The Greenpeace dude who was slamming AGW said, "When government pays for scientific research, they get the science they pay for." I thought that succinctly summarized the problem.
Politics and Religion
- Thread starter Mr. Deez
- Start date
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
The whole idea that since the government has been doing X for Y amount of years we can't change it, is self perpetuating mythology and very harmful to the nation.
Obviously it isn't true too. The government is always trying to do more than it was doing for the last 240 years. If historical precedent is really a factor the government wouldn't be doing any of it now.
Anybody who theoretically thinks small government is better than big government, needs to start pushing publicly and practically for removal of government enterprises of all kinds.
Obviously it isn't true too. The government is always trying to do more than it was doing for the last 240 years. If historical precedent is really a factor the government wouldn't be doing any of it now.
Anybody who theoretically thinks small government is better than big government, needs to start pushing publicly and practically for removal of government enterprises of all kinds.
Of course, we can change anything. Hell, we can scrap the whole Constitution and throw everything out. The point is that you're being unrealistic to the point of absurdity. The government funds research, because the public wants it. You can complain about it all you want, but it's pretty pointless.
In addition, if you want to make the case for small government, eliminating research isn't a smart place to start for a few reasons. First, generally, it is constitutional. Whether it's all money well spent is certainly questionable, but it's not an abuse of power. Second, it's not very much money. In the context of the federal budget, we're talking about chump change. If you eliminated every cent of scientific research, it wouldn't even make a tiny fraction of a dent in our budget problem.
If you want to make the case, you're better off going with something on questionable constitutional footing and that actually matters from a fiscal standpoint. (See Social Security or Medicare.)
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
The public didn't push for this. It wasn't the idea of normal citizens. This was the idea of politicians. People accept it now because it's "science" and we want there to be "science". Not realizing science is better off without the government directing it where they want it to go.
I get that. I wouldn't recommend starting there either, but I don't have agree it is a good thing. If you get enough people against something there will start to be vocal opposition and representatives will have to listen or be replaced. But you are right. Much bigger more harmful things are out there.
The public didn't have the idea for most scientific research, but they're generally supportive of it. If someone ran on defunding scientific research, he'd probably lose.
Of course, you have the right to oppose scientific research funding, and there's merit to what you're saying. The problem is that the private sector has been pretty risk averse when it comes to very expensive but highly speculative advances that tend to have a public use. For things like consumer electronics, they're fine (though even most of those had some kind of government application and research). However, I don't see the private sector doing a whole lot of development for things that have a heavy public use application like electricity.
Of course, commercial air travel is a pretty clear example. Airliners basically follow the pattern of what the military has funded in terms of bombers and transport. In the '50s, the Air Force funded research of the B-52 and jet cargo aircraft. That turned into the Boeing 707, and we're still basically flying around in 707s. We've developed bigger and more efficient 707s, but they're still basically 707s even though we call them something else. In the '60s, there was research into supersonic transport (because the government was funding for the XB-70 project). Then the government pulled the plug on the XB-70, and nobody in the industry gave a crap about supersonic transport anymore. So we're back to flying glorified 707s again until the military decides it's interested in developing a supersonic cargo plane.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I don't want to defund research funding. That is a misnomer. The private sector is adverse to speculative funding because it is wise and because the money they could use for that is taken by the government to send for funding. My point is that government workers are poorer in making decisions about how to spend research money than engineers, scientists, and businessmen.
To be clear, I don't consider basic scientific research as speculative so I don't include that in my comment. Also to be clear, businesses are aware that this kind of research is very important for future innovation. They either would fund it themselves or send money to universities or other research organizations to do that.
When the government got into the game of scientific research funding it pushed private entities out of that game. That can reverse at anytime. But I agree that the government will scream about ENDING RESEARCH and will fight to keep a hold of it.
And there is a ton of money being spent studying electricity and how to improve the grid, etc.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
That is a great example of the government controlling the research and development in an industry and limiting it. Who knows how the airplane industry would look today without the government's influence? But there is one thing that should be obvious. In the current system, the airplane manufacturers are geared towards pleasing their main customers, the government, so they give it what it wants. Private customers get the table scraps if applicable. If private travelers were the customer then the airplane design would be developed to satisfy their wants. Who knows how that would turn out but I expect if airplane mfrs focused solely on private travelers then the planes would be more to their liking. Not the other way around.
I'm sure the private sector is a wiser investor than the government when it comes to research. The government is a hideous steward of money. Why would they be any different when it comes to scientific research? The problem with the private sector is that sometimes it's overall wise from the public's standpoint to invest in research even when it's not wise from an individual financial standpoint. In that scenario, the government might invest in that research when a private entity likely would not.
