - literally.  There are also ways to reuse waste but it is not economical in the United States because we do not have government controlled energy (it works in Europe).

I mean, aside from the issues I raised I'd still say Nuclear falls short of renewable energies overall, but my knowledge on nuclear energy isn't really that good, so I'm just gonna let someone else do this one.

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

a)  There are countries that are more wealthy than the US that do nothing with medical innovation.  
b)   Well I was saying if he personally took the socialist approach and paid for everyone's health care in these third world countries instead of putting it towards companies that are innovating new vaccines.  It's the same principal I have with charity.  I will never pay to feed a starving African child.  I would much rather put my money towards a new well in an African village (infrastructure).  

a) If you're talking GDP per Capita, sure, but the US has the largest GDP in the world.

b) This doesn't even challenge the point I was making though. I was saying that the government socialising healthcare doesn't impact private sector innovation very much, and you respond by saying if Bill Gates tried to pay for healthcare of the entirety of multiple third world countries it wouldn't be as effective as developing vaccines, so therefore healthcare is bad? I'll ask again, directly, how does government subsidised healthcare impact private sector innovation and how is the innovation of health care by the US a direct result of capitalism?

[The Geek]

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

 

If you don't want to mine you need to explain to me how you're going to make up the remaining 90% of our power consumption.  Or should we just shut it all off and have people die from a lack of power?

Well, we could use more energy sources that don't require mining.  That's a start.

[Lushen]

Just now, Archer of Red said:

I mean, Matt Groening has stated himself to be anti-nuclear and it shows. Unless this is an agreement lol? I dunno, this read kinda weird.

It wasn't an argument at all.  I was just imagining you were talking about Homer Simpson working at a nuclear reactor causing people to hate Nuclear power and I thought it was funny.

1 minute ago, Archer of Red said:

I mean, aside from the issues I raised I'd still say Nuclear falls short of renewable energies overall, but my knowledge on nuclear energy isn't really that good, so I'm just gonna let someone else do this one.

Nuclear energy is about as good for the environment as Solar or Wind.  Some even say Nuclear is cleaner than Solar.  In addition, Nuclear makes up 20+% of our power while solar makes up like...5% or someting?  And that's including the fact that Solar is being forced on society like it's the end all be all cleanest form of energy.

[The Geek]

1 minute ago, Lushen said:

It wasn't an argument at all.  I was just imagining you were talking about Homer Simpson working at a nuclear reactor causing people to hate Nuclear power and I thought it was funny.

Nuclear energy is about as good for the environment as Solar or Wind.  Some even say Nuclear is cleaner than Solar.  In addition, Nuclear makes up 20+% of our power while solar makes up like...5% or someting?  And that's including the fact that Solar is being forced on society like it's the end all be all cleanest form of energy.

Source?  How is solar being forced on society?

[Lushen]

4 minutes ago, The Geek said:

Source?  How is solar being forced on society?

I mean from a political sense.  Like the WH going solar under Obama as a publicity stunt (or that's how I see it at least) and everyone being encouraged to power their homes with solar.  And the constant media attention to media breakthroughs.   

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/07/7-reasons-why-you-should-use-solar-power
https://medium.com/environment-america/we-need-as-many-solar-allies-as-we-can-get-693f787608db
https://www.solar-energy-at-home.com/why-use-solar-energy.html
https://www.clf.org/blog/need-solar-energy-now/
https://www.energysage.com/solar/why-go-solar/
https://1stlightenergy.com/10-reasons-to-go-solar/

Anyways, if you don't believe that solar is the end-all be all, and you don't like mining - you now have to find a way to make up like 95% of our power distribution.  Wind turbines?

 

This is my main problem with some environmental advocates.  I'm totally fine with discussion on how dirty coal is bad for the environment and what it could cause.  But when some people go to the extreme and start condemning natural gas as well.  And then nuclear (which may be cleaner than solar).  It's like....do you live on the same planet I do?  Do you want us to go back to being a third world country just to save the environment?

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen

[The Geek]

That's not solar being forced on society.  That's solar being encouraged.

[Time the Crestfallen]

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

<Snip>

I love how I say this:

10 minutes ago, Archer of Red said:

I'll ask again, directly, how does government subsidised healthcare impact private sector innovation and how is the innovation of health care by the US a direct result of capitalism?

And you completely fucking ignored that entire part of the post. 

[Lushen]

5 minutes ago, Archer of Red said:

I love how I say this:

And you completely fucking ignored that entire part of the post. 

