If the United States were a free country, its citizens’ mail, phone calls and electronic communications never would be subject to warrantless government snooping . . .
Read more here.
July 13, 2007
July 12, 2007
A Letter to Diggers
Dear Diggers,
Ron Paul will not be the next president. The iPhone is an over-hyped piece of crap. Possession of marijuana should have a minimum sentence of 20 years. Bush is one of the best presidents ever. The Wii is a wannabe gaming machine that looks like a toaster. Windows is better than Mac OS and Linux combined. The PS3 will trample the 360 and Wii in due time. Atheism is stupid. The new comment system is awesome. Fox News is actually fair and balanced. Kevin Rose is an ass. Global Warming isn't real. A picture section isn't needed. Ubuntu is a terrible operating system. Top 10 lists are idiotic. Steve Jobs is a douchebag. Osama planned and organized 9/11. Homeland Security is a necessary agency. The Iraq War was necessary.
Sincerely,
Ted "King of the Internet" Stevens
Ron Paul will not be the next president. The iPhone is an over-hyped piece of crap. Possession of marijuana should have a minimum sentence of 20 years. Bush is one of the best presidents ever. The Wii is a wannabe gaming machine that looks like a toaster. Windows is better than Mac OS and Linux combined. The PS3 will trample the 360 and Wii in due time. Atheism is stupid. The new comment system is awesome. Fox News is actually fair and balanced. Kevin Rose is an ass. Global Warming isn't real. A picture section isn't needed. Ubuntu is a terrible operating system. Top 10 lists are idiotic. Steve Jobs is a douchebag. Osama planned and organized 9/11. Homeland Security is a necessary agency. The Iraq War was necessary.
Sincerely,
Ted "King of the Internet" Stevens
July 11, 2007
We're Already Paying for Universal Health Care
According to the World Health Organization, France is ranked number one in health care. At the same time the United States is all the way down at 37. So should we change our system to mirror the French system since it seems to outshine us so well? Well, that would drown us in horrible new taxes wouldn't it? Nope. In fact, you may be already paying for universal health care, but not receiving it.
To figure this all out, we're going to have to know how much the French actually pay for their health care system. According to BBC, France spends about 9% of their GDP on their system. The French GDP is estimated to be $1.9 trillion in 2006. 9% of 1.9 trillion is about 170 billion. France's population is about 64 million. That means that the per capita cost of health care in France is about $2,700. Multiply that by America's estimated population of 301 million, and you get a cost of about $813 billion. That is definitely a lot of money, but we may be already spending it on socialized health care in America. It is estimated that Americans spent about $2 trillion on health care in 2005.
Medicare and Medicaid are government run health care programs. The House Ways and Means Committee stated that in 2002, Medicare expenditures for the government were about $257 billion. At the same time, premiums paid by Medicare subscribers were about $231 billion. Medicaid on the other hand had a budget of $295 billion in 2004. So, the total costs of Medicare and Medicaid in America is about $783 billion, just $30 billion short of equaling the relative cost of the French system.
Government spending on health care does not even stop at Medicare and Medicaid. According the the Journal of the American Medical Association, the government subsidizes about 45% of US medical care costs, covering Medicare, Medicaid, workers' compensation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, public hospitals, and government public health activities. It is estimated that in 2005, Americans spent about $2 trillion on health care. If the government is paying 45% of this, they are actually spending about $900 billion on our health care system, more than enough to pay for a French health care system in America.
So, now we have to ask ourselves if we're up to the task of matching the French health care system in America. I say we can do even better. No system is perfect, including in France, but for $2 trillion we should be blowing the competition out of the water.
UPDATE: The two Wikipedia links were fixed.
To figure this all out, we're going to have to know how much the French actually pay for their health care system. According to BBC, France spends about 9% of their GDP on their system. The French GDP is estimated to be $1.9 trillion in 2006. 9% of 1.9 trillion is about 170 billion. France's population is about 64 million. That means that the per capita cost of health care in France is about $2,700. Multiply that by America's estimated population of 301 million, and you get a cost of about $813 billion. That is definitely a lot of money, but we may be already spending it on socialized health care in America. It is estimated that Americans spent about $2 trillion on health care in 2005.
Medicare and Medicaid are government run health care programs. The House Ways and Means Committee stated that in 2002, Medicare expenditures for the government were about $257 billion. At the same time, premiums paid by Medicare subscribers were about $231 billion. Medicaid on the other hand had a budget of $295 billion in 2004. So, the total costs of Medicare and Medicaid in America is about $783 billion, just $30 billion short of equaling the relative cost of the French system.
Government spending on health care does not even stop at Medicare and Medicaid. According the the Journal of the American Medical Association, the government subsidizes about 45% of US medical care costs, covering Medicare, Medicaid, workers' compensation, the Department of Veterans Affairs, public hospitals, and government public health activities. It is estimated that in 2005, Americans spent about $2 trillion on health care. If the government is paying 45% of this, they are actually spending about $900 billion on our health care system, more than enough to pay for a French health care system in America.
So, now we have to ask ourselves if we're up to the task of matching the French health care system in America. I say we can do even better. No system is perfect, including in France, but for $2 trillion we should be blowing the competition out of the water.
UPDATE: The two Wikipedia links were fixed.
July 10, 2007
The Better of Two Evils
Often, when I ask people why they voted one way or another, they tell me it was the better of the two evils. Most of the time it is said jokingly, but there's always at least some hint of truth in their words. And it's true, we are often forced between two choices we do not like. This seems especially true when it comes to presidential candidates. But why can't we have the lesser of two goods to choose from?
The problem with the system is not necessarily the evils within it. There will always be people and candidates you probably won't like. The problem primarily lies with the fact that we have narrowed ourselves down to a two party system. There is nothing in the Constitution that states we must limit our votes to certain parties, or even a party at all.
There are lots of reasons why we have a two party system, such as the fact that the debates are controlled by an organization that is owned by the Democratic and Republican parties. But that's just part of the whole mentality that not voting for one of the two major parties is throwing your vote away, which has been shoved down are throats for longer than we can remember.
I hear people say, "Well I like this candidate, but they doesn't have a chance to win so I'm not voting for them. The proper way to look at it is, "This person supports most of my views better than anyone else. I'm going to vote for them and trying to support them as best I can." If everyone took more of an optimistic view towards elections, then maybe that candidate that you like could actually become president of these fine United States.
So go out and change the system so that you are voting for the better of many goods, rather than just limiting yourself to two evils.
The problem with the system is not necessarily the evils within it. There will always be people and candidates you probably won't like. The problem primarily lies with the fact that we have narrowed ourselves down to a two party system. There is nothing in the Constitution that states we must limit our votes to certain parties, or even a party at all.
There are lots of reasons why we have a two party system, such as the fact that the debates are controlled by an organization that is owned by the Democratic and Republican parties. But that's just part of the whole mentality that not voting for one of the two major parties is throwing your vote away, which has been shoved down are throats for longer than we can remember.
I hear people say, "Well I like this candidate, but they doesn't have a chance to win so I'm not voting for them. The proper way to look at it is, "This person supports most of my views better than anyone else. I'm going to vote for them and trying to support them as best I can." If everyone took more of an optimistic view towards elections, then maybe that candidate that you like could actually become president of these fine United States.
So go out and change the system so that you are voting for the better of many goods, rather than just limiting yourself to two evils.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)