MeanMrMustard

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 3,911 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by MeanMrMustard

• 
  6

  Correlation does NOT mean causation!! Shown graphically by this site...

  by ILoveTTATT in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.tylervigen.com/.

  these are some funny correlations... which of course are not causations!!.

  enjoy!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  This is my favorite. If you have ever done any web development, then this represents 100% causation :

  

  MMM
• 
  24

  Angry Health Care Rant

  by ctrwtf in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those of you who live in truly first world countries (uk, australia, canada, etc etc) you can skip this.

  for those of us stuck in the usa, not a first world country at all, please feel free to read on.. i've done my best to be fiscally responsible my whole life.

  i bought my first house at age 25. and because of having a little loot to protect and not wanting to end up in some overcrowded emergency room waiting hours to be seen by doogie howser, i purchased health insurance.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  jgnat,

  You don't have to be as convinced as I am.

  You did respond to the video, but my intent was not to imply that you didn't repsond, or that even your response wasn't sufficient. I felt that a response in this thread was a good idea because, surprisingly, even from a free market perpective, the vlogbrothers video is not far off. The problems are there - but it's the "therefore we have to do XYZ" that troubles me.

  You wrote in the other thread (you have to go to page 16):

  The Vlog brothers always talk fast. They have a self-imposed limit of five minutes, and they cram in as much as they can. They are also factual.

  I fail to see how you have concluded from all this that too much government intervention has led to rising prices. Canada has loads more government intervention, and our costs are lower. As does Europe. As the brother says so well, it's the loaded gun to your head - inelastic demand - that leads to high prices.

  By the time you said that, the user DogGone was discussing inelastic demand with me. Our discussion then went on to patents.

  MMM
• 
  51

  BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

  by raymond frantz in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

  finland attacks judicial committees.

  please like and share article so more get to see it!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  jgnat had an interesting post that I glossed over:

  Didn't the old USSR allow dissidents to leave but they had to leave their families behind? That's surely breaking a human right; severing natural familial bonds.

  Assuming the USSR did this (let's assume for the sake of the argument), then I would agree there was a rights violation. But I don't think it is comparable to the WT. It seems like it is on the surface because to walk away from the WT is like walking away from your family. However, the difference here is that the USSR is forcing the family to stay within the country. In the case of the WT, the family chooses to stay. In the example above, the USSR would not be violating the dissident's right to association, rather it is the rest of the family's right to association that is being violoated.

  MMM
• 
  14

  Breaking News! Azerbaijan to ban Watchtower Magazines

  by raymond frantz in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  police and other security services have been handed a list of banned books that they will seek to remove and destroy in raids planned for the future in azerbaijan.the list mostly contains muslim texts and books such as those by dr. said nursi a muslim theologian.

  i addition , this list contains .... .

  read the rest of the post here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Sucks to live there..
• 
  24

  Angry Health Care Rant

  by ctrwtf in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those of you who live in truly first world countries (uk, australia, canada, etc etc) you can skip this.

  for those of us stuck in the usa, not a first world country at all, please feel free to read on.. i've done my best to be fiscally responsible my whole life.

  i bought my first house at age 25. and because of having a little loot to protect and not wanting to end up in some overcrowded emergency room waiting hours to be seen by doogie howser, i purchased health insurance.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  jgnat,

  I responded to the video you posted above (vlogbrothers) in a previous thread. I agreed with most of what he said, but I don't see that as an all out reason to go into single payer. Here is what I said in that other thread, since that thread was very long:

  Your first video: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M&feature=player_embedded) - I did watch it but I did not comment on it. The maker of the video (vlogbrothers) fires off many many points, hard and fast. It makes it tough to respond to everything there. However, since I agree with a lot of what he says, it is somewhat easier. I have no reason to really disagree; he is right, we spend way too much on healthcare. The problem is not over utilization, it is not that we are inherently sicker, and it is not because things just cost a lot here. I keep bringing it up that people aught to ask why it costs so much, not attempt to just pay for it. I also do not think it is because of inelastic demand. It is because we have systematically, over a long time, gone away from the free market and caused all sorts of distortions in the pricing mechanism.

