Split - Politics of space exploration

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by 2jaded2care
Yes, health care in this country is a serious mess. So fix the problem, don't punish other government initiatives because we can't agree on how to fix this. If we wait for that, nothing else will ever get done.

Well I agree with you here, if only because I'm a child of the space race and have always thought in those terms. I can well remember John Glenn's flight, and one of the other Mercury astronauts was from my home town. We had a big parade for him when he got back and named a park in his honor. Somewhere in my storage shed I've still got a box full of newspapers I saved from July 1969. In all, space exploration was a big part of my formative years.

Our lack of serious progress over the last 25 years is a major disappointment to me, and I'm sorry we seemed to lose the imagination for the future that was represented by the space program during the 1960s. In truth, that imagination was no small part an extension of the Cold War, though, so it's no surprise it ran out of gas once it was clear we'd beat the Soviets at that game.

All this being said, I think Bush's timing could hardly be worse, and more apparently for political effect. We need to get our house in better order before we can afford such an expansive imagination.

 

[McToast]

Gee Mr. President, I'd like some decent healthcare for all Americans before you spend quadrillions to attempt to send men to Mars.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
And by the way, the bulk of the uninsured in this country are not the 'lazy unemployed' that you keep insinuating.... In other words, the insurance companies are interested in insuring those who need it least. I think that sucks.

Can you please go find where i said "lazy unemployed". I currently am jobless (technically unemployed, but i havn't had a job since graduating, so i am jobless). i have no health insurance. I still do not want a national system.

As i said, the current system is not perfect, but neither is anything else. I never said i had the solution, but i do believe that nationalizing the system only benefits the impovrished, and hurts the rest of the population. Plus, with a nationalized system, then we have illegal immigrants getting free healthcare, since they pay no taxes. that even increases the cost to you and i more.

also- i don't think you are correct in saying that uninsured emergency room visits cost more than anything else. my fairly educated guess is that surgeries, cancer treatments and rehabilitation costs much more than the relitively quick fixes and short visits to the ER.

 

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
Can you please go find where i said "lazy unemployed". I currently am jobless (technically unemployed, but i havn't had a job since graduating, so i am jobless). i have no health insurance. I still do not want a national system.

As i said, the current system is not perfect, but neither is anything else. I never said i had the solution, but i do believe that nationalizing the system only benefits the impovrished, and hurts the rest of the population. Plus, with a nationalized system, then we have illegal immigrants getting free healthcare, since they pay no taxes. that even increases the cost to you and i more.

also- i don't think you are correct in saying that uninsured emergency room visits cost more than anything else. my fairly educated guess is that surgeries, cancer treatments and rehabilitation costs much more than the relitively quick fixes and short visits to the ER.

Your comment about the haves and the have not's is a red flag to me that some are more deserving than others because of the money they possess. You didn't actually use the word 'lazy', thus I used the word 'insinuate'. If you aren't of the crowd that associates unemployed with lazy, then my apologies. I find they often go hand in hand.

And please show me where I said emergency room visits cost more than anything else.

I said they incur unnecessary costs. Why do you think an aspirin costs $50 at the hospital? Because they get jacked by so many uninsured people that they can't turn away. Would you like to see the uninsured left at the hospital doorstep? Or even those who didn't happen to have their insurance card with them? The hospital inflates the costs that the insurance companies pay because of this, and they pass those costs along to me and my employer. How is that fair? The way I see it, the insured are already covering the uninsured as is, so why not just admit to it, and set up a system where everyone pays into it, and gets the benefits of it. Kinda like the highway system.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

you already are paying for healthcare in reguard to illegals, a hospital can not turn them away by law, just as by law they are not supposed to wander into our country. until george does something about the borders with his so called mexican buddy president Taco.
For a so called Republican George is blowing every dime we got while companies are sending our manufacturing base overseas. i know we can go to the moon in a Rocket made in China and on to Mars. meanwhile we got a 25 year old shuttle that has blown up twice? a space station that leaks, and the same station they are allready talking about canning? whats wrong with this picture. didnt they ever play with building blocks? Election year, i can get the space vote and the mexican vote. I expect better from the President and from Nasa.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Your comment about the haves and the have not's is a red flag to me that some are more deserving than others because of the money they possess. You didn't actually use the word 'lazy', thus I used the word 'insinuate'. If you aren't of the crowd that associates unemployed with lazy, then my apologies. I find they often go hand in hand.... so why not just admit to it, and set up a system where everyone pays into it, and gets the benefits of it. Kinda like the highway system.

