[List All Topics] [Start Topic] [Search] [Show Thread Index] [Help]

[Not Logged In / Login / Register]

Sort: [Threaded | Date]

		The Future of Medicine posted on 10/12/2009 6:28 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The party in power in Congress is laboring mightily to cripple medicine in this country (and harm it in the rest of the world). The first casualty will be life extension. All of the various healthcare ‘reform’ bills are really highly political initiatives that will result in poorer healthcare for most Americans when implemented, and will have devastating impacts further down the road. For instance, the more that needed services are nationalized, the more people become dependent on – and easier to manipulate by – politicians. I’ve discussed the duty-to-die ethos that will dominate healthcare management if this legislation is passed: A Duty-to-Die, or Whooee! We’re All Socialists Now! http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/show_thread.php?ro otID=140256#id140256 http://tinyurl.com/l3p7lm One needs only to think briefly about the nationalization of healthcare in the U.S. to be able to generate a host of reasons of why it will be bad for the country, in general, the American people specifically, and life extenders most of all! To conceptualize the issue, think of it this way. In a private healthcare system, patients are the clients and the source of revenue. In free markets with free choices, the first priority of those seeking revenues is happy clients/customers. Hence, the freer the market, the more the healthcare dollars spent are maximized in the service of the patients. In a not-for-profit, nationalized system, the patient is a cost. Nationalized systems always result in massive spending, and howls to lower costs and improve services. The only way to attempt to reign in costs in the system is to provide less and poorer service to patients – deny certain treatments or procedures, delay service, deny certain drugs, control drug prices, control re-imbursement to doctors, etc. As costs spiral ever upward, the duty-to-die paradigm becomes irresistible to government planning panels (infamously referred to as ‘death panels’ by Sarah Palin). The ones chosen to die (that is, provided lower levels of only inexpensive care) are those members of society that are high-cost and low-productivity – the young (less than 15) and the old (50ish plus) (this formulation was first penned by one of President Obama’s health czars, if I remember correctly). This pays double dividends to the State with respect to oldsters (but also disabled youngsters), because they are also consumers of government pensions like social security. So, the last thing that would be permitted is to abnormally extend the life of the aged. Cost containment death panels would react to life extension therapies like a vampire to a holy cross. Life extenders have been decrying the lack of spending on life extension for quite some time. De Grey spent about the last third of his book decrying just this fact and calling for populist outrage. Government does spend massive funds on end-of-life but most of it is on palliative measures. Abortion gets more funds from government than does research directly aimed at extending maximum human life span. Besides being stupid, it is an outrage. It’s been reported that the first big and very major vote on ruining healthcare and the American way will occur tomorrow. If you think this should be stopped, slowed down or further debated, fax a letter (email works but there is little chance anyone will do more than count it as a ‘for’ or ‘against’) to your two U.S. Senators. Here’s mine. Feel free to use it as you see fit, but get it out a quickly as possible. Via Fax Senator [name] U.S. Capital Washington, D.C. Subject: Opposition to Healthcare Legislation Dear Senator: I urge you not harm the vast majority of Americans by passing anything like the ‘healthcare’ reform now currently before the U.S. Senate. The principal purpose of the various forms of this legislation is not to make America a better place – it is legislation motivated only by politics that will harm America. The current healthcare proposals are an attempt to create a vast new entitlement to healthcare. It will result in substantial new taxes on the ‘middle’ and ‘working’ class, and ruinous deficit spending. The idea that it is a tax on ‘the rich’ is a tired falsehood. Also, it will result in shortages so the aged -- of which I will someday be one -- will not be able to get needed healthcare in a timely fashion (or at all) from the doctors of their choice. The performance of Congress this year has been abysmal. I feel that our country and Constitution are being torn asunder. The “Stimulus Bill” was mostly just an historic looting of the public treasury. It couldn’t have been intended to “stimulate” the economy, and it not only didn’t ‘stimulate’ the economy, it harmed it. The economy is harmed when money is transferred from productive, job-producing sectors to wasteful public and NGO spending. It was more a government- and party-building bill than legislation in the public interest. The “Cap and Trade” carbon-reduction bill to fight ‘global warming’ is a cruel joke – those that live in [northern tier states] know just how cruel and what a joke. Water vapor dominates the Earth’s climate and Co2 is already saturated in the atmosphere and cannot cause additional warming (only a greener, more bountiful Earth). It has been estimated that the immense taxes and transactions costs that this Cap and Trade bill would entail could more than double utility bills for [name of state residents]. Damn [major state electricity provider]! Next year, in a long list of nationalizations, we will see another push to grant voting rights to illegal aliens. As an inducement to vote for ever-expanding government programs, these newly minted Americans will be given . . . healthcare! This is so corrupt and so against the interests of this Nation, and its Founding ideals, that I am at a loss for civil words. I have come to doubt that anything currently being pursued by Congress is motivated by a desire to do what is good for America. The motivation seems to be solely to push money and resources to government and special interest groups, expanded and empower government (at all levels) and NGO’s like ACORN, and seize unassailable political power. I urge you to vote against any of the so-called healthcare reform bills currently before Congress. They all constitute vast new entitlement programs that will fundamentally undermine the health of this Nation. Very truly yours, [Reply]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 10/12/2009 9:45 PM by eldras	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	politics are a side water. It will form an oxbow lake as technology acclerates on. It's good to lobby though I wish you yanks understood socialism as utilising the nation's potential...bringin all the people up and not dumbing down. The Uk is 1/6th of the US and a sense of community is probably easier. The big advantage of economies of scale could be truly applied in the US. Mixed economy seems to work best here; I thought the election gave the USA a clear message that it wants socialism in some form, with progressive taxation and support for the disadvantaged? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 10/12/2009 9:49 PM by eldras	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	BTW if you get healthcare reform(it look inevitable0 there will be a higher paying market for innovation & invention on a scale private wealth copuld never match. Popel in the UK with private medicine usually end up using state facilities because they are MUCH richer. I agree that the state should be lobbied against legislating away the cutting edge groups like H+; it is up to bright sparks to entyer poliotics and direct the state, for the short time men will continue to work together before a technological Singularity. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 10/13/2009 12:13 AM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	augmentation will be about open source software and customized nanodrugs you get at GNC at the mall for cheap- eventually they will gut the healthcare paradigm with genetic repair and augmentation products [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 10/13/2009 12:44 AM by Philllippe	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"augmentation will be about open source software and customized nanodrugs you get at GNC at the mall for cheap- eventually they will gut the healthcare paradigm with genetic repair and augmentation products" Man you just can not wait to be a piece of silicon and software developed and owned by Microsoft and Intel. You will not be any smarter then. You will just be stupid at a higher clock rate. 1. open source software does not mean anything, since we are not computers or robots. You see us all becoming that but how tf would you know. 2. Customized nanodrugs will not be an over the counter thing. That will come from a doctor and will therefore not be cheap. 3. Not all diseases are genetic so genetic repair will not cure all ills. But genetic therapy is not like taking an aspirin so even genetic therapy will not be cheap. Thanks for playing Mr. Wizard. You get an F- on that report. Have a wonderful evening :) [Reply] [Parent]

		leave the forum then posted on 10/13/2009 12:36 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	if you think these sorts of ideas are 'stupid' then don't read/post at a forum that promotes them- then you can avoid unnecessary insults and confrontation which add nothing- [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: leave the forum then posted on 10/13/2009 12:41 PM by Philllippe	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"if you think these sorts of ideas are 'stupid' then don't read/post at a forum that promotes them- then you can avoid unnecessary insults and confrontation which add nothing-" This forum does not promote them. You do. This forum is not you and you are not this forum. Does that resonate within your cranium? [Reply] [Parent]

		monkey see- monkey masturbates posted on 10/13/2009 12:50 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	so now you claim that Ray secretly wanted you primitive brutes to take over his forum? not chance monkey-boy! [Reply] [Parent]

		A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 12:52 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Guys, Please don't give the Moderatrix an excuse to delete the entire thread. I want to get back to Alan's and Eldras' comments below. Thanks. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 12:58 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Guys, Please don't give the Moderatrix an excuse to delete the entire thread. Right, because it would be a shame if they deleted an off topic thread. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 1:22 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	. . . an off topic thread. Apology petition for Alan Turing posted on 09/01/2009 1:36 PM by Pandemonium1323 “a Downing Street petition” http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html The future of medicine and life extension is one of the core issues here. Petitions for and an apology by the U.K. government for its treatment of Turning 65 years ago relating to his homosexuality is not, lamebrain. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 1:32 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	your welcome BTW- I brought your thread on-topic by actually discussing the future of medicine within the framework of Singularitarianism and accelerating change- BTW I can only assume you don't keep abreast of popular topics in transhumanist circles- because the Alan Turing apology was BIG NEWS with both transhumanist and science communities- and is extremely non-topic as LGBT is one of the most important and first transhumanist social movements- the first humans to take control of their identity and express themselves and live according to who they are and want to be instead of what society forces upon them http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/lgbtq-an d-transhumanism [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 1:53 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Social movements reflect ideology, which can manifest within the political arena. LGBT issues are almost purely an argument that takes place within the political arena. I don’t complain about and typically don’t participate in such discussions, but don’t see why they shouldn’t be here if posed properly. Technology will shape the future but so will ideology, and its expression, politics. That, however, is not a license for partisanship, which should be kept off, or at least to a minimum, on this site. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 2:12 PM by Philllippe	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"your welcome BTW- I brought your thread on-topic by actually discussing the future of medicine within the framework of Singularitarianism and accelerating change-" No you simply made up the same line of gobbledygook that you always do. That we are computers in a dilbert space. Hurray for you. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 2:15 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	pure sociopathology- there are many forums with higher traffic you can visit if all you really care about is insulting people and have NO ideas of your own- [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 2:36 PM by Philllippe	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	get bent breadcrumb [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: leave the forum then posted on 10/13/2009 12:55 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You will just be stupid at a higher clock rate. Nice. I like this insult, I'm going to plagiarize it. Don't let anyone say you haven't done anything for the forum Phil. This made me laugh hard. You're still an asshole, but thanks for the humor. 