Originally Posted by Eric the Green

All in all, I think (just looking at things through my crystal ball) that the next major involvement after 2012-13 is likely to be 2025, and that looks more likely to be domestic, or with neighbors. So the good news is that war is unlikely if we make it through next year, and even then, what happens this year or next is unlikely to be a major war. Instead, I see diplomatic breakthroughs likely next Summer.

Yeah, there is that pesky fact that the US and EU are lining up against Syria and Iran, despite a lot of moves by Russia and China to protect them financially and militarily. So all the pieces are in place for WW3, but for some reason I think we'll actually get smart and back down. Some were also expecting India to be more strongly allied with NATO, but they've made it pretty clear that they don't want to hold the front line in this particular scenario.

I still think a causal relationship between politics and astronomy is nonsense, but my mega-cycle charts are interested in many of the same dates you are. In other words, nations are destroyed and reborn in the time frame between Pluto's return (~240 years, 3 saeculum) and Neptune's second revolution (~320 years, 4 saeculum). 2025 will be fresh in a new 1T, but we have accumulated a whole lot of problems that are unlikely to be solved by then. The full voting weight of civics will be available, and the more conservative elders will have dwindled significantly. So, I see that time as being ripe for several possibilities: a very liberal constitutional convention; a pre-emptive and reactionary counter-revolution; or the increasing integration of a North American Community.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I still think a causal relationship between politics and astronomy is nonsense, but my mega-cycle charts are interested in many of the same dates you are. In other words, nations are destroyed and reborn in the time frame between Pluto's return (~240 years, 3 saeculum) and Neptune's second revolution (~320 years, 4 saeculum). 2025 will be fresh in a new 1T, but we have accumulated a whole lot of problems that are unlikely to be solved by then. The full voting weight of civics will be available, and the more conservative elders will have dwindled significantly. So, I see that time as being ripe for several possibilities: a very liberal constitutional convention; a pre-emptive and reactionary counter-revolution; or the increasing integration of a North American Community.

It may seem like nonsense, but it works anyway (which is what can't altogether be ignored); thus showing a different kind of "cause" at work than the conventional mechanical variety. Your megacycles are based on the saeculum, I take it. It has always been interesting that the two kinds of cycles largely coincide, even though the saeculum has no intentional connection to astrology.

Look for the 1T to start only about 2 or 3 years after the climax in circa 2025. The first item of your list of three seems likely to me; the other two probably not. There will be conflict and controversy in those years, and lots of action (Neptune in Aries, etc.), but "integration" does not seem to me to be a keyword for what we can expect in those years.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The condition of our society is what most affects my individual interests. I am not an isolated individual. I don't look to my candidate to support my business. I want him or her to create a progressive climate where I feel a part of something moving, growing and alive.

In my opinion, the condition of our society is for the most part stable. I live in a capitalist climate that is for the most part moving, stable and alive.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But I also want a candidate who will support the right policies that I know will contribute to my economic well-being. A trickle-down Republican free-market philosophy will not benefit me and my friends; only the rich bosses and plutocrats. It's important for all of us to realize that voting your social values will not necessarily improve your economic condition. The bosses are only using these hot button right-wing social issues to gain power so they can use it to benefit themselves. A society designed to benefit everyone will create a much better climate for my business and the economic condition of my friends and community.

So, what you're saying here is thinking about yourself is OK in general. Or were you saying that thinking about yourself is OK as long as you're a progressive and everyone else who thinks about themselves are selfish or bad people. Actually, the hot button social issues benefit the elite Progressives far more than they benefit the R-wingers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You need to vote based on your educated knowledge of which policies work, and which policies don't, for the economic and social class you are in. If you are part of labor or a small farmer, voting for big capital (voting Republican) is not voting your interests. Libertarian, trickle-down economics does not work, unless you are in the top 1% economically. It does not benefit you economically or in any other way.

In other words, it should be all or mostly about you right.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Look for the 1T to start only about 2 or 3 years after the climax in circa 2025. The first item of your list of three seems likely to me; the other two probably not. There will be conflict and controversy in those years, and lots of action (Neptune in Aries, etc.), but "integration" does not seem to me to be a keyword for what we can expect in those years.

