Ike and Crying Wolf

[texaspackerbacker]

Gustav is gone with minimal harm done; Hanna is likely going to Georgia or Carolina and not doing an awful lot of human damage; But Ike is on the way, and Josephine is forming farther east. .

They say a week from now, Ike will be in the Bahamas, a lot like Hanna. It may follow the same track up the east coast, probably not doing much harm. It could, however, not take the right turn, continue past the Florida Keys, out into the Gulf. Where from there? Anybody's guess, but New Orleans sits there as a nice fat target AGAIN.

Yesterday, they interviewed Chertoff and a few others, bragging up the fact that they mandatorily evacuated nearly 2 million people! The question was asked, is mandatory evacuation now going to be the policy of choice for Gulf Coast hurricanes? Chertoff and others said yes.

Well, if Ike decides to go west instead of north, and New Orleans is threatened again, the timing will be just about when these nearly 2 million evacuees get settled back in at home.

This begs several questions--the least of which, maybe, is: who's gonna pay for all that evacuating and moving back? The more pertinent question, though, is: how many of these overly promoted false alarm hurricanes have to come and go before people get fed up with the evacuating and just ignore the orders? And then, like the story of the boy who cried wolf, what if the real thing comes along?

Senator David Vitter was interview, and he told about when he was a kid and Hurricane Betsy came through--a Category 4 storm that went right up the Mississippi River--worse in a lot of ways than Katrina, nobody even thought about evacuating.

I don't know what the solution is, but if I lived there, I know I'd be getting pretty pissed off about the damned government telling me what to do and not do. There is an element of politics here--the role of government, etc., but both parties seem equally gung ho about inserting themselves into people's lives in a nice do gooder way.

What do ya'all think should be the policy of dealing with hurricane threats?

[mraynrand]

I doesn't seem sustainable to evacuate all the time. I think for N.O., they have to re-think that city and they have to return to a natural delta, as much as possible. It is my understanding that the normal delta is what provided so much of a natural barrier to the effect of hurricanes. What do people in FL, MS, AL, TX do all the time? Why can't LA and N.O. follow their lead?

[mraynrand]

The other option is to Nuke the hurricanes before they become a threat. I say we should detonate a nuke in the eye of Ike right now. problem solved. If there's extra radiation in the atmosphere it just means more mutations and faster evolution to a 'better' species. Win win.

[Charles Woodson]

First of all, Florida usually doesnt get hurricanes, we just get hype. Andrew was the last really bad one in 92, charlie, a few years back did some damage to tampa. I wouldnt mind if a few hurricanes were predicted to hit, because that means no school.

But on the matter, hurricanes can cause massive damage, that was the right move evacuating NO because Gustavo was a category 4 at one point, in the gulf. The results would have been much more different if it had been that and hit.
I think that if its below a 2, of course it shouldnt be mandatory. But as you can see with Katrina, if its a 3-5 its time to evacuate. Far to many people died in katrina just because they were stubborn and tried to ride the 'cane out

[Freak Out]

The other option is to Nuke the hurricanes before they become a threat. I say we should detonate a nuke in the eye of Ike right now. problem solved. If there's extra radiation in the atmosphere it just means more mutations and faster evolution to a 'better' species. Win win.

A small 50s/60s Sci-fi part of me wants to see this happen. :twisted: Has anyone actually said this would be a good way to control hurricanes? Wouldn't surprise me....there was a guy that wanted to "build" harbors here in Alaska with nukes. Wacko's..

[texaspackerbacker]

I realize you're just joking about the nukes, but aside from that and the obvious negative consequences, I really doubt a nuke would even make a dent in a hurricane. There must be thousands, maybe millions of times more kinetic energy produced in a hurricane than in a nuclear bomb. We would merely get a lesson in how insignificant man and manmade crap is compared to nature.

What I was really hoping for was some opinions about what the government policy should be--forcing people to evacuate on the mere threat, making it optional,and then bailing out victims who chose to stay, or making it optional, but those staying live or die by their decision. This kinda gets to the heart of a lot of pro and anti nanny-state discussions or compromises between the two.

Is there an "American Way" here, or not so much?

[swede]

I realize you're just joking about the nukes, but aside from that and the obvious negative consequences...

TPB--WTF? Negative consequences?

We're CONSERVATIVES, dammit. When it comes to nukes the only possible negative consequences arise when we refuse, as a nation, to consider their use.

Report to the nearest VFW for reprogramming, buddy.

[mraynrand]

I'm reminded of Harry Truman, who was an old codger, long-time resident living at his lodge on Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens in 1980. He refused to leave. On May 18, 1980 he was buried under about half a mountain of molten rock. Should the government have rounded him up on a truck? in contrast, the governrment forced a huge number of residents to leave and allowed a bunch to go back hope to pick things up on the 16th. I guess another trip back was scheduled for the 18th, but they didn't go. Probably the best thing the government can do it inform people and offer a way to evacuate if people don't have the means. And save their sorry asses after the fact, from rooftops, as they did after Katrina, if necessary. Forced evacuations go too far.

