Conservapedia: The funniest site in the world
-
Nevertheless, it doesn't excuse doing counterproductive things after the fact. Which is mostly what we did.
Exactly.
-
Romney had a good line about Obama only picking losers (re: Solyndra, et.al).
-
Most people don't realize that pharma and medical instrument companies dump nearly a billion dollars in research, testing, and approval per product ( the FDA requires specific, expensive protocols). The patents are only enforceable for 20 yrs from time of the patent grant, so in order to protect their IP, they need to apply very early in the research stage. By the time the product is approved to market, the average patent has between 5-10 yrs left for the company to recoup the investment and make a profit to be able to find other products (before others jump in, due to patent expiration, and make money on what was just put on the market) and pay their bills and investors.
That's a lot of money to spend and still have unsafe drugs make it through the process.
And yes, while driving is a privilege, so is using the ER.
TDEMSYR. In fact, the generalized statement "x is a privilege" may make sense in a monarchy or dictatorship, but not in a democracy (because who is granting the privilege?), unless you believe "the People" as a whole (or their elected representatives) somehow have more rights than the people individually.Also, I'm sure no conservative has ever advocated legislation to pay lip service to an issue.
You must have missed the G.K. Chesterton quote I posted earlier. The tl;dr version of the quote is that a conservative is just a progressive who is 30 years behind the times.So regulation is bad? Does that mean lack of regulation is good? Should we all make a pilgrimage to Somalia to join High Priestess Ayn Rand?
-
both House and Congress
House and Senate; together, they make up the Congress.
If you're going to get it wrong, at least get it wrong the other way. Members of the House are called Congress{men|women|persons|critters}, while Senators are always Senators.
-
I got it wrong because I was copying from the guy I replied to, who called it the "both House of Congress", which just messed up my head and I read it as "House AND Congress". I think he meant "both houses of Congress". Will fix my references now because they're clearly wrong.
Changed references to be correct: House and Senate
-
That's a lot of money to spend and still have unsafe drugs make it through the process.
True, but also there is no such thing as a safe drug.
Individuals all have unique biochemistries, what is safe for one is poison to another, or ineffective for a third. And what's safe for you today, may kill you tomorrow (even allergies can drift in and out overtime). Anytime you put a foreign substance into your body, you are in effect, playing Russian roulette—no matter how many tests are done.
-
True, but also there is no such thing as a safe drug.
True, but most Americans believe for some reason that drugs approved by the FDA are safe, and that unapproved drugs are like playing Russian roulette.
-
So... what is it, this decades version of Adequacy.org?
-
Anytime you put a foreign substance into your body, you are in effect, playing Russian roulette—no matter how many tests are done.
Is there such a thing as safe food or safe air? Those are also chemicals that you're putting into your body.
I usually don't bother with clinical tests before scarfing down my general tso's chicken. Although, maybe I should.
-
Is there such a thing as safe food or safe air?
Drinking too much water at once can also kill you.
-
I find it wonderfully ironic that this thread started by laughing at conservapedia, and then became conservapedia.
-
Oh shit yeah, let's start a thread laughing at Godzilla!!!
-
So... what is it, this decades version of Adequacy.org?
Holy shit - the Realdoll article. What did I just read?
Holy shit.
-
I find it wonderfully ironic that this thread started by laughing at conservapedia, and then became conservapedia.
Is this a reading comprehension problem of yours?
-
no
-
I usually don't bother with clinical tests before scarfing down my general tso's chicken. Although, maybe I should.
It's the special fried rice you need to be careful of.
-
Republicans were firmly in control from 2003 - 2007 of both House and Senate
When I said 2006 I was thinking elections, not actual swearing in, so pretend I said "2007-11" so that we're talkinga bout the same dates.
-
Interestingly, the implosion years seem to happen a year after a large turnover in government.
Anyone who was paying attention in 2000 knew the bubble was going to pop long before the election.
-
True, but most
Americanssheeple in the world believe for some reason thatdrugsanything approved bythe FDA are safetheir government is safe, and that unapproved drugs are like playing Russian roulette.FTFY
Is there such a thing as safe food or safe air? Those are also chemicals that you're putting into your body.
