Worstest VP options?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

First of all, something for the lulz:

Romney Praises Israel's Socialized Health Care System

Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney offered praise for the Israeli health care system today — a medical plan that has been socialized since its founding in 1948.

Romney, who championed the Massachusetts health care mandate, but is an opponent of the federal mandate passed by President Barack Obama, marveled at how little Israel spends on health care relative to the United States.

"When our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation," Romney told donors at a fundraiser at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, speaking of a health care system that is compulsory for Israelis and funded by the government. "We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs."

Well, sure The Rominee(tm) would be supporting socialized health-care: after all, he's the most prominent SOSHULIZT among the GOPians! Just have a brief look at his record as ROMernor of the Soviet Commonwealth of Taxachusetts. ;)

That hook being thrown into the river, now straight to the question.

In light of all the recent Olympic gaffes from Mitt Romnington (and the presumed/manufactured gaffes from O'Bummer) [let me give a definition of a "gaffe" = a social blunder, esp a tactless remark "when someone incidentally speaks their mind"], LOL; and given the hilarious persona that is the current VP, Joe "You Can't Go To A Dunkin Donuts Unless You Got A Slight Indian Accent" Biden... who do you think are the worst VP options for the GOP? I mean, I'm far from the thought that Joe "Stand Up Chuck Graham, Let 'Em See Ya" Biden's level of stupidity and verbal FAIL could be emulated, evAR... But still, he has to be matched on the other side, somehow.

Suggestions? Here are a few of mine, over the top of my star-sprinkled pointy hat:

1. Tim "I'm not putting my hat in the ring for VP" Pawlenty
2. Rob "Mel Gibson saved me from drowning" Portman
3. Bobby "Mitt will repeal the Obamneycare" Jindal
4. Chris "Something may be going down tonight, sweetheart" Christie
5. Bob "Governor Vaginal Probe" McDonnell
6. Paul "Keep 500 billion in Medicare by cutting 500 billion from Medicare" Ryan
7. Kelly Ayotte (mentioned as a wild card according to some websites)
8. ??? (Marco Rubio?)

So get busy, y'all! You got a lot of material on your hands. Does any of these names (or all?) scream "bad choice" into your face? Yes? No? Am I being stupid? Suggestions? Genius musings? Rants?

Comments

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

You could start with reading Noam Chomsky. Then you might like to move on to Niall Ferguson.

As to your second comment, I don't care enough about conspiracy theories, but I'll just say this. A society is a complex thing. A conspiracy to "model" it in some fashion would require a very elaborate planning, and no glitches. I'm skeptical that this could happen.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I've heard of both but can't think of anything they've written on the topic of socialism vs capitalism.

Is it really so complicated?

Healthcare

Socialism: [Consumer] -> [Government Regulation] -> [Health Insurance] -> [Healthcare Provider]

Capitalism: [Consumer] -> [Health Insurance] -> [Healthcare Provider]

A person might attempt to quantify how efficient or inefficient each abstraction level was. Example, the [health insurance] abstraction could add approximately 10% to the cost of healthcare considering profit margins fall into the realm of something like 4%-7%. Health insurance could be considered a very small piece of the pie slice considering its revenues are a proportionally small percentage of healthcare cashflow.

Considering the socialist example has more abstraction layers and more people involved it may be considered to be more inefficient, wasteful and expensive. Government regulation doesn't work for free and stacking government employees pension plans, healthcare plans, insurance and wages on top of the existing healthcare model doesn't necessarily offset whatever positive influence they might exert.

I think its doable--its possible even I could easily do it if I had the background.

I think the reason no one bothers is because they already know socialist healthcare is inferior and there is some conflicting interest in some special interest groups wanting the state to be granted greater authority and regulatory powers over healthcare, etc.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

I'm not too good in the abstractions game as I get bored too easily by such stuff, sorry.

"the reason no one bothers is because they already know socialist healthcare is inferior"

That's not how science works. Science, including political science, researches all domains, not just those that the researcher has preliminarily and arbitrarily determined as "inferior, therefore not worth my time". You claim to be a critical thinker, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Re: the conflicting interests; like I said, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I used to be, but I got bored.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

The RIAA has funded scientific research suggesting internet piracy diminishes cd sales. A korean scientist fabricated research claiming to have cloned the first human embryos... This anthropologist (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/columbia-university-anthropologist-ph-d-is-an-expert-in-lap-dancing/) testified in court that lap dances are an artistic performance to try to help a strip club avoid paying taxes.

There was this study done by the union of concerned scientists on how corporations can corrupt science (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html).

There are many other instances and examples I can't even remember right now. I think its inaccurate to treat science as if it were completely objective and free from being corrupted by self-interest, money, politics and other things. If there are 100 corporations willing to pay scientists to fabricate the idea that socialism is better than capitalism........ and there is no one with the money to provide funding for scientists to do an independent and objective study on the topic.. It doesn't necessarily follow that scientists will do studies no one is paying them to do.. Especially not when there is so much monetary incentive for the opposing view..

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Wait, so, because there are corrupt scientists who are bought by interests to push their agenda, scientific research should be dismissed out of hand? Is that your entire argument?

Ooo-kaaay.

Maybe it's better that we squeeze some conspiracy theories from our brains and claim it for a fact. I get it, it's the better option, yay!

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Scientists do research on topics they can secure funding for. Those who provide them with funding have a strong hold over them and influence the things they publish. This is one of the reasons there has been a movement recently for more transparency and disclosure regarding who is providing funding for various types of research.

I'll try to give you an example. Not long ago, it was found that General Motors had long been providing funding for the Heartland Institute (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/30/local/la-me-gs-gm-pulls-support-for-heartland-institute-20120330). In case you don't recognize the name, the Heartland Institute was one of the most prominent climate change deniers. In essence you have a corporation that used to manufacture SUVs providing funding to an organization that released (or fabricated) "scientific research" suggesting global warming didn't exist. Is it good science or someone being paid to provide false propaganda on an issue?

Another example -- pharmaceuticals. There were numerous cover ups involving the side effects of various drugs.

Similar to how sources of campaign funding influence politics, where scientists secure their funding would seem to have a very large effect on how they operate, what their findings are and their conclusions.

In that, it may be inaccurate to assume things like money, self-interests, and other factors don't have an influence on their research.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

assume things like money, self-interests, and other factors don't have an influence on their research.

I'd appreciate if you do not ascribe conclusions to me that I have never made.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, I wasn't referring to you.

I'm sure you know all this already. Just trying to clarify.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Just talking to yourself, yes.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

:T

I guess...... Thanks for noticing me & stuff.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Argh.. The RIAA "studies" I mentioned were shown to be fabricated by the Government Accountability Office and many other sources, btw. : X

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Government Regulation != Socialism.

Government would have to Control and Administer the Services instead of the Providers themselves or even the Insurance companies.

There is a HUGE difference between "regulating" an industry and Central Planning...