Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Political Stuff That Just Ain't Thread Worthy - Part IV
The debt is more than the worlds GDP? Sooooo doesn't that mean the money we use isn't ours?
According to that picture, government debt worldwide is 40 trillion-ish? World GDP is 60 trillion-ish? If you include private debt it probably goes up a lot more.
Debt can be more than output because there's always the future where the debt is paid off... that or debt is renegotiated, defaulted on, the country/people go bankrupt (for a country that would probably be a default), etc...
Obviously the mountains of debt - particularly in the Western world among consumers and governments is pretty bad but I wouldn't put much stock in any doomsday scenarios/predictions.
According to that picture, government debt worldwide is 40 trillion-ish? World GDP is 60 trillion-ish? If you include private debt it probably goes up a lot more.
Debt can be more than output because there's always the future where the debt is paid off... that or debt is renegotiated, defaulted on, the country/people go bankrupt (for a country that would probably be a default), etc...
Obviously the mountains of debt - particularly in the Western world among consumers and governments is pretty bad but I wouldn't put much stock in any doomsday scenarios/predictions.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'ours', when you buy a house/mortgage - the money isn't yours but you sign a contract to pay it back through a payment plan - and most people do just that.
If we're talking public debt - It depends on when you were born and live your life - if over your life in Canada - the public (federal, provincial) debt grows to a bigger percentage of Canadian GDP - then yeah, you could say you're 'using' the money of your kids, the money of the next generation, etc... because at the end of the day - that debt will need to be paid down and that means fewer services for the generations who end up paying down that debt.
Back to private debt: a growing percentage of Canadian spending (this might have changed I don't keep up to date) is from credit cards - now Canadians need to make payments on those credit cards - but technically it's the money of CC companies and if you spend 120% of your income annually thanks to loans and credit cards - eventually you'll have to reduce your spending below 100% of your income to pay off that borrowing in past years.
That statement doesn't really make sense. There is no "ours" in relation to money, the state has total control over creating money. The only possession that is attributed to that money is the debt, which can be bought or sold among different states.
An Ontario teachers’ union has thrust the debate over the safety of wireless Internet into the mainstream by calling on schools to stop installing WiFi over fears it causes cancer.
A committee formed by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association spent nearly a year reviewing research and health concerns raised by some parents, before taking the position that schools should err on the side of caution and stop turning schools into WiFi zones.
They also moved to outlaw writing utensils of any kind due to sharp points (pens, pencils), toxicity (markers), potential for swallowing (crayons) and potential for inhaling (chalk).
Work has begun on a proposal that students must wear bubbles on school property.
I just watched a short-video for one of my classes called ''Msconception'' on sperm donations. One of the interviewees was the president for the 'Institute for American Values'
Can an American, who has heard of this, explain what it is? And if it is actually serious?
It seems so problematic.
a) Define 'value'
b) How much of the American public do these 'values' actually represent?
c) Is it religious?
etc.
According to Rush the Dems have made pregnancy a disease
Good grief does he go off the rails on this one. And he accuses the Democrats of playing language games. And says the Democrats have made pregnancy into a disease. What a clown.
Quote:
Rush Limbaugh: Democrats 'Fear' Pregnancy, Are 'Aborting Their Own People'
Rush Limbaugh went on a long rant about contraception, abortions and women on his Tuesday radio show.
He was reacting to recent developments surrounding birth control, which have included Komen's funding cut for Planned Parenthood and the Obama administration's mandate requiring all employers to cover contraception for workers.
Limbaugh was indignant about the hype around the issue. "Why is contraception so important that it must be paid for by somebody else?" he demanded to know. He asked why contraceptives are "a must-have" in comparison to toothpaste, hotel rooms or a car.
"Why are so many people afraid of birth?" he wondered.
Limbaugh then asked why the Democratic party would want to limit pregnancies, arguing that it makes money from abortions. He alleged that Planned Parenthood is part of "a money-laundering operation for the Democrat party" and that the organization "is rolling in dough" from providing abortion services. "So why would the Democrat party want to make sure that there aren't any pregnancies?" he challenged.
He asked why Democrats seem to "fear" pregnancy, claiming that they treat it like "a disease" and a "great health risk for women."
"Could it be that Democrats fear kids?" he wondered. "I mean, they are aborting their own people. The vast majority of people having abortions are Democrat voters."