[MJZiggy]

Having (like CW and Ballhawk) lived in Florida for a number of years, there is a policy that they could undertake were they actually to think this shit through rather than pulling answers out of their asses to try to improve the public perception of their wonderful planning skills.

With hurricanes, you have warning. You also know which side of the storm is going to be more violent. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys (and I KNOW you will) but IIRC it's the behind the eye and to the left looking at the radar. It's the part that feeds off of the eye. The feeder bands don't get a whole lot more than nasty thunderstorms.

They can also predict the track and strength with relative accuracy.

With that information in hand, you take the expected track, look at the area that the strongest storm is likely to hit and if the storm goes above a category 3 where moderate damage is expected, then you evacuate a city like New Orleans, most of which is under sea level and has no business being populated in the first place (Yes, Ayn, the delta was a natural barrier to hurricanes until the idiot developers thought that a neighborhood would look good there). Where was I? Oh. Right. While there are 3 hurricanes churning over water out there, remember that hurricane seasons usually have an average of 14 named storms, though one year we did run out of names, but the storms make landfall all over the place and even if a few of them get into the gulf, there's no saying that they will all hit NO. They hit the Yucatan, Texas and sometimes swing back and hit Florida (though not all that often).

When they do evacuate NO, they have to remember to remind the boneheads who decide to stay behind that they need to have not only adequate food and water but they have to have at least a week or two supply of any medication that might be necessary for things like being alive. Many people didn't think of this minor detail during Katrina and as a result ran into the minor problem of dying of whatever disease they were treating.

They also need to just admit to themselves that people will be stupid, so they need to have people on call in case the stupid are numerous.

I hope that answers your question.

[BallHawk]

First of all, Florida usually doesnt get hurricanes, we just get hype. Andrew was the last really bad one in 92, charlie, a few years back did some damage to tampa.

Um, what? We've had 5 major hurricanes since 2004, two of those (Wilma and Charlie) being in the top 5 costliest all-time. Charlie was in my area and it destroyed Port Charlotte. Charlie was supposed to hit Tampa, but it wobbled and hit around Port Charlotte causing a lot of damage, not to mention the damage it did on Captiva Island and Punta Gorda. Did a fair share of damage in Fort Myers and Naples, too.

Wilma did a good amount of damage in Marco and Naples, but then the East Coast saw the effects with a helluva lot of rain and then the gigantic screw-up with getting utilities up and running again.

We do get hit by the most hurricanes, that's an undeniable fact. Now, a lot of them get way overhyped. Fay was supposed to strengthen, but it could never get organized once it got over Cuba, the same thing happened to Ernesto. The good thing, though, is that we're use to dealing with hurricanes and our governors have been great dealing with crisis. Both Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist (both Republicans) have handled the events of Charley and Wilma, respectively, as well as possible. Governors in the past *cough* Blanco *cough* and future could learn from how Florida has handled these things.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone remembers not having power for a week due to a hurricane that didn't hit florida. PTL!! :roll:

[HowardRoark]

Um, what? We've had 5 major hurricanes since 2004, two of those (Wilma and Charlie) being in the top 5 costliest all-time. Charlie was in my area and it destroyed Port Charlotte. Charlie was supposed to hit Tampa, but it wobbled and hit around Port Charlotte causing a lot of damage, not to mention the damage it did on Captiva Island and Punta Gorda. Did a fair share of damage in Fort Myers and Naples, too.

That’s what I thought too. I was at the PGA at Whistling Straits in 2004 (Charley) and that was the subplot of the week……keeping an eye on Orlando as that was/is home to many of the golfers.

[GBRulz]

Maybe they could create a Crayola Color Chart for Hurricane threat levels? My guess is that we would be elevated right about now.

[GBRulz]

First of all, Florida usually doesnt get hurricanes, we just get hype. Andrew was the last really bad one in 92, charlie, a few years back did some damage to tampa.

Um, what? We've had 5 major hurricanes since 2004, two of those (Wilma and Charlie) being in the top 5 costliest all-time. Charlie was in my area and it destroyed Port Charlotte. Charlie was supposed to hit Tampa, but it wobbled and hit around Port Charlotte causing a lot of damage, not to mention the damage it did on Captiva Island and Punta Gorda. Did a fair share of damage in Fort Myers and Naples, too.



It's weird, I lived in Florida until I was 14, never once got hit by a hurricane. Got some wind and rain out of one of them, but that's about it. However, with the ocean temp rising, so are the hurricanes.

I believe it was Charlie that even caused alot of damage in the Orlando area where my sister lived. I think that was the first time a damaging hurricane hit central FL since David in '79.

[BallHawk]

It's weird, I lived in Florida until I was 14, never once got hit by a hurricane. Got some wind and rain out of one of them, but that's about it. However, with the ocean temp rising, so are the hurricanes.

I believe it was Charlie that even caused alot of damage in the Orlando area where my sister lived. I think that was the first time a damaging hurricane hit central FL since David in '79.

