Which ones? The most conservative form of healthcare coverage in the rest of the developed world is the Bismarckian system, which is kind of the inspiration of the PPACA. In Bismarckian system, the insurance companies are much more regulated than their American counterparts and basically operate more like utility companies than insurance companies.
I also think its debatable about whether the GOP really wants an alternative to the PPACA. Jonathan Chait made a very important point when he noted that conservative really don't believe in luck. They believe that peopel deserve their good fortune or bad fortune, nobody is simply lucky or unlucky. To more than a few conservatives, not being able to afford healthcare is simply something that people deserve.
The problem is that there really can't be a Republican or conservative alternative to the PPACA. American conservtives have been arguing that market based healthcare is better than government based healthcare for generations. They ranted against Medicare when LBJ first introduced it into Congress and they have been proven wrong every time. Government based healthcare works and nobody has really created a market-based healthcare system that does work.
There can't be a conservative alternative to the PPACA because I'd argue that the PPACA is the most conservative form of universal healthcare that will kind of work thats possible. Any alternative that would work would be more socialist and not less socialist in nature.
One of the conservative tropes that I hate the most is the one about Canadians coming down south for healthcare because of how horrible the Canadian system is. Its simply not true, the Canadian healthcare system is popular with most Canadians and provides pretty good healthcare. Worse, a lot of conservatives seem to really believe this trope. They always invoke. They never have any evidence or statistics of it but they always invoke it.
Thats only an issue if you want to win power. The goal of the GOP might simply be to let the Democratic Party from implementing their policy goals. The American polticial system and our parliamentary rules gives the minority party means of gumming up the works without being in power. All they need is one house of Congress or even just a plurality of Senators and nothing gets done.
You should watch Logan's Run, its a really interesting movie. Its one of the rare times when the adaptation is better than the source material. The original novel was a pretty reactionary science fiction book that was making fun of the hippies as much as possible. The movie took an interesting concept from the book, a society where people have to die at a certain age and took away the reactionary parts to make a fun movie.
I once heard an interview on NPR, I forgot who was being interviewed but it was about the collapse of Communism. The interviewee theorized that one reason why the CCP survived and other other Communist Parties did not was because the CCP had the revelation that people like to have fun and if you allow people their fun, they won't complain so much. She seems to be right. Its bread and circuses for the masses and unlike Rome, we figuered out how to get the masses to pay.
Arab Christians were heavily involved with the creation of Arab nationalism as a way to protect themselves from majority rule. Part of this is that they wanted to create a secular identity for the Middle East that would put them on equal footing with the Muslim majority rather than have them in their traditional second class status. The Ba'ath movement was founded by two Arab Chirstians. Like their Eastern European counterparts, the Arab Christians decided that the Jews needed to be excluded from the national movement though.
Thirding. Assad kind of reminds me of a more competent version of Nicholas II. Tsar Nicholas II was a thoroughly pleseant man of conventional opinions who would have made an excellent constitutional monarch. The problem was that he was born to be the heir of an absolute monarchy and was over his head.
Assad wasn't really meant to be the heir to his father but his older brother died in a car crash. Like Nicholas II, Assad was probably a fairly ordinary pleseant eye-doctor, although considering his family we don't know about his actual personality, and probably would have been happier if he stayed in the UK. Unlike Nicholas II, Assad learned how to be a thoroughly unpleseant dictator very fast.
Exactly, a good first rule for any problematic situation is don't make it worse. I think the evidence is fairly conclusive that outside military intervention in Syria will make things worse. Again, we can aid the refugees and give them asylum even. Thats a moral requirements and it won't make things worse. Sending in troops will only confuse an already confusing muddle.
I think that philosophy is often Euro-centric because most of the secular philosophy in the world was written by Europeans or people influenced by Europeans. A lot of the non-European philosophy is more heavily linked to religion. Jewish philosophy is linked to Judaism, Arabic philosophy to Islam, and Asian philosophy to one of the Dharmic religions. This means that a lot of non-European philosophy is more likely to be read in different departments than the philosophy department.
Another problem with the heavy links of non-European philosophy to religion is that you need more context to read it in many cases. Maimonides makes more sense when you have a good grasp of Judaism. I'm pretty sure that you need relatively deep knowledge of Islam to understand many of the Arabic philosophers.
And like I pointed out, I'm only anti-military intervention. I do believe that we should help with the Syrian refugees by giving as many of them as possible asylum or any other aid necessary. The internal political situation is not clear enough to justify formerly supporting the Rebels with military intervention though.
Like Shazbot said, the red line statement was not a threat of invasion if crossed. The red line statement merely said that the use of chemical weapons would have consequences. I think it was important statement to make to at least demonstrate that certain behaviors are unacceptible.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Apocalyptic Bobby Jindal”
Which ones? The most conservative form of healthcare coverage in the rest of the developed world is the Bismarckian system, which is kind of the inspiration of the PPACA. In Bismarckian system, the insurance companies are much more regulated than their American counterparts and basically operate more like utility companies than insurance companies.
"
Is Cthulu a demon? Cthulu is more alien than demonic.
"
Thats what it is. All the benefits of power and none of the downside.
"
I also think its debatable about whether the GOP really wants an alternative to the PPACA. Jonathan Chait made a very important point when he noted that conservative really don't believe in luck. They believe that peopel deserve their good fortune or bad fortune, nobody is simply lucky or unlucky. To more than a few conservatives, not being able to afford healthcare is simply something that people deserve.
