Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Well - to be fair, there are other factors that contribute to lawsuits, such as Big Tobacco aiming their advertising and marketing exclusively to kids. And a lot of good has come out of the lawsuits - changes in advertising policy, warning labels (not that they do any good, see Dennis Leary), and most imporantly money contributed to hospitals that have to care for smoking-related cancer patients (including second-hand smoke cancer patients). If no one ever sued them, they may just be making billions scott-free...and they might have even more lobbying power, to make 'non-smoking' establishments unconstitutional. :) Let's not forget decades of advertising, including using doctors in the commercials - including decades of denying any negative medical consequences. It's the same as people denying global warming now...
Anyway - on the whole drug thing, I say legalize it as well. Tax it, regulate it, but legalize it - get it under control and have it added to the GDP, rather than to overseas drug lord's accounts. Of course any professional athlete should keep himself clean of any prohibited substances, and be tested accordingly.
And to weigh in specifically on Clemens, yes it is a big issue, but not something the government needs to be involved in. We're approaching recession, we have a misnamed 'Patriot act' and tax cuts to examine (and hopefully not renew) and an administration that is out of control and cannot be held accountable. The fact that a panel of our elected representatives choose to take their time examining what went in or came out of Roger Clemen's butt-cheeks is a strong reason for their removal in the next election.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alloutwar
Well - to be fair, there are other factors that contribute to lawsuits, such as Big Tobacco aiming their advertising and marketing exclusively to kids. And a lot of good has come out of the lawsuits - changes in advertising policy, warning labels (not that they do any good, see Dennis Leary), and most imporantly money contributed to hospitals that have to care for smoking-related cancer patients (including second-hand smoke cancer patients). If no one ever sued them, they may just be making billions scott-free...and they might have even more lobbying power, to make 'non-smoking' establishments unconstitutional. :) Let's not forget decades of advertising, including using doctors in the commercials - including decades of denying any negative medical consequences. It's the same as people denying global warming now...
Well, yeah, when companies don't warn people of the risks and what not, than that is grounds for a suit. However, nowadays, with all the warnings and information out there, the companies should not be held accountable for a smoker getting lung cancer.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yankee hater
PED's can give unfair advantage outside of sports too. Several jobs require manual labor and they definitely help with that. Looking better can help you in all walks of life, too. It's not as simplistic as you would like to make others believe.
Except manual labor isn't a contest meant to be played on an even playing field in order to provide entertainment to society.
If John Lumberjack wants to use steroids in order to chop down trees better, why is that a problem?
Furthermore, companies would still have the right to make it against their rules for their employees to use whatever drugs they say are against the rules.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Some pretty good arguments on both sides here. This has also turned into a battle of political ideology.
I understand the arguments to make drugs legal. Its their body, and a valid argument can be made to let them do as they please with it as long as it doesn't effect society. The flaw I have with this, is that it always effects society. Study's are readily available from other countries experiences that crime increases when drugs are legalized. Now they may not be specific to PED's, but legalizing drug use in general increases crime. As much as our govt. gets involved in things they shouldn't, reducing crime is always something they should be involved in.
Drug abuse also is a HUGE burden on our economy. The profit gained by legalizing and taxing is minimal compared to the loss of profit from poor production, missed time at work, and a huge increase in workplace injuries or compensation fraud. Drug users are far more likely to get hurt (legitimately or fraudlently) and spend far more time on the workers compensation system. Drug abuse also is a HUGE problem on our roadways which are already very unsafe. You see the effects of alcohol (over 20,000 fatalities on the road per year) and driving.....making other drugs legal will only worsen it.
As far as congress and the steroid issue. Although I initially was for the hearings with Clemens & McNamee I am almost embarrassed to admit it. Just a circus and Congress had no point other than to get some publicity and their names in the papers.
There is an epidemic in our schools and with young athletes and the use of PED's. Congress should be investigating how to address it. There are some areas of the country now where drug testing has become common for high school athletes. Although this is a deterent, its a huge tax burden and at least in my opinion it is sad that children must go through this. Tackling the problem at the top, with professional athletes I believe in time WILL reduce the usage. I feel anyone the Mitchell report found to be using and have sufficient evidence should be prosecuted. Then maybe we will get real answers as to how many are using, and where they are coming from. Then maybe we can arrest the suppliers.
Until the athletes are prosecuted however and pressured to talk, the true reach of this problem in professional baseball can only be speculated.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I don't think PED's should be illegal either. I think that sports should ban them, but I don't think they should be illegal under the law.
