OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Second our doctors would be changed to a fixed government income

Now on a more personal thing this time, me, medical docter (I know this might be a shock to some ), is not very happy with this. Few reasons: first here I make, and will make in the future (I'm not a specialist .. yet (I hope)) less money than american docters. I do however put loads of hours into my job (american docters even more btw) Still I make, and will be making less money than quite a lot of pplz who didn't work as hard in university .. pplz in business etc etc. I'm kind of opposed to limiting my income even further (well income of my american colleague's but the idea is the same.) Not to mention the fact that if we where to work for salaries we'd probably start working 38 hours weeks too and healthcare would crash, it would crash directly.

Then again this is for me a great reason to mention the fact I'm VERY MUCH against a flat tax rate (even though it's obvious it will probably benefit me now already and will certainly benefit me a lot in the future) I do think that those whe earn (or get) more cash should pay more. Some business man or prof sportsman IMHO seriously never should get payed more as a docter (I love my job and do it because I honestly think docters are have the best job and should earn most ) but if they do they certainly should pay more taxes . I also think that those who get less cash than me should not pay as much taxes.

Universal public healthcare from other countries have experienced some of the big problems you mention in the major cities. Unfortunately once the USA owns public healthcare it will never release it, and there will probably be big problems as a result.

I read your statement about being against flat tax rate, but I don't see the specific reasons why you are against it. Your statements make it sound like you're more for this type of change.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I have to comment here, in the middle of the thought. It just seems that you are unaware that the problem is the bureaucracy itself. It's not *just* healthcare that it is bungling up. It is screwing up just about everything that it has a thumb in, and why? It's not simply because NO government can handle large projects responsibly, it's because OUR government can't handle projects responsibly. If people would quit towing a party line, and quit making illogical attacks against the "sworn political enemy", maybe we could work out a governmental paradigm that is actually effectual.

This has nothing to do with the viability of a national health care system, and everything to do with our dysfunctional government. Perhaps you would like to explain to me how so many other industrialized nations pull off the illusion of accomplishing the impossible feat of comprehensive national health care?

Ummmm, the way that insurance in general is supposed to work, is much more simple than that, and is the essence of how "socialized" programs like national health care could and should work. The basic idea is to statistically determine the odds of severe illness, and project the costs of dealing with that illness. In abstract terms, this means that if we say that 1 in 10 people will eventually suffer from a malady that costs $1000 dollars to treat, but we have no idea which 10% of the people, then we simply need everyone to to pay in $100 to cover the expenses of those who are afflicted.

One of the reasons that this system is starting to break down as it is (not to bring up greed from every party involved), is the skyrocketing instances of cancer, heart disease, and all manner of other extremely expensive ailments in America. Odd, when you consider how many of these diseases in fact could be avoided or reduced in severity if proper measures were put in place (like making sure everyone has adequate access to early screening to detect cancer when it can be dealt with at a fraction of the cost, and a fraction of the risk).

I'm glad that -someone- thinks that McCain's plan is not only an actual plan, but a good one at that.

The problem with McCain's solution, is first, it's a tax credit, NOT a check for $5000 (where in hell would THAT money come from? 300mil+ people, that's 1.5 trillion dollars a year if it were true). There's an enormous, gaping hole in this idea though - the vast majority of the uninsured in America don't even make enough (and therefore generate anywhere near enough if Federal Income Taxes) to fully benefit from this.

But really, the boner here, is that if he really somehow managed to find $1.5 trillion (every year!) to throw at the health care problem, he could make it go away MUCH more easily than by forcing the individual to deal with things.

Oh, and a little anecdote, because I know everyone loves my anecdotes. After suffering severe migraines and other terrible side effects from all of the pharmaceutical antihistamines I tried (too bad I can't have ephedra, it worked wonders, but some people "abuse" it, so much for liberty), I was given a prescription for Allegra. Well, Allegra worked quite well for me, and while I was eligible for the Oregon Health Plan, I was paying $15/month for that medicine, and they picked up the rest. But once I was off the health plan, the cost went to $90/month. $3 a tablet, just for an antihistime. Over $1000/year that I can't pay right now, that McCain's plan will not even touch because I earn so little in my current state of health, that I don't even pay taxes at all, and thus would not receive any "credit".

<3

Jim, I think you are unaware of the current status of US tax laws.

Simplifying it - a bit.

Suppose your income were 20,000. and you had kids. and you were below a poverty line. The government gives you a refund despite the fact that you have paid no taxes. A portion of this is called the Earned Income Tax Credit.