You asked the same exact question I already answered.  I already told you I wasn't talking about people who are talking about subsidizing health care and I was only talking about the people who want a single payer, no private sector, system.  And then you asked about subsidies again.  And it is a direct result of capitalism because innovation in general is the result of capitalism which I've posted numerous references to.

Anyways, there's a few people talking about this but they might be conservative websites (I honestly don't know).

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/a-case-against-donating-to-hospitals/373637/
http://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/the-cure-how-capitalism-can-save-american-health-care
http://reason.com/archives/2015/05/20/capitalism-spurs-medical-innovation

It's certainty not just me saying this.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen

[The Geek]

How would a single payer healthcare system stop medical research?  Its not like all money for research would disappear or that all motivation for research would stop.  Doctors gotta get their MDs somehow.

[Nobody]

15 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I mean from a political sense.  Like the WH going solar under Obama as a publicity stunt (or that's how I see it at least) and everyone being encouraged to power their homes with solar.  And the constant media attention to media breakthroughs.   

https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2014/07/7-reasons-why-you-should-use-solar-power
https://medium.com/environment-america/we-need-as-many-solar-allies-as-we-can-get-693f787608db
https://www.solar-energy-at-home.com/why-use-solar-energy.html
https://www.clf.org/blog/need-solar-energy-now/
https://www.energysage.com/solar/why-go-solar/
https://1stlightenergy.com/10-reasons-to-go-solar/

Anyways, if you don't believe that solar is the end-all be all, and you don't like mining - you now have to find a way to make up like 95% of our power distribution.  Wind turbines?

I mean, it's a clear energy source and the government is trying to make it more widespread, which would be good for everyone. How is that a bad thing? Using solar energy does not mean abandoning other sources, but by increasing the use of it, you could reduce (but not eliminate) other sources. Encouraging something does not mean eliminating everything else. You'd go crazy if you went to Germany, because most buildings there (well, at least in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg) have solar panels.

Wind turbines could also be an alternative that could alleviate some of the needs to unclean energy sources, yeah. I mean, you don't have to bet on a single energy source, even a bit of change towards clean energy is an objective nice thing.

One thing that I have to ask, though, is what exactly are you are defining as "mining". 40% of the american energy source comes from coal, 27% from natural gas, 1% from oil, 6% from hydropower, 7% from renewable sources and 19% from nuclear plants (source). Either way, the 95% number is not correct, but are you considering everything that is not hydropower or renewable sources as "mining"?

Edited November 2, 2017 by Nobody

[Lord Raven]

You are aware that the majority of research, especially in health, is government funded right?

[Lushen]

11 minutes ago, The Geek said:

How would a single payer healthcare system stop medical research?  Its not like all money for research would disappear or that all motivation for research would stop.  Doctors gotta get their MDs somehow.

Let's look at general capitalism vs socialism.

A company is told to produce product X by the gov't.  The workers will continue to produce this product.  They are not allowed to take risks or go off on a detour of R&D unless the gov't specifically tells them to.  Either way, there is no self interest driving the company to go into R&D because it is no one's company - it's government owned.  In capitalistic society, the company is owned by individuals, the public, or a board.  Those people are all interested in company growth because it could mean more money for them.  Thus, they are more inclined to go off and innovate.  Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the government cannot possibly tell you how to be innovative because they will never understand your practice as much as you do.  The government shouldn't tell a farmer when he should plant his crops because the farmer probably knows better.  Basically, the government sucks at everything.

9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

You are aware that the majority of research, especially in health, is government funded right?

Not in the sense you are implying.  They may receive subsidies and the gov't may pay these companies money but the companies are still privately owned and free to conduct R&D at their leisure.  Additionally when the company succeeds the workers succeed which makes them more driven by self interest.  It is not like these companies are government owned with a few exceptions. 

11 minutes ago, Nobody said:

I mean, it's a clear energy source and the government is trying to make it more widespread, which would be good for everyone. How is that a bad thing? Using solar energy does not mean abandoning other sources, but by increasing the use of it, you could reduce (but not eliminate) other sources. Encouraging something does not mean eliminating everything else. You'd go crazy if you went to Germany, because most buildings there (well, at least in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg) have solar panels.

Wind turbines could also be an alternative that could alleviate some of the needs to unclean energy sources, yeah. I mean, you don't have to bet on a single energy source, even a bit of change towards clean energy is an objective nice thing.