I can't say I completely disagree with you here. Drugs such as marijauna and cocaine cause addiction and lead to many types of criminal activity. Although there is evidence that PED's can cause 'roid rage' I think the evidence is limited and not enough studies have been conducted. If PED's have no bearing on our society and effect only the 'adult' user then I don't have much issue with legalizing it.
Now on the flip side; I captioned 'adult' because there is plenty of evidence that legalization increases use of drugs amongst teenagers. Its more available, hence more teens use it. Alaska legalized marijauna in the 70's and addition and use amongst teens skyrocketed. The legalization was later repealed. Although again evidence is limited on the matter, there appears to be significant negative side effects of PED use amongst teenagers as their bodies are still developing. Better availability and the advantages for scholarships and the like would greatly increase the use amongst teens which is a huge detriment. Yes it is their bodies, but it is also the country's future and children are more easily persuaded and pressured into usage. We have a moral obligation to protect their health in my opinion.
Sure, we could easily make it illegal for teens and test for it, but that is very costly in itself and kind of a backwards way of addressing the problem.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
You make it illegal for teens to purchase them, just like with legal drugs like tobacco. Yes, they'll still get them, but they still get alcohol and tobacco, too. The key is education.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
You make it illegal for teens to purchase them, just like with legal drugs like tobacco. Yes, they'll still get them, but they still get alcohol and tobacco, too. The key is education.
I agree education is key legal or not....but that doesn't change the fact that legalizing the drugs (for adults) has proven to dramatically increase use amongst teens. This has been the case time and time again throughout history. When are we going to learn from it? This is only one of the arguments I have against legalization, but it is one of the most significant.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Except manual labor isn't a contest meant to be played on an even playing field in order to provide entertainment to society.
If John Lumberjack wants to use steroids in order to chop down trees better, why is that a problem?
Furthermore, companies would still have the right to make it against their rules for their employees to use whatever drugs they say are against the rules.
I agree with you to an extent. The only issue I have, to use your John the Lumberjack example, is that, in Canada, when he reaches his later years, and the health problems start kicking in from his steroid use (and there are many, and the surface is just being cracked), every single citizen is now paying the guy's medical bills. (Don't get me wrong...I'm not at all complaining about public-funded healthcare). I am a very big advocate of legalization of drugs, but the healthcare issue is the one big stumbling block for me. I suppose maybe a certain portion of the proceeds could be required to be invested in treatment programs and healthcare, though.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arctic Blast
I agree with you to an extent. The only issue I have, to use your John the Lumberjack example, is that, in Canada, when he reaches his later years, and the health problems start kicking in from his steroid use (and there are many, and the surface is just being cracked), every single citizen is now paying the guy's medical bills. (Don't get me wrong...I'm not at all complaining about public-funded healthcare). I am a very big advocate of legalization of drugs, but the healthcare issue is the one big stumbling block for me. I suppose maybe a certain portion of the proceeds could be required to be invested in treatment programs and healthcare, though.
Great, so now in addition to paying for others health care I am going to be required to pay into a Substance abuse program!?!?!?! No thanks.
Sorry, as much as many hate Bush, people need to realize they can't afford Hillarycare and the raise in taxes either democrat will bring. I'm tired of the entitlements. I have a responsibility to provide healthcare for myself and my family. THATS IT! The middle class is being clobbered with taxes already.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
Great, so now in addition to paying for others health care I am going to be required to pay into a Substance abuse program!?!?!?! No thanks.
Sorry, as much as many hate Bush, people need to realize they can't afford Hillarycare and the raise in taxes either democrat will bring. I'm tired of the entitlements. I have a responsibility to provide healthcare for myself and my family. THATS IT! The middle class is being clobbered with taxes already.
Like I said...the money the government brings in FROM legalized drug sales is put back in to the system to pay for the treatment/health needs of the users. It quite likely could sustain itself, and by removing the people who have a vested interest in engaging in urban combat over drug turf, you seriously drop the violent crime rate. By making it more affordable, you also reduce the OVERALL crime rate (nobody but an absolute junkie is robbing a 7/11 for the 35 bucks they keep in the till).
And I can tell you that the absolute fearmongering that I hear from the US media over how a public-funded healthcare system would ruin the conomy is absolutely ridiculous. Is our system flawless? Of course not...neither is yours. If you want to see how such a system can be run WELL, take a look at Scandinavia (also a great example there, in Norway, of a country that uses it's oil wealth smartly, as opposed to the absolute joke we have here in Alberta...but that's a rant for another day).