Good grief does he go off the rails on this one. And he accuses the Democrats of playing language games. And says the Democrats have made pregnancy into a disease. What a clown.
Its amazing that the Republicans are actually making contraception an issue. Fine, they will claim its a religious freedom issue or a health care issue, but at the end of the day they are out in the media talking about birth control as if it is this evil blot on the morals of society. This is why Santorum is such a bad candidate to challenge Obama. Being the party of nanny state conservatives that want to police the countries sexual morality is simply not a winning strategy. The Republicans big chance is to exploit the fact that people are worried about unemployment and the economy and Romney is obviously the best candidate to pound this message home.
Although it's being framed as a Catholic issue, in reality White Evangelicals are the only ones in disagreement as a group.
Nice chart. But I'd be interested in further breakdowns of "practicing" Catholics versus ones who simply self-identify that way. I notice a big split between these groups in their political views
According to that picture, government debt worldwide is 40 trillion-ish? World GDP is 60 trillion-ish? If you include private debt it probably goes up a lot more.
Debt can be more than output because there's always the future where the debt is paid off... that or debt is renegotiated, defaulted on, the country/people go bankrupt (for a country that would probably be a default), etc...
Obviously the mountains of debt - particularly in the Western world among consumers and governments is pretty bad but I wouldn't put much stock in any doomsday scenarios/predictions.
It's less complicated than that. Every dollar borrowed is also a dollar owed, so it's not really possible to have too much debt in a literal sense.
The issue of too much public debt is problematic because it shifts resources from the younger generations (taxpayers) to the older generations (bond holders). It's also worth noting that most sovereign debts are owed by people in the same country. So statements like "the US government borrowing money leads to China having future control of the US" don't make much sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayDay
Just putting this here:
Although it's being framed as a Catholic issue, in reality White Evangelicals are the only ones in disagreement as a group.
The way the question is framed is flawed, it's impossible to provide something at no cost. The question that needs to be asked is the following: should women have to pay for their own birth control or should everyone else subsidize it through higher premiums/taxes?
The way the question is framed is flawed, it's impossible to provide something at no cost.
It's not misleading. "No cost" meaning zero co-pay, which I think is obvious enough to everyone. It's not like anyone imagines that birth control pills grow on trees.
It's not misleading. "No cost" meaning zero co-pay, which I think is obvious enough to everyone. It's not like anyone imagines that birth control pills grow on trees.
You might be right as far as the question is commonly perceived, but I have a problem with the perception that employers can and should provide free things for their employees.
You are compensated according to the marginal product of your labour. Whether that means $80,000 in salary and no benefits or $50,000 and $30,000 in benefits. The commonly held idea that the government can force employers to provide their employees free goodies can be quite detrimental when it takes the form of public policy IMO.
I don't know why anyone would want their employers to provide health insurance to them in exchange for lower wages. A large part of the inefficiencies of the American healthcare system come from the fact that health insurance has been provided this way for a long time largely due to a historical accident. (i.e. wage caps during WWII) The only thing it accomplishes is raise costs and hurt the labour market due to people being less willing to quit/change jobs for fear of losing their coverage.
Furthermore, I don't know why birth control should be paid for by insurance since it's not a particularly big expense. Insurance is meant to be sure as a form of risk spreading, i.e. 100 people pooling in their resources together so one of them can use them if he gets a catastrophic illness that he couldn't otherwise afford to treat; not 100 people paying for the everyday, low-cost expenses of 30 others.
I guess you can make the argument that birth control is a public good and should be subsidized by the government, but even then a wealth transfer to people who can't otherwise afford it makes more sense than mandating that all health insurance programs cover it.
Conclusion: it takes a lot of typing to agree with Rick Santorum on a social issue.
Furthermore, I don't know why birth control should be paid for by insurance since it's not a particularly big expense. Insurance is meant to be sure as a form of risk spreading, i.e. 100 people pooling in their resources together so one of them can use them if he gets a catastrophic illness that he couldn't otherwise afford to treat; not 100 people paying for the everyday, low-cost expenses of 30 others.
I actually agree with you in the sense that the private insurance model (designed to deal with rare events such as car crashes, house fires, and death) is not a particularly appropriate model to apply towards the funding and provision of health care, which is something that everyone needs throughout their lives.
It would have made far more sense to go to a universal single-payer system, like you have in Canada.
However, private employer-sponsored insurance is what we are stuck with, so essential health care services and medications need to somehow be accomplished through that system.