English comprehension failure??
And what's safe for you today, may kill you tomorrow (even allergies can drift in and out overtime).
Fish bones, pollen, volcanic gas/ash — the list goes on.
Life is Unsafe At Any Speed: safety is not and cannot be assured anywhere in reality… all you can do is try to mitigate the death potential (for some values of “try” and “mitigate”)…
Thinking otherwise is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Filed Under : You can't fix stupid.
-
-
I have a sledgehammer that disagrees with you.
I may have to upgrade! This ⇊ is obviously no longer sufficient.
-
-
So we have an issue where everything in the healthcare system is too expensive, and the "fix" for it is to fine citizens that don't buy plans that are heavily paid for by taxpayers. Brilliant.
What we need is more of this:
Oklahoma City hospital posts surgery prices online; creates bidding war
OKLAHOMA CITY – An Oklahoma City surgery center is offering a new kind of price transparency, posting guaranteed all-inclusive surgery prices online. The move is revolutionizing medical billi…
-
So we have an issue where everything in the healthcare system is too expensive,
And everyone knows this, but no one can tell you what anything costs.
and the "fix" for it is to fine citizens that don't buy plans that are heavily paid for by taxpayers. Brilliant.
+
-
So you don't pay taxes?
Sure do. Happily. Governments are good for many things even though they are bad for many other things. Providing a service that everybody uses (road and transport infrastructure, education, healthcare) is one of those things they seem to be better at than private industry. You pay for insurance that doesn't keep you from bankruptcy when you need it, I pay taxes to the government. I pay less and get a better outcome.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
It's not other people's money, it's my money. I am a taxpayer. I earn better than average and I pay more tax than average. We have a progressive tax scale so I pay a higher percentage than average. And that's the way it should be.
-
Old joke: "alternative to what?" "medicines."
Related joke: What do we call alternative medicine that has been proven to work?
Medicine.
-
-
Related joke: What do we call alternative medicine that has been proven to work?
I was going to reply to your "it's my money" comment, but blakey, I think, covered that adequately, with his video.
-
Providing a service that everybody uses (road and transport infrastructure, education, healthcare) is one of those things they seem to be better at than private industry.
Well, 1 out of 3 is pretty good in the big leagues.
-
Well, 1 out of 3 is pretty good in the big leagues.
Snort. You looked at the roads lately? It's closer to 0 of 3.
-
Congratulations on possibly the worst defense of the bill, ever.
It warms my heart that you think so! Just think what I could accomplish with some effort...
That didn't happen here. They couldn't even read what was in it, let alone propose amendments or anything.
Did you read the bit of my post concerning about how this has been standard practice for at least a decade? I hate it as much as you do, but it is what it is.
If only they actually were pedantic dickweeds. Instead, they write relatively vague laws and delegate the focusing and what not to the executive branch. It's fire and forget lawmaking without any effective oversight on what happens after they hand off responsibility.
I agree that it's a mess, has been a mess, and will probably continue to be a mess. It might be worthwhile to bring together another Constitutional Convention to try and come up with a V2 (and solve all those loose ends about bear arms, etc.). 200+ years is a long time for a governing document - how many constitutions have France or Germany gone through in that time period?
You're making assumptions here. Isn't it just as likely that they threw him out on the street because they couldn't afford to keep him? That it was either toss @mott555 on his ass or go bankrupt in a year and toss everyone on their asses?
It is just as likely, and that was my point. If I were in his shoes, I would be mad at the company for thrusting a period of financial uncertainty upon me, not at the law.
Two fucking different things. Driving is a privilege. You can get around without being able to drive, thanks to public transportation, bikes, friends who can drive, etc. But if you have a life threatening emergency, you might not be able to avoid the ER. In fact, if you are in an accident of some sort, and lose consciousness, you may not even have a say in whether you even get treated. You just get taken to the hospital. In that situation, you cannot call using the ER a privilege.
So you agree with me that compulsion is a good way to improve pooling of risk, to make sure that everyone pays his/her fair share, and to reduce adverse selection?