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arctic Blast
Like I said...the money the government brings in FROM legalized drug sales is put back in to the system to pay for the treatment/health needs of the users. It quite likely could sustain itself, and by removing the people who have a vested interest in engaging in urban combat over drug turf, you seriously drop the violent crime rate. By making it more affordable, you also reduce the OVERALL crime rate (nobody but an absolute junkie is robbing a 7/11 for the 35 bucks they keep in the till).
And I can tell you that the absolute fearmongering that I hear from the US media over how a public-funded healthcare system would ruin the conomy is absolutely ridiculous. Is our system flawless? Of course not...neither is yours. If you want to see how such a system can be run WELL, take a look at Scandinavia (also a great example there, in Norway, of a country that uses it's oil wealth smartly, as opposed to the absolute joke we have here in Alberta...but that's a rant for another day).
All this is great in theory though its all a dream. History has showed time and time again that legalization doesn't reduce crime, or enhance the economy in fact its the obvious. I'd prefer to learn from history rather than repeat it.
As for healthcare, the US Govt. doesn't deserve the opportunity to handle such a task. Is there anyone that actually trusts the govt. to run this??? Regarding the costs, I admit I haven't researched as much as I'd like in this area, but I have seen and know many canadians that claim it costs them much more than the democrats want us to believe. The costs are hidden but as much as 5K per person. Top the costs with the claims that care isn't as good or as quick for serious illnesses and the rich can buy better and quicker care.....I don't see any benefits.
I trust the govt. with very little anymore. They've proven time and time again their incompetence. Stop the entitlement programs, and stay out my pocket.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
As for healthcare, the US Govt. doesn't deserve the opportunity to handle such a task. Is there anyone that actually trusts the govt. to run this??? Regarding the costs, I admit I haven't researched as much as I'd like in this area, but I have seen and know many canadians that claim it costs them much more than the democrats want us to believe. The costs are hidden but as much as 5K per person. Top the costs with the claims that care isn't as good or as quick for serious illnesses and the rich can buy better and quicker care.....I don't see any benefits.
We in Massachusetts were just handed compulsory health care. The current system is nothing even remotely resembling the promised system. Affordable, reigning in the insurers rates, etc. My bill last week was $119.54 for single coverage. No that's not monthly, thats WEEKLY.
Oh yeah, funny things that you wont hear about when you do hear how Assachusetts has universal care. Not even two months in to the scam, we're running a defecit on the new system. They've made it illegal NOT to carry health insurance, and they've stated that they didn't know that everyone without insurance would apply for it. So the "state assisted" insurance is already millions in the tank, 60 days in. For those who don't qualify, you either pay the full rate or you lose you personal exemption this year, and the fine escalates annually.
Watch for it soon. I've heard the promos of the Massachusetts system on national radio and television shows already, and they aint telling you the reality of our system.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robinhoodnik
We in Massachusetts were just handed compulsory health care. The current system is nothing even remotely resembling the promised system. Affordable, reigning in the insurers rates, etc. My bill last week was $119.54 for single coverage. No that's not monthly, thats WEEKLY.
Oh yeah, funny things that you wont hear about when you do hear how Assachusetts has universal care. Not even two months in to the scam, we're running a defecit on the new system. They've made it illegal NOT to carry health insurance, and they've stated that they didn't know that everyone without insurance would apply for it. So the "state assisted" insurance is already millions in the tank, 60 days in. For those who don't qualify, you either pay the full rate or you lose you personal exemption this year, and the fine escalates annually.
Watch for it soon. I've heard the promos of the Massachusetts system on national radio and television shows already, and they aint telling you the reality of our system.
Ahhh, you mean the one Romney trumpeted and everyone said was so wonderful!?!?!?
Not surprising. $120.00 per week times 52 weeks is an astonishing $6,240!! Far more than i'm paying now for coverage on my entire family!!! I wish america would research instead of drinking this coolaid. Hopefully when the general election McCains camp will successfully feed this information.
Administration of this program is a HUGE tax increase for the middle class who can least afford it.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Wow - how did we go from Clemen's butt-cheeks to universal health care?? Odd transition, boys.