The government isn't controlling the research. They're just the only ones willing to put serious money into it. If United Airlines wanted to front Boeing an assload of money to develop a supersonic airliner, the government wouldn't stop them. They just aren't going to, because they would never risk that level of capital on something that speculative (especially after the supersonic Concorde and Tu-144 were at least mostly failures). Furthermore, they don't have to. Passengers are willing to buy airline tickets on latter-day 707s, so there's little reason to take that kind of risk.
So what would the airplane industry look like without government influence? We can speculate all day long, but it's a bit of an "if my grandmother had balls" scenario. The industry has been piggybacking off the government almost since the beginning. Even before WWI, the US Postal Service was dumping money into airmail. The Wright Brothers were probably the last real capitalists in the airplane industry, and even that was temporary. The idea of taking a real, market-based risk is just so foreign to everybody in the industry.
Also, I'm not sure how you'd ever break the cycle anyway. The government needs airplanes for various reasons, so it's going to spend the money. It's just too easy for the passenger and freight air industries to simply mooch off of it, and nobody in those industries have much incentive to fund anything on their own.
It's good that you like this place because you now find yourself placed firmly in it. Go ahead, step out of your echo chamber and evaluate and defend your belief of collusion because it seems you are not 100% correct...or even 1% correct.
Fortunately for you, SH, and others, we can serve you crow until your heart is content. Eat all you want. I think Mueller just peed all over you. Happy now?
This story has been floating around on Facebook. Apparently, instead of advertising and promoting its Easter service, it took that same money (about $22K) to discharge $2.2M of medical debt. I'm not trying to piss on what this church did. It was a wonderful thing that surely pleases Christ. However, how the hell do you discharge so much in medical bills for so little? The fact that this was even possible says a lot. Something is wrong.
The people holding the debt knew it was likely never going to be collected. Many hospitals choose to sell the debt versus trying to collect themselves. In many cases, the charges are astronomically high reflecting the full charge that would go to an insurance company who only pays a fraction of that debt. If you ever owe a high doctor or hospital bill, call them up and offer a fraction in a cash payment. They will likely accept.
Yes it is screwed up.
Yes it is screwed up.
I35
5,000+ Posts
It’s like the libs haven’t realize yet that when they repeat fake news that it doesn’t age well.
It’s like the libs haven’t realize yet that when they repeat fake news that it doesn’t age well.
Look at how Longesthorn keeps putting out the latest anti-Trump "news" that he gets from the MSM. It's as if he hasn't learned anything from the other times he's made a damn fool of himself.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
It’s like the libs haven’t realize yet that when they repeat fake news that it doesn’t age well.
They colluded...105 separate contacts with Russian agents. You'd need to redefine the word "collude" to claim there was no collusion. Fortunately for the country they didn't conspire with Russia, despite the desire to, per the Mueller report.
Collusion isn't a crime. Conspiracy is and they didn't commit it.
Last edited:
In the new video showing Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi calling for muslims to attacks Christians and Jews all over the world I swear the muslims chanting at the beginning of the vid sound like they are doing the ' Nah Nah Nah, Nah nah nah"
I was waiting for Hey Hey good bye
waters down his ferocity.
I was waiting for Hey Hey good bye
waters down his ferocity.
I35
5,000+ Posts
What is your definition of colluding? You said 105 contacts. WTH??? Is contacts with other countries considered collusion?
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
US officials contacting Russian officials isn't collusion. Every incoming US Presidential administrations contacts multiple foreign officials multiple times. It is normal and unconcerning. Collusion would come from the nature of those contacts and what plans were made as a result. Mueller didn't find anything like that. Move on.
Sounds like a good website: MoveOn.org.
Sounds like a good website: MoveOn.org.
You are absolutely right. However, I think it's indicative that something's wrong. Very few businesses that sell in large volume to the general public are like that. Imagine a local small business or restaurant doing something like that. It would be considered absurd.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
This is where Trump's proposal (maybe it is law, idk) to have insurance companies (and maybe medical care providers) post their prices online would be a step in the right direction. The prices have become distorted for many reasons but keeping prices secret is a significant one.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
We went from the point that it was considered conspiracy theory level discussion to suggest that there was even any contact with Russians to the point that there are 105 contacts, a Trump Tower meeting is nothing more than Exhibit A of collusion, and Rudy is now saying it's OK to accept information from a foreign government.
