General Music Chat

All things are possible with God. I seem to remember reading that as well.
A "needle" is a gate in a stone city wall, designed to allow only the passage of one man at a time. (historical perspective)
Modern warriors refer to these as verical coffins, designed as a funnel kill zone for invading soldiers.

I am torn now days, should I vote for, Glen, Fisherman Bob, or Gunny?

Um...are you saying that a camel could fit through the eye of that there needle, sans? Where is the eye in a gate?

Just pullin' yer chains, man...heh heh heh

One of the most eye-opening experiences I had was when I worked for a small software development firm and we went to Washington D.C. to try and sell our software package to the Department of Labor.

We had written software that filled a gap for them; it was a niche market and no one had stepped up to the plate yet to provide a solution. We presented our software to a room of 40+ people at the DOL who were in positions to make decisions. They liked what they saw, and so the rest of our day was a whirlwind tour up the chain of command until we got to the head decision maker.

What was eye-opening to me was two things: (a) the further up the chain we got, the shorter our meetings got and (b) the further up the chain we got, the less detailed our meetings became.

When we reached the top person it was literally a 5-minute meeting, and it was basically yes/no questions. I was kind of amazed at how the whole process worked.


Our federal government is big. Vast. Many employees. I don't honestly believe that's a good thing.

I think people - and I mean this not just in government, but you see this in the private sector as well - they often feel like the only way to solve a problem is to throw more people at it, and more money. Instead of trying to work smarter, be more efficient, and exercise some patience, people do the opposite.

I think if the government wasn't so big, the president might actually be able to do more. But with the sheer size of it, and with all the bureaucracy within, it has to be nigh impossible to make an impact.

Our presidents are saddled with the government they are in charge of. Instead of being able to tackle a problem directly, they have to resort to politics, deal-making, back-room meetings, and negotiations in order to get anything done. They can't just say, "Well, here's the problem, let's think about the best way to solve it." No, they have to say, "Here's the problem, here's the solution my party supports, and now I am going to spend the next 60 days trying to coerce and bribe and negotiate with the other people in government to get this solution implemented".

It's a far cry from how people in the real world actually solve problems.

Personally, I think the prerequisite for being a government employee needs to be: Established track record of problem solving. Forget about law degrees from Harvard. I want to see Mensans and guys from MIT or CAL TECH who have a demonstrated ability to solve problems.

Give me the guy / gal with a high school degree who succefully runs his own business, treats his employees like family.
We foucus way too much on how much someone spends on their education.
Education does not make one intellegent.
Nor does it guaranty good decision making abitity.
A law degree does not provide basis for making good economic decision.
Nor does it grant the ability to think like a warrior.
A guy with a PHd in underwater basket weaving, would make a piss poor surgeon.

1. If Canada's single-payer system is so god-awful, why have repeated Conservative governments at the provincial and national level in Canada never touched it? Canada is a democracy. If Canadians don't like their health care system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in 35 years? Since the system there is run by the separate provinces, many of which are very politically conservative, why has not one province ever tried to get rid of single-payer?

2. Why is rationing by income, as we do it here, better than rationing by need, as they do it in Canada?

3. Wouldn't single-payer mean that companies could no longer threaten working people with the loss of their health insurance? Why is this a bad idea?

4. The bigger the insurance pool, the better. So doesn't having a national pool, as with single-payer, make the most sense?

5. Why should we be allowing politicians who are taking money from the medical industry to write the new health care legislation?

6. How can the Congress be developing a health system reform scheme and not even invite experts from Canada down to explain their successful system?

7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us?

8. Isn't it true that Medicare currently finances the most costly patient group--the elderly and infirm--so that extending it to the rest of the population--most of whom are young and healthy--would be much cheaper, per person?

9. The AMA, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Insurance Industry all bitterly opposed Medicare in 1964-5 when it was being debated in Congress and passed into law, with the right, led by Ronald Reagan, calling it creeping socialism. It became a life-saver for the elderly and didn't turn the US into a soviet republic. Why should we give a tinker's damn what those same three industry groups and the Republican right think of expanding single-payer now?

10. The executives of Canadian subsidiaries of US companies all support Canada's single-payer system, and even lobby collectively to have it expanded and better funded. Why does Congress listen to the executives of the parent companies here at home, and not invite those Canadian execs down to explain why they like single-payer?

It's not about healthcare dude, it's about control.
I dont want any single entity controling any aspect of my life.
Sure as hell not my healthcare and my employment.
And to include two million and growing illegal aliens into a single payor source that they do not contribute to. Would be an economic disaster.
Of course then you can throw in a blanket pardon with citizenship just before the next election, rewrite the constitution and bingo we have our first dictator. Tzar Obama. Yea, cant wait !!

They used your dollars to buy into the banking system, and take control of GM. Then with a cute little move the call Cash for Clunkers they use publicly colleced tax dollars to compete with American
taxpaying citizens businesses. The intent here is to bankrupt their compitition.
What possible end could they have in mind other than to undermine the economy of the US in order to be handed power by a desperate and stupid populace?

These are the exact techniques the socalist utilised to gain control over the populations of Germany and Italy in 1920-1930s.
Some one read their history well and they are using it against us, with our blessing I might add.

Kramer - I think the Canadians aren't trying to change it cuz they've developed a taste for the ol' Soylent Old People...LOL...oh those evil Canadians! (sorry, Dave!)

I'm constantly amazed at the Chicken Littles' cries that the sky will fall if we don't stick to the status quo.