When you file your taxes, things like deductions and tax credits increase the size of your deduction.

Secondly, I didn't say I agreed with McCains plan in its entirety - I said it had the seeds of some solutions to our present health care mess. FAR more than Obamas blanket expansion.

Thirdly, as others have alluded you are comparing apples and rocks - but I suggest its more like spaceships and boogars. When americans think about health care, they think about going to the doctor of their choice, and getting cutting edge medical care.

Comparing that to another nations national health care really is like comparings space ships to boogars. Please do compare american health care to any second or third world country.
You might think that unfair - fine. Would you agree that UK would be an acceptable comparison?

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

While I disagree with your argument that it is necessary to show legal evidence in order to prove that a candidates behaviour is relevent - nonetheless, here you go.

Take a look a Berg V. Obama, a.k.a Berg V. the DNC. Filed by a Democrat, in the Philadephia circuit.

I did. He doesn't have any documents backing his claims either. He just calculatedly filed a lawsuit against Obama to attack his position when he was competing against Clinton. If this lawsuit is being resolved at some time and if evidence is unearthed that there is something fishy, then I will re-adjust my position accordingly. But so far it's nothing but empty accusations, and the motto is "In dubio pro reo".

Edit: I didn't bother to read the rest of your post closely before since it seemed that you were unable to comply by my request to give evidence to back your theories. I just read the rest of it now.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Here is a further example of why a candidates action do matter.
Attached is a link putattively to an attorney search in illinois for Barrack Obama. Notice that it has no other names listed for Barrack - notice also evidence that he did indeed go by Barry Soetero. http://www.mikefrancesa.com/wordpress/?p=976

That is exactly the school registration that I have been referring to some pages back already, in case it was news to you. You may want to reread my posts.

The rest of your post is useless ranting again, I'm afraid that you still have no clothes.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Mithras

You've managed to make the whole thing more apealing, the thing is its still going to come with the cost of changing the system. And the rich pretty much run the US government, or so I have been led to believe... So you'd have trouble anyway.

I'd rather go thru the trouble of arguing with the rich instead of feeling guilty of what could have been done for those less fortunate.

Originally Posted by Mithras

On this basis alone I would disagree with the policy, as stated above, any form of universal healthcare is better than none at all. I refuse to attach any worth to human life, except in terms of other human lives. (any 3 is always greater than any 1, any 2 is always greater than mine. Incase you were interested) So I can't stand for the it would be inefficient argumant.

If universal public healthcare is not done correctly many more will suffer in the long term. This universal public healthcare is in demand because many only see the short term solution without identifying the long term problems of such a move. Universal public healthcare for one of the largest countries should be researched with multiple government and non-government options... and hopefully you know the rest as previously mentioned.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Jim, I think you are unaware of the current status of US tax laws.

Simplifying it - a bit.

Suppose your income were 20,000. and you had kids. and you were below a poverty line. The government gives you a refund despite the fact that you have paid no taxes. A portion of this is called the Earned Income Tax Credit.

When you file your taxes, things like deductions and tax credits increase the size of your deduction.

Tax credits do not just give you free money. There are two ways to reduce tax burden - deductions, which indirectly reduce taxes, by reducing taxable income - and credits, which are directly applied to the amount of taxes that you owe. YES, you can get a refund because of credits, but only up to the amount of money already deducted from your pay, for taxes, and in a case like this, ONLY from the amount deducted for FICA. So in my case, I could file taxes (again, I am below the -EXEMPT- line currently), but as I owe no taxes, I would receive nothing. McCain's plan would not do anything whatsoever to rectify my situation and help me get on the path to becoming a more overtly productive citizen again.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Thirdly, as others have alluded you are comparing apples and rocks - but I suggest its more like spaceships and boogars. When americans think about health care, they think about going to the doctor of their choice, and getting cutting edge medical care.

Comparing that to another nations national health care really is like comparings space ships to boogars. Please do compare american health care to any second or third world country.
You might think that unfair - fine. Would you agree that UK would be an acceptable comparison?

Well this seems like an odd argument. Money is money. The basic issue of who pays the money (whether us directly, our insurance company, or a decently organized governmental body), does not have any direct bearing on the quality of the product. Hell, we could have the FEMA people do our health care, and yes, I would be scared too. Or we could have the military organize it, and they would pour so much money into it ($600 stethoscopes, anyone?) that we couldn't help but smile.