1. open source software does not mean anything, since we are not computers or robots. Open source is one of the PRIMARY drivers behind accelerating returns. It facilitates inter and cross-disciplinary research. And what do you mean we are not computers or robots? I guess you completely ignore the fact that increasing numbers of people are using robotic prosthetics and BCI's for medical reasons. It's only a matter of time before that crosses a threshold into the mainstream market (and, to this extent it ALREADY is - Neurosky, Emotic, etc.) 2. Customized nanodrugs will not be an over the counter thing. That will come from a doctor and will therefore not be cheap. Only at first. Desktop 3D printing and molecular manufacturing obviously lead to...oh wait...over the counter? What do we need to even go into a store for? I'll just download the specs and print em out. No reason to even leave the house. 3. Not all diseases are genetic so genetic repair will not cure all ills. But genetic therapy is not like taking an aspirin so even genetic therapy will not be cheap. Three things. One, with genetic therapy we can make ourselves IMMUNE to diseases. Regardless of whether the disease is genetic in origin or not. Two, immunity aside, nanobots will simply be able to seek and destroy any disease, bacteria, virus, etc. They're already working on nano-lasers that can simply burn away cancers. Why do you think they couldn't do the same thing to ANY disease organism. Simply point your nano-laser and fire. The hard part is in detecting and searching for all little critters, not in actually destroying them. It's the 'seek' part that is a challenge, not the 'destroy' part. Three. As we replace our bodies with non-biological parts, diseases become less relevant anyway, as they won't even effect us any longer. Thanks for playing Mr. Wizard. You get an F- on that report. Have a wonderful evening :) Useless. This forum does not promote them. You do. This forum is not you and you are not this forum. Does that resonate within your cranium? This forum IS about accelerating change and emerging technology, NOT about absurd denial about this topic. Why do people feel like they have an inherent duty to come to places like this just to tell people that it's "impossible"? The focus ought to be how to make it possible, not simply decrying the very reason why people come here to discuss these things. [Reply] [Parent]

		the end of the corporate biological monopoly posted on 10/13/2009 1:11 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Only at first. Desktop 3D printing and molecular manufacturing obviously lead to...oh wait...over the counter? What do we need to even go into a store for? I'll just download the specs and print em out. No reason to even leave the house. this is a very important point- often you see anti-singularitarians and luddites claim that none of the radical body/mind augmentations possible with BCI/nanotechnology will come to pass because they thing that the High Church of FDA/AMA will not pass these things- anyone who is ignorant of the kind of paradigm changing technology that Neil Gershenfeld et al is working on might think that is a valid argument- but we are not- http://www.artistserver.com/member/index.cfm/a/958 7/blog/2078 we Singularitarians understand that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to regulate or prevent anyone from synthesizing any drug/nanotechnology/augmentation software/hardware through material replication as software is already free through Rapid Share/Torrents/PtoP/etc- in the very near future I won't have to go to the pharmacist or doctor- I can print-out and install whatever drugs/systems I desire- if they are made illegal it just means turning to the warez market- procuring a sex-change nanodrug therapy regiment or getting some nano-implants will be as easy as finding a cracked copy of a game on Rapidshare [Reply] [Parent]

		National Ill Health Service posted on 10/22/2009 7:43 PM by Atreju	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Mixed economy seems to work best here; I thought the election gave the USA a clear message that it wants socialism in some form, with progressive taxation and support for the disadvantaged? I think the Presidential election revealed that the people of the USA generally care more for personality than practicality. 'Progressive taxation' surely that is an oxymoron unless you mean it in the context of less taxation and thus progress towards more freedom and diminished coercion? The UK example of nationalised health care is unfortunate and ill. The NHS is a terribly bloated, unhealthy and overly bureaucratic morass of waste and inefficiency. The vast number of agencies, quangos, taxpayer funded 'charities' and Area Health Trusts that exist without any justification for their existence beggars belief. The Conservative Party recently showed that funding for the Department of Health (which adds little if any value to actual health care), its quangos and regional authorities reached more than £12 billion last year, a rise of 103 percent since 2003. The £12.6 billion budget for central administration was seven times the amount spent on either maternity services or dentistry, which each received £1.8 billion, or Accident and Emergency departments, which received £1.7 billion. Billions more was spent on administration at hospitals and primary care trusts across the country, for which specific administration figures are not compiled. Government figures show there are now more than twice as many bureaucrats as midwives, and 5,000 more managers than hospital consultants! Its astonishing that we put up with what is in essence the creation of often pointless jobs for the simple purpose of expanding the reach and size of Government at the expense of individual and hard working taxpayers. Why not allow the commercial insurance industry to compete with the National Insurance scheme, offering alternative ways for the public to obtain medical cover, with an optional opt-out of the NI scheme or the ability to co-fund treatments? This competition could force a reduction in individual cost to the public, and could generate new sources of funds for the Hospitals while helping to weed out the inefficient and often pointless bureaucrats that leach off the taxpayer. Contrary to popular belief, private medical insurance costs on average one quarter the cost of the median wage NI contributions. Private health insurance is not just for the rich, and could be even more accessable as the competition increases. Government waste, collectivisation and coercion does not encourage innovation, it actively discourages it. We are 'forced' to waste billions propping up a service that denigrates the freedom which could actually help us improve our health at a far more cost-effective and democratic way. It serves neither the individual nor the technological creativity he can manifest through his own 'choice' and liberty. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: National Ill Health Service posted on 10/22/2009 8:53 PM by Phillippe	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Pot kettle black. Take care of your country's mess before lobbing bombs over here. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: National Ill Health Service posted on 10/23/2009 3:54 PM by Atreju	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Pot kettle black. This would imply I am guilty of the very thing I am arguing against but I have not instituted any programs of national health care anywhere on anyone. I am no pot. You seem to have misunderstood how to use a very simple idiom. Take care of your country's mess before lobbing bombs over here. I have offered a solution to my own countries 'mess'. Is it not prudence to examine similar projects of nationalised health care before blithely accepting such a project in your own land? This is surely common sense, unless one is neither sensible nor of affinity with the common man. [Reply] [Parent]

		A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 2:59 AM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	politics are a side water. It will form an oxbow lake as technology acclerates on. Eldras, It’s too late this evening to comment at length on this topic, but let me just say that this isn’t about politics, its about the type of future we’ll have – and I think most here at MindX are much too sanguine about the issue. Well it may be true that it won’t make any difference in 500 years, that is a statement of faith – and in the meantime the life potential of millions and probably billions of people will be irreparable harmed if not destroyed. Think of it like a butterfly effect – but a very, very big butterfly. I wish you yanks understood socialism as utilising the nation's potential...bringin all the people up and not dumbing down. I think that’s a little Pollyannaish – have you been reading the press releases of the Fabian Socialists over there in the U.K., or maybe from E.U. Central Command? Socialism is about equalization – which always results in pulling society down to a relatively low denominator. It leads to dependency and infantilizes populations. Free societies pull everyone up by the bootstraps, and offers charity to those that seek that most valuable of adult characteristics -- self-respect. What the UK and EU don’t realize is that a vibrant U.S. is not only the engine of world growth and the guys you turn to (and lay-off the laboring oar too) in times of troubles – the U.S. is also discipline and a task master. Most of Europe has had to institute relatively Reaganite policies over the last 15 years or so. European nations are better for the fact that the U.S. has been a growing and vibrant economy. Conversely, you will be worse off if the U.S. goes into decline – which we show ever evidence of choosing to do. I thought the election gave the USA a clear message that it wants socialism in some form Only about 25% of Americans realized last November that a vote for Obama was a vote for socialism. Anyone that suggests Obama is a socialist, now or then, is/was ridiculed as a knuckle-dragging racist. Obama himself dismisses suggestions he is a socialist. One fascinating thing to come out of this election is that people like you and other Europeans see Obama and the movement he leads much more clearly than do most Americans. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 10:14 AM by richiemobile	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Redquist, I suggest you read "Agenda for a New Economy, from Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth" by David C. Korten. Korten is the publisher of "Yes" magazine. The problems in our current world economic infrastructure run deeper than the scrambling of politicians to pacify the public in fear of unprecedented inflation in the cost of staying alive. (The cost of health insurance is the fastest growing cost to the average citizen by far) I presume you would have opposed the creation of medicare, or veterans medical rights back in the day. These programs have created sanity for tens of millions over the decades. As always, I could be wrong... but I dont think so this time. Alan Datscots (BTW) I respect your right to disagree with me and thank you for introducing me to longevinex. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/13/2009 11:11 AM by francofiori2004	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Human beings, while reincarnating among everyday people, reincarnate life after life. Some have reincarnated twenty-something times, and some have reincarnated thirty-something times or even more. In reincarnating so many times, and in reincarnating back and forth among humans, each time the person will create large quantities of karma. Of course, in each life, when people have health problems and suffer they will eliminate some [karma], but there will be a lot in each life, and when a lot of it has collected one will fall ill. When people have health problems they will seek out doctors to cure them. When doctors treat health problems, they only take care of things at the surface of the body. Humans will eliminate some karma because of the suffering of falling ill, but the majority of the karma and the root cause of what in essence causes the health problem are in other dimensions. Doctors can’t treat [those things] and the root cause of falling ill is still there, so in each of their many lives, people will have some karma left over. " Mr Li Hongzhi [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/22/2009 3:44 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Alan, It’s not that I’m some sort of capitalist vampire that reacts as if to a holy cross to a communal vision of green cottage industry and peace, love and happiness. It’s just that these visions are wacko and totally unsuited to any economy, much less an advanced, global economy. People would be poorer, sicker and less green if the author’s vision were realized – and that’s why I oppose it. A sophisticated review by D. W. MacKenzie at Amazon of Korten’s book: http://www.amazon.com/Agenda-New-Economy-Phantom-W ealth/product-reviews/1605092894/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist _1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar http://tinyurl.com/yg3wzd5 VA is a contractual benefit. Other than that is poorly run and could be better structured, I don’t have a problem with it. Medicare is a government-run Ponzi Scheme that is bankrupting the country. It is designed as a wealth transferring entitlement program to create dependency, and generate revenues for government (in the short term) and votes* for the most statist party forever. It is a cancer. It should and could be privatized, and better results obtained. For almost all problems there is a simple plan that can’t work, and a more complex plan that has a chance. The skeleton key is to create market incentives for individuals that solve the problem. *Entitlement programs like Medicare are designed disasters. The programs begin with modest claims of costs by the proponents. Costs always turn out to be greater, and incessant calls are made to expand benefits because “the needs are even greater than we thought!”