I think the Romney experiment, of 'mandatory' healthcare with fines imposed is the wrong approach. It was a brave step, and they can claim some level of 'success' for implementing it, but how could they not imagine that so many people would enroll, when they instituted fines? How did they get the population numbers so wrong as to go into the red within a few months? That's poor. I think Romney wanted it to come off as a success so he could impress some liberal voters in his run for the presidency, before the negative implications we being felt....too bad that didn't work. Believe me, any of us with family in Mass know about these issues.
Universal healthcare isn't supposed to be an increased burden on the middle class or working individuals; European countries run a universal healthcare system without this huge individual burden, or any fines, or forcing people to pick a plan and then pay such a huge cost for it. Most contries that run it successfully have one payer; after working in the healthcare industry for most of my life, the US system is tremendously different, and doing this hybrid privatized-yet-mandatory universal healthcare is going to be incredibly difficult.
One aspect that may make it less of a financial burden on other countries is that they have allowed for this expense for years; they aren't spending such a huge chunk of their budget on 'defense' (like we are, even before expenses for the two countries we are policing), and they might actually tax their wealthy and big corporations (oil, ahem) a little more progressively than we do. I think we could have a working universal healthcare system eventually, but it's not going to be handed to us - we have to make sacrifices, and make changes to the existing US healthcare system, which is unique, somewhat unregulated, and slow to adapt.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Alloutwar
and they might actually tax their wealthy and big corporations (oil, ahem) a little more progressively than we do. I think we could have a working universal healthcare system eventually, but it's not going to be handed to us - we have to make sacrifices, and make changes to the existing US healthcare system, which is unique, somewhat unregulated, and slow to adapt.
I agree with most of your thoughts....I am not totally against the idea of revamping any of our programs but Govt. jumping into them haphazardly for political purposes is what is killing us. As for taxing the wealthy, and big corporations, America in fact is already doing this at a much higher level than europeans and any other industrialized nation. Over 70% of all taxes received by the govt. are from less than 10% of the population, the rich. The corporate tax in America is near 40%, almost twice as much as most european countries.
What does this all mean? It means corporations are now moving their operations overseas so they don't have the huge tax implifications in America. Loss of jobs, loss of taxes because of a high corporate tax rate. The rich (those getting taxable income from these corporations) are now paying the other nations income taxes and not americas as their employment is overseas. As the rich pay less, the burden on the middle class goes up and companies based in america stop providing health care to pay for the high corporate tax. Now those who lose their jobs when their company's go over seas need health care, middle class pays for them and their own as their employer stops providing it.
It isn't only the middle class who is overtaxed, its the upper class and corporate america. Hard to encourage job growth and improve the economy with this. Our family values decline as it now requires two full time working parents to support SMALLER families than it did 30 years ago, and even at that these families are way overstretched with debt.
Small govt. and small taxes is what provides a strong economy. Govt. should focus on infrastructure and providing security. How does increasing taxes with a universal health care system make any sense?
1 Attachment(s)
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Aside from increasing taxes, I pointed out above the issues with where our tax expenditures currently go. See chart below. #1, other nations don't spend so huge an amount, percentage wise or pure numbers wise, on defense, specifically keeping up two wars and funding contractors and other third-party companies to do the dirtywork. And a lot of that money isn't necessarily 'handled with care.' (I'm sure anyone can find stories of the military and $4,000 toilet seats)
#2, other countries that successfully do universal health care aren't spending so much on Medicare/Medicaid, because there is only one health coverage payer. The more seperate payers you maintain, the more seperate rules, administrative staff, and overhead there is. Ever spent a day on the phone with Medicare? I have. Not a well-oiled machine.
Not sure if other countries do the Social Security thing either; that's a big piece of where our pie goes. Before we even think about increasing taxes, we would have to logically examine where all this current money is going, make some spending sacrifices, and combine some government entities into one. Then you can add in what everyone currently pays for health insurance (which generates huge profits for hundreds of huge insurance companies across the US - they don't get into this business for the fun of it, after all).
If it is all centrally managed, then it can work, and work well. If it is going to be part private, part government aid programs, then the whole theory will never work - at least it will never stay afloat financially. And the big flaw in it is that we can't have our country simulatenously provide flawless universal healthcare, social security for everyone retiring, and huge constant expenditures on war and defense (at least not with so many holes for money to fall into, or without a constant 10-to-1 ratio of working to retired, healthy to sick). Something has to give.