So, you and I are pretty much on the same page. I'm not an astrologer. My sense is that we are on coarse for a social split of some sort. I can see the financial collapse of the federal government on the horizon.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

OK, first of all, no one likes single-payer. Not even the countries that have something like it. The only exception to this rule seems to be some American baby boomers who can't think beyond rigid ideals.

Untrue. Surveys show that countries with single-payer systems have much higher levels of satisfaction with their countries' medical systems than anywhere else. You're repeating a talking point without foundation in fact.

That's even true here with the partial single-payer system we have: Medicare. Remember those ludicrous Tea Party signs that said "No socialized medicine and keep your hands off my Medicare"? It's a very popular program.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Untrue. Surveys show that countries with single-payer systems have much higher levels of satisfaction with their countries' medical systems than anywhere else. You're repeating a talking point without foundation in fact.

That's even true here with the partial single-payer system we have: Medicare. Remember those ludicrous Tea Party signs that said "No socialized medicine and keep your hands off my Medicare"? It's a very popular program.

Nonetheless the real problem with our medical system is cost. Which is what we should handle first then we can go single payer if that is what the people want. If going single payer is a way to make medical stuff cost less then I have my doubts that it will work although I do understand the idea. The government steps in with a system that is harder to compete with so insurance companies actually have to provide a service for what they do.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

.
99% of all Americans use birth control.
If you guys really think trying to revive the culture war is a winner, well go right ahead.

Obama appears to have deliberately caused that issue in an attempt to gin up a distraction, and somehow twist it into a nutty charge that Republicans want to outlaw birth control. They've pulled out several trial balloons on the Republican presidential candidates, and this is the best they could do for Santorum. But coming directly at the Catholic Church, and trying to tar Santorum with a wild charge that smacks of anti-Catholic bigotry, is mildly insane considering the importance of Catholics as swing voters. By trying to force religious institutions to do things that go against their beliefs, the left is crossing a line they appear to not even see, and exposing the reality that they are not pro-freedom, but rather anti-religion.

In other news, Rick Santorum has received the endorsement of Dave Mustaine. It's a brave new world.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

In my opinion, the condition of our society is for the most part stable. I live in a capitalist climate that is for the most part moving, stable and alive.

You and I live in what may be the purest plutocracy that doesn't haul people off or kill people for dissent. We get a raw deal from our corporate masters and we are expected to thank them for their generosity in treating us like livestock instead of vermin to be exterminated. Things are undeniably worse for most Americans than they were thirty years ago.

Moving? Sure -- ensuring that more income and wealth go to far fewer people despite more work under harsher rules for the rest of us. Stable? Only in that it keeps the same agenda -- All for the Few, I've got mine, Screw you! Alive? Your beloved 3T of inequality, sociopathic leadership in business, and government by lobbyists is alive because of the huge infusions of cash into the political process to keep it going -- cash extracted from working people.

So, what you're saying here is thinking about yourself is OK in general. Or were you saying that thinking about yourself is OK as long as you're a progressive and everyone else who thinks about themselves are selfish or bad people. Actually, the hot button social issues benefit the elite Progressives far more than they benefit the R-wingers.

The economic elites act with consummate selfishness as if it were the greatest of all virtues, but it demands selfless sacrifices from everyone else. Take the trend of economic inequality far enough and you will have an economy in which a quarter of the workforce consists of domestic servants, perhaps granted only what the economic elites deem appropriate for them, of the economic elite. That is capitalist, all right -- if your idea of 'capitalism' is the plantation Tara (Gone with the Wind) with workers so scared of their bosses and ownership that they mighty as well be slaves.

You, Exile '67, are getting the shaft -- and you don't realize it.

In other words, it should be all or mostly about you right.

So in your view it should all be mostly about a few people getting what they want and disseminating back as little as possible to humanity as a whole.

"Enlightened self interest", the idea behind free enterprise, is for all lest capitalism devolve into feudalism or its modern version, fascism.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Nonetheless the real problem with our medical system is cost. Which is what we should handle first then we can go single payer if that is what the people want. If going single payer is a way to make medical stuff cost less then I have my doubts that it will work although I do understand the idea. The government steps in with a system that is harder to compete with so insurance companies actually have to provide a service for what they do.