It really doesn't have much to do with ocean temperatures rising. Higher ocean temps might raise hurricane strength by 5-10% in some cases, but it's not a main factor. It just so happened when you lived in Florida (assuming you lived there from around the 1970s and onward) that the Atlantic was in it's "down time" which lasts for about 20 years. During the time you were there the Atlantic was in a cycle which did not promote hurricane development. From about 1995 onward the Atlantic has been in a cycle which promotes hurricane development. Of course there are other factors that affect hurricanes (El Nino, the Sahara desert, wind shear) but the Atlantic is just in an upswing that'll last until about 2015.

[Charles Woodson]

First of all, Florida usually doesnt get hurricanes, we just get hype. Andrew was the last really bad one in 92, charlie, a few years back did some damage to tampa.

Um, what? We've had 5 major hurricanes since 2004, two of those (Wilma and Charlie) being in the top 5 costliest all-time. Charlie was in my area and it destroyed Port Charlotte. Charlie was supposed to hit Tampa, but it wobbled and hit around Port Charlotte causing a lot of damage, not to mention the damage it did on Captiva Island and Punta Gorda. Did a fair share of damage in Fort Myers and Naples, too.

Wilma did a good amount of damage in Marco and Naples, but then the East Coast saw the effects with a helluva lot of rain and then the gigantic screw-up with getting utilities up and running again.

We do get hit by the most hurricanes, that's an undeniable fact. Now, a lot of them get way overhyped. Fay was supposed to strengthen, but it could never get organized once it got over Cuba, the same thing happened to Ernesto. The good thing, though, is that we're use to dealing with hurricanes and our governors have been great dealing with crisis. Both Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist (both Republicans) have handled the events of Charley and Wilma, respectively, as well as possible. Governors in the past *cough* Blanco *cough* and future could learn from how Florida has handled these things.
Let me edit my post and say Miami, thats what i was basing it on since thats where i live

[BallHawk]

Yeah, Miami's gotten off OK since Andrew. You guys are due, though....

[texaspackerbacker]

Some well thought out answers to a tough and relatively non-partisan question.

I've never lived in Florida, and I'm way too far from the Gulf for any effects of hurricanes in Texas. I do, however. have a married daughter who moved to the Tampa area early this year, and had the first threat of a hurricane experience with Fay. One big difference with Florida that maybe Charles was alluding to is that you don't have people living below sea level, which is the case with huge numbers in New Orleans.

Usually, I don't ask a controversial question that I don't have a ready answer for. This one, though, I just don't know. My gut says, hell no, government better not try to tell me what to do--and I can empathize with anybody having that view. On the other hand, if the alternative is large numbers killed, as well as a surreal situation of lawlessness and depravity, as existed in New Orleans during Katrina and was avoided this time around, maybe a bit of nanny-state intrusion is in order. On the third hand, today, residents trying to get back to their homes were met by armed National Guardsmen forcing them to stay out of the city until Thuirsday. Leave it to government to screw up even a successful bit of disaster mitigation.

[MJZiggy]

I think in this case, a bit of government intrusion is almost necessary as otherwise people will not be smart enough to leave on their own (or will clog up the roads running for the hills with no kind of order to it) and then they'll blame the government for not calling an evacuation. And you're right, lawlessness will prevail in those situations.

As to the National Guardsmen, well that's just stupid. The storm has passed. Let 'em go home. This won't help their case next time.

The other thing about Tampa, is that the hurricane has to swing at just the right curve to hit Tampa and it usually doesn't happen too often. When it does, the wind does most of the damage instead of the flood.

[BallHawk]

Tampa's got its fair share of buildings that are not built up to code. If a major hurricane hits there it could get pretty nasty.

[HowardRoark]

I think in this case, a bit of government intrusion is almost necessary as otherwise people will not be smart enough to leave on their own.

Sounds like a vicious circle. Circling the drain.

[MJZiggy]

While you're right about Tampa and the codes, the hurricane does have to make it through either St. Pete or Clearwater first, so it slows down just a bit before it gets there. Hell, we even once went through a tropical storm with part of our roof missing and didn't know until a month or two later. Stupid contractors...

[HowardRoark]

My gut says, hell no, government better not try to tell me what to do--and I can empathize with anybody having that view. On the other hand, if the alternative is large numbers killed, as well as a surreal situation of lawlessness and depravity, as existed in New Orleans during Katrina and was avoided this time around, maybe a bit of nanny-state intrusion is in order. On the third hand, today, residents trying to get back to their homes were met by armed National Guardsmen forcing them to stay out of the city until Thuirsday. Leave it to government to screw up even a successful bit of disaster mitigation.

It's OK in this circumstance for the State to tell me what I can and can't do, is that what you are saying? When is it OK and when not? What about trans fats, large numbers will be killed if too much is consumed. I guess that's OK too. What's next? Maybe they should just ship out big brown boxes to our homes with what to eat.

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." G.K. Chesterton

[mraynrand]

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once - Hume

[mraynrand]

I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it. - Tocqueville (I think he wrote this after eating one of those Girl Scout peanut butter cookies with the trans fats eliminated - Bleeeeechh!)