well, by have and have nots, i mean people who have had the parental support, mentally and finantially and the people who have found success (the haves) the people i group as have nots are those without parental support and/or people who have not made it.

and yes, most people VERY MUCH deserve the money they possess. without getting too personal, my father has become a very successful man, not becuase he was given money, becuase he worked his ass off and spent 50-80+ hours a week working. he earned his money. he deserves it.

plus, there are lazy people out there. wether you want to beileve it or not. i am not, by any means, saying all poor people are lazy, but these people do exist, and get by doing the absolute minimum, and are happy that way too.


but anyway- this is my last post of the night, so until next time, go private space travel!

 

[Durandal7]

If Bush manages this right then there will be a massive effect on the economy. The Apollo missions created several million jobs in NASA and contracted companies as well as bringing billions of dollars (adjusted for inflation ) into the economy. The industries that will benefit most will be high-tech and manufacturing, coincidentally the industries that are having the hardest time.

This is the logical time to announce an expanded space program in light of China and Columbia. To those who complain that it is an election year I think it is fair to point out that every other year is a major congressional election. Also let's keep in mind that politicians really don't do anything unless it will get them or their party votes.

Complaints about the shuttle are a little odd. Almost every single article I have read indicates that the first step is to junk the shuttle and create a more versatile and reliable vehicle.

Socialized health care is not a realistic possibility for at least 4 years as Republican control over the House shows no sign of dissapearing.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

You make some very good points durandal7, true your not going to get a healthcare package with the house, i would like us to have a focus plan for space instead of what we have now. Do you really think we should let Nasa manage it? just as our immigration policy needs to be rewritten the space program and the old habits of those that administer it needs to be overhauled. they were suppose to do this after the first shuttle failure. why not some new type of dept of Space developement rather then to just keep going with Nasa? I think Nasa is great at science and research. I think Nasa is very bad at building and maintaining a space program. Without a better way to high orbit everything else is secondary. I would like to see building blocks laid down so we can build a infrastructure. 1st we need a people mover to space. then we need a cargo hauler. then a improved space station. then a true space craft that doesnt have to worry about entering the atmosphere. once we have those then we can explore the heavens but sending gigantic rockets up from earths gravity to the moon or mars is not the way. we did this with apollo and what do we have now? nothing. This would have been a lot easier to swallow before blowing the national surplus in Iraq.

 

[Durandal7]

What you say is true Dont Hurt Me. Part of the problem with NASA is that their hands have been tied for years by a slashed budget and public apathy to all things scientific. As much as I hate to say it, rivalry with China and a national tragedy may be just the thing to correct the situation.

From what I understand President Bush is NOT proposing a trip to Mars next year. What he probably is going to propose is the beginning of a decade long process that will see the creation of an orbital space plane, a base on the moon and a "Crew Exploartion Vehicle" capable of landing on the moon and NEAs (Near Earth Asteroids). After this has been established we will see an attempt for Mars.

In a few months after Bush's preliminary announcement (assuming it occurs) and NASA follow-ups then we should have a rough idea of what will take place. Dont Hurt Me, I can almost gurantee that if this goes forward we will see a major reorgazination of NASA over the next few years.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Nasa has some Great ideas and science. i would just like to see more things come out of all of the x programs and the science they have done rather then doing the science and research only to forget it. its like they are allways discovering something new, creating that paperwork putting it in a file and then they keep going with a 25 year old shuttle?Nasa is not a space craft maker and what we need is a Space craft maker. still blows me away how they could just ignore all those safety concerns with shuttle and to loose 2 shuttles and crews is not easily forgotten by me. forgive me but incompetence is incompetence. They are saddled with Govt beauracracy with politics and pork barrel spending and near sighted vision. 30 years after Apollo and what have we got? reorganizing Nasa may not be enough. Creating a all new Dept of Space may be the ticket.