In these debates we invariably get someone who goes "WAAH WAAH THE GUV'MINT CAN'T MAKE ME BUY INSURANCE!" and my goal was to preempt that by outlining the rationale for compulsion, as well as the precedents behind it. Also, the Supreme Court ok'd it, so there's really no point in debating whether or not it passes constitutional muster.
That strawman's burning quite well.
Which one? You attributed volatility in a chaotic system to a single variable. I chose at least three.
Of course those things have an effect. Then again, if it weren't so expensive to hire people, you'd see less automation and outsourcing.
Only if local warm bodies on payroll are cheaper than automation and outsourcing.
Now, in general, I would tend to prefer the option that leads to the greatest economic efficiency, but what happens when there really isn't any grunt work left? That every position is skilled labor requiring at least 10,000 hours of practice to be marketable? What do you tell the college grads when nobody will hire them? Considering that the priorities of most 18-year-old college freshmen are sex and beer, could they be trusted to make wise career decisions at age 18?
I don't pretend to have solutions to these uncomfortable problems, but they are problems that are going to need to be addressed in the next five to twenty years unless Schumpeter appears in a poof of creative destruction.
If Democrat policies weren't hampering the economy
Which policies? Does everything in the economy have a singular cause?
we wouldn't be in The Summer Of Recovery Part 5.
So house prices poof, and we could just walk it off in one summer, maybe two, if only our wise Republican leaders had been in charge?
TDEMSYR. In fact, the generalized statement "x is a privilege" may make sense in a monarchy or dictatorship, but not in a democracy (because who is granting the privilege?), unless you believe "the People" as a whole (or their elected representatives) somehow have more rights than the people individually.
I don't see how that relates to compulsory health insurance being acceptable or not, and as I said above, I don't agree with the argument that compulsory auto insurance is okay and compulsory health insurance isn't because "driving is a privilege." Both activities incur social costs that ought to be paid.
But while we're not on the subject, why are "right-to-work" states called as such? Shouldn't they be called "privilege-to-work?" You can get fired for any reason, or no reason. Employment is a privilege, not a right!
You must have missed the G.K. Chesterton quote I posted earlier. The tl;dr version of the quote is that a conservative is just a progressive who is 30 years behind the times.
I do appreciate that quote, but I don't appreciate the implication that progressives are all mindless Marxist SJWs. I hate those self-righteous assholes as much as I'm sure most of the people here do. Some of us just want, y'know, a reasonable amount of progress in due course.
False dilemma
Well, it doesn't have to be this way, but I don't ever see people on these forums posting, "Boy, it sure is nice that my taxpayer dollars fund our infrastructure and defense so that businesses can keep trading!" or "I really appreciate that building codes exist so that my property has sprinklers and fire damage can be limited!" or "I'm sure glad the DoT has safety regulations for cars so that some asshole driving a cardboard car doesn't burst into flames and threaten my safety!"
Instead, we get rants about how the government is always wrong, and that the government can't be trusted to get anything right. So, to the outside observer, it looks like a bunch of anarcho-capitalist whining. And anarcho-capitalist whining leads to Somalia and High Priestess Ayn Rand. I don't know how far her Social Security checks are going to go towards airfare, though.
Now, if your implication was that such whining is not representative of what is actually believed here, or that both extremes are silly, then I apologize for making that leap. I will not, however, apologize for posting the video as it's damn funny.
Sure do. Happily. Governments are good for many things even though they are bad for many other things. Providing a service that everybody uses (road and transport infrastructure, education, healthcare) is one of those things they seem to be better at than private industry. You pay for insurance that doesn't keep you from bankruptcy when you need it, I pay taxes to the government. I pay less and get a better outcome.
While I appreciate what you're saying, you just disproved my point. So thank you, and no thank you, for being a voice of moderation.
Snort. You looked at the roads lately? It's closer to 0 of 3.
Ooh! Ooh! I know! Why don't we have a publicly-funded system to maintain the infrastructure? It would create jobs, and the investment would facilitate commerce and generate returns in the form of economic growth!
-
-
Also, the Supreme Court ok'd it, so there's really no point in debating whether or not it passes constitutional muster.