The reason we don't ask other ppl to come in & explain things or help is simple arrogance. Many of our legislators, as well as their constituents, seem to think that if an idea isn't from an American source, that automatically makes it UNAmerican, & will either fail miserably, or lead to other UNAmerican ideals like dominoes falling, & the whole country will go to hell in a handbasket. Sorry, but I think this is ridiculous.

Until we can ignore the arrogance, or look at things with an open mind, we will be forever at odds with any sort of progress for the health & well-being of our children, our parents, & ourselves.

No matter how you try to look at it, sans, you ARE controlled. Try to smoke your cigar in many public places, even outside, & you'll begin to see just how much.

The "blanket pardon" you mentioned was already done by the Rep BUSH Sr. We're still standing, but if it's it those types of actions that bother you so much I'm surprized you aren't a Dem. The bailouts were begun by GWB, your fellow Texan.

The world as we know it is changing. Some of it could be for the best, if we let it. Universal health care needs to be done. If you don't want it, while I don't understand you, I say then don't use it. But don't deny me & mine the things we need in this life, that can readilly be had elsewhere. If they can do it, I say so can we, & maybe even better than the rest of the world.

I don't see this as a matter of control over your life choices. The gov't makes those for you often enough as it is. Excess taxes on your alcohol & tobacco, seat belt laws, controlled substance laws, etc etc etc . This is about making those who have no insurance, or with poor insurance, as able to be treated by a health care pro as anyone else. It's an idea that began in the '60's, when Medicare began, & is far far far overdue.

I figger if the gov't can tell us that cigarettes are good for us (they did), that DDT is okay to use (they did), that processed foods are safe to eat (they still do), then they can care for us when those substances flook us up.

well I called McPediatrics office yesterday to schedule my daughter for a required check-up for school.. they said the next available appointment is in mid-October.

I checked with teh HMO to see about switching to another office, turns out that there are no more independent practices - there's over 50 pediatricians in my county to choose from that accept my HMO (the MOST accepted plan in the state- Keystone), and ALL of those doctors work for one of FOUR McPediatric offices, ALL owned by banks or investment firms.

To say (sans) we're NOT being controlled now by corporations is delusional.

Having to wait 2 months for a non-emergency appointment is preposterous. And I pay for these "benefits"....

Yep its axe busting time !!

And its another day in Paradise !!!

Give me the guy / gal with a high school degree who succefully runs his own business, treats his employees like family.
We foucus way too much on how much someone spends on their education.
Education does not make one intellegent.
Nor does it guaranty good decision making abitity.
A law degree does not provide basis for making good economic decision.
Nor does it grant the ability to think like a warrior.
A guy with a PHd in underwater basket weaving, would make a piss poor surgeon.

You miss the point I was trying to make; missed it entirely... I wasn't trying to create a commentary on educational spending. I was trying to make the argument that smart people are good at problem solving, so if you want to solve problems in government, get smart people. Don't get average people, because they end up facing problems that are out of their league.


As to the guy who runs his own business and "treats his employees like family" - that only displays that he can run a small business and he's a nice guy. It says nothing about his problem solving skills. It says nothing about his IQ, his ability to analyze data and see the complex relationships between things.

My point is you cant judge how smart someone is by his education level.
Nor can you judge is intent to be good for the people or just himself.

Also I have stated ad nausium that we are being controled by greedy corporate slugs, I see no need to change more of that to geedy government slugs (read medicare) just for the sake of change. We have no legal recourse against the government greed. We can create legal recourse against corporate greed.
That is what government is supposed to do, regulate via law. Not just take it over to run it for their own profits.

Well, I, for one, would love for the ins co's to be regulated so they must fulfill their obligations without all the BS, but they own too many in congress for that to happen. That still doesn't address the few million of us with no ins at all. They, too, need care.

My point is you cant judge how smart someone is by his education level.

But you can judge, to some degree, how smart they are by what school they attend.

MIT doesn't accept mental slouches...

While that may be true, CF, I maintain that if you educate an asshole, what you end up with is an educated asshole. Education is not a cure-all.

I think it's been said before that some of the pres's with the highest IQ's were considered the worst &/or most hated in our history.

IQ doesn't mean diddly. Neither does one's college standing, when it comes to the everyday trials of leadership.

Although I would rather have an educated man in the office, the content of that education, & how he handles things outside his areas of expertise, are much more important than a sheepskin on the wall.

While that may be true, CF, I maintain that if you educate an asshole, what you end up with is an educated asshole. Education is not a cure-all.

I don't believe I said that it was. Nor do I think I was implying that.

Whether someone is an asshole or not, a kind person or not, has no bearing on their ability to solve a problem.

If you have a brain tumor, you call a doctor. You don't call your buddy Joe the butcher who lives at the end of the block. You get an expert to solve your problem.

Smart people - whether they're assholes or not - are experts at solving problems. But they're a resource that goes largely untapped by the government sector because problems are viewed from a political point of view and solutions are political capital.

IQ doesn't mean diddly.

I think people in general, but especially in the U.S., undervalue intelligence way too much, and overvalue traits like athleticism and musical ability.

Until we, as a society, start to value intelligence and education, we're going to continue to live in a primitive, hostile, ignorant world full of malcontents breeding hate and fear. And we're going to have a hard time solving the world's problems that way.

Neither does one's college standing, when it comes to the everyday trials of leadership.

Leadership is a different issue from problem solving.