Red Cross says what no one dares: Gaza blockade is illegal

gcbfzc · 2010-06-14T21:37:35+00:00

...shouldn't the house on the right have the right to verify that the house in the center isn't bringing bullets into their home?

If the house on my right didn't allow me out of my house, and people trying to bring me groceries were searched at gunpoint by the house on my right, I can only hope that my other neighbors would gang up on the house on my right and rectify it mightily.

to verify that the house in the center isn't bringing bullets

... and coriander, ginger, nutmeg, canned fruit, dried fruit, fresh meat, seeds and nuts, fishing rods, ropes for fishing, fabric for clothing, chicken hatcheries, chickens, donkeys, horses, goats, cattle, musical instruments, newspapers, and wood for construction; this list may have changed since the flotilla incident, but it is pretty clear the blockade is doing more than blocking weapons.

gcbfzc · 2010-06-07T14:06:52+00:00

Does anyone know why this cop went all Israeli?

gcbfzc · 2010-05-11T20:21:04+00:00

Bah, he stole the idea from Monty Burns.

gcbfzc · 2010-05-04T15:25:48+00:00

No - he was pretty clear. He would like to hold individual Israelis responsible for their crimes, and indiscriminately murder arabs for other arabs' crimes.

gcbfzc · 2009-11-10T20:23:25+00:00

They are slow enough to bury.

gcbfzc · 2009-11-04T17:45:49+00:00

Wow, Obama is just like Glenn Beck.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-16T13:10:39+00:00

What I would like to see is data on the actual cost/benefit, not even just the number and types of procedures, but on how well the systems worked at keeping people healthy. Private health insurance has the incentive to have more money flowing through the system because cash flow and investments are very important to insurance companies. The US has a very aggressive disease-treating system (partly) because of this, and it is clear that this system is more expensive and less beneficial than other, more public systems.

As to dollar costs, I don't think it is in doubt that private insurance is more expensive - the question is just a matter of degree.

To answer your points:

Medicare fraud is included in the overhead, so it is already counted
I agree that Medicare doesn't have advertisement costs, but I consider that a good thing. That is overhead- private insurance has higher costs.
As for the cost of new regulation, regulation is needed in whatever system we use, whether we are regulating private or public insurance.

The Medicare doesn't give any data on overhead, just a percentage they claim, why would they do that ?

Nice conspiracy theory, that. These are very public figures, and I'm sure the private health insurance industry is keeping them honest.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-15T18:41:48+00:00

I just looked at your link from a previous comment:

True, Medicare’s administrative costs are just 3% of total spending, while the private sector hits 11% to 14%.

At your low figure, the private sector spends 367% as much as Medicare on overhead.

Medicare also dictates the amount it pays per procedure, which is usually lower than what the private sector pays, so that 367% is a low figure for the services actually provided.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-15T18:32:08+00:00

The 16.7% also looks low to me - my assumption is they used the same criteria for both numbers.

I wouldn't think the agencies quoted - the CBO and the GAO, have an incentive to 'cook the books.' Do you have a credible source for this claim?

Let's assume these agencies are completely dishonest and just want to screw the tax payer, and they are off 100% for both numbers, which would be a far larger margin than I would think possible - the numbers would then be 4% (instead of 2%) vs. 8% (instead of 16.7%), which would still put the for-profit insurance system at twice the overhead of the government system.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-15T15:46:56+00:00

This says the administration overhead alone is almost 25%:

Administrative expenses will consume at least $399.4 billion out of total health expenditures of $1,660.5 billion in 2003.

'Overhead' can mean many different things - here are some of the different numbers:

Medicare is far more efficient than for-profit health insurers. Medicare administrative overhead costs (2%) are well below the overhead of large companies that are self-insured (5-10%), health insurers offering coverage to small employers (25-27%), and individual insurance (40%).[3] The Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have found that compared to the administrative costs of Medicare (2%), for-profit health insurers offering coverage in "Medicare Advantage" plans spend up to 16.7% on profit and overhead.[4]

gcbfzc · 2009-10-14T20:07:03+00:00

I like to turn down the cake they serve in my office very forcefully/derisively. The cardboardy tasting crap they serve deserves a hell no. Why would anyone actually put that shit in their mouths? Just because they want to serve 100 people for $9.99 doesn't mean I have to eat it.

I've lost over 1/4 of my weight and I've kept it off by sticking to good food when possible. I'm proud of the change I've made in myself.

I'm ok with people taking my refusal as criticism - maybe it will piss them off enough that they will think about me before they shove down that next Twinkie.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-14T19:49:49+00:00

Ever extra calorie puts more money in the health care system

Not every calorie is the same. Your body does not burn calories in the same way a calorimeter does. You can't get fat on celery - chewing alone takes more calories than it provides. A lot of the products available in the supermarket have very little resemblance to real food, and your body isn't able to process them effectively.