. As the red ink spreads, the fiscally responsible seek to check at least the growth of the program, and their political enemies and proponents of the State denounce their cruelty and greed. Tax, tax! Spend, spend! Elect, elect! And to the victor goes the spoils! Living Large in Washington, D.C.! That’s what the current healthcare reform is all about. That’s what all socialist utopian visions, like that of Korton, amount to. There is a better way. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: A Clear Message posted on 10/23/2009 2:25 PM by richiemobile	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Red, I have worked at some of the "upper echelons" of medical research on this planet. Stanford, Johns Hopkins, The Mayo Clinic. I can assure that the "spirit of innovation" in these enterprises are significant,only as long as they defer to the "capitalist" paradigm of big pharma and the underpinnings of their original and primary funding sources. What are these? The Howard Hughes Trust, The Rockefeller Foundation, The National Institutes of Health, The William and Melinda Gates Foundation Mega-pharmaceutical cntities such as Pfizer, Hoffman-LaRoche, CIBA-Geigy, Burroughs-Wellcome, Amgen, et al When a new disease or treatment enters the medical parlance. the eyes light up and the "cash registers" start thumping. The overriding paradigm at all of these entities is capitalism, pure unbridled and unapologetic accumulation of wealth for you and your progeny at the expense of whoever happens to be in your way. I met a researcher in San Jose, who had come across an obscure plant in the middle east which seemed to in right combination with other biochemicals have a significant effect on breast cancer. The researcher told me. "I cannot even think about achieving success with this because western medical research is fixated on "the molecule".. Unless a biochemical can be isolated" he said into"one active molecule" it will never be included in the pantheon of researchable and credible medical discoveries... I am going to try and market this to veterinarians. He said. What this means, is that we, modern scientists are operating with blinders and handcuffs on. Your assertion that medical innovation and advances in the human condition should be made universally available to everyone through the capitalist model simply doesnt hold up. I like you, believe that technology, is the window into a higher state of being. I do believe, however, that some effort needs to be made to keep all of us in the boat while we head for that shore.. As always, I could be wrong.. Alan Datscots [Reply] [Parent]

		Knaves posted on 10/24/2009 6:57 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Alan, Controversy swirls around Shakespeare. The popular lore is that he was a common man who rose to become the greatest bard ever known -- but that has long been doubted. One line of evidence is that Shakespeare wrote looking down, not up – that is, he wrote of the nobility from a POV of genial contempt, and wrote of the common man as a loveable doofus. Unlikely from a common man. I bring this up because your POV does not come out of the management side of business, rather from technical/professional or support. You make two points and a conclusion. Let me deal with them in turn. First you suggest that medical research is in some way deformed by the capitalist pursuit of profit. But you then list as the principle funding resources for medical research non-profit foundations and NIH, a Federal government agency. I don’t think there is any need to delve deeper into the matter. It seems there is plenty of room for the public interest from those sorts of funding sources. Second, you relate an anecdote about a miracle drug from a far-away place unpolluted by modern commerce, where the local noble savages are more in tune with Mother Earth and her gifts. You criticize Western medicine’s focus on the ‘molecule’ rather than embracing this folk cure. Pharma is not in the business of marketing herbal cures, because it is not economically possible for them under our FDA- and patent-driven system. To gain approval from the FDA for the use of anything to treat an illness requires exhaustive human trials. The up-front cost is enormous and the system has to permit a profit or it won’t be done. That’s where patents come in. A novel drug can be patented – a naturally occurring herb/folk remedy cannot. So only novel new molecules that can be patented will be green-lighted for RISKING the enormous costs entailed in obtaining the FDA’s blessings. Cha-Ching indeed. So the focus on the ‘molecule’ is not the fault of capitalism (there is a very vibrant vitamin business, after all – most of it snake oil). It is the outcome of the interface of medicine, government and the free market, and the efforts of a lot of good, decent and talented people trying to balance complex issues and obtain an optimal solution. But even ‘optimal’ systems have some flaws and trade-offs. Propose yours – I’m sure its flaws and trade-offs are whoppers. I have experience with senior management, so let me give you a quick hit on corporate America. Let me lead with the principal problem (my comments relate to big business, not small business – of the two, I think small business has more tyrants and cheats than big business). Big companies are usually public companies. Public companies have a big problem, which is that they have somewhat unintentionally separated ownership from control. Most investors are diversified to 100’s if not 1000’s of stocks. It doesn’t pay to care too much about how a particular company is managed – just its performance. This is a technical, complicated issue, beyond the scope of Mind-X and this thread – but it is about the number one problem in corporate America today. No one on the left cares about it, even those few that understand it. That said, almost everyone in big business has a boss. If they don’t have a boss, they have bankers. But standing above even the bosses and the bankers, for everyone, is the bottom line. So with business, there is always a gimlet-eyed accountant hounding your butt. That means the resources commanded by the business must be allocated in a productive way, or you experience economic death. Generally speaking, senior management is made up of the most talented people on this Earth. They are almost always smart, knowledgeable, cultured and, yes, personally generous. They are human with the standard-issue panoply of human frailties, and are capable of making hard, sometimes ugly, decisions. The guide to those decisions are their fiduciary duties, which are something like morality, but narrower. The god they ultimately answer to is the bottom line, because that is their duty. Senior management types (again generally) are more humanitarian than the next guy, because their success and comfort allows them to be. But their business experience makes them more cognizant of the fact that really doing ‘good’ is hard - problems are complex afterall, otherwise they really wouldn't be much of a problem. We should listen much more closely to successful business people than we do, and certainly more than we do to politicians and, the lowest of the low, University types – who knaves think are unsullied by self-interest. People like to say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is some true in that, but nothing corrupts like powerlessness. Almost everyone that is anti-capitalist is quite corrupt, IMHO. P.S. Your assertion that medical innovation and advances in the human condition should be made universally available to everyone through the capitalist model simply doesnt hold up. Compared to what? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 8:01 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>I thought the election gave the USA a clear message that it wants socialism in some form, with progressive taxation and support for the disadvantaged? Eldras, that last presidential election meant that the American people finally woke up to the fact that they had an unqualifird person in the White House (BUSH II) and they voted him out. Obama is an intelligent and decent man but he, like Bush, answers to other people. See http://www.mecfilms.com/originalintent James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 10/23/2009 6:20 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	IMPORTED EMAIL FROM G. EDWARD GRIFFIN --------------------------------------- Freedom Force Report for October 2009 ARE THOSE WHO OPPOSE GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE RICH, HEARTLESS CAPITALISTS? 2009 Oct 5 from Damien >Dear Mr Griffin >From reading other's various responses to your criticism of the NHS, and reading the headline over my posted comment, I can only assume that you are of that noble American type - Seldom Right but Never Wrong. At no point in my original letter did I say, or give an inclination that "I like Socialized Medicine because it's free." I like the idea of The Government being involved in medicine, as I pointed out, not because pharmaceutical companies have greater reign to peddle their wares, but because anyone, no matter how poor, destitute or what colour they are will never be left lying on the side of a road if they can't afford medical insurance. Leaving aside the Pharmaceutical companies' inroads into the NHS, anyone who refuses to take dangerous prescriptions will not be criminalized either. Perhaps your hatred for "Socialized Medicine" means you would like to see a Neo-Liberal Capitalist Medicine system, something similar to what's in the US at the moment. Or maybe you would like to see a free market medical system where only the advantaged can afford it, then those pesky serfs won't be in your way! GRIFFIN WROTE: Damien, I am a little put off by your personal attack on my character and intelligence. You have written: "I can only assume that you are of that noble American type - Seldom Right but Never Wrong" and "Maybe you would like to see a free market medical system where only the advantaged can afford it, then those pesky serfs won't be in your way!" Statements like these tell me you don't really have much to say in the form of rational critique but have fallen to the level of character assault to make your point. My first reaction was to just send your email to the Trash Bin but, on second thought, I have decided to overlook your attitude and just answer your points as best I can. Perhaps others can benefit from the exchange. The first thing you need to do is re-read your original email dated September 18. It stated in its entirety: "I really don't see your problem with Socialized medicine, and your rantings against it are starting to turn me off your newsletter. Your trip to England was 40 years ago for God's sake. Just because something has 'socialized' in it doesn't mean it’s bad. I'm a foreign student living in England and entitled to free GP visits and pretty much free everything. Many other countries say that??" Now you say: "At no point in my original letter did I say, or give an inclination that "I like Socialized Medicine because it's free." Really! Let's analyze. Your original email conveyed only two thoughts. One was a complaint that I did not like government health care. The second was that government health care is free in the UK. You emphasize that fact with the concluding remark: "Many other countries say that??" If that isn't an inclination that you like socialized medicine because it's free, then it has no meaning at all. Furthermore, that it is free is the only positive thing you had to say about government health care, so I stand without apology behind my headline: STUDENT SEES NOTHING WRONG WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. AFTER ALL, IT'S "FREE" The next curious portion of your statement is: "Perhaps your hatred for "Socialized Medicine" means you would like to see a Neo-Liberal Capitalist Medicine system, something similar to what's in the US at the moment." First off, we learn from this that, although you are a foreign student in the UK benefiting from the tax subsidies of working-class British citizens, you are not from the United States; but what on Earth is "a Neo-Liberal Capitalist Medicine system?" This gibberish leads me to suspect that your education has been strongly influenced by fuzzy-minded Marxist ideology. I say fuzzy-minded because these words have absolutely no broadly accepted definition and are typical of Left-Wing propaganda designed to instill hatred against everything that smacks of private ownership and private control. I know it well, because I have read their books. My guess is that you are a passionate advocate of collectivism and, as such, are ready to do battle with anyone who sees individualism as a superior social and economic model. If I am correct in this, there is no single argument I can present here to change your mind, but I urge you (and anyone else grappling with these underlying principles) to allow me to at least present the case for individualism by reading my essay entitled The Chasm, available as a free download here. Now we come to the crux of your position. You state: "I like the idea of The Government being involved in medicine ... because anyone, no matter how poor, destitute or what colour they are will never be left lying on the side of a road if they can't afford medical insurance." This is the greatest myth of all, and it is based on the assumption that, under private health care, the destitute are left by the side of the road to die. Hogwash! In truth, it's the other way around. The medical care for the destitute in America has consistently been superior to care for the destitute in any country where health care is provided by the government. True, there are horrific stories of people left to die because they lacked insurance, but each of those can be matched by a hundred horrific stories of people who have been left to die at home or in waiting lines or in unattended hospital beds waiting for their "free" government care. Prior to the