Not quite. And yes, single payer DOES hold costs down. Or can anyway. It works on the same principle as a union: collective bargaining, or having more bargaining clout because of control of one side of the transaction. Medicare-for-all would simply say, "This is what we will pay for procedure X," and medical providers and drug companies and so on can take it or leave it.

Insurance companies have the same motivation now, but not the same clout. A medical provider can refuse to accept XYZ Insurance because of low payments without suffering greatly.

This is why the same drugs from the same drug companies cost only a fraction of what they do here in countries that have single-payer systems.

We can benefit from the rest of the world doing all this experimentation. We have full-fledged socialized medicine in Britain, with the government actually running hospitals and hiring doctors, and we have privately-run medical systems in France with a single-payer system covering costs. Costs are held down slightly more in Britain, but there are problems with the bureaucracy that runs the NHS and the level of satisfaction isn't as high as in countries that have just single-payer. Based on that, I would go with single-payer but privately-run health care.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Obama appears to have deliberately caused that issue in an attempt to gin up a distraction,

Oh, that makes perfect sense. The economy is improving. There's nothing else an incumbant want to do more than to distract the voters from an economy that is improving during an election year. Right.

Originally Posted by JPT

and trying to tar Santorum

Ummm, Santorum himself provided the tar.

Originally Posted by JPT

with a wild charge that smacks of anti-Catholic bigotry, is mildly insane considering the importance of Catholics as swing voters.

The opinions expressed by the 271 Catholic bishops can not be assumed to represent the private opinions of millions of Catholics.

Originally Posted by JPT

By trying to force religious institutions to do things that go against their beliefs

What a religious institution does within its own its own primary domain is one thing. However, when they step outside of the sphere of those who select to be a part of their community by running businesses then they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. And that's fair. What if your boss was a Seventh Day Adventist? IIRC they only believe ion faith healing.
Good luck getting adequite healthcare from such an employer.
Of course that brings up the seperate issue that attaching health insurance to employment is not a good model, but there is a whole 'nother thread for that.

Originally Posted by JPT

In other news, Rick Santorum has received the endorsement of Dave Mustaine. It's a brave new world.

Well I guess that he, Joe Perry and Ted Nugent can team up on a dinosaur tour this summer.
Just remember to bring your earplugs!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not quite. And yes, single payer DOES hold costs down. Or can anyway. It works on the same principle as a union: collective bargaining, or having more bargaining clout because of control of one side of the transaction. Medicare-for-all would simply say, "This is what we will pay for procedure X," and medical providers and drug companies and so on can take it or leave it.

Insurance companies have the same motivation now, but not the same clout. A medical provider can refuse to accept XYZ Insurance because of low payments without suffering greatly.

This is why the same drugs from the same drug companies cost only a fraction of what they do here in countries that have single-payer systems.

We can benefit from the rest of the world doing all this experimentation. We have full-fledged socialized medicine in Britain, with the government actually running hospitals and hiring doctors, and we have privately-run medical systems in France with a single-payer system covering costs. Costs are held down slightly more in Britain, but there are problems with the bureaucracy that runs the NHS and the level of satisfaction isn't as high as in countries that have just single-payer. Based on that, I would go with single-payer but privately-run health care.

It is clear that a balance of power is needed to to protect individual health care users. For those who do not trust single sources for anything, a managed competition could also work with government oversight. The current system is badly flawed and even moving to State run systems would not( for most states) provide a large enough group to balance the power of the Health care industry. I know that many think that single payer is the best way but I would prefer to keep competition in the mix.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Untrue. Surveys show that countries with single-payer systems have much higher levels of satisfaction with their countries' medical systems than anywhere else. You're repeating a talking point without foundation in fact.

Well, to be fair we're tossing around this technical jargon and we probably don't even agree on what it means. Many people still call the UK, Canada, and AUS single payer... but it really isn't.

Canada:

"The situation we are seeing now are more services around not being funded publicly but people having to pay for them, or their insurance companies. We have sort of a passive privatization."

"Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed", according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine. In June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) that Quebec's prohibition against private health insurance for medically necessary services laws violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, potentially opening the door to much more private sector participation in the health system.