Yeah, just give up. Like when they OK'd segregation. This is just bullshit for, "Shut up, they agreed with me and you should just stop."
I don't see how that relates to compulsory health insurance being acceptable or not, and as I said above, I don't agree with the argument that compulsory auto insurance is okay and compulsory health insurance isn't because "driving is a privilege." Both activities incur social costs that ought to be paid.
Whether we agree about compulsory health insurance or not, we should be able to agree that Obamacare was a terrible way to do it. Supporters like to point out that Heritage came out with a similar proposal about 20 years ago, and try to use that to say, "See, Obamacare is really a conservative policy." It's clear that those people have never familiarized themselves with the details or the history.
Firstly, it was a paper done by a couple of guys there, and after a few years, Heritage pretty much threw it out. As for the details, the compulsion was to have a catastrophic plan, not the crazy buffet line of benefits that Obama's people (i.e., HHS) came up with.
It's an idea worthy of study and possibly experimentation, but not ready for prime time. Certainly not what the Democrats vomited out in the form of the PPACA. And that doesn't even get into the fact that they never sold the country on it (aside from the lies they told). Politically, they failed to get the sort of bipartisan support that stuff like Medicare had. Just terrible, all around.
-
And anarcho-capitalist whining leads to Somalia and High Priestess Ayn Rand.
No, but it leads to people whining about Somalian and Rand.
-
Whether we agree about compulsory health insurance or not, we should be able to agree that Obamacare was a terrible way to do it. Supporters like to point out that Heritage came out with a similar proposal about 20 years ago, and try to use that to say, "See, Obamacare is really a conservative policy." It's clear that those people have never familiarized themselves with the details or the history.
Firstly, it was a paper done by a couple of guys there, and after a few years, Heritage pretty much threw it out. As for the details, the compulsion was to have a catastrophic plan, not the crazy buffet line of benefits that Obama's people (i.e., HHS) came up with.
It's an idea worthy of study and possibly experimentation, but not ready for prime time. Certainly not what the Democrats vomited out in the form of the PPACA. And that doesn't even get into the fact that they never sold the country on it (aside from the lies they told). Politically, they failed to get the sort of bipartisan support that stuff like Medicare had. Just terrible, all around.
Yeah. I was wondering why they were trying to shove the PPACA through as fast as they can instead of booting it back to committee for "hey, this is way too complicated, make us a v2.0 that we actually have a chance to comprehend before we vote on it". But...I suspect that's expecting too much from Congresscritters.
-
Yeah. I was wondering why they were trying to shove the PPACA through as fast as they can instead of booting it back to committee for "hey, this is way too complicated, make us a v2.0 that we actually have a chance to comprehend before we vote on it". But...I suspect that's expecting too much from Congresscritters.
It was just too important to be honest about. And time and transparency would be their own sorts of honesty. And to put the mood of the time in perspective, a Republican won a special election for Senator as the 40th vote (i.e., for a filibuster) against Obamacare....in Massachussetts. Time was not on their side.
-
@abarker said:
You're making assumptions here. Isn't it just as likely that they threw him out on the street because they couldn't afford to keep him? That it was either toss @mott555 on his ass or go bankrupt in a year and toss everyone on their asses?
It is just as likely, and that was my point. If I were in his shoes, I would be mad at the company for thrusting a period of financial uncertainty upon me, not at the law.You missed the point I was making. It is very likely that the law changed the company's financial situation. As a result, they had to decide the best way to stay solvent. Because of the law, they had to decide how to best stay solvent. Sure, they were deciding it based on what's best for the company. But ultimately that has the effect of: does the business stay open and continue to employ people; or does the business keep everyone onboard for now, shortly go bankrupt, and send everyone packing in a year or so? The effects of the law forced these kind of decisions on many businesses, and many of those businesses would not have faced such decisions if the law had not been passed.
So you agree with me that compulsion is a good way to improve pooling of risk, to make sure that everyone pays his/her fair share, and to reduce adverse selection?