[texaspackerbacker]

My gut says, hell no, government better not try to tell me what to do--and I can empathize with anybody having that view. On the other hand, if the alternative is large numbers killed, as well as a surreal situation of lawlessness and depravity, as existed in New Orleans during Katrina and was avoided this time around, maybe a bit of nanny-state intrusion is in order. On the third hand, today, residents trying to get back to their homes were met by armed National Guardsmen forcing them to stay out of the city until Thuirsday. Leave it to government to screw up even a successful bit of disaster mitigation.

It's OK in this circumstance for the State to tell me what I can and can't do, is that what you are saying? When is it OK and when not? What about trans fats, large numbers will be killed if too much is consumed. I guess that's OK too. What's next? Maybe they should just ship out big brown boxes to our homes with what to eat.

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." G.K. Chesterton

I'm the one wimping out on this issue, Howard. I honestly don't know where to draw the line when it is 1. an issue of large scale death and 2. an issue of runaway lawlessness like we saw after Katrina. The logical extension of Libertarian thought is anarchy and social Darwinism. THAT has to be prevented, even if it means compromising just a bit of freedom.

The distinction between this issue and things like trans fats, global warming, etc. is that these are trumped up PHONY issues put forth by the liberals to empower government, take away freedom, hurt our economy, and weaken America in general.

[hoosier]

The distinction between this issue and things like trans fats, global warming, etc. is that these are trumped up PHONY issues put forth by the liberals to empower government, take away freedom, hurt our economy, and weaken America in general.

Just like flouridation back in the 60s?

[HowardRoark]

The distinction between this issue and things like trans fats, global warming, etc. is that these are trumped up PHONY issues put forth by the liberals to empower government, take away freedom, hurt our economy, and weaken America in general.

Who defines what a “trumped up PHONY issue” is? Your point is the crux of my problem with our country right now. You keep taking care of people, and they get “dumbed down.” Pretty soon they are too dumb to take care of themselves and the Nanny State takes over aspect of our lives.

I have had the same argument with healthcare with you.

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

[Charles Woodson]

Yeah, Miami's gotten off OK since Andrew. You guys are due, though....

Asshole :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

The distinction between this issue and things like trans fats, global warming, etc. is that these are trumped up PHONY issues put forth by the liberals to empower government, take away freedom, hurt our economy, and weaken America in general.

Who defines what a “trumped up PHONY issue” is? Your point is the crux of my problem with our country right now. You keep taking care of people, and they get “dumbed down.” Pretty soon they are too dumb to take care of themselves and the Nanny State takes over aspect of our lives.

I have had the same argument with healthcare with you.

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

I will be the one, of course, :) to define what a “trumped up PHONY issue” is. Who could possibly be better qualified. Seriously, the Katrina horrors are well documented. A clearly similar disaster is a matter of life and death for huge numbers of people. Also, any innocents in the zone of destruction were and would be subjected to the evils of anarchy--rule by outlaw forces. Now when that situation is an imminent threat and when it is not, that is another question. If it IS that degree of disaster, though, then there is no comparison with silly little shit like fats, global warming, health care, and pretty much anything else you can name, which even if valid--and the huge majority of those issues are NOT valid--are in no way IMMINENT threats.

I don't recall much of the health care discussion. Were you, per chance, one of those advocating mandatory health insurance for Americans? If so, that would seem WAY OUT OF CHARACTER with your generally Libertarian--government butt out approach. For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?

[HowardRoark]

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

[Scott Campbell]

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?


Libs.

[texaspackerbacker]

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

Is that a relevant consideration? Does it really make any difference? I mean, if the answer is not what you want to hear, does that mean you want to let them die?

[HowardRoark]

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

Is that a relevant consideration? Does it really make any difference? I mean, if the answer is not what you want to hear, does that mean you want to let them die?

Of course I don’t want to see them die. But what you seem to fail to see is that someone has to pay for these people. You are willing to let them go uninsured and let the “system” pick up the slack. Tex, I am the system. I really don’t appreciate having to pay for irresponsible people.

Here’s the deal. You cut and paste your rant “god damned assholes, etc, blah blah blah” and think that you say something. It’s nothing. When you actually write a coherent response on an issue, you always sound as though you would rather be living in a Scandinavian country. Your beliefs are of the Left. You want me and everyone else who actually pay for insurance to pay higher premiums or whatever (don’t know) so that those who would be dying in the streets are taken care of. When something goes wrong, such as a hurricane, you want the Government to come in and save our asses. What would have happened to Harry Truman on Mt. St. Helens in your world? Would he have been hauled off the volcano at gunpoint?

I am sure you will flame me with a rant, but I don’t care. You are a Liberal. I am going to make you a project, kind of like Pygmalion…….the rain in N’Orleans stays mainly on the Gulf………I want to harness your passion and focus it with actual thought.

Turn off your radio and T.V. for a month. Don’t worry, nothing will change, all the characters and all the stories will be the same. Pick up a few books. Start with Ideas Have Consequences and The Road to Serfdom.