But hey, I will bite. Let's compare our current health care system, in an unbiased manner, with say, the health care system in the UK. But wait! The World Health Organization has already performed this task for us. In fact, they rated all countries in the entire world. I won't completely spam the forum by listing every nation, I'll just list from the top, until we get to the good old U S of A. Should be a short list..... right?


1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America


Oh, oops. I guess that was a wrong assumption. Apparently, according to the people who know more about these things than you and I put together, think that basically every nation that has instituted nationalized health care (and even some who haven't!) have better systems than we do.

Also, we spent over 15% of our total GDP on health care this past year. Many of the countries above us on the list, spent <10%. Now, if our GDP/capita is higher than most of them, wouldn't it stand to reason that we should be able to get better coverage than they do (at least, spending more, should get a better product, right?), while still paying LESS than we currently do.



And just for the record (for you too, NTJedi), there is no reason that we couldn't adopt a sort of "half-stance" on the subject, where we simply guarantee a minimum level of coverage for all citizens. By taking care of basics (I've never once sat in a dentist's chair, in 33 years of my life, for example), we do not create as immense a burden on the taxpayers, nor responsibility for the agency in charge, in relation to the amount of benefit gained by the nation as a whole. If you would like, I can go and dig up the articles that I have read that illustrate how studies have looked into the correlation between basic health care needs, and lost days (or years!) of work under our current system. I can assure you now (but I'll find it again if you like), that the verdict was that providing a baseline amount of assistance to the uninsured, would far more than pay for itself in terms of productivity.

Also, since I mentioned the absence of a dentist in my life, let me point out another issue that this would solve. You see, I don't currently have any terrible health problems due to my teeth (I don't think!), however, I do have a few cavities that I am a bit worried about, that should be filled. I can't afford a dentist to do this relatively routine maintenance, however if one of my teeth abscesses, then whichever dental surgeon is unlucky enough to find me at their door, cannot refuse to treat me if the poison from that abscess could threaten my life (it's the law). BUT, bear in mind the actual cost of dealing with such a problem. Bear also in mind, that YOU (the universal you, meaning everyone who is indirectly impacted by the failures of our health care system) will ultimately pay for my treatment. How is this? It's simple enough, because you see, I can't afford medical care. I can't walk in on my own to receive it, but if they are obligated to save my life, they will do so, and they will bill me. And just because I receive a bill, doesn't mean that I magically also have money to pay it. So, it goes unpaid, it goes to collections, and that particular doctor is out several hundred dollars of income that he is entitled to. Now, the effect averages out, as most doctors (or hospitals) deal with this on an ongoing basis, it's the downside of being a lifegiver. However, this directly translates into higher costs, which may annoy you, but the real travesty is that it increases the costs of care for people who can barely afford it anyway.

Accounting for basic needs first, will bring the system closer to balance. Why can't we continue to pay our physicians more than other countries? Do you know how many people can get basic (and necessary) health care for the cost of one Stealth Bomber? I know, the "Stealth Bomber" argument is a bit trite by now, but the point is just a comparison between a small sliver of our military spending, and the vast amounts of good we could accomplish for the people (which, as already stated, can easily pay for itself up to a certain level).

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by lch

I did. He doesn't have any documents backing his claims either. He just calculatedly filed a lawsuit against Obama to attack his position when he was competing against Clinton. If this lawsuit is being resolved at some time and if evidence is unearthed that there is something fishy, then I will re-adjust my position accordingly. But so far it's nothing but empty accusations, and the motto is "In dubio pro reo".

The rest of your post is useless ranting again, I'm afraid that you still have no clothes.

You are factually wrong. The lawsuit was filed Aug 28. The day after Obama became the nominee.

The lawsuit filed does have several affidavits in support of its position. Motions for dismissal were defeated. Ergo, the motion has some basis.

There is *no* chance it will be resolved in favor of berg, as the date of hearing was after the US election - so you won't have to adjust your position, will you?

To put matters into a bit of perspective: I filed a lawsuit yesterday. I got a hearing on December 8. Berg filed his lawsuit Aug 28. He doesn't get a hearing until..... January? Why do you suppose that is?

As for the empty rantings comment - I am here after going to ignore your arguments as you have chosen to ignore mine.

[chrispedersen]

rabelais:

MA-Man pretender design. Dormant Cyclops. +3,+1, -, +3, +1, -3.
Dom 7 iirc

Several concepts here.