Talk about moving the goalposts.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
The equivalent would be something like a restaurant asking if you wanted desert, then immediately placing a single slice of pie on your table regardless of your answer, and then charging you $57 for it even if you didn't eat it.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I work in the health field and worked in an organization overseeing the payment of medical bills at about $30-$40 million per year. You'd be amazed at the cost shift that takes place.
I have a few good examples.
1. A rural hospital that gets mostly medicare patients is happy to get any payer that will pay medicare rates. An urban hospital that has a more "insured" population can't make it on medicare rates. I negotiated a lot of write-offs at the rural hospitals for insured patients who had an insurance but couldn't afford the high copay/deductible.
2. Air ambulance trip typically bills at $45,000ish. We paid $6,500 and they were happy to get it. If someone had no payer source they'd collect what the could of the $45,000 but they typically would NOT accept someone paying $6,500 cash.
3. Medicare rates for hospitals are all based upon costs. Physician owned hospitals have a much lower Medicare rate because they have no ER and they can only accept paying patients. So a knee replacement that might have cost me $19,000 at a typical hospital I could get at one of these physician owned hospitals for about $13,000.
The uninsured really impact the cost shift.
When I was in grad school my boss at the hospital had me help build his chargemaster in Lotus.
Dated things there. He simply took the cost of each item and multiplied by 7. Done. Viola!
I work in the health field and worked in an organization overseeing the payment of medical bills at about $30-$40 million per year. You'd be amazed at the cost shift that takes place.
I have a few good examples.
1. A rural hospital that gets mostly medicare patients is happy to get any payer that will pay medicare rates. An urban hospital that has a more "insured" population can't make it on medicare rates. I negotiated a lot of write-offs at the rural hospitals for insured patients who had an insurance but couldn't afford the high copay/deductible.
2. Air ambulance trip typically bills at $45,000ish. We paid $6,500 and they were happy to get it. If someone had no payer source they'd collect what the could of the $45,000 but they typically would NOT accept someone paying $6,500 cash.
3. Medicare rates for hospitals are all based upon costs. Physician owned hospitals have a much lower Medicare rate because they have no ER and they can only accept paying patients. So a knee replacement that might have cost me $19,000 at a typical hospital I could get at one of these physician owned hospitals for about $13,000.
The uninsured really impact the cost shift.
When I was in grad school my boss at the hospital had me help build his chargemaster in Lotus.
Oh, I know the chargemaster rates are a racket. I used to file fraudulent lien actions against Brackenridge Hospital in Austin for this. A client would get injured (almost always in a car wreck - they were too dumb to see third party liability coverage in other situations). They'd CT scan him until he glowed in the dark (and on one case, even did so when the patient reported no pain), charge a fortune for each one, file a lien, and then try to scam the at-fault driver's policy limits - leaving noting for other doctors and nothing for the client. I loved kicking them around on these. I didn't even get paid to do it. I pretty much did it for sport.
I35
5,000+ Posts
You didn’t answer my question. What is your definition of collusion and what specifically did Trump do when they were in “contact” that would be colluding? Didn’t Mueller submit 500 subpoenas, a few thousand interviews, many democratic lawyers, Trump completely transparent with everything he had and they found nothing in a two year period? But you listen to the talking points of the Dems and believe he’s guilty?
This was never about anything but politics after $30 million spent. SMH.
Now do Hillary
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
DJTJr. email reply within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
Puts down phone, checks hair in mirror. Yells at assistant to set up a meeting. Manafort, Kushner to be there. All with a "Russian Government Attorney".
When questioned about the meeting months later lie about it.
I'd call that collusion. Compare to how Gore's campaign responded when they received the debate book of W. They sealed it up, notified the FBI and removed the only person who'd seen the book from debate prep. When Al Gore's Campaign Received Illegal Election Material, He Turned It in to the FBI
Compare that to this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-kind-to-a-canadian/?utm_term=.1fd2799b0b30
Hillary was being raked over the coals about a t-shirt purchase.
Maybe someone should have a $25 million investigation with 2,000 subpoenas to find out who is right. That would settle it.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
OUBubba, they started to collude but then didn't because Veselnitskaya didn't have any information. Maybe they would have colluded. But they didn't follow through. That is wrong. We should declare it as much, even publicly scold and shame them. However, in our legal system there is nothing left to do. There is no punishment proscribed for the specific action. What else do you want to do?
Mueller didn't think it was. However, what Hillary's team did WAS actually collusion. Don't know if it was illegal though.
Last edited:
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