Anybody else have any other books, put them on the list. I don't consider myself the brightest bulb in the drawer, so go ahead and add to the list. Maxie and Rand were having a good discussion the other day about Mises and Jaki. I have not read them yet, but ordered them.

[mraynrand]

Turn off your radio and T.V. for a month. Don’t worry, nothing will change, all the characters and all the stories will be the same. Pick up a few books. Start with Ideas Have Consequences and The Road to Serfdom..

Two book similar in theme to Ideas are Robert Bork's Slouching towards Gomorrah and Thomas Sowell's Knowledge and Decisions

The Road to Serfdom is pretty thick, but worthwhile. The 'contemporary equivalent', a little lighter and easier to manage is Goldberg's Liberal Fascism

Can I still watch TV?

[HowardRoark]

Can I still watch TV?

Yes you may.

[MJZiggy]

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?


Libs.

Rich people. :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?


Libs.

Rich people. :lol:


I'll concede the point, as you're probably right.

[BallHawk]

Ike intensified from 80 mph to 135 mph in only 6 hours. Damn. +55.

[texaspackerbacker]

a) Will Government take over the whole system?
b) Will we force uninsured people to get insurance in the private sector?
c) Will we let the uninsured die in the streets because they were too dumb to take care of themselves?

For the record, I would answer no, no, and no to your a, b, and c. Could you possibly answer those questions any differently?

Who exactly will pay for the medical care needed for those dying in the streets?

Is that a relevant consideration? Does it really make any difference? I mean, if the answer is not what you want to hear, does that mean you want to let them die?

Of course I don’t want to see them die. But what you seem to fail to see is that someone has to pay for these people. You are willing to let them go uninsured and let the “system” pick up the slack. Tex, I am the system. I really don’t appreciate having to pay for irresponsible people.

Here’s the deal. You cut and paste your rant “god damned assholes, etc, blah blah blah” and think that you say something. It’s nothing. When you actually write a coherent response on an issue, you always sound as though you would rather be living in a Scandinavian country. Your beliefs are of the Left. You want me and everyone else who actually pay for insurance to pay higher premiums or whatever (don’t know) so that those who would be dying in the streets are taken care of. When something goes wrong, such as a hurricane, you want the Government to come in and save our asses. What would have happened to Harry Truman on Mt. St. Helens in your world? Would he have been hauled off the volcano at gunpoint?

I am sure you will flame me with a rant, but I don’t care. You are a Liberal. I am going to make you a project, kind of like Pygmalion…….the rain in N’Orleans stays mainly on the Gulf………I want to harness your passion and focus it with actual thought.

Turn off your radio and T.V. for a month. Don’t worry, nothing will change, all the characters and all the stories will be the same. Pick up a few books. Start with Ideas Have Consequences and The Road to Serfdom.

Anybody else have any other books, put them on the list. I don't consider myself the brightest bulb in the drawer, so go ahead and add to the list. Maxie and Rand were having a good discussion the other day about Mises and Jaki. I have not read them yet, but ordered them.

I wonder how many leftists are having a good laugh the thought of ME being called a liberal. Actually, although I respect the great majority of consevative ideas and views, I seldom refer to myself as a conservative. Rather, I think of myself as an America-loving American--part of the true vast majority in this country who put COUNTRY FIRST--the theme of the evening, so it seems.

I respect the fact that you ARE the system--in your own view--and even italicize it. I don't even know how to use italics. One of my many character flaws is that I, on the other hand, have empathy for those who scam or beat THE SYSTEM.

The BOTTOM LINE, however, in the health care discussion is that the whole deal is kind of a barely relevant fringe issue in the grand scheme of things. Who's gonna pay for the miniscule number of intentionally uninsured who actually need to be paid for? Who cares! It's such a tiny pittance in the context of the entire economy that it isn't worth discussing.

Yet you--and possibly others insist on dwelling on silly little crap like that which you seem to prioritize over REAL issues like national security, tax cutting with resultant economic success, and the overall concept of keeping America the most prosperous and most powerful country in the world.

Howard, you seem to have an elitist streak almost as wide as the God damned leftist assholes with your penchant for ignoring or trampling the right of good normal Americans to do as they damn well please with THEIR money--including deciding NOT to blow it on insurance.

[HowardRoark]

Yet you--and possibly others insist on dwelling on silly little crap like that which you seem to prioritize over REAL issues like national security, tax cutting with resultant economic success, and the overall concept of keeping America the most prosperous and most powerful country in the world.

Howard, you seem to have an elitist streak almost as wide as the God damned leftist assholes with your penchant for ignoring or trampling the right of good normal Americans to do as they damn well please with THEIR money--including deciding NOT to blow it on insurance.

Tex, how can we be the most powerful country in the world if our citizens are quivering in the corner waiting for the nanny state to come around and save them from everything? The citizens are what make up the country after all.

You miss my "elitist" point; I DO want to do anything I PLEASE WITH MY MONEY!!!! What I DON'T want to do with my money is pay for those who "beat the system" (once again proving your Leftist views) by not paying for their own healthcare. Or for those other famous "system beaters" who you seemingly champion; the Welfare Mothers.