The commonly held idea that the government can force employers to provide their employees free goodies can be quite detrimental when it takes the form of public policy IMO.
But is that what's happening here? The government isn't forcing employers to offer free stuff to their employees. The government is saying that, if you want a tax deduction for the cost of your health benefits, there are some things the government will require the health plan to cover for it to qualify for deduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisk-Illusion
I don't know why anyone would want their employers to provide health insurance to them in exchange for lower wages.
Often it's because most employers aren't set up to let people choose to take insurance or not. One place I work required people to take insurance, and I can understand why. They don't want to hire uninsured employees who could find themselves financially screwed due to an accident or illness. In addition, employers have an incentive to get as many employees signed up for insurance as possible to create a bigger pool and reduce premiums.
One place I worked did let employees choose whether to take the health insurance offered or to receive a "bonus" equal to the employer's premium cost if the employee declined. I don't know a single person who declined the coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisk-Illusion
A large part of the inefficiencies of the American healthcare system come from the fact that health insurance has been provided this way for a long time largely due to a historical accident. (i.e. wage caps during WWII) The only thing it accomplishes is raise costs and hurt the labour market due to people being less willing to quit/change jobs for fear of losing their coverage.
All true, for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brisk-Illusion
Furthermore, I don't know why birth control should be paid for by insurance since it's not a particularly big expense. Insurance is meant to be sure as a form of risk spreading, i.e. 100 people pooling in their resources together so one of them can use them if he gets a catastrophic illness that he couldn't otherwise afford to treat; not 100 people paying for the everyday, low-cost expenses of 30 others.
I think that's a mischaracterization of what health insurance is. Health insurance isn't just about catastrophic care. Maybe it should be, but a big reason why health insurance covers so much more is because that's what employers wanted. They wanted plans that covered a lot so they could attract better employees by offering good benefits. These days, health insurance picks up part of the cost of prescriptions, including prescribed birth control, because that's what employers want to offer.
If you don't like the idea what health insurance has become, don't blame the government. Blame the free market that created this monster.
You might be right as far as the question is commonly perceived, but I have a problem with the perception that employers can and should provide free things for their employees.
You are compensated according to the marginal product of your labour. Whether that means $80,000 in salary and no benefits or $50,000 and $30,000 in benefits. The commonly held idea that the government can force employers to provide their employees free goodies can be quite detrimental when it takes the form of public policy IMO.
I don't know why anyone would want their employers to provide health insurance to them in exchange for lower wages. A large part of the inefficiencies of the American healthcare system come from the fact that health insurance has been provided this way for a long time largely due to a historical accident. (i.e. wage caps during WWII) The only thing it accomplishes is raise costs and hurt the labour market due to people being less willing to quit/change jobs for fear of losing their coverage.
Furthermore, I don't know why birth control should be paid for by insurance since it's not a particularly big expense. Insurance is meant to be sure as a form of risk spreading, i.e. 100 people pooling in their resources together so one of them can use them if he gets a catastrophic illness that he couldn't otherwise afford to treat; not 100 people paying for the everyday, low-cost expenses of 30 others.
I guess you can make the argument that birth control is a public good and should be subsidized by the government, but even then a wealth transfer to people who can't otherwise afford it makes more sense than mandating that all health insurance programs cover it.
Conclusion: it takes a lot of typing to agree with Rick Santorum on a social issue.
Healthcare is a different ballgame all together. Regular check-ups, going to the doctor when you don't feel well or right, inoculations, and getting care for sicknesses BEFORE they develop into worse or secondary infections is what keeps costs down and the population as a whole healthier.
This also helps employers as there are less days lost to illness or to employees needing to take time off to care for sick children.
Nice chart. But I'd be interested in further breakdowns of "practicing" Catholics versus ones who simply self-identify that way. I notice a big split between these groups in their political views
“Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?”
Overall: 66% support vs. 26% opposed
Republicans support it by 50-44.
Independents support it by 64-26.
Moderates support it by 68-22.
Women support it by 72-20.
Catholics support it by 67-25. Weekly Churchgoing Catholics support it by 48-43.
Even Republicans and practicing Catholics support this.
The GOP is trying to use this as a wedge issue against Obama, but it is going to backfire on them in a huge way. Access to birth control is broadly popular and uncontroversial among pretty much every group of Americans, outside of a handful of out-of-touch bishops and evangelicals.