 

[Frohickey]

Lets see...

NASA has seen its budgets slashed along with public apathy. Money still talks, and people with scientific talents are also looking out of their economic well-being. These days, hi-tech is where the money is at, and guess where the talent is at?

A renewed push for something new, such as a lunar base, or a manned mission to the Mars, or other brand-new never-before-tried-shoot-for-the-Moon would bring back much needed talent from other industries back to where that new stuff is happening.

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
My point is that health care would be better served, and cheaper overall, if we could eliminate the HMO's and get a deal by pooling our resources LIKE WE DO WITH MANY OTHER INDUSTRIES. Is that clear enough?

Frohickey is arguing that it is stealing from him to make him pay for my health care. My point is that he doesn't consider it stealing when a traveling salesman puts 60,000 miles on his car while I only put 12,000 on mine yet we both pay the same amount for said roads.

When a travelling salesman puts 60K miles, he's paying for 60K miles worth of fuel, and that goes into the road maintenance. Your 12K miles worth, and 12K miles worth of fuel does the same thing.

Now, why should I pay for your 2packs-a-day-half-a bottle of liquor a day habit, and skydiving hobby?

The advanced state of medical care in the United States is because of the monetary incentive to better diagnose, better care, lengthen life, etc. Without this monetary incentive, all of these technological advances would evaporate, or stagnate.

When was the last time you went to work and volunteered to NOT get paid for it?

Getting rid of the HMOs and pooling our resources to get a better deal... what industry does that happen in. Competition by private companies that have a monetary incentive to be efficient in order to survive is what gets us our better deals. You propose to get rid of that system in the pie-in-the-sky hope that when we pool our resources together we get a better deal.

Socialized Medicine, Canadian style
Why I'm Glad I'm Not a Doctor

If what you want, or thinks everyone else wants, which is lower health care costs by pooling resources can be done, its already being done. Capitalism and the markets are nothing if not flexible enough to accomodate new ideas. Its when you start adding laws that you distort the market.

If you run a small successful business, couldn't you start up a group of other like minded small successful business and collectively bargain for your health care? You can pool your resources, nothing is stopping you.

BTW, your idea of socialized medicine have been tried in various states. Last I heard, Al Gore's home state of Tennessee is having skyrocketting costs as well as HMOs bailing out of TennCare because its about to start losing money. Oh, lets just make it illegal for the HMO to bail out. Lets put them in jail if they do. Hows that for socialized medicine that works? One that takes people's freedom away.

This is similar to what Social Security is. When Social Security started, benefits were high and retirement age was low. The early ones are the ones to make out, but in the end, its not self-sustaining.

Sorry for the out of topic post, but this was just heading towards there with comments about 'I suggest you get a heart.'

 

[mactastic]

Once again, gas taxes don't cover the cost of road building.
Link

Year after year, revenues from state and federal taxes on gasoline sales pump approximately $45 billion into constructing and maintaining the nation's road network...

But Martin Wachs, in a new report released this month by the Brookings Institution (see http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/publications/wachstransportation.htm), shows that the gas tax has been paying for less and less of the total cost of the national road system. Although Wach's report is at times overly narrow, it is valuable because he shows what many people do not know: that the gas tax pays for only about a third of the cost of the road system. This has major implications for mass transit funding, which is so often criticized for "not paying for itself."

The study's central chart shows how the nation spent $133 billion on roads and highways in 2001. This includes Federal, state and local roads, from big expressways to meandering local roads. On average, the gas tax paid for only 35% of this figure. This means that non-automobile-related taxes pay for about 40% of the total cost of the road network.