It all adds up. All these little things add up.

BTW Tex, just highlight the words you want to make bold etc, and then click the little box above....B, i, u, etc.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yet you--and possibly others insist on dwelling on silly little crap like that which you seem to prioritize over REAL issues like national security, tax cutting with resultant economic success, and the overall concept of keeping America the most prosperous and most powerful country in the world.

Howard, you seem to have an elitist streak almost as wide as the God damned leftist assholes with your penchant for ignoring or trampling the right of good normal Americans to do as they damn well please with THEIR money--including deciding NOT to blow it on insurance.

Tex, how can we be the most powerful country in the world if our citizens are quivering in the corner waiting for the nanny state to come around and save them from everything? The citizens are what make up the country after all.

You miss my "elitist" point; I DO want to do anything I PLEASE WITH MY MONEY!!!! What I DON'T want to do with my money is pay for those who "beat the system" (once again proving your Leftist views) by not paying for their own healthcare. Or for those other famous "system beaters" who you seemingly champion; the Welfare Mothers.

It all adds up. All these little things add up.

BTW Tex, just highlight the words you want to make bold etc, and then click the little box above....B, i, u, etc.

Thank you for enlightening me on the B, i, u, etc.

No offense to you, but you might want to give the old edit function a work out once in a while. " I PLEASE WITH MY MONEY!!!!" I'd like to respond to this line but I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean you are pleased with your money, and don't want to spread it around for whatever, then more power to you. Nobody is more for lower taxes than I am.

As I've said, many times, though, knowing you and some others may not believe it, but there is NOT automatically a direct correlation between government spending for whatever, and YOUR money which you may be so pleased with being grabbed. On the other hand, there IS a very direct correlation between tax cutting and your pleasing money stash--not only in the obvious way, being taxed less, but also in the Keynesian way--having the economy stimulated by tax cutting--which benefits EVERYBODY, perhaps you even more than others, depending on what business you are in.

As for your "quivering in the corner" line, is that REALLY the way you see good normal American people? I hope not.

Being "elitist" is NOT about being "pleased" about or jealously guarding your money. It is about having a condescending attitude and thinking there is some need to tell others--the vast majority of others, for some elitists--not necessarily you--what to do with THEIR money and how to live THEIR lives. That is what you're doing with this mandatory health insurance thing. MANY of us see insurance--just about any insurance--as flushing money down the toilet. Just because you may disagree with that doesn't give you--or the government which would necessarily need to be your enforcement tool--the right to inflict your views on others.

[mraynrand]

MANY of us see insurance--just about any insurance--as flushing money down the toilet. Just because you may disagree with that doesn't give you--or the government which would necessarily need to be your enforcement tool--the right to inflict your views on others.

And that is at the heart of the major misconception about healthcare. Of the 47-50 million without insurance (NOT without healthcare), the largest group are those who can easily afford to pay for insurance (and for healthcare). Next are those WHO ARE ALREADY COVERED BUT DON'T KNOW IT. All children are covered, and most adults are covered by some type of medicare or medicaid. When they come in they are enrolled. The biggest and really ONLY class of people who are uninsured are illegal immigrants. These are the folks not covered that will be the overwhelming beneficiaries of Obama's healthcare plan.

I think what Howard is asking is what to do with uninsured who come in and need tons of care. If they aren't covered, do they get punted out the hospital door? The answer is NO. They don't get punted now and they won't in the future. What does happen is that they are expected to pay what they can, and hospitals are getting more aggressive about collecting - even to the point of conducting a sort of fiscal triage. Folks coming into the ER who don't need the ER are signed up for regular appointments and ability to pay is assessed. People are all treated, but they are either signed up for coverage or are set up for some sort of payment schedule.

The key to saving money in healthcare is to reduce costs. That happens by making the consumer more responsible for his spending choices, and making physicians more accountable for the treatment decisions they make (In both cases, patients need to be informed about lower cost alternatives, and docs have to be told by administrators NOT to use more expensive methods when cheaper methods are available. In some cases that means docs can't go for company sponsored week long 'seminars' in Vail).

Returning some free market controls (especially in government provided coverages), stressing sane price reduction procedures, providing incentives for individuals to get coverage (but not mandating it), and allowing pooling
of individuals to reduce indurance costs will all help the system, and no one will be left on the streets to die - not even illegals.

[texaspackerbacker]

MANY of us see insurance--just about any insurance--as flushing money down the toilet. Just because you may disagree with that doesn't give you--or the government which would necessarily need to be your enforcement tool--the right to inflict your views on others.

And that is at the heart of the major misconception about healthcare. Of the 47-50 million without insurance (NOT without healthcare), the largest group are those who can easily afford to pay for insurance (and for healthcare). Next are those WHO ARE ALREADY COVERED BUT DON'T KNOW IT. All children are covered, and most adults are covered by some type of medicare or medicaid. When they come in they are enrolled. The biggest and really ONLY class of people who are uninsured are illegal immigrants. These are the folks not covered that will be the overwhelming beneficiaries of Obama's healthcare plan.