UK:

In recent years, despite some evidence that a large proportion of the public oppose such involvement, the private sector has been used to increase NHS capacity. In addition, there is some relatively minor sector crossover between public and private provision with it possible for some NHS patients to be treated in private healthcare facilities

Australia:

Most aspects of private health insurance in Australia are regulated by the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. Complaints and reporting of the private health industry is carried out by an independent government agency, the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman.

Taiwan: Ok, Taiwan has a truly single-payer system. It is Medicare for all. They have the world's lowest administrative costs, and patients are pretty happy, but doctors are a bit less than trilled and their actual health outcomes are comparable to America's (obviously, if we could cut costs while keeping quality the same, it would be an improvement for us, but we would still be near the bottom of health outcomes in the developed world).

Now, for this little talking point devoid of fact:

Surveys show that countries with single-payer systems have much higher levels of satisfaction with their countries' medical systems than anywhere else.

Someone alert the WHO, because they consistently show Germany, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, France, Sweden as being more satisfied than the English or Canadians.

That's even true here with the partial single-payer system we have: Medicare. Remember those ludicrous Tea Party signs that said "No socialized medicine and keep your hands off my Medicare"? It's a very popular program.

Right, partially single-payer. As in a small part of the population is even eligible, and then a large part of them buy additional private supplements.

If you want to put everyone on Medicare and ban the private options, then you favor single-payer. Otherwise, you're misusing the jargon in such a way that your opinion will never actually be heard.

Oh, and single-payer still isn't going to happen in the U.S. The only ideal it achieves is maximum cost savings, but the consumer culture of America believes in the right to spending as much as you earn (and then some). Any universal system implemented here will have to recognize that fact.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

In other news, Rick Santorum has received the endorsement of Dave Mustaine. It's a brave new world.

Dave, I am disappoint.

Holy wars

Brother will kill brother
spilling blood across the land

Killing for religion...
something I don't understand

Fools like me we cross the sea
and come to foreign lands

Ask the sheep, for their beliefs,
"Do you kill on God's command?"



Santorum:

• Refuse to negotiate on any level with the terrorist state of Iran
• Neutralize Iran’s relationships with their primary allies in The Middle East by increasing pressure on Hezbollah and Syria
• Eliminate the post of U.S. Ambassador to Syria
• Stand with Israel as an ally and in any efforts Israel may take to defend themselves from Iranian aggression

Oh well, good thing Santorum has almost zero chance against Obama.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well, to be fair we're tossing around this technical jargon and we probably don't even agree on what it means. Many people still call the UK, Canada, and AUS single payer... but it really isn't.

Medicare is "single-payer" enough for me. Let's extend it to all.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

In my opinion, the condition of our society is for the most part stable. I live in a capitalist climate that is for the most part moving, stable and alive.

Except for the Occupy Movement, I don't see that. My definition of moving, growing and alive includes not only economically, but socially and culturally. Right now our culture is crap, and our social policy is stuck because of regressive resistance.

So, what you're saying here is thinking about yourself is OK in general. Or were you saying that thinking about yourself is OK as long as you're a progressive and everyone else who thinks about themselves are selfish or bad people. Actually, the hot button social issues benefit the elite Progressives far more than they benefit the R-wingers.

You can put it the way that works for you. For me, it is a simple fact that we all have personal interests, but also the fact that those of us who are reasonably intelligent and educated, know that our own interests are best served in a society that works well for everyone. Social policies should encourage inclusion; Republican policies insure exclusion, and so are detrimental to my benefit and everyone else's, except a priviledged and powerful few. That is quite clear, and in my opinion quite beyond any argument at this point. Trickle-down has failed; the facts are unmistakable.

I'm not sure what you are talking about in regard to hot button social issues. R-wingers use prejudice and fear to get people to vote for politicians who screw them over economically, and still ignore the social issues they run on. L-wingers appeal to the concerns of various groups to achieve equality, fairness, and what right-wingers consider excess priviledges like affirmative action or welfare rights.

In other words, it should be all or mostly about you right.