"
The problem is that there really can't be a Republican or conservative alternative to the PPACA. American conservtives have been arguing that market based healthcare is better than government based healthcare for generations. They ranted against Medicare when LBJ first introduced it into Congress and they have been proven wrong every time. Government based healthcare works and nobody has really created a market-based healthcare system that does work.
There can't be a conservative alternative to the PPACA because I'd argue that the PPACA is the most conservative form of universal healthcare that will kind of work thats possible. Any alternative that would work would be more socialist and not less socialist in nature.
"
The behavior of the GOP in office is strong evidence that they want power without responsibility. Otherwise, they'd govern better.
"
Also Third Parties don't work in the American political system.
"
This is assuming that there is a difference between the Tea Party and GOP that doesn't actually exist.
"
40% of Americans still refer to themselves as conservative so the GOP does appeal to a sufficinet number of us.
"
Never, that would be unsporstman-like and conduct not befitting for a gentleman. Gentleman do not say unpleseant things about their dining companions.
"
One of the conservative tropes that I hate the most is the one about Canadians coming down south for healthcare because of how horrible the Canadian system is. Its simply not true, the Canadian healthcare system is popular with most Canadians and provides pretty good healthcare. Worse, a lot of conservatives seem to really believe this trope. They always invoke. They never have any evidence or statistics of it but they always invoke it.
"
Thats only an issue if you want to win power. The goal of the GOP might simply be to let the Democratic Party from implementing their policy goals. The American polticial system and our parliamentary rules gives the minority party means of gumming up the works without being in power. All they need is one house of Congress or even just a plurality of Senators and nothing gets done.
On “James Taranto, Louis C.K., and The Brand New War On Men”
Yes, thats true to.
"
Yes, thats true to.
"
It took you this long to figure that out? There are seven billion of us and we all can't be morally sound.
"
No means no, sometimes yes mean no to in certain situations, and you just got to accept that.
On “Driving Blind: Product Placement and Fashionable Suicides”
You should watch Logan's Run, its a really interesting movie. Its one of the rare times when the adaptation is better than the source material. The original novel was a pretty reactionary science fiction book that was making fun of the hippies as much as possible. The movie took an interesting concept from the book, a society where people have to die at a certain age and took away the reactionary parts to make a fun movie.
On “Snowden is an Idiot and Possibly a Traitor”
I once heard an interview on NPR, I forgot who was being interviewed but it was about the collapse of Communism. The interviewee theorized that one reason why the CCP survived and other other Communist Parties did not was because the CCP had the revelation that people like to have fun and if you allow people their fun, they won't complain so much. She seems to be right. Its bread and circuses for the masses and unlike Rome, we figuered out how to get the masses to pay.
On “Waiting for Halabja”
Arab Christians were heavily involved with the creation of Arab nationalism as a way to protect themselves from majority rule. Part of this is that they wanted to create a secular identity for the Middle East that would put them on equal footing with the Muslim majority rather than have them in their traditional second class status. The Ba'ath movement was founded by two Arab Chirstians. Like their Eastern European counterparts, the Arab Christians decided that the Jews needed to be excluded from the national movement though.
"
Thirding. Assad kind of reminds me of a more competent version of Nicholas II. Tsar Nicholas II was a thoroughly pleseant man of conventional opinions who would have made an excellent constitutional monarch. The problem was that he was born to be the heir of an absolute monarchy and was over his head.
Assad wasn't really meant to be the heir to his father but his older brother died in a car crash. Like Nicholas II, Assad was probably a fairly ordinary pleseant eye-doctor, although considering his family we don't know about his actual personality, and probably would have been happier if he stayed in the UK. Unlike Nicholas II, Assad learned how to be a thoroughly unpleseant dictator very fast.
"
Exactly, a good first rule for any problematic situation is don't make it worse. I think the evidence is fairly conclusive that outside military intervention in Syria will make things worse. Again, we can aid the refugees and give them asylum even. Thats a moral requirements and it won't make things worse. Sending in troops will only confuse an already confusing muddle.
On “Driving Blind: Leftovers and Updates”
A lot probably.
"
I think that philosophy is often Euro-centric because most of the secular philosophy in the world was written by Europeans or people influenced by Europeans. A lot of the non-European philosophy is more heavily linked to religion. Jewish philosophy is linked to Judaism, Arabic philosophy to Islam, and Asian philosophy to one of the Dharmic religions. This means that a lot of non-European philosophy is more likely to be read in different departments than the philosophy department.
Another problem with the heavy links of non-European philosophy to religion is that you need more context to read it in many cases. Maimonides makes more sense when you have a good grasp of Judaism. I'm pretty sure that you need relatively deep knowledge of Islam to understand many of the Arabic philosophers.
On “Waiting for Halabja”
And like I pointed out, I'm only anti-military intervention. I do believe that we should help with the Syrian refugees by giving as many of them as possible asylum or any other aid necessary. The internal political situation is not clear enough to justify formerly supporting the Rebels with military intervention though.
"
Like Shazbot said, the red line statement was not a threat of invasion if crossed. The red line statement merely said that the use of chemical weapons would have consequences. I think it was important statement to make to at least demonstrate that certain behaviors are unacceptible.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.