I think what Howard is asking is what to do with uninsured who come in and need tons of care. If they aren't covered, do they get punted out the hospital door? The answer is NO. They don't get punted now and they won't in the future. What does happen is that they are expected to pay what they can, and hospitals are getting more aggressive about collecting - even to the point of conducting a sort of fiscal triage. Folks coming into the ER who don't need the ER are signed up for regular appointments and ability to pay is assessed. People are all treated, but they are either signed up for coverage or are set up for some sort of payment schedule.

The key to saving money in healthcare is to reduce costs. That happens by making the consumer more responsible for his spending choices, and making physicians more accountable for the treatment decisions they make (In both cases, patients need to be informed about lower cost alternatives, and docs have to be told by administrators NOT to use more expensive methods when cheaper methods are available. In some cases that means docs can't go for company sponsored week long 'seminars' in Vail).

Returning some free market controls (especially in government provided coverages), stressing sane price reduction procedures, providing incentives for individuals to get coverage (but not mandating it), and allowing pooling
of individuals to reduce indurance costs will all help the system, and no one will be left on the streets to die - not even illegals.

You undoubtedly are right. I have no quarrel with any of what you said.

My response consists of only two points:

First, the costs you alluded to that Howard may have meant, are INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things.

Secondly, the whole issue of health care is INSIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things. Have you listened to Obama today? He's talking about this same kind of crap! Why aren't Republicans talking about health care and a bunch of other silly shit about what can government do and what regulations can it inflict on us?--the kind of stuff Howard salivates for like FORCING good normal people to dip into their pleasing money supply and blow some of it on insurance.

Why are Republicans NOT talking about crap like that? BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE DEALT WITH: security--preventing the mass murder of Americans and destruction of our way of life at the top of the list; maintaining American strength, dominance, and prosperity being right there near the top too; Cutting taxes--rather than idiotically raising taxes--stimulating our economy rather than dampening it; Maintaining traditional American values and morality which has been damaged significantly by leftist judicial decisions--directly contrary to the wishes of the people, etc. etc.etc.

I see some fairly good conservatives in this forum who just don't seem to understand the meaning of PRIORITIZING ISSUES, and thereby end up playing right into the hands of like-minded liberals--with respect to what issues to dwell on.

[mraynrand]

Tex,

I'm pretty close to the health care issue, so i comment on it because there is so much disinformation out there, especially the continual LIE that 50 million 'cannot get healthcare.'

In essence, it can be included with everything else that government tries to intrude on and enforce their vision. Like with education, more government involvement results in higher prices and reduced quality. Other than that, it's not significant. This country has OUTSTANDING healthcare, and it will only get better if government doesn't screw it up more than they already have.

I agree that the other issues you list are more important, but we have to be on the alert for increased government interference in every aspect of American life.

[HowardRoark]

How can you use, in your post, the word "please".....


Howard, you seem to have an elitist streak almost as wide as the God damned leftist assholes with your penchant for ignoring or trampling the right of good normal Americans to do as they damn well please with THEIR money--including deciding NOT to blow it on insurance.

.......yet be completely baffled by my same use of the word?


No offense to you, but you might want to give the old edit function a work out once in a while. " I PLEASE WITH MY MONEY!!!!" I'd like to respond to this line but I'm not sure what you mean.

As for the rest, I think I give up already.....well, I'll give it one more try:

1) uninsured who are treated still cost money.
2) medical facilities pass along these costs...
3) ...this is refledted in higher insurance premiums, or higher medical bills for all those who pay......
4) I don't like that, because then I can't afford to buy you a:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Bottle_of_Shiner_Bock.jpg

[mraynrand]

http://www.2night.it/album/redattori/alxmic/homer_beer_2401_d.jpg


http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/scanner/2008/05/16-22/homer-simpson-beer.gif

[texaspackerbacker]

How can you use, in your post, the word "please".....


Howard, you seem to have an elitist streak almost as wide as the God damned leftist assholes with your penchant for ignoring or trampling the right of good normal Americans to do as they damn well please with THEIR money--including deciding NOT to blow it on insurance.

.......yet be completely baffled by my same use of the word?


No offense to you, but you might want to give the old edit function a work out once in a while. " I PLEASE WITH MY MONEY!!!!" I'd like to respond to this line but I'm not sure what you mean.

As for the rest, I think I give up already.....well, I'll give it one more try:

1) uninsured who are treated still cost money.
2) medical facilities pass along these costs...
3) ...this is refledted in higher insurance premiums, or higher medical bills for all those who pay......
4) I don't like that, because then I can't afford to buy you a:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Bottle_of_Shiner
_Bock.jpg

No problem. I don't drink beer anyway.

I now understand--I guess--you want to do as you PLEASE with your money. Great--more power to you. Just don't forget, a lot of other people feel the same way, and some of us may not want to do the same as you want to do or don't want to do with yours.

As for your 1., 2., and 3, I agree completely that is the situation. I just don't see a problem with it. It beats the alternatives I have heard of: socialized Hillary/Obama care, intrusive regulation FORCING people to buy insurance, etc.