One of the problems with Wachs' analysis is that he sees the gas tax as a user fee. In reality, a gas tax is not a user fee. Only a toll is a true user fee because it is point (or pavement) specific. If you use a particular highway, you pay a particular toll.
The very general nature of the gas tax encourages more driving and more road building, while user fees are generally designed to encourage moderation. On the supply side, revenue from the gas tax allows states to build highways that are not always needed, or worse yet, add to the overall congestion problem by encouraging further sprawling development.

Highway planners do not have to prove that a highway would pay for itself through its tolls. Studies have shown that, if a highway had to pay for itself through tolls, almost none would be built.

Emphasis, as always, mine.

I suggest you do some fact checking before making the tired claim that gas taxes pay for road building. So, once again, I ask you; how is it fair for the traveling salesman to steal from me? How do you justify your indignation at a national health care system while remaining curiously silent about the transportation boondoggle? Should we raise the gas tax to make it *actually* pay for the costs of roadbuilding? And that doesn't even include the costs of the pollution they create, which oddly enough brings me right back to health care. If you drive 60,000 miles a year, you are more responsible for the costs society has to bear from asthma and other dirty-air related issues, yet you aren't paying in to that pool. I thought you were a big fan of paying every cent for what something costs to be fair?

 

[mactastic]

Originally posted by idkew
well, by have and have nots, i mean people who have had the parental support, mentally and finantially and the people who have found success (the haves) the people i group as have nots are those without parental support and/or people who have not made it.

and yes, most people VERY MUCH deserve the money they possess. without getting too personal, my father has become a very successful man, not becuase he was given money, becuase he worked his ass off and spent 50-80+ hours a week working. he earned his money. he deserves it.

plus, there are lazy people out there. wether you want to beileve it or not. i am not, by any means, saying all poor people are lazy, but these people do exist, and get by doing the absolute minimum, and are happy that way too.


but anyway- this is my last post of the night, so until next time, go private space travel!

Yes, rich people deserve things like dual G5's with 23" LCD's more than others. They deserve the right to spend $29,500 on iTMS. They have the right to bigger houses, porsches, expensive wines, and whatever else suits their tastes. They don't deserve access to a doctor more than someone else IMHO. That infringes on your constitutionally guaranteed right to life as I see it. If early detection of cancer is the only prevention, lack of access to a doctor is tantamount to depriving you of that right.

And believe me, I know there are plenty of lazy people out there. I also know that there are plenty of "working poor" who can't afford insurance. Why should they be punished for the laziness of a small segment of the uninsured population?

And your comment about parental support disturbs me. Are you suggesting that a parents alchohol or mental problems determine your right to health care, or a future in general? Or that a lazy rich kid is as deserving of health care as a hardworking child of poor but hardworking parents?

 

[Desertrat]

Gasoline taxes have been essentially static for decades; the costs of highways have risen far beyond any acknowledged rates of inflation. If we raised the federal tax from 18 cents/gallon to 54 cents/gallon, federal-aid projects would be paid for by users.

Now, such a tax increase is seen as quite detrimental to the living standards of the general populace, and particularly of the poor. So, we use the general revenue fund to augment the gasoline tax.

Isn't this pretty much the same as we do for medical care for those without health insurance?

'Rat

 

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Isn't this pretty much the same as we do for medical care for those without health insurance?

Yes, except for the 42.5 million working people for whom we don't.

 

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Gasoline taxes have been essentially static for decades; the costs of highways have risen far beyond any acknowledged rates of inflation. If we raised the federal tax from 18 cents/gallon to 54 cents/gallon, federal-aid projects would be paid for by users.

Now, such a tax increase is seen as quite detrimental to the living standards of the general populace, and particularly of the poor. So, we use the general revenue fund to augment the gasoline tax.

Isn't this pretty much the same as we do for medical care for those without health insurance?