In these debates we invariably get someone who goes "WAAH WAAH THE GUV'MINT CAN'T MAKE ME BUY INSURANCE!" and my goal was to preempt that by outlining the rationale for compulsion, as well as the precedents behind it. Also, the Supreme Court ok'd it, so there's really no point in debating whether or not it passes constitutional muster.
First off, I did not agree with you on that point, because that isn't the point you were arguing. You were arguing that using the ER is a privilege. Which it fucking isnt. Don't put words in my mouth.
As for the "it's ok with SCOTUS" argument, that doesn't really mean much, it just means that they found that portion of the law constitutional. Another point which I wasn't arguing. But since you brought it up, if you remember correctly, they approved it in a way contrary to how the DOJ argued the case. The DOJ said "It's a penalty, not a tax." SCOTUS said, "Nah, we're gonna call it a tax. You're good.
" Based on the arguments in court, it should have been overturned.I don't see how that relates to compulsory health insurance being acceptable or not, and as I said above, I don't agree with the argument that compulsory auto insurance is okay and compulsory health insurance isn't because "driving is a privilege." Both activities incur social costs that ought to be paid.
As has been pointed out: compulsory auto insurance covers what you might do to other people or their property. You are not compelled to purchase auto insurance to cover yourself or your own property. The ACA is compelling people to purchase insurance to cover themselves. My health does not harm you or your property.
Ooh! Ooh! I know! Why don't we have a publicly-funded system to maintain the infrastructure? It would create jobs, and the investment would facilitate commerce and generate returns in the form of economic growth!
Ooh! Oo! Guess what? We already do! And the roads are still shit!
-
I don't know for a fact that I was laid off because of ObamaCare. A bunch of stuff happened all at once, including ObamaCare. And I certainly heard a lot of bitching about ObamaCare by the bosses. All I know is I went from getting a raise and being told how great my progress on my project was and they're really looking forward to what's coming up, to being laid off, all within a 5-week span. The official explanation was they decided to resell a competitor's software package instead of maintaining our own, but I highly doubt that's the full story.
I didn't gripe at them because we all got along and I needed the references for my job search. I don't believe in burning bridges if it can be avoided, and I did have a pretty good stint there.
-
-
-
Fine; but don't come back and say "oh my healthcare was free" because regardless of your perception, that's a blatant lie and clouds the issue for everybody. Nothing's free.
So we should spell everything out because you're mentally retarded? Good point.
-
So we should spell everything out because you're mentally retarded? Good point.
Yes, that seems to be the order of the day.
-
There's a difference between something needing to be explained, and needing to be corrected.
-
Yeah, just give up.
Never (or until boredom sets in)!
Whether we agree about compulsory health insurance or not, we should be able to agree that Obamacare was a terrible way to do it.
There are plenty of problems with it. I would have liked to see it do more for tort reform and simplifying the mess of billing codes. But I like a few things about it, such as the extension of dependent healthcare up to age 26, the end of lemon-dropping practices and the stipulation that 80 percent of premiums be spent on actual medical costs.
"See, Obamacare is really a conservative policy."
That line is just spin. I've always viewed the basic idea as neither conservative nor liberal, but as a more market-based alternative to the much applauded and maligned single-payer systems we see in other countries. I have some real socialist friends (hint: Obama is not a socialist.) who were just as upset as you are over the law, except in the opposite direction. "They should have implemented a single-payer system!" It took some work to convince them that such a system ain't gonna fly in this country.
It's an idea worthy of study and possibly experimentation, but not ready for prime time.
It's been studied on a smaller scale in the form of Romneycare, although I would concede that a few years may not provide enough data on how effective the proposition is, and that what works in Taxachusetts may not work well in Jesusland.
Politically, they failed to get the sort of bipartisan support that stuff like Medicare had.
I think the only thing that would get bipartisan support in the past few Congresses would be salary increases.
No, but it leads to people whining about Somalia and Rand.
That's not whining! That's spirited mockery!
You missed the point I was making. It is very likely that the law changed the company's financial situation.
This is entirely possible.
As a result, they had to decide the best way to stay solvent.
I recommend water. It's universal.