And the bottom line, I say again, is that this whole issue pales to insignificance compared to national security, tax cutting/maintaining prosperity, and maintaining American strength and dominance--ALL of which the leftists and Obamaphiles are so wrong on--hence, why they, like you guys, are so prone to divert to silly shit like health care, etc.

Aynrand, you brought up one excellent point I forgot, though. We do indeed already have the finest health care system in the world--which the libs want to CHANGE!

[HowardRoark]

I don't drink beer anyway.

That's not normalcy.

[Joemailman]

What kind of Patriot would say no to Samuel Adams?

http://www.thenibble.com/reviews/news/images/SamAdams-HoneyPorter.jpg

[Charles Woodson]

Ike intensified from 80 mph to 135 mph in only 6 hours. Damn. +55.

If the hurricane hits me, im blaming you :lol:

[texaspackerbacker]

I started this thread a couple of weeks ago when Ike was way out in the Atlantic.

Now that it has come across the coast and moved way inland, is there a lesson to be learned? Hell Yeah, I'd say so. But it ain't what all the experts saying.

THEY CRIED WOLF AGAIN! They moved a bunch of people out--a bunch of others stayed and for the most part were glad they did. They OVER-HYPED EVERYTHING! They said 20 to 25 foot storm surge--well above the 17 foot seawall. The actual level topped out at 13.5 feet.

Some fool talked about "sure death" for the people who disobeyed the government effort to uproot people and make them evacuate. Well, the toll obviously could go up, but as of now, there is only 1 confirmed and 1 presumed dead--and both of those were well away from the landfall and worst area--a tree falling on a house north of Houston and somebody drowned in Corpus Christi a good hundred down the coast.

Sometime, something really bad is gonna come along, and people are just gonna say, "aw, it's just another false alarm". The media and government false alarmists really ought to be a little more careful to get their facts straight before a bunch of stupid panic-causing predictions.

I predict the death toll on the whole Gulf Coast turns out to be less than for the Los Angeles train wreck last night.

[HowardRoark]

I started this thread a couple of weeks ago when Ike was way out in the Atlantic.

Now that it has come across the coast and moved way inland, is there a lesson to be learned? Hell Yeah, I'd say so. But it ain't what all the experts saying.

THEY CRIED WOLF AGAIN! They moved a bunch of people out--a bunch of others stayed and for the most part were glad they did. They OVER-HYPED EVERYTHING! They said 20 to 25 foot storm surge--well above the 17 foot seawall. The actual level topped out at 13.5 feet.

Some fool talked about "sure death" for the people who disobeyed the government effort to uproot people and make them evacuate. Well, the toll obviously could go up, but as of now, there is only 1 confirmed and 1 presumed dead--and both of those were well away from the landfall and worst area--a tree falling on a house north of Houston and somebody drowned in Corpus Christi a good hundred down the coast.

Sometime, something really bad is gonna come along, and people are just gonna say, "aw, it's just another false alarm". The media and government false alarmists really ought to be a little more careful to get their facts straight before a bunch of stupid panic-causing predictions.

I predict the death toll on the whole Gulf Coast turns out to be less than for the Los Angeles train wreck last night.

Why do you think they act this way lately?

[texaspackerbacker]

I started this thread a couple of weeks ago when Ike was way out in the Atlantic.

Now that it has come across the coast and moved way inland, is there a lesson to be learned? Hell Yeah, I'd say so. But it ain't what all the experts saying.

THEY CRIED WOLF AGAIN! They moved a bunch of people out--a bunch of others stayed and for the most part were glad they did. They OVER-HYPED EVERYTHING! They said 20 to 25 foot storm surge--well above the 17 foot seawall. The actual level topped out at 13.5 feet.

Some fool talked about "sure death" for the people who disobeyed the government effort to uproot people and make them evacuate. Well, the toll obviously could go up, but as of now, there is only 1 confirmed and 1 presumed dead--and both of those were well away from the landfall and worst area--a tree falling on a house north of Houston and somebody drowned in Corpus Christi a good hundred down the coast.

Sometime, something really bad is gonna come along, and people are just gonna say, "aw, it's just another false alarm". The media and government false alarmists really ought to be a little more careful to get their facts straight before a bunch of stupid panic-causing predictions.

I predict the death toll on the whole Gulf Coast turns out to be less than for the Los Angeles train wreck last night.

Why do you think they act this way lately?

Good Question. I don't have an instant answer.

I doubt it's a left/right thing. Fox and the Republican-led state governments have been as bad or worse than the leftists.

Maybe it is a ratings or advertizing thing, but that wouldn't explain the government aspect.

Maybe it's been honestly hyper-careful--kind of a do-gooder mentality thing.

Maybe it's because of the large political price Bush and his people (and the Dems in Louisiana) had to pay for NOT being hyper-careful in Katrina.

I just don't know.

I did hear a couple of days ago that the American Red Cross was over $100 million in debt and soliciting contributions ..... ya think! Somebody pays for those over-hyped evacuations, and it ain't all government.