If you, me or anyone else is going to vote based on what's in your own interests, then you should understand who or which party's policies will really benefit them. Not only do many people don't understand that what benefits all, benefits you; they don't even understand what benefits "you." And so they vote Republican, based on fear and prejudice, which is all the Republicans ever offer.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Dave, I am disappoint-(ed)

I don't know the credibility of this media outlet, but if these are in fact DM's('61) words, I believe it is characteristic of the Gen-Jones POV(at least one side of it).

Dave Mustaine, Megadeth front man, says he has yet to decide if he's endorsing Rick Santorum for President.

An exerpt:

"Contrary to how some people have interpreted my words, I have not endorsed any presidential candidate," the rocker said in the release, obtained by Billboard.com. "What I did say was that I hope to see a Republican in the White House. I've seen good qualities in all the candidates but by no means have made my choice yet. I respect the fact that Santorum took time off from his campaign to be with his sick daughter, but I never used the word 'endorse.'"

That fits correctly, IMO.

Prince

Bill Maher last night on Jay Leno:

"Rick Santorum thinks life begins at erection."

I thought that was pretty good.

I don't think I dare to post it on TOL; it might get me banned.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-mahe...s-at-erection/

scroll down for video

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I don't know the credibility of this media outlet, but if these are in fact DM's('61) words, I believe it is characteristic of the Gen-Jones POV(at least one side of it).

Dave Mustaine, Megadeth front man, says he has yet to decide if he's endorsing Rick Santorum for President.

An exerpt:

"Contrary to how some people have interpreted my words, I have not endorsed any presidential candidate," the rocker said in the release, obtained by Billboard.com. "What I did say was that I hope to see a Republican in the White House. I've seen good qualities in all the candidates but by no means have made my choice yet. I respect the fact that Santorum took time off from his campaign to be with his sick daughter, but I never used the word 'endorse.'"

That fits correctly, IMO.

Prince

I guess the rocker from Megadeath is living up to his name. That's what Republicans bring.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I guess the rocker from Megadeath is living up to his name. That's what Republicans bring.

Eric, you have no idea who he even is, do you?(BTW, it's Mega-"deth", not "death". "Nit"-alert!). I know, I know, you don't want to know, or maybe better put, you don't need to know.

"Peace Sells, ...but Who's Buying?"

Prince

PS: If you decide to watch any of the linked video, I'll pay good money to see the look on your face, Eric.

It's right there in your post, for goodness sakes. That's all I need or anyone needs to know! He supports Republicans. Republicans bring megadeath, however you spell it. He's living up to his name in spades by supporting megadeath. Uh, who started those two wars in the 00s? Case closed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's right there in your post, for goodness sakes. That's all I need or anyone needs to know! He supports Republicans. Republicans bring megadeath, however you spell it. He's living up to his name in spades by supporting megadeath. Uh, who started those two wars in the 00s? Case closed.

Hmmm. Eric, I see it as one side of a coin, so to speak. Probably better stated as one of the facets of a diamond. Personally, I'm most likely best described as being in-line with her. And him.

Prince

I feel obliged to point out that the Vietnam War was not started by a Republican. There's plenty of guilt on both sides of the aisle when it comes to warmongering.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I feel obliged to point out that the Vietnam War was not started by a Republican. There's plenty of guilt on both sides of the aisle when it comes to warmongering.

True, but truth be told, pre-Reagan Republicans and post-Reagan Republicans are very different creatures. Eisenhower's policies would likely make him a Democrat today; he'd have no place in today's GOP. Same might be true for Nixon, actually.

If this keeps up through the summer (good chance it will with Obama getting his increased deficit spending in payroll tax relief, unemployment extension, and $s for Medicare docs) -



- we may have to anoint* him!

Just said that to make our resident t-partiers' heads explode.


______________________________________________
* Let the Catholic bishops do it as a way to make-up? We Catholics really really like pomp and ceremony!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I feel obliged to point out that the Vietnam War was not started by a Republican. There's plenty of guilt on both sides of the aisle when it comes to warmongering.

Thank you, Brian. That was very Noble of you.(You're INTJ-ness is indeed refreshing, as usual).

BTW, Eric did finally send me a picture of himself!

A "Studdorn Ole Mule" that one is!



Prince

PS: Where's a "buggy-whip" when One needs one?