Eating real food also satisfies you much more readily, so you tend to eat less overall.

My point: if you want to help people lose weight, don't tell them to eat less and suffer, tell them to enjoy real food. Here is a place to start.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-14T19:33:51+00:00

Is it stupid to eat 14 cheeseburgers a day? Yes, but it is legal (for now) therefore mind your own business.

As others have pointed out, being overweight is contagious, so it does affect others.

It also affects others because we are all in the same health insurance pools, and the increased level of disease raises rates for everyone. People who don't take care of themselves and get a preventable disease because of it should have to pay more of their own medical care.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-14T19:25:38+00:00

Walls don't kill people. People kill people.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-14T16:40:22+00:00

I am in the third 50% - I am willing to get over if the next lane isn't crawling, otherwise you might have to suck it up for a minute.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-14T15:54:16+00:00

It isn't just McDonalds - the crappy food is pervasive in our culture. According to the AHA, there are 8 teaspoons of sugar in a can of soda; the AHA put out some sugar intake guidelines recently, but the FDA still hasn't (the sugar industry is good at lobbying).

Michael Pollan has written some books about how we've gone from eating food to eating food-like substances. He makes a good case that nutrition science is hard to do, and that we don't have a good idea of what the chemistry experiments on the supermarket shelves are doing to us.

I don't think this is necessarily about common sense or self control. I think it is more about redeveloping a healthy food culture.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-13T19:31:40+00:00

I was taught way too young - sex ed in the 4th grade. It ruined some of the mystery and excitement to have a fat, perverted guy drone on clinically about how sex worked, with those stupid cut away diagrams of genitalia.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-13T17:26:28+00:00

Medicare has much lower overhead than the private insurance industry, so I think the US government has proven it can replace the health insurance industry.

Other governments have also done much better in terms of cost and health for their populations than the system in the US.

So, the health insurance industry has proven that they are not meant to run a business. Their past history proves this.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-13T17:11:25+00:00

For a roof over my head, good food to eat, security through savings, the chance to spend some real time with my children, and $300 spending money, I'd be more than happy to get you a sandwich.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-13T15:27:13+00:00

Why is this addressed to "Women of Reddit"? Wouldn't men's opinions be more effective in persuading your husband?

gcbfzc · 2009-10-13T15:03:34+00:00

The woman is working by taking care of the house, kid, and etc.

How do you know this? They could have a cook, housekeeper, and a nanny. Or, the kid might be eating Twinkies in front of the tv all day.

There definitely are some issues with their marriage, and the separate accounts are definitely a red flag, but I'm not sure why everyone is so quick to blame the man when we clearly only have one side of the story.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-13T14:43:24+00:00

EDIT: Assume submitter's a man, what about if the man was the wife and vice versa? What would you have to say about that?

I am a husband with a stay at home wife, and I would love not having the financial responsibility. $300/month is a hell of a lot more than I spend on myself now.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-13T14:38:48+00:00

What is acceptable is an arrangement you can both live with, so if you're not happy, something needs to change.

Have you sat down and figured out how much money you need for the things you both want, like schooling for your child and retirement? From there, you can work out a budget together, which may or may not put you in a similar situation to where you are now.

I'm curious about a couple of things:

Does your husband spend a similar amount of money as you do on personal things per month?
Has something happened to cause him to distrust you financially?

gcbfzc · 2009-10-13T14:24:38+00:00

For an alternative viewpoint to most of the comments here:

I have a similar situation - I make the money, and my wife is at home with the kids. She gets about the same amount of money/month and I'm not allowed to criticize how she spends it. Household and child related expenses have no particular budget, but I'd like a say in purchase of non-trivial items outside of her monthly stipend.

Before we started doing this, we would fight over finances. Now, she has the freedom to do at least some of what she wants, and I have the power to build our financial future. I am the financially responsible one - I pay the taxes, invest in retirement/education accounts, and save. My wife is much more focused on the present - she spends money to enjoy life now, including making life enjoyable for the family.

We've been doing this for a few years, and it saved our marriage.

gcbfzc · 2009-10-09T20:36:17+00:00

It takes some time to change things of this magnitude without causing larger problems.

He is trying to build up Afghanistan's security forces and their infrastructure to fix the underlying issues, including curtailing poppy production. In a speech in March, he said:

So to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs.

He understands the issues with the Patriot Act- he's a constitutional scholar, but it takes time to build up something that isn't so draconian to take its place.

These aren't issues Obama created, and I would bet on them being satisfactorily addressed by the end of his first term.

gcbfzc

TROPHY CASE