Sure, they were deciding it based on what's best for the company. But ultimately that has the effect of: does the business stay open and continue to employ people; or does the business keep everyone onboard for now, shortly go bankrupt, and send everyone packing in a year or so? The effects of the law forced these kind of decisions on many businesses, and many of those businesses would not have faced such decisions if the law had not been passed.
Being a business owner means making a lot of tough decisions like these, and yes, sometimes someone has to be pushed in front of the train to save a greater number of people.
By the same token, I don't think lawmakers should be afraid of making laws that might hurt someone's bottom line if the law has the potential to make a larger number of people better off.
First off, I did not agree with you on that point, because that isn't the point you were arguing. You were arguing that using the ER is a privilege. Which it fucking isnt. Don't put words in my mouth.
I wasn't sure where you were going with that. Thanks for the clarification!
Okay, so let's assume that it's a right, and not a privilege. As I said in the other thread, people can get emergency medical care without insurance, so this assumption is not far-fetched. Emergency medical care is expensive. If those patients don't have insurance, where does the money come from? Can you propose a better system than compulsion to cover these extra costs?
Keep in mind that the status quo led to $2 trillion a year in health spending and this whole debate on how to make health care more affordable. Also note that lack of insurance provides a disincentive to consuming preventive care, which is usually much cheaper in the long run than emergency care.
As has been pointed out: compulsory auto insurance covers what you might do to other people or their property. You are not compelled to purchase auto insurance to cover yourself or your own property. The ACA is compelling people to purchase insurance to cover themselves. My health does not harm you or your property.
Your lack of health followed by uninsured consumption of medical care is, like a collision with an uninsured motorist, a negative externality. It doesn't matter if you chose to consume it or not, someone else still has to eat the cost - usually, the paying consumers. And that suboptimal cost hurts them!
Ooh! Oo! Guess what? We already do! And the roads are still shit!
Maybe motorists aren't being charged the true cost of maintenance on those roads, or the true cost is not being paid?
I don't think the answer is more toll roads.
-
I think the only thing that would get bipartisan support in the past few Congresses would be salary increases.
+Â
>abarker said:
Groan
As a result, they had to decide the best way to stay solvent.I recommend water. It's universal.
-
But I like a few things about it, such as the extension of dependent healthcare up to age 26, the end of lemon-dropping practices and the stipulation that 80 percent of premiums be spent on actual medical costs.
Those are both stupid. Grow the fuck up, already. The 80% thing just guarantees that they'll jack up premiums because there's no such thing as a Good Year any more.
(hint: Obama is not a socialist.)
Ah, yes, the No True Socialist bullshit.
"They should have implemented a single-payer system!" It took some work to convince them that such a system ain't gonna fly in this country.
And the VA is proof that it would be a colossal mistake.
I think the only thing that would get bipartisan support in the past few Congresses would be salary increases.
I would be willing to go along with that if they did nothing else.
Also note that lack of insurance provides a disincentive to consuming preventive care, which is usually much cheaper in the long run than emergency care.
Not necessarily. Preventative care can be very fucking expensive. In many cases, a lot more expensive. Of course, if you're the lucky bastard who catches something early, well, you're the lucky one, and that's great. But we shouldn't pretend that we're not spending boat loads of money on other preventative care that doesn't actually prevent anything.
-
Maybe motorists aren't being charged the true cost of maintenance on those roads, or the true cost is not being paid?
Aside from the Interstate system (dependent on a fuel tax that is declining in revenue because of increases in fuel efficiency), more than the true cost is being charged, but thanks to inefficiencies (corruption, perverse incentives/disincentives, anathema to closed roads) the maintenance needed is not the maintenance that's being done.
-
all I know is it's a good job Stephen Hawking wasn't born here in the UK. Our death panels would definitely have had him executed for his impudence.
-
all I know is it's a good job Stephen Hawking wasn't born here in the UK. Our death panels would definitely have had him executed for his impudence.
Well, duh. No one does this to their celebrity smart people. You guys have that Something-or-other Pathway for people no one knows about.
-
You guys have that Something-or-other Pathway for people no one knows about.
Jumping in front of a train is “Something-or-other Pathway”?
False dilemma - Wikipedia