arrival of government intrusion into U.S. medical care several decades ago in the form of Medicare and various similar programs at the state level, it was customary for doctors and hospitals to allocate a significant portion of their services to those who could not pay. Extensive charity was the norm, but was soon replaced by government funding, rules, regulations, quotas, and guidelines so that medical charity now is all but gone. By the way, Damien, I hope you realize that the word free is absurd. It merely means free to you at the expense of someone else. Actually, it's not even free to you because, eventually, you are going to pay those costs either by taxation when you join the work force, by inflation even if you never pay taxes, and by loss of personal freedom-of-choice, not only in health care, but in all walks of life - because collectivism knows no boundaries. It does not stay restricted to just health care but seeps into every aspect of human life. Back to the main point. The destitute will always be better served under individualism via charity and freedom than under collectivism via political expediency and coercion. Therefore, you and your fellow collectivists, although high minded and with the finest humanitarian instincts, have been fooled by Marxist slogans into supporting just the opposite of what you seek. Finally, you wrote: "Maybe you would like to see a free market medical system where only the advantaged can afford it, then those pesky serfs won't be in your way!" I have already addressed the issue of the advantaged vs. the disadvantaged, but the innuendo that my motive is to not let those pesky serfs get in my way is too insulting to ignore. I will not bore you with the story of my middle-class origin, but I will state as emphatically as I can that the ideology of collectivism, with which you are enamored, is leading inexorably to the greatest serfdom the world has ever seen. If you wish to avoid being a pesky serf forever, I urge you to study further and consider the alternative: individualism. It will set you free. May the Force of Freedom be with you. Ed Griffin http://www.realityzone.com [Reply] [Parent]

		Revolution’s End? posted on 11/03/2009 1:54 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The outcome of what the WSJ calls the worst bill in history http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487033 99204574505423751140690.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_ opinion http://tinyurl.com/yjyvnvq and the future of medicene in this country, will likely be determined in the elections held today in New York (U.S. house seat) and gubernatorial elections in Virginia and, especially, New Jersey. These elections all consist of voters who look like they are going to swing away from Obama, compared to Nov. 08, by about 20 points. If it pans out that way, it will scare the hell out of the chickens in Congress, and make radical reform essentially impossible. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 12:12 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The Election results pretty much put a stake in the heart of the current extremist agenda in Congress. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who looks increasingly unlikely to be re-elected next year in Nevada) made it official yesterday: In a blow to the White House, the Senate's top Democrat signaled Tuesday that Congress may fail to meet a year-end deadline for passing health care legislation, leaving the measure's fate to the uncertainties of the 2010 election season. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/03/harry-rei d-health-care-bi_n_344222.html The big three agenda items are healthcare, cap and trade and immigration reform. The plan was first, loot the treasury with the stimulous bill (done in February). Then nationalize healthcare to create the Mother of All Entitlements and Dependency on Government, creating a prennial election issue that would cut in favor of the statist party. Then Cap and Trade, supposedly to fight global warming, but really to 1) nationalize energy, 2) create a massive revenue stream to government and 3) increase the ability of politicians to hand out favors and rake in lobbist cash. Finally, next year, the linch pin: legalize illegal aliens and give them free health care, in exchange for their undying political gratitude and a lock for statism in most elections in the country as far as the eye can see. Well, it all blew up yesterday. The voter swing was massive and will freeze this radical agenda. It is possible that the big issue next year will be whether the expiring Bush tax cuts should be extended (and maybe expanded), not the radicials agenda of making us “all socialists now”. There has been lots of commentary regarding the meaning of yesterday’s vote, not much of it very good. So here’s the straight scoop. There were two reasons for the results, the first obvious and the second subtle. The obvious reason is jobs. It’s the economy stupid. Both Democrats in the New Jersey and Virginia gubertornial elections blamed BUSH! Didn’t work. The left now owns the economic debacle, as they should. The subtle reason is this: In 2008, the media did its best to make sure that no whisper was made of who Obama really was. There is a clip somewhere of Larry King and a major MSM reporter discussing the fact that they are like Sgt Schultz and ‘know Nothing’ about Obama. Most voters last November had no idea what the hopey, changey thing was all about. Now they have a much firmer idea. A recent Gallop poll (and many others) determined that 75% of Americans are ‘conservative’ or ‘independent’, only 20% are ‘liberal’, and the rest don’t know who they are. On Tuesday, the Dem’s hemorraged independents. The reason is that the independents have figured out that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are really, really ‘liberal’ – and they’re not. Because the media covered up who Obama is ideologically, last November most voters did not have a firm picture in their minds of who the man is. This last year has now fixed him in their mind, to a large extent, and he’s not in a good place. So yesterday was almost certainly the beginning of the end of the Revoltuion, praise Allah. America appears to have dodged the bullet again. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 12:39 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	By now everyone has heard of the high school English honors teacher, Dan DeLong, who was suspended for offering students the Seed magazine article "The Gay Animal Kingdom" by Jonah Lehrer as an optional extra credit assignment. According to the Alton, IL based Telegraph newspaper, DeLong has now been reinstated at Southwestern High School after several hundred students and parents attended a six-hour long disciplinary hearing: At Monday night's meeting, more than 200 people lined the stairs, sidewalk and office space at the district's small unit office at 884 Piasa Road in the Macoupin County village of Piasa. Many of DeLong's supporters had handmade posters and banners stating: "Mr. DeLong Inspires Us," and chanting, "Broadening minds is not a crime." Unfortunately, what it looks like is that DeLong entered a plea deal with the Board of Education where he would admit that the article was "inappropriate" in exchange for going back to work. In a statement that DeLong read, on behalf of both himself and the School Board, this agreement was that: [T]he Board of Education and administrator's concern was never about sexual preference or homophobic condemnation. Rather, the issue of concern was the age appropriateness of the material. . . I agree with the board that the material in my class was not age appropriate for my sophomores and for that I apologize. I understand the board has decided that I shall receive a Notice of Remedial Warning. This is wrong on several levels. First off, this is absolutely about homophobic condemnation. No one would have had any problems with a science article that described the evolution of heterosexual monogamy in voles or gibbons. Such an article would have naturalized a belief that many people hold as the only legitimate kind of relationship for our society today. However, by showing that same-sex pairs exist in the natural world (and that gender is a much more fluid concept than people may have realized) it challenges people's assumptions about what "natural" actually is. Because they were threatened by this idea, the Board is confessing that ANY discussion that homosexuality could be natural is therefore inappropriate. It's homophobia, pure and simple. Secondly, does the Southwestern Board of Education even know what teenagers are exposed to these days? This is the generation that invented sexting and half of whom have had oral sex (according to the National Center for Health Statistics). Students today are fascinated by sexuality and are ardent consumers of information. They know full well that homosexuality exists and that there is currently a "debate" about whether or not all people should be granted human rights. Not only is the discussion of how humans define themselves useful in this regard, it should be required. Across the country we're asking that people vote on the civil rights of people with other sexual orientations. Isn't it a good idea to know something about the issues involved? Plus, Lehrer's article was completely tame and had no explicit content (that is, unless the word "ejaculate" causes you to get the vapors). What this overreaction does is say far more about what makes some parents and school board officials uncomfortable than any need to "protect the children." The whole situation is a farce. If I was still teaching high school students (which I did for about two years) I would use this opportunity to make Lehrer's article required reading and ask students to discuss whether or not they thought a teacher should be suspended for making it available. It would be a terrific lesson in civics. And if not this article, I would certainly make the issues of gay marriage, gay adoption, and gay service in the military part of any discussion on current affairs. What's ironic about the conservative outrage over gay rights is that the "homosexual agenda" is revealing itself to be an inherently conservative movement. Think about it. What other group is advocating for the right to get married, adopt children, and serve in the military? And conservatives have a problem with this? Perhaps a high school teacher somewhere should offer an article to students seeking to explain that strange phenomenon. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 1:27 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	ping [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 7:28 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	P.S. A big loser in Tuesday election was the media and its fast evaporating credibility. In 2006, the Washington Post crucified Geo. Allen in his Senate re-election run over his Macaca quip, leading to his loss of his seat and so much more (had he won, Allen would have been the Republican Presidential nominee in 2008). This time the Washington Post endorsed 29 candidates and less than half (14) won, and many of those were safe seats. All of the Post’s endorsements for statewide office lost. The Post had done nothing but glowing puff pieces about Creigh Deeds (Dem Gov nominee) and offered “a seemingly endless number of [negative] stories about Republican Bob McDonnell and a thesis he wrote in 1989” (NewsBusters). Shades of Macaca. The media’s mendacity in promoting the leftist agenda has become so over-the-top and so widely understood that it is no surprise that readerships and viewer-ships of leftist media outlets is plunging. The MSM is no longer credible as a source of news that isn't biased. That the Post was unsuccessful in doing to McDonnell what it did to Allen is moderately interesting. But it would be reason for hosannas if the MSM’s ability to ruthlessly and dishonestly destroy people and their reputations was substantially diminished. The MSM abdicated its responsibility with regard to vetting Obama in 2006 because they love him. It will be interesting to see if Obama takes the MSM media down with him. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 7:43 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/254849/t ue-november-3-2009-david-plouffe [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 8:01 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Pan What does that link say ? Access seems to be denied to Europeans. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 8:04 PM by Phillippe	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	It describes the drive to remove Presidential term limits, so that George Bush can be brought back for an unprecedented third term in 2012. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 8:20 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Phil I was just asking. I need to learn more about politics, but I think I know enough to know you're teasing. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 8:37 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Phil, A third term is not unprecedented in Cuba or America. FDR was elected to four terms by the time he finally died. P.S. Obama announced his candidacy for president on the steps of the Illinois state house and wrapped himself in the mantle of Lincoln. But he, and the left, always saw him as the Second Coming of FDR. The Obama campaign wanted to come up with something as good as the “New Deal”. They couldn’t, so they just fell back to Alinsky and went with the ‘hopey, changey’ thingy. P.P.S. Geo. Bush the II was not a bad president, but he is history. No one, including the man himself, wants him back in the job. P.P.P.S. Cheney, Cheney! --- Bob Woodward P.P.P.P.S. to pd: So Phil was only partially teasing. Anyway, I humbly suggest I can tell you all you need to know about politics. Just ask! [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 8:57 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	RED SetAI says that your most cherished ambition is to establish a “ Fourth Reich " . Should I wait until he re-programs you before you teach me about politics ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:11 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Pd, setAi’s full title for me is ‘racist, sexist, homophobe’. setAI has been anomalously infrequent on this forum lately. I suspect it is because he has become a Daddy. We lost subTillion to the same affliction. It is a sobering experience that causes one to grow up. Although Sub and Set have both been reprogrammed, I’m still here – because I care and am so nice. Or maybe its just because of good basic programming. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:34 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	setAI has been anomalously infrequent on this forum lately. I suspect it is because he has become a Daddy. We lost subTillion to the same affliction. It is a sobering experience that causes one to grow up. Of course. Forgot about that. SubTillion before my time so I don’t know about him. Are you not a Daddy ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:39 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I am a notorious replicator. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:48 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	OK, sorry I asked. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:50 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Coward. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:53 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	If I had courage, what would I have said ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 10:06 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You are passive and say nothing except cheap stuff. Shame on you. I had some modest hope for you. But you are just another tiresome undeveloped individual at Mind-X. Now you can hate too! What a waste. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 10:17 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Sorry I don’t measure up to your exacting standards. Has anyone ever measured up ? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 10:23 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	All my wives and other friends, passive low boy. Say something. Any ideas? Coward. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 10:26 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	All my wives How may times you been married, or are you a polygamist? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 10:28 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I can see why it's wives instead of wife, but I can't see why it's friends instead of friend. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 10:40 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Tiresome coward. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 10:45 PM by pdco68	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	When faced with such rapier-sharp wit, I must concede. I’m off to sleep. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 10:48 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Knat. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:13 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	as ususal the nazis are terrified the economic slaves used by the businesses in the U.S. who cannot afford to pay for basic living expenses will get a nickel of their money. the stupid thing is we already pay for their medical care in the most expensive place, the emergency rooms you are already socialized you just cry like little girls when it is named. the insurance companies are squeaking like rats about the possibility of govt offered health care instead of single payer. what you idiots don't understand is the insurance companies are saying"please don't throw me in the briar patch". if the govt offers a plan with no preexisting conditions exemptions it means the health insurance companies now will operate an insurance company with no liabilities to speak of. they will continue to deny coverage to anyone who is not a virgin or has saliva and they will have to go to the govt. they will have skewed the statistics overwhelmingly in their favor with no cost benefits to us. we on the other hand will have to charge a reasonable rate to all the insurance companies castoffs running the public option into the dirt. that is not even mentioning the pent up demand that must be satisfied at the begining as i have said before the insurance business is gambling we bet we will get sick and the healthcare providers are betting we won't. they have actuarials to tell them the odds. they have lawyers to write the policies. if you think your ten page credit card fine print is impossible try a two hundred page medical policy. they will fuck you sideways. if our govt can run an army, navy and air force and veterans administration it can run single payer like other nations. i don't hear the nazis squeaking about the socialized army. the fact is that the military has jumped the line. you get a big standing army after you eat all your vegetables. your vegetables are providing the basic needs of your citizens. untill then your military should not be as big as the entire rest of the worlds. why do we need that. why are we so hated to need such a thing? when the single payer system failed to materialize the chances of getting a fair break went out the window [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:32 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Oh, your tears, your tears! How mind dead is the left? Thanks, I guess, zombie food. P.S. Are you a burden to your children? A disgrace to your parents? Or just a stinky fossil? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:34 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	you kiss your mother with that mouth. it's pretty disgusting to hear someone born with a silver spoon in his ass run over the poor and sick. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/04/2009 9:41 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	make that a silver corn cob [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/06/2009 1:25 PM by aldersondrive2007	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Notice he didn't have a good response to your post Zom, instead just starts talking about your parents, and/or potential offspring. A disgusting excuse for humanoid life, who should be handcuffed, ballgaged, and plugged in a corner. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/08/2009 10:36 PM by zombiefood	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	maybe i'm the pervert and he is talking about your mama [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/06/2009 1:27 PM by aldersondrive2007	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	too bad this isn't one of the realities in which you avoided conception and were just a stain on a napkin before being discarding in the garbage.. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/06/2009 1:51 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The Pervert and the Braindead -- Brothers in arms! [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/07/2009 3:24 PM by aldersondrive2007	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"The Pervert and the Braindead -- Brothers in arms!" A meaningless statement, but indicative of your lack of any real creativity. First, you need to respond to Zombiefood's statement with good logical proofs backed up with facts. Also, your definition of pervert needs a good logical development which goes beyond your very narrow idea of what is or isn't acceptable behaviour, and why the definition is better than any other, especially when there are historical differences in what is considered acceptable sexual orientation and behaviour. In many cases, the idea of "pervert" is developed by narrow minded hypocrites that might very well be envious of the freedom and enjoyment that such so called "perverted" individuals have, while hanging onto some absurd idea of moral superiority that was transmitted by a hellucinating schizophreniac some thousands of years ago, as being the proclaimations of an unquestionable authority with a direct, but unprovable connection with a "god" (perhaps, just the right brain communicating with the left brain being construde as an external message from an dissembodied entity). It is very interesting how many individuals who will proclaim so called "christian" values, are the most vile people, who have very narrow ideas of "morality" and will attack others, and mindlessly parrot these ideas as facts, usually from a very narrow, ethnocentric idea that was originally transmitted as fact from the original "unquestionable authority". [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Revolution’s End? posted on 11/12/2009 11:03 PM by gawell	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"The outcome of what the WSJ calls the worst bill in history...." ~ Red hasn't happened, what's the worst so far? bills that suddenly makes millions criminals, or perhaps the lack of one that kills millions more and their are still otherwise innocence criminalized to boot. if only one took care of themselves and practiced some preventive medicine. I don't know, does it only seem that that those that are sickest are likeliest to complain the most and with good reason? You may be reasonably healthy today and resent the sickos who lived like the future would never come, night blindness? color blindness?, blindness blindness? future blindness? when is a disability too disabling to qualify? or just not an acceptable rationale? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/06/2009 12:08 AM by epicurus	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	1) Inherent conflict of interest and moral hazard in the private insurance game: It is impossible to maximize profit and quality of care both at once. 2) If you must think of everything in terms of free markets and competitive capitalism: The people are the source of all capital in the economy, therefore, you can think of health care as a business expense of USA, Incorporated. We can accommodate your conditioning, if it helps you to understand. 3) Political form letters don't really belong here, despite your attempt to couch them in sympathetic terms. Everyone can see right through you. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 5:08 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Curus, first welcome to this benighted place and, relatively speaking, thanks for your comments. Let me start with your second dictum: The people are the source of all capital in the economy. This is Marxism 101. It goes like this: the Worker, by the sweat of his brow, is the source of all wealth, so socialism is the political arrangement by which wealth is returned to its rightful owners. It’s nonsense, of course. Capital arises from an individual or a group of individuals applying intellectual property effectively in commerce to create wealth. No one else has a rightful claim on wealth created by another individual. If I make plowshares, I rightfully own the plowshares I make, until I sell them. If I work for the guy that makes plowshares, I rightfully own the species he pays me, and no more. In what morality would the worker be owed more than what he bargained for? And if that worker doesn’t deserve more, how could some third-party worker deserve more. Your first dictum: It is impossible to maximize profit and quality of care both at once. This is a statement at a high level of generality, applying equally to all economic activity. You could substitute anything for ‘quality of care’. For instance, “it is impossible for mining and oil companies to maximize profit and protect the environment, both at once.” Your underlying moral position is that money and profit corrupt all things – they are the root of evil. Profit arises from greed, or (one of the left’s favorite formulations) “Capitalism puts profits before people”. Your logic is that if some economic function rises to some threshold level of importance, then the State should nationalize it to make sure it is done right, that is ‘fairly’. This isn’t so much old Marxism as it is American Academic Neo-Marxism. In truth, profit is highly moral and is necessary for an efficient economy. That is why economies without profit are failures. The pursuit of profit creates the wealth of a nation and its people. I’ve discussed ‘Greed and Evil’ here: http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html?main=/m indx/show_thread.php?rootID%3D146950 http://tinyurl.com/yhfnfev Your third dictum: Political form letters don't really belong here, despite your attempt to couch them in sympathetic terms. Everyone can see right through you. This issue was touched on above in this thread. You are ideologically opposed to what I’ve said, so you cast it as illegitimate and would like to censor speech with which you disagree. Go find the thread about the Turing apology letter and lodge your complaint. If not, you’re just another double-standard hypocrite. My initial post was neither political, partisan nor even very ideological (my letter was addressed to two Dem Senators, so anti-Party partisanship wouldn’t have been very effective). You’ve accused me otherwise and responded with Marxist pap. That is also hypocritical. So Curus, so far you’re not being serious. Anyhow, what you really want to say is that free minds and free markets preclude equal outcomes – and you don’t like that. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 5:36 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	A couple of questions, RED No one else has a rightful claim on wealth created by another individual. Is wealth "created"? What does this mean, in a very specific way? If I make plowshares, I rightfully own the plowshares I make, until I sell them. Where did you get the materials to make plowshares? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 6:03 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Property is an ill defined term, entirely based on medieval conceptions. If I go outside and pick up a rock, and declare, "This rock is mine!", other than my declaration, what actually makes it "mine"? To the point: underpinning your belief in capitalism and free markets is the idea that exploitation is moral and fair. Now, I'm not going to go into the moral relativism of exploitation, and whether or not it's actually moral, or whether there is an even more moral method. But, if socialism is based on exploitation, then I don't understand why someone who argues for capitalism (which, when boiled down) is also based on exploitation, would care. In the beginning, someone has to stake a claim on part of the natural world, for their to be any wealth to begin with. How can you apply morality to this most basic claim to begin with? And if you can't (why shouldn't I just lay claim to the Sun right now it hasn't been claimed yet by anyone, so couldn't I "rightfully" claim it as my own), then why would you feel that socialism is somehow less moral than capitalism. They're both based on exploitation. If you're really operating from a competitive, dog-eat-dog perspective, than it shouldn't really matter what economic or political system you exist in: those who survive, survive. If competition is really what it's all about, than quit complaining and rise to the top of the system you're in. Socialism is competitive too, it just has different rules. Success is the only measure in a purely competitive paradigm, so the actual system being employed is irrelevant: you're basically saying that your not man enough to compete in a socialistic setting. And you can't complain that you only want capitalism because it creates the most good for the most people, because in your ultra-competitive view, the most good for the most people is irrelvant. Bottom line is, if you really value competition and individualism as much as you say you do, then apply that mindset to whatever system you find yourself in. Who cares if millions of people are abused by a socialist system, as long as YOU can rise to the top? In the end, only the 'winners' (no matter who they are, or what economic/political system they begin in) are the "capitalists", and the 'losers' (no matter who they are, or what economic/political system they begin in) are "socialists". There is no such thing as 'fairness', so why try to make the claim that capitalism is more 'fair', why not just say, "Capitalism gives ME a better advantage, that's why I like it." Who cares which one is more fair (if, as you say, individualism and competition are all you care about), just RISE TO THE TOP IN WHATEVER SYSTEM YOU HAPPEN TO BE IN - THAT is real competition. Stop pretending you're advocating free markets because you care about others. Capitalism is amoral at best (by it's very literal definition, which is self-interest, not other-interest), and while I prefer it to any other system that's been invented so far (citing the usual suspects - feudalism, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.), there is something better - autonomy and egalitarianism: this would be the meta-moral stage beyond capitalism. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 6:03 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Are you serious? You obviously have an agenda -- Why don’t you just spit it out? (please keep it short). Wealth is created when something of value is brought into existence –- whether food or craft. Materials are either purchased, or ‘reduced to capture’ -- that is harvested. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 6:12 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Wealth is created when something of value is brought into existence –- whether food or craft. So then their is no property; everything was 'created' in the beginning of this universe. Under the most literal definition you have provided, humans can't own property at all: we merely change, or transmute things, never create. Materials are either purchased, From whom? Who is the original 'purchaser'? Point being that all property, as it's defined by modern definitions, is the product of theft at some point in time. If you're ok with exploitation, then why you do you merely complain about SOME forms of exploitation, why not just admit that you value exploitation itself (which can occur under any social/political/economic system) and DISPENSE withe your MORAL RELATIVISM. or ‘reduced to capture’ -- that is harvested. Which is another way of saying exploited. Do farmers pay their plants a wage? How about the animals they kill for meat, are they paid a wage? And what about the land they live on? What makes their claim to that land "right" (don't say because they "purchased" it, because this just goes into a regression - who did THAT person purchase it from, and who did THAT person purchase it from, and who did THAT person purchase it from....and so on - all the way back to the original 'thief' or 'exploiter' who stole the damn piece of land in the first place - all purchase of property can be traced back to theft - so why would you have a problem with people stealing in a modern context, no matter what system of 'laws' they use to justify it - exploitation is exploitaiton...either you can cut it or not). [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 6:18 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You obviously have an agenda -- Why don’t you just spit it out? No agenda, just pointing out that all systems of exploitation are equally shit in my eyes, whether it's capitalism, socialism, communism, or any kind of monkey brained territorial crap-ism. Capitalism is no different. So it's hypocritical to claim some kind of moral superiority for capitalism, when if you believe in competition, then you believe in exploitation: so GO FORTH and EXPLOIT, and stop yapping about how UNFAIR socialism is, because there is NO SUCH thing as fairness to begin with, if you come from a truly individualistic, competitive stance - kill or be killed - socialism or capitalism - eat your enemies, steal from your friends - cruch all opposition, whether you have to do this through socialistic means, or capitalistic means, DOESN'T MATTER...just win, at any cost. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 6:27 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	To boil it down even simpler: Capitalism: zero-sum game. Socialism: zero-sum game. Communism: zero-sum game. Fascism/feudalism; zero-sum game. Open source autonomous egalitarianism: positive sum game. Where do we go from here? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 8:44 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>To boil it down even simpler: >Capitalism: zero-sum game. Unless the capitalism is totally free- enterprise without any government involvement. If it is totally free enterprise, industries in general -- NOT just multinationals and fiat money-fueled, overly consolidate corporations -- will eventually develop the technology to explore and colonize the rest of the Solar System. To the degree we aren't exploring and colonizing the Solar System, you will have a zero sum game because a planet is a tiny piece of real that has very limited resources. >Socialism: zero-sum game. Socialism is a unworkable economic system because it builds weak individuals that, instead of expanding and growing, become reliant on government largiss. The more reliant, the more its citizens will inevitably suffer and deteriorate. Socialism is the death of the individual and a via to totalitarianism. Socialism is a zero-sum game because its end-product is a massive war where everyone dies, including the government. >Communism: zero-sum game. Communism is the same as socialism except what was discussed above happens faster. Communism is socialism with the volume turned up. >Fascism/feudalism; zero-sum game. Fascism is just another form of totalitarianism like communism and socialism. It's a zero sum game because the government's gain is the citizenry's loss. >Open source autonomous egalitarianism: positive sum game. The word "egalitarianism" has a nice ring but it's actually a nefarious word. All people have the RIGHT to equality, but are NOT EQUAL. Governments seeking power, and the not-quite-bright always fall for this word because they think they are being altruistic by insisting everyone is "equal." Unfortunately this equality is usually attained by taking from one group and giving to another group. To the degree a government can use force to do this, it garners power for itself ... and of course this is the game governments play. By stroking on the heart-strings of decent people, governments fuck their way into the economy and society "make sure everything is equal." This is their "justification" and it is a ploy for endless expansion. In a civilization where everyone has EQUAL RIGHTS, as guaranteed by the Constitution, it's not the fault of the industrious if some people wish to live their lives in a more leisurely way. But if the industrious obtain wealth, they should not be forced by government to share such wealth at gun point. That's what socialism is all about and it's a zero-sum game because the end result is everyone is dead. >Where do we go from here? Where we go from here is we better start applying the philosophic infrastructure of the U.S. Constitution better; disconnect from all sources of cultural Marxism and stop supporting fascist multinationals, the Federal Reserve System, globalization, "free" trade and fed-member banks. Also, all members of Congress must be purged continuously until things improve. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 9:36 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Unless the capitalism is totally free- enterprise without any government involvement. Exactly what I've been saying, good to see we're in agreement. The only way to get to "without any government involvement" is to dissolve government - permanently. This should be self-evident (there's nothing mysterious about it: government will ALWAYS get involved). If it is totally free enterprise, industries in general -- NOT just multinationals and fiat money-fueled, overly consolidate corporations -- will eventually develop the technology to explore and colonize the rest of the Solar System. Hmmm...not so sure about the "colonize the rest of the Solar System" bit...aside from perspective on Singularity, you do realize you're just putting the same problem off for awhile, right? Where to after the Solar System? The galaxy? And when the galaxy is full? It's like the catastrophe scenario: 600 million years from now the Earth will no longer support biology (without terraforming), 5 billion: sun explodes, unknown-billion: galaxies collide, and so on...on a long enough time line.... To the degree we aren't exploring and colonizing the Solar System, you will have a zero sum game because a planet is a tiny piece of real that has very limited resources. I get it. You've also accepted that exploitation is unavoidable, and at least see the way to peace is through discovery of ever expansive horizons. If I thought this was actually the case, then I'd agree with you on basic principles. >Open source autonomous egalitarianism: positive sum game. The word "egalitarianism" has a nice ring but it's actually a nefarious word. 'Egalitarianism' is the word I use to describe the same thing you've been describing: NO government involvement. The word 'anarchy' has got a bad rap lately, so I don't use it anymore. All people have the RIGHT to equality, but are NOT EQUAL. Hmmm...not sure about the information density in that statement. Governments seeking power, and the not-quite-bright always fall for this word because they think they are being altruistic by insisting everyone is "equal." Unfortunately this equality is usually attained by taking from one group and giving to another group. Sure, sure, "some are more equal than others". The egalitarianism I'm talking about is an utter lack of authority - no laws, no government. To the degree a government can use force to do this, it garners power for itself Which it ALWAYS does, the competitive impulse alone insures it. All systems fight for their own survival. ...and of course this is the game governments play. Because it's the "only game in town". By stroking on the heart-strings of decent people, governments fuck their way into the economy and society "make sure everything is equal." Not really sure who decent people are. Maybe Taoist monks, they seem pretty decent. Jains had a good idea once too. Transhumanists, although weird at times, seem fairly decent. This is their "justification" and it is a ploy for endless expansion. You're ploy is endless expansion as well, you just want to move it to the stars. In a civilization where everyone has EQUAL RIGHTS, as guaranteed by the Constitution, it's not the fault of the industrious if some people wish to live their lives in a more leisurely way. But if the industrious obtain wealth, they should not be forced by government to share such wealth at gun point. That's what socialism is all about and it's a zero-sum game because the end result is everyone is dead. Monopolies bad: got it. What about when the "industrious" monopolize all the natural resources, and their isn't anything left for anyone else to exploit? Another monopoly? Oh, right, you're solution is space exploration: capitalism in space, rather than trying to reconcile the fact that humans are both socially inclined, and individualistic, that we can achieve an integration. Where we go from here is we better start applying the philosophic infrastructure of the U.S. Constitution better; disconnect from all sources of cultural Marxism and stop supporting fascist multinationals, the Federal Reserve System, globalization, "free" trade and fed-member banks. Also, all members of Congress must be purged continuously until things improve. Are you an idealogical billboard? Do you ever speak from the heart, or just regurgitate this stuff? Seems you're heart and mind are basically in the right place, but as I've said before, I merely think you're anachronistic. The past is no more. Looking backwards is not going to solve anything. The future is more bizarre than even I can imagine, and believe me, I've seen some really strange shit in my life. It helps to understand technology's future. luck to you...I'm sure we'll meet up after the knee of the curve passes :) kallisti Pan [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 9:34 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	All blithering nonsense. Ownership of property is a Natural Right that is fundamental to enabling other Natural Rights. “Capitalism”, a word for free markets, is merely the economic system that results when Natural Rights are enshrined in a political system. Hence, free markets, aka ‘capitalism’, is the only moral system. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 9:51 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Ownership of property is a Natural Right that is fundamental to enabling other Natural Rights. What is the a priori basis for "ownership" being a "Natural Right"? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 10:02 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	A priori basis of property is life and liberty. Without property rights, there can be no liberty, and hence no life worth living (the pursuit of happiness). The Natural Rights of life and liberty necessitate property rights. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 10:04 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Pure anachronism. Problem is, there's no "just" way to define property, which was my point. Property is distributed by 'claims'. See, I tend to take things super-literally. What makes a 'claim' just, is my question to you? I could claim the sun as my own, it's an unclaimed natural resource, and as far as I know, no one owns it yet, so I am hereby officiating my claim to the sun. And all it's light. You owe me buddy, you've been using my light for a long time, I'll be easy on you and not charge any interest if you pay in full by next week. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 10:14 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	James gets this - that's why he talks about space expansion. Because, boiled down, there is no such thing as a "just" claim on any resource. Other than, "I got it, you don't!", what makes anyones's claim on a resource 'just' to begin with? I could just declare that some x resource is mine, but what makes it so? What we have now is a complicated and obfuscating method of tricking people into thinking their is some 'lawful' or 'just' way of justifying some person's claims on resources. Who owns that river? That hill? The gold underneath it? Is it whomever says they own it? Whoever digs it up (and in that case, is it the person who actually does the digging, or the person who bought the shovel? and who made the shovel, does he get a percentage of the gold dug up with the shovel? and where did that shovel come from anyway?) The underlying message, REDquist, is this: all forms of economy to date are reliant on EXPLOITATION...capitlaism is no exception...we just dicker over the ins and outs and details of how, when, and who get's to do the exploitin'... no system of exploiting is more just than any other... ...hence why James talks about going to space...he get's this underlying fact, and his solution is to break open those boundaries, and carry exploitation to the outer limits...not my solution, but I understand where he's coming from. I'd rather solve this dilemma of human nature, by uploading. You're just an old stuffy man, clinging to the past, and institutionalization. [Reply] [Parent]

		Division of Resources? posted on 11/12/2009 11:33 AM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>... boiled down, there is no such thing as a "just" claim on any resource. Other than, "I got it, you don't!", what makes anyones's claim on a resource 'just' to begin with? Ethics, morality, law ("Justice") are often different under different circumstances. I'm not saying Justice is always relative, for certainly things like murder will always be wrong (unless, of course, a government does it in war :). But the circumstances under which individuals are more at liberty to claim natural resources ARE relative to things like population and common good. Take Niagara Falls for instance. Would it be Just for some settler to claim that real estate as his own and thus deprive millions of people electrical power Tesla extracted from it? It doesn't seem right, yet at the same time, the principle that a new nation with plenty of real estate should be open to those settlers who were willing to develop such resources.(1) So, with the issue of natural resources and who or what entity owns them, we have a situational problem. I am not sure one answer or principle can fit all circumstances at all times. Thus, given the complexity of this problem, I think civilized society has to develop principles to cover various issues. Some of the salient issues are: o First to discover the resource; o Uniqueness of the resource; o Potential value of resource to society; o Quantity of similar resources; o Demand for resource based on population; o Demand for resource based on other factors. I don't believe there is or can be one universal answer for all of these, such universal answer being something like: an INDIVIDUAL gets the resource or the COLLECTIVE gets the resource. Sure it's unfair when early businessmen like Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller get control of resources and then use the power of government to close out all others, but one must weigh this with these mens' right to amortize their cost of development. This is a difficult problem for humanity, and one I feel can be remedied to a great deal by outward expansion. Your point about taking a same unfair system to the stars is well-taken Pan, but I don't think any specific 'same system' really exists, because, as stated above, much of this is situational. James ---------------------- (1) In real estate this "development" is known as "highest and best use". Highest and best use is of course subjective, however current "civilization" usually considers highest and best use synonymous with "what use of the real estate will generate the most profit." This criteria is laughable to those who do not worship money and it's laughable to those who have GoogleVideo-watched ZEITGEIST ADDENDUM and agree with it's views on profit-mongering (as I do, to a great extent). [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 10:27 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The philosophical and political concept of property and ownership has been codified into Law. Ownership of property is defined by rules of title. When no superior title exists, then possession usually suffices. Unowned naturally occurring things can become owned by being ‘reduced to capture’. The classic example is a fox. If I capture the fox, I then own it. Men properly form governments to secure Natural Rights. Rights and titles vested in the Sovereign are superior to all other rights, titles or mere claims. You haven’t captured the Sun and your ‘claim’ is merely a silly assertion. If there were some claim to ownership of the Sun, the Sovereign would be first in line. I owe you nothing, but I’m soon going to start charging you for disabusing your foolishness. So stop before you run up a big bill. I understand you’re a lousy credit. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 10:45 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The philosophical and political concept of property and ownership has been codified into Law. All of your Laws are corrupt, and unethical. Ownership of property is defined by rules of title. And who makes the rules? Who hands out the titles? When no superior title exists, then possession usually suffices. No superior titles exist. Define "possession", in a scientific way. Unowned naturally occurring things can become owned by being ‘reduced to capture’. You don't see the dichotomy? What gives an inanimate the status of being "unowned" in the first place? Reduced to capture? Ok, I'm reducing all currently unowned resources (including the sun itself) to capture as of now. By your logic, this should work. I've just declared my claim on an unowned piece of real estate (and if you think this is a ridiculous example, look at what's happening to the arctic and the lunar surface right now). There is no truly just way to define a claim on any natural resource, from the beginning. It comes down to, "I got here first" or "It's mine", which is why people are killing over it in the first place. There simply is no logical basis for defining claim (or at least not one that is both logical and just). The classic example is a fox. If I capture the fox, I then own it. This is the 'might makes right' argument. As I tried to state earlier, I'm not actually trying to argue whether this is right or wrong, but to get you to admit that that's the position you're arguing from: you believe in "might makes right". He who holds the guns, holds the property. You believe in force and authority, but when cornered about it, you try to back out. Men properly form governments to secure Natural Rights. Crap. Rights and titles vested in the Sovereign are superior to all other rights, titles or mere claims. Blah blah blah, regurgitation of what was instilled in you by your institutions. You haven’t captured the Sun and your ‘claim’ is merely a silly assertion. How is it any sillier than any other claim to a natural resource? What constitutes "capture"? If there were some claim to ownership of the Sun, the Sovereign would be first in line. Soveriegn? I owe you nothing, but I’m soon going to start charging you for disabusing your foolishness. So stop before you run up a big bill. I understand you’re a lousy credit. I'd sue you for false advertising. You didn't deliver the product I ordered ;) Cheers [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 10:54 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Btw, that's how homesteading and the gold rush worked...people running around everywhere, showing up somewhere, pointing at shit, and going, "That's mine! I claim it!" How is that just? And why can't I do it today? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 10:58 AM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Btw, that's how homesteading and the gold rush worked...people running around everywhere, showing up somewhere, pointing at shit, and going, "That's mine! I claim it!" How is that just? And why can't I do it today? Because people have squandered the resources granted by the planey on creature comforts while ignoring their responsibility to get out there and explore and colonize distant lands on other worlds. You will never see where I'm coming from on this colonization thing until you read Robert Zubrin's book, ENTERING SPACE. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 1:57 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Oh, I do James. I see where you're coming from, and I would completely agree with you if it weren't for my perspective on the singularity. I don't think it Pan's out that way. I think we go hyperspatial. Think of it this way: you see spatial expansion as necessary to make free markets sustainable, as their are no 'frontiers' left on Earth for pioneers (exploiters) to 'homestead'. On a long enough timeline, this WILL cause a collapse. I agree with that. However, rather than expanding further into 3D space, and colonizing other planets, I think we go 4D (hyperspatial), and connect to the hypernet that has already been built by other species who have gone singular. See, I want expansion too, just not into the 3D world, which seems a bit too constrained and limited for my tastes. I want to expand into the multiverse, through hypercomputation. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 1:43 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I owe you for the sun's light? How you gonna stop service? Granted people took property by violence, but the essence of capitalism is that people trade for property. I want what you have, I have two basic options. I can get control of the law with my power(and that'll cost a great deal), or I can simply make you an offer. If you refuse, I can raise the offer until you agree. or not. At that point, anything else I do to take your property becomes an injustice. The proper solution is to look for the next best thing, the next best piece of property and offer a price for that. This is basic "duh" stuff. Also, If I organize an effort and hire a thousand laborers to dig the ground up for me, they are paid as they agreed. They receive an offer they considered fair in return for a service I considered to be a fair trade. That's called contract. It's not relative, situational, or subject to bullshit planning from a collective perspective. Those who create the wealth deserve to get the rewards. The power of the mind is greater than the power of labor. How many centuries do you want us to go in retrograde evolution? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 2:07 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	This is moral relativizing doojie...I used claiming the sun as my own to point out the underlying absurdity of claiming that their is anything 'just' about the way we view 'claims' on natural resources to begin with. I wasn't even trying to argue whether claiming anything was itself 'right' or 'wrong', just trying to get extremists and polarizers to realize that all modern economic/political systems are built upon exploitation. The nature of exploitation itself is another subject, but it annoys me when people try to obfuscate their particular brand of exploitation as being exploitative. Claiming that it's more 'just' than some other flavor of exploitation. As I've said, capitalism is at best amoral. Which is fine, it's better than most other alternatives. Remember, the progression of morality goes like this: Immoral (those who accept their cultures moral standards, but don't follow them) Moral (those who accept their cultures moral standards and follow them - or make an attempt to) Amoral (those who break out of the moral 'box', and don't accept external moral authority) Altruism - also called Supermoral by Jung (those who integrate the 'self' with the 'other', realizing their is no separation) Roughly speaking: Immoral: Slavery Moral: Serfdom Amoral: Capitalism Altruism: Open source I've merely been pointing out all along that it's time for humanity to evolve to the next stage, I think we're ready. I know people like to drag the argument down into this 'Well, if you point out a flaw in capitalism, you must be a pinko commie' bullshit. They're like the talking heads on TV. Like Alex Jones. Seeking only to inflame and incite and rile people up. Putting pitchforks and torches in their hands. I'm here merely to tell people that they are free, and always have been. When we recognize the freedom in ourselves, and perhaps more importantly, in Others....then really magical things start to happen. kallisti Pan [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 2:42 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Karl Marx: Slavery => Serfdom => Capitalism => Communism. “Open Source” is just a political theory enabling the unproductive and untalented to loot the productive and the talented. The theory exposes the greed and depravity of its proponents. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 2:57 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-15-2 009/the-bush-years--jon-s-dubya-impression-mashup http://tinyurl.com/ye29ku8 [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 3:38 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Capitalism was never intended to be the moral process of doing things. It was merely the best process of allocation in times of scarcity. As wealth increased, obviously those who wanted more had to convince the world that scaricty existed, and the best way, as James pointed out was to monopolize the issue of currency and create permanent scarcity of that. Today, scarcity is the least of our problems, and competition for plenty seems ridiculous. However, I do agree with you that we are free now, and merely need to realize it. This, however, does not mean we just make laws to take over wealth, but find alternative sources. My friend Tom Greco gives a good talk on this video: http:vimeo.com/7490027 [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 3:39 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	try that again: http://vimeo.com/7490027 [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 9:54 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	enshrined in a political system I'm here to desecrate your shrines. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 10:03 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	You’re unarmed. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 10:16 PM by Pandemonium1323	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I light the fires while the city sleeps. I am a thousand cats. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 10:20 PM by Phillippe	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I am a thousand cats. Again with the cats. Thank you commie airhead. [Reply] [Parent]

		What is Capitalism posted on 11/12/2009 10:55 AM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	>Ownership of property is a Natural Right that is fundamental to enabling other Natural Rights. “Capitalism”, a word for free markets, is merely the economic system that results when Natural Rights are enshrined in a political system. Hence, free markets, aka ‘capitalism’, is the only moral system. True, but MONOPOLY capitalism and UNBRIDALED capitalism give CAPITALISM a bad name; that's why it's important to distinguish it by specifying FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM. Monopolies do NOT promote free-markets, they inhibit them. Corporations that use fiat money and government priviledges to consolidate to the point of monopolies are UNBRIDALED because they have unfair advantage over other corporations. James [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/11/2009 8:18 PM by James_Jaeger	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Good post REDquist. To anyone who may be listening (as I know REDquist already knows what I am about to say): Socialized medicine is NOT the way to go because any time you have a monopoly supplying products or services, it is inevitable quality will suffer and prices will sore. A government is a monopoly thus it has no business delivering but a narrow spectrum of services. Government's basic function is to protect liberty and provide for the common defense, NOT make endless laws that redistribute wealth, provide social benefits or police the world. The U.S. Government and other governments around the world are WAY out of line because they have been funding their expansion with fraudulent fiat money. When a country finds that it "must" rely on its government for any product or service, including insurance for health care, that country has failed as an economic unit. If a country is doing well as an economic unit, then it does not need government, ipso facto. Free enterprise capitalism breaks down whenever you have ANY government involvement in business or the economy. Monopolies simply have no idea what makes a business run, thus they are unqualified to be involved. The more they are involved the worse things get and the more ignorant people cry to the government to do something. Governments want this and justify their expansion in this way. It's a game. Every organism has its methods of surviving and expanding. A government -- which is defined as THE APPLICATION OF FORCE, or MEN WITH GUNS -- gets into the private markets and starts using their monopoly on force to muck things up. Then naieve and ignorant people in society scream for more government to "fix" it. It's totally insane and wiser beings are going to have to take responsibility for this. James Jaeger [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 2:28 PM by Oceans With-in-me	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://video.pbs.org/video/1050712790/ [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/12/2009 3:30 PM by mekanikalmekka	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	bio-resonance lasers [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: The Future of Medicine posted on 11/18/2009 10:46 AM by Oceans With-in-me	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	http://video.pbs.org/video/1050712790/ UNITED KINGDOM Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3 Average family premium: None; funded by taxation. Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays. What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients. How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader. What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures. JAPAN An interview with an expert on Japan's system + Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8 Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half. Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income. What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector. How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down. What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home. GERMANY An interview with an expert on Germany's system + Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7 Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income. Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt. What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums. How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do. What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds. TAIWAN An interview with an expert on Taiwan's system + Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3 Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four. Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children. What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program. How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world. What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted. SWITZERLAND An interview with an expert on Switzerland's system + Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6 Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens. Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year. What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums. How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government. What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them. [Reply] [Parent]

		Propaganda from the Frontline posted on 11/18/2009 7:12 PM by REDquist	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Thanks for your post from the Public Broadcasting System’s “Frontline” program, Oceans. However, Can we talk? Frontline present a propagandistic picture. The basic issue is statism versus free markets. The statists argue that it is ‘better’ if government provides universal healthcare, rather than simply having a free market for medical care. There are two principle motives of the statists for tirelessly pushing government healthcare, one seldom stated and the other never stated. The sometime expressed reason is that Universal healthcare is equal – nobody gets better healthcare than anyone else. The unstated reason is that government healthcare is the linchpin of an unlimited state. Healthcare is a massive part of any economy and everyone needs healthcare. Government control of healthcare mean the people are at the mercy of the state, will usually receive poor service and will constantly beg for more government. The statists seldom put forward their real motives for socialized healthcare, and argue that socialized healthcare will be ‘better’. To most people, “better” means things like more efficient, more accurate, better service, and cheaper. So statists argue that if only the U.S. system was socialized it would be ‘better’! It wouldn’t. Most of the problems with the U.S. healthcare system is that it suffers from a half-assed implementation of socialized medicine now. Your post is an example of arguing that socialized medicine would be ‘better’. The point of it is that if the U.S. adopted socialized medicine it would cost less! On another thread we had a post claiming, based a rating system, that the U.S. had poorer healthcare than places like Venezuela. Then there are the life expectancy comparisons in which the U.S. fares poorly because, the statists argue, we don’t have socialized healthcare. The healthcare in the U.S. is so bad, that many Americans wish they were Cubans! It’s all bogus, of course. For instance, if you bore down into the cost data for the U.S. healthcare system, you find out that the cost is much higher than it should be because of features of the system imposed by the statists. If the healthcare market were ‘freer’, it would be ‘better’. Do you seriously believe that the proposed ‘reform’ of the U.S. healthcare would result in lower costs? Let me give you another example that illustrates the cost comparisons you have presented: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is the type of group that is empowered by socialized medicine, announced the other day that women shouldn’t have annual breast screening between the ages of 40 and 50. Doctors howled. Women that develop breast cancer in their 40’s are most susceptible to the most deadly forms of the disease. But this decision makes perfect sense in a socialized system. The chance of developing breast cancer between 40 and 50 is one third less than between 50 and 60! The cost- benefit of not screening younger women is positive! Sure, lots more women will die of breast cancer, but the net to society is a savings. And there really isn’t much social utility to reconstructive breast surgery for the old gals, so look at the additional savings right there! This would rank as “better” healthcare in the type of analysis used to evaluate the U.S. healthcare system. The system could be made even better if we did less of the those pesky PSAs for prostrate cancer. Here’s an overview of the real story. The U.S. has traditional taxed around 20% of GNP and spent somewhat more than that. Since 2006, U.S. taxing and spending has been rising rapidly and has really taken off this year. Euro-socialist countries have taxed more like 40-50% of GNP and spent somewhat more. The Euro-socialists have near cradle-to-grave welfare, while the U.S. doesn’t quite -- and the ES’s don’t spend much on defense, and the U.S. does. The U.S. statists (all associated in one way or another with the Dems) want to restructure the U.S. in the image of Euro-socialism with at least 40-50% of GNP disposed of by government, and with much less spent on defense. The opposition wants to shrink government dramatically. Socializing healthcare in the U.S. will get the statists a long way down the path they want to go, because it will bring on the order of an additional 15% of GNP into government. Healthcare could be made much better and much freer in the U.S. with a basket of needed reforms that I’ve presented here before. Basically, get the government out of healthcare except for those on the dole/charity, and the government pays full fare for those cases – that is, no cost shifting to the private system. Everything about healthcare in the U.S would be ‘better’. But the statists can’t permit that to happen. (See Atreju’s post “National Ill Health Service” above: “Contrary to popular belief, private medical insurance costs on average one quarter the cost of the median wage [British national healthcare insurance] contributions.”) I think that Mike Savage wrote a book entitled “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. I haven’t read the book and always thought the title tongue-in-cheek, but watching the continuing crisis here in the U.S. (and seeing the thinking of Mind-Xers), I think that the book has a valid point. How mentally impaired is someone that thinks that government can take over healthcare, and it will be ‘better’, that is cheaper, more efficient with better service and better outcomes? You’d have to be quite nuts. [Reply] [Parent]