  One interesting point - he mentions malpractice insurance somewhere around minute 4. He states that it can't be that either because Texas enacted Tort reform (although I don't know the details, I can assume it was meaningful reform for the sake of the argument) and the cost of healthcare fell only 0.1%. I have no reason to disagree, after all, what is pushing the price down? It is not enough just to remove the barrier for the price to fall, you must also have a meaningful market with competition to push down the prices. That doesn't happen the way we currently do things (employer based insurance or medicare or medicaid).

  I think the point I've been trying hard to make is that the way things are now - as messed up as they are - have come about by a process, a process that started with wage controls during WWII, and continued on to today. More and more of the free market was replaced with subsidies, distortions, or special privileges....

  MMM
• 
  24

  Angry Health Care Rant

  by ctrwtf in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for those of you who live in truly first world countries (uk, australia, canada, etc etc) you can skip this.

  for those of us stuck in the usa, not a first world country at all, please feel free to read on.. i've done my best to be fiscally responsible my whole life.

  i bought my first house at age 25. and because of having a little loot to protect and not wanting to end up in some overcrowded emergency room waiting hours to be seen by doogie howser, i purchased health insurance.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  @ctrwtf:

  I have said it here before, and I still believe: The problem is not the market. A true market would help matters. We spend too little time asking why the cost of health services is so expensive and instead focus on just figuring out a way of paying for it. There are good economic reasons why some (including me) oppose the ACA, as well as single payer programs. It is not just partisan politics. There are also good economic reasons why the consumers must be attached to the cost in some way (see link below).

  That's the back story. Now the reason for my rant is that a-hole Republicans still are fuming about so-called Obamacare. I find it ironic that the party that touts personal responsibility doesn't want to part with a nickel to be personally responsible about their own health needs. "I'm young and don't need health insurance." Really? If you get in an accident or need your appendix removed it's going to cost anywhere from 50K to a million bucks. Do you have that cash floating around? "No, but I'll pay it off over time." Guess what Einstein? The hospital is going to send you to collections in three months time then write off the loss and pass the cost on to the next consumer. That said consumer being me, the guy that pays for health insurance at an inflated rate to cover your irresponsibility. Now let me state for the record at this point, I'm not mad about those that because of personal circumstances cannot afford to be responsible for their own needs. I'm mad at people that complain that the govt is forcing them to be responsible. BTW, republicans have yet to forward ANY ideas to solve this enormous issue.

  I try to view the issue outside of the Republican/Democrat framework. But I wonder if you are viewing a free market solution as a lack of solution - as if the only valid solutions are in the domain of new government programs? So, when a more conservative Republican tries to speak about returning to a market, you feel he/she would just like to undermine the current law that was, at least, an attempt to fix things. I do agree, we have a messed up healthcare system now, but we are far from a real market.

  Personally, I think the best healthcare systems in the world are single payer, govt sponsored. But if you dare to forward that idea, you get the inevitable, "Ya, but people from all over the world come to the USA for advanced medical treatment maaaan." Okay, less than a handful fo people come here every year for some exotic treatment. Meanwhile, life expectancy in every other first world country is surpassing the good ole US of A. They're also spending less per capita on medical treatment.

  I don’t give that response normally. We went down this path about 8 months ago. Take a look at this thread, starting on pp. 11. I defend a free market in health care, with much of the same responses.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/social/current/262749/11/So-are-Republicans-now-openly-terrorists

  Incidentally, that thread was also ragging on Republicans. There’s not much difference between the two parties these days.

  When consumers are separated from the cost (the price), it means that they aren’t paying attention to the information conveyed within that price. The doctor too doesn’t get a good view of the real demand. It looks inflated because a rich single payer is paying for the increase in care usage. There will be an expansion for sure, and prices will rise. The incentive to expand comes from more money flooding into the system, whereas, if a prices were to fall from a real market, the expansion would come from actual demand (people being able to afford the care). In time, prices will continue to rise - after all, what keeps them from rising? Demand looks off the chart to the providers, and the price will rise. Eventually, it will have to stop. Price fixing (which will cause shortages) or rationing will start to occur.