First, growth to help offset the old age of your crones.
Second. Overtax. The idea is to build castles as fast as possible. You are going to use forresters (at some point) as necessary to patrol.
Third You are going to use your bards soothing song, plus the reinvig from the earth bless to have a competitive advantage in your dominion. You will be pushing drain, but your bards and reinvi will make you largely immune - which brings us to point four:
You have a unique position in that your mages have good military leadership - at least the mother of avalon does.
she will be your default military commander.
Fifth: Minor theme Foresters/bards have excellent precions especially as bards can selfbuff with eagle eye. Add a bow of bowtox, or similar to create missile thugs.
Sixth: Minor You will have very stealth capable commanders, and stealthy sacreds summons.
Seventh Minor theme. Consider fear items or with death access, terror. Your bards soothing songs will help.

I still hate MA man. But I ran a few tests of this and I was able to get three castles started in the first year without much difficulty. Late game is still your problem however, without access to death, blood, or significant astral.

[lch]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

You are factually wrong. The lawsuit was filed Aug 28. The day after Obama became the nominee.

He first filed this lawsuit on Aug 21, so a week before.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

The lawsuit filed does have several affidavits in support of its position. Motions for dismissal were defeated. Ergo, the motion has some basis.

I said that he doesn't have any documented evidence, and he doesn't. All he does is poking around in the dark and trying to besmirch Obama's reputation.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

There is *no* chance it will be resolved in favor of berg, as the date of hearing was after the US election - so you won't have to adjust your position, will you?

Right. If it is being resolved in favor of Berg, I'll do that, of course. Just a mere accusation doesn't make it a fact, though.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

To put matters into a bit of perspective: I filed a lawsuit yesterday. I got a hearing on December 8. Berg filed his lawsuit Aug 28. He doesn't get a hearing until..... January? Why do you suppose that is?

I haven't followed it closely, but I guess it's pretty obvious to see what the real idea behind that lawsuit was. You probably don't stop a presidential candidate's campaign just because some lunatic files a complaint, as he is legally entitled to do. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the case, finding that Berg lacked standing to bring the suit because Obama did not face direct harm even if the allegations were true.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

As for the empty rantings comment - I am here after going to ignore your arguments as you have chosen to ignore mine.

I'm sorry, but I have a scientific background and arguments not based on factual evidence, or based on wrong facts, are void to me. Since I have found out that this applies to yours, I guess it's time to give up instead of keeping up this charade any longer, yes.

[PyroStock]

Originally Posted by rdonj

Pyrostock - I maintain a sincere belief that anecdotal experiences are often underrated, that giving answers that are truthful is a good thing, and that as this is a gaming forum rather than a forum for political debate, we can relax the standards for what's acceptable for a person to post here just a little.

And meanwhile, before you go attacking others, why don't you go and contribute something meaningful to the conversation yourself? Currently jimmorrison's smileys are adding more to the conversation than you are. Thank you and have a nice day.

Thanks for your opinion, but relax. My post was no more of an "attack" than Jimmorrison's initial response to me which you conveniently ignored.

When I saw OT in the thread I falsely assumed it would be similar to those in other turn-based OT forums. I have no desire to further discuss the fallacies of anecdotal experiences. Since this conversation has the more vocal people value anecdotal experiences I will share mine. Of all the charities and "helping the needy" organizations I assisted/worked... none asked/insisted/pushed the needy be a certain religion. Whether it was directly helping someone in need (such as handicap bowlers or soup kitchen) or indirectly such as disaster funds... there were no "enlist in church" sheets, no brimstone&fire pseudo-preachers trying to save to the infidels and no stamps with "DENIED WRONG RELIGION" on them. I will return you to your regularly scheduled smileys...

Originally Posted by Omnirizon

but it still goes to show that even statistics are never objective

Of course statistics can be manipulated like the selection bias with Brooks, but that doesn't make all statistics useless. For good reason, the decisions for countless propositions, the supreme court and the next US president are ultimately decided by the results of some statistics. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

[Aezeal]

I read your statement about being against flat tax rate, but I don't see the specific reasons why you are against it. Your statements make it sound like you're more for this type of change.

There are no specific reason to be for or against this, if you are a fair, good, social person you disagree with flat tax rates. If you are unfair, protective of your own cash and a generally unagreeable unsocial person you are pro flat tax rates.. I don't say one is better for the government as such, as long as they get a lot of cash (more than currently to arrange things better) that would be fine.. but for the people in the country in general it will be better too (to be honest, 100 dollar less for me would just be annoying and would mean 2 books and a dinner less, for others THOSE who need it more it would mean cutting in basic life neccesities if there was a flat tax rate and they'd have to pay it and not me)

socialism!!!! (I'm still surprised this word seems to be considered bad language in the US of A... says enough about the majority of the country too)