'Rat

My point exactly, which is antithetic to Frohickey's view that we should all pay for everything we use and nothing more.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
]And your comment about parental support disturbs me. Are you suggesting that a parents alchohol or mental problems determine your right to health care, or a future in general? Or that a lazy rich kid is as deserving of health care as a hardworking child of poor but hardworking parents?

You are taking me to be extreme right. I am right, but much closer to the center than what you seem to believe. What I am saying by "no parental support" is that the child is not told to do their homework. They are not encouraged to succeed. They have no support from their parents to help make theur futures bright. They are not taught any better. I am also not saying that these people do not desrve health care, I am saying that these are the people who can not afford the health care, because they were not taught to succeed in life.

As for "lazy rich kids," unless the parents are extremely well off, there is no way this wealth will transfer to the next generation. Only a small amount of the population has the ability to do this. Far less than the amount of people under the poverty line. So, in the long run, these people are not any better off than you or I. They'll be forced to get a job, and pay for their healthcare themselves someday.

 

[McToast]

Originally posted by idkew
Plus, with a nationalized system, then we have illegal immigrants getting free healthcare, since they pay no taxes. that even increases the cost to you and i more.

LOL!!! Do you even know what you are talking about or do you just shoot your mouth off? Illegal immigrants to this country GET FREE HEALTHCARE ALREADY!!! I suggest you check out your facts and know what you are talking about before you make more statements that belie your knowledge on the matter of healthcare in the United States.

 

[mactastic]

Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, many times they provide a fake SSN, not to mention they pay sales tax on everything they buy. I understand what you are trying to say, and to some extent I agree with you, however the AM radio rhetoric of illegals paying no taxes is a lie. You would do well to rethink that statement.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by McToast
LOL!!! Do you even know what you are talking about or do you just shoot your mouth off? Illegal immigrants to this country GET FREE HEALTHCARE ALREADY!!! I suggest you check out your facts and know what you are talking about before you make more statements that belie your knowledge on the matter of healthcare in the United States.

i didn't realize that they treat brain tumors, cancer and give out free phisicals. free eye exams, free contacts. free prrescriptiond drugs. yes, illegals get free ER care, but not free "advanced" care.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by mactastic
Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, many times they provide a fake SSN, not to mention they pay sales tax on everything they buy. I understand what you are trying to say, and to some extent I agree with you, however the AM radio rhetoric of illegals paying no taxes is a lie. You would do well to rethink that statement.

sorry, you are right aboust sales, gas and other such "opt in by buying" taxes, but the majority do not pay income tax. some may, but not the majority.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
i didn't realize that they treat brain tumors, cancer and give out free phisicals. free eye exams, free contacts. free prrescriptiond drugs. yes, illegals get free ER care, but not free "advanced" care.

Yeah, good thing that the immigrants only get the cheap stuff, eh? It's a good thing they're getting the trauma centres but staying out of the family physician's offices, where the major expenses are incurred. Then we'd really be in trouble.

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Yeah, good thing that the immigrants only get the cheap stuff, eh? It's a good thing they're getting the trauma centres but staying out of the family physician's offices, where the major expenses are incurred. Then we'd really be in trouble.

edited for sarcasm/happieness...


i actually think that all immigrant should be denied all health care. they should be forced to walk in gutters and wear large, caution orange, I's on their chests at all times, even while showering and sleeping. they sould only eat food that has been rejected from pet food supplies. hey, this would be a good way to use those mad cows.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by idkew
edited...


i actually think that all immigrant should be denied all health care. they should be forced to walk in gutters and wear large, caution orange, I's on their chests at all times, even while showering and sleeping. they sould only eat food that has been rejected from pet food supplies. hey, this would be a good way to use those mad cows.

or, in other words, pseudobrit, get a pseudo life and stop putting words in other people mouths.

edit from:

just like a democrat. i make a valid and true point, and you make it sound like i hate all immigrants and they all should just die slow and paintful deaths.

Now why'd you go and change it to include personal attacks? That's just silly.