One thing that I have to ask, though, is what exactly are you are defining as "mining". 40% of the american energy source comes from coal, 27% from natural gas, 1% from oil, 6% from hydropower, 7% from renewable sources and 19% from nuclear plants. Either way, the 95% number is not correct, but are you considering everything that is not hydropower or renewable sources as "mining"?

Well I was more of poking fun at The Geek talking about mining in general.  Natural Gas, Coal, and Nuclear all need to do some form of mining so if he doesn't like all forms of mining he is talking about a fraction (not all) of renewable sources and hydro-power.  

Why should the gov't encourage something that is less environmentally efficient than Nuclear?  Why should they be promoting Natural Gas which is less environmentally efficient than some plants that specialize in clean coal which is cleaner than nat gas?  Again the gov't sucks at everything - they don't know what they're talking about so why should they be the ones we follow instead of private companies?

Edited November 2, 2017 by Lushen

[The Geek]

...I don't get how a hypothetical scenario based on assumptions proves that a single payer medical system would end medical research.

[Lushen]

2 minutes ago, The Geek said:

...I don't get how a hypothetical scenario based on assumptions proves that a single payer medical system would end medical research.

It's not really a hypothetical scenario so much as a general scenario that fits most situations.  Capitalism is well known to provide the most innovation at the cost of efficiency.   You can make the case that socialism and certain derivations of socialism could be more efficient in the short term.  You cannot make the case that these will be more innovative than capitalism because Capitalism 101 would teach you about how capitalism is the best system for innovation which is precisely why we see America leading the charge in medical research - they're one of the only countries left practicing capitalism when it comes to health.

[Lord Raven]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Not in the sense you are implying.  They may receive subsidies and the gov't may pay these companies money but the companies are still privately owned and free to conduct R&D at their leisure.  Additionally when the company succeeds the workers succeed which makes them more driven by self interest.  It is not like these companies are government owned with a few exceptions. 

Universities and government agencies are major recipients of government funding. In fact, 30% of our military budget goes to universities, and universities have a tendency to advance scientific research. They utilize grants to do so. For instance, Proton Therapy for cancer was originally founded in a government lab.

[Time the Crestfallen]

25 minutes ago, Lushen said:

You asked the same exact question I already answered.  I already told you I wasn't talking about people who are talking about subsidizing health care and I was only talking about the people who want a single payer, no private sector, system.  And then you asked about subsidies again.  And it is a direct result of capitalism because innovation in general is the result of capitalism which I've posted numerous references to.

You didn't answer it. You argue that the US shouldn't have healthcare because capitalism/innovation. I ask how those two relate and you give me some crap about talking about single-payer and not subsidies. I say that doesn't challenge the point I was making and ask again. You respond with 'if Bill Gates had done X instead of Y Polio would still be a problem in the third world' as if that example somehow proves that healthcare is a bad thing. I ask again, directly, because two times now you haven't bothered to address my points, and you give me nothing but circular reasoning.

"Capitalism in the US has innovated the medical field."

"How are the two related?"

"Because innovation is a direct and general result of capitalism."

Not to mention you've completely missed the point of what I'm saying when I mention subsidised healthcare. I'm talking about single-payer healthcare and medicare and the like, systems paid for by taxes to the government. You seem to be under the impression that I'm talking about government-funded research.

Also, I read your articles; The Atlantic one compares Jonathan Bush to fucking John Galt in the second paragraph, Heritage outright says that the US healthcare system is unstable because it's employment-based and therefore not a good system (not an argument against Healthcare, an argument about shoddy implementation), and Reason.com has an article on the side-bar advocating for the use of Private Military Contractors overseas, so I'm not trusting a single fucking thing they say.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Archer of Red

[The Geek]

2 minutes ago, Lushen said:

It's not really a hypothetical scenario so much as a general scenario that fits most situations.  Capitalism is well known to provide the most innovation at the cost of efficiency.   You can make the case that socialism and certain derivations of socialism could be more efficient in the short term.  You cannot make the case that these will be more innovative than capitalism because Capitalism 101 would teach you about how capitalism is the best system for innovation which is precisely why we see America leading the charge in medical research - they're one of the only countries left practicing capitalism when it comes to health.

It's hypothetical because it's not based on anything real, it's based on conjecture.  I'm not saying there will be more innovation in a single-payer medical system, I'm saying there's no evidence that there will be a reduction in medical innovation.

And the reason the US leads in medical research is because the US has many of the best universities in the world.