  To be fair to all those people (you make them sound like hippies ... maaan.. :) ) telling these stories of coming to the USA, it makes a lot sense. Once the rationing kicks in, you might find yourself on a waiting list for an important procedure, one that really can’t wait.

  I'm not sure if this is the forum for such a secular discussion. But I wiil say that the dubs as a people could care less about being fiscally responsible. Janitors and pioneers don't usually have enough to spend on such things as personal responsibility. Maybe they should purchase some "miracle wheat" to deal with what ails them.

  I don’t know about that. I know a lot of currently active JWs that are fiscally responsible, on matters of health care and otherwise. On matters of health care, they too are dealing with the increased cost like everyone else.

  MMM
• 
  36

  Do You Believe That Jehovah's Witnesses Should Be Outlawed As They Are In Some Countries?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  or do you believe they have the right to practice their religion, as they do?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  No.

  MMM
• 
  51

  BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

  by raymond frantz in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

  finland attacks judicial committees.

  please like and share article so more get to see it!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Band on the Run,

  You are right to mention this. This thread started out about Finland, but that not where the thread is now.

  MMM
• 
  51

  BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

  by raymond frantz in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

  finland attacks judicial committees.

  please like and share article so more get to see it!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Hi Giordano,

  I read the cases you link to. They are not the same. The shunning comes from the currently active members of the WT.

  Rebecca Hancock had a case of slander until she went to Fox news and outed herself. She was persuing a relationship with a man out of marriage and her current church didn't like that. She terminated her membership, and the church decided it was going to present her wrongs publically to the congragation (probably read a list off one Sunday or something). As you know, JWs don't do this because it could turn to slander. Her case evaporated when she went to Fox news and confirmed everything was true on national TV. Again, she had the freedom to leave. She did. Good for her.

  Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville link: This is a case of a woman, Marian Guinn, who wanted to have a relationship with a man that the church didn't approve of. The church told her no, she quit. Again, freedom of assocation confirmed right there. But here is where it devates drastically from the WT: the church rejected her decision, then excommunicated her, and then went to all the local churches and told them what she had done. This was the problem. The WT is not doing this. They will either terminate their association, or the member will. Their policy of shunning applies to the rest of the currently active members, and they don't go around telling local churches the offenses of the former member, and they don't make the offenses public to the congregation.

  MMM
• 
  51

  BREAKING NEWS ! Finland attacks judicial committees

  by raymond frantz in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  the finish minister of justice has publicly attacked the practice of judicial committees in her country which are in violation with the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed from citizens in her country .read the full article here :.

  finland attacks judicial committees.

  please like and share article so more get to see it!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Hi Fraz,

  I don't think I am missing the point. I know what you are saying. I just disagree. Take, for example, the right you listed: "If you are so set on what right is being infringed - it is the right not to be subject to psychological abuse."

  Can you define "psychological abuse"? Can you guarantee that ambigious phrase won't be used sometime in the future to limit other liberties we might enjoy? You do realize that making a "right" out of that may impose some unintended duties on individuals later on, and I don't just mean the WT - I mean simple people? What about the husband that has a wife and family but decides he doesn't want to be with them anymore. Is he allowed to make that choice? Or is an activist court going to come in later and say, "Well, it seems that his leaving constitutes psychological abuse, even in a small degree, and therefore the wife's human right is violated." Or what if it is decided, by wise politicians of course, that being raised a JW is abuse? Should their children be taken away by force? This is not too far fetched, after all, besty did say that he feels it is abuse to be raised in high control groups. What if you are not in a high control group, but want to home school your children? What if the local public school is horrible (as a lot are in inner cities) and a concerned parent, limited by lack of free choice in schools, wants to home school? Again, this is not far fetched. Simply google “home school abuse”. There are individuals who are of the opinion that home schooling is abuse in and of itself.

  What if I decide, for reasons OTHER THAN religion, that I don't want to talk to my mother and father (or children)? Should I be forced because it may be viewed as abuse?

  You mentioned bullying. Do you consider name calling “bullying”? When I was growing up, “bullying” was being physically assaulted.

  MMM