On top of all that, then you can look at taxing progressively - taxing investment gains as heavily as income, or more heavily, since there isn't labor going into them. And for the companies paying high taxes in the US now - well, they are still turning in record profits, year after year. Anyone else that has worked for a Fortune 500 knows there are horrible, horrible wastes of money there (hiring of expensive consultants, executive 'expenses' for gifts and trips, huge bonuses of stock paid to top executives, mergers that are handled poorly and fail, incompetency and scandal, etc). And yet these companies make a killing every year...I don't think they can really be hurting as much as some preach. I think some forced cutbacks and streamlining would only force companies to operate better. But, admittedly, I am jaded after working for a few of them. :D
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
"Progressive" taxes are a great way to kill an economy and increase unemployment. Granted, I understand the feelings behind the idea of progressive taxation, and the theory of how they should work is sound. It's the reality of their effects that causes a problem. Progressive taxation makes for a good poster child of an issue for how theory doesn't always work out well in reality.
But then, I'm a hardcore Libertarian. If it were up to me, there would barely be any taxes at all... and that pie chart wouldn't have a purple, yellow, light blue, or green slice at all, and would have a really small pink slice...
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
Ahhh, you mean the one Romney trumpeted and everyone said was so wonderful!?!?!?
Yes, the same one that T. Kennedy, J. Kerry, and the rest of our legislators and representatives were supposed to work out to benefit all of us in Assachusetts. They didn't bother. It dragged on for months past the deadline since they had no idea how to make it work. The final result was basically a "because we will criminalize non compliance" ruling. The net result is that the same people who were getting free health care before, are still getting it free, the rest of us are just "getting it".
There went years of pay increases, effectively removing much of the financial incentive of working hard to get ahead.
Hey Dabs, how's Rhode Island work?
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
A large part of Massachusetts' problem is that we're a single party state. Not helped by the fact that instead of voting our bad pols out, people choose to leave the state. It's an impossible situation right now. People on both sides blindly vote the party ticket every time. Last election, I asked both Democrats and Republicans who and why they voted for who they did. i got the who, but rarely a why. Most just ignored the why, or literally, turned and walked away.
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robinhoodnik
A large part of Massachusetts' problem is that we're a single party state. Not helped by the fact that instead of voting our bad pols out, people choose to leave the state. It's an impossible situation right now. People on both sides blindly vote the party ticket every time. Last election, I asked both Democrats and Republicans who and why they voted for who they did. i got the who, but rarely a why. Most just ignored the why, or literally, turned and walked away.
I hear ya. I'm not far away in CT. Not much different. We've got the two largest casino's in the world who reportedly pumped 430 million into the general fund in 2007 (CT gets a percentage of the slot revenue). Connecticut brought in over 279 million into the general fund from the state run lottery. When the lottery was created, it was championed as the savior of the education system, all profits would make CT's public education system the best in the nation. Years later the education system sees a very small fraction of this money.
The state income tax was supposed to keep other taxes from rising. After the income tax was implemented Connecticut then began seeing the huge casino revenue. Why after all that revenue has just about every tax increased and new ones added? Our bridges are amongst the worst in the nation.
After all this people still pull the lever for tax and spend democrats. :confused::confused::confused:
Re: probing whether Clemens lied to Congress
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
All this is great in theory though its all a dream. History has showed time and time again that legalization doesn't reduce crime, or enhance the economy in fact its the obvious. I'd prefer to learn from history rather than repeat it.
As for healthcare, the US Govt. doesn't deserve the opportunity to handle such a task. Is there anyone that actually trusts the govt. to run this??? Regarding the costs, I admit I haven't researched as much as I'd like in this area, but I have seen and know many canadians that claim it costs them much more than the democrats want us to believe. The costs are hidden but as much as 5K per person. Top the costs with the claims that care isn't as good or as quick for serious illnesses and the rich can buy better and quicker care.....I don't see any benefits.
I trust the govt. with very little anymore. They've proven time and time again their incompetence. Stop the entitlement programs, and stay out my pocket.
First off, the claims of the costs per person in Canada being that high are nothing short of preposterous. I'm not saying some improvement couldn't be made, but it's not nearly that high, and can be done MUCH better, as I said, as many European countries have shown.
Anyway, to the main point...legalization DOES reduce crime rates. It's irrefutable that it reduces them, because possession is no longer a CRIME. It opens up a lot of time for law enforcement and the court system to deal with crime that ACTUALLY affects people in a much more blunt and direct way, rather than wasting time busting some kid with 3 joints, then sentencing him to prison time for it (which is also a colossal waste of prison resources).
