McCain... ahead?

[Amele]

Do explain.

click the two embedded links above for the basis of the original comment. more info below:

short version is, estimates of the proposed drilling are 200,000 bbl/day by 2030. we use approximately 21million bbl/day today. this would make 200,000 slightly less than 1%.

improper tire inflation is estimated by the DOE to cost about 3% of efficiency and regular tune-ups another 4%. (and several other things roll up to be as much as 18% overall). we'll use the smaller 7% figure as an estimate since it's hard to say how much some of the other stuff is and isn't being done.

the DOT estimates that approximately 1/3rd of all vehicles are* under pressure while on the road. a slightly larger number will be improperly tuned (tuneups include tire pressurization, but many people will repressurize without retuning) but again, we'll low-ball our estimates and go with the 27%.

without getting heavily into the details of where and how and what percentage of a bbl is factored into gasoline, we use the gasoline from about 19.8m bbl of crude/day, so we'll see a fuel savings of approximately ~375,146bbl crude/day worth of gasoline if that 27% of vehicles were properly tuned and pressurized. today.

which is why I applauded your subtle shot at the absurdity of the RNCs responses.

[aurik]

holy shit I lol'd

[Zigma]

damn, i really want to comment on this thread but there is just so much to type that I don't know where to begin.

Here are some of the things that trouble me about Omaba and what people fail to see.

Everyone is up and arms for Universal Health care. They want universal health care but fail to see the harm that it will bring us. Anyone who says they're voting for Obama because they want universal health care is, I'm sorry, clueless. Pharmaceutical would stop developing cures/vaccinations because the millions/billions they invest would not be made back. The market would also not be profitable because the government would only offer a few pennies per pill/drug for profit. There would be no motivation for say, continuing to find a cure for specific cancers/aids/whatever because the government would just come in and say hi, we need this give me now. Just look at children’s health care. There hasn’t been a single drug/vaccination in what, over 7 or 8 years because of reasons like this.

Obama’s energy policy is also a joke and people who say it’s the oil company fault that we’re paying higher at the pump are clueless. I'm not saying McCain is better than Obama, Hell, I don't like McCain that much but when you compare the two...

[Day]

No one cares about UHC it's all about the color of skin, and you know it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I find that 200k barrels a day by 2030 if we start "drilling" to be somewhat sketchy. But 27% of people on the road getting an extra 1-2 mpg is a realistic solution compared to new oil drilling is what your saying?

[Beckwin]

Everyone is up and arms for Universal Health care. They want universal health care but fail to see the harm that it will bring us. Anyone who says they're voting for Obama because they want universal health care is, I'm sorry, clueless. Pharmaceutical would stop developing cures/vaccinations because the millions/billions they invest would not be made back. The market would also not be profitable because the government would only offer a few pennies per pill/drug for profit. There would be no motivation for say, continuing to find a cure for specific cancers/aids/whatever because the government would just come in and say hi, we need this give me now. Just look at children’s health care. There hasn’t been a single drug/vaccination in what, over 7 or 8 years because of reasons like this.

Obama’s energy policy is also a joke and people who say it’s the oil company fault that we’re paying higher at the pump are clueless. I'm not saying McCain is better than Obama, Hell, I don't like McCain that much but when you compare the two...

The US Gov spends more per capita than any other nation on healthcare while Americans receive overall inferior health care compared to countries like France, Britain, etc. UHC does not involve takeover of the pharmaceutical industry, and on top of that Obama's proposals pretty much only extend to providing insurance coverage for all Americans, which will in effect make more money for hospitals, who have to bear the burden of providing care for uninsured and unable to pay patients that come into the ER. Private health insurance will still exist, as will private hospitals; UHC will just keep the privates honest because there will be an alternative there. Research grants will still exist, so the American powerhouse of research won't grind to a halt and there will ALWAYS be a market for medical advances.

Oh, and I'm not sure where you're getting the vaccine thing from, but hasn't there been a PPV vaccine for teen girls/young women recently that's become popular? Cold/flu vaccines have also become more popular in the last decade. I'm not even sure what's left to vaccinate children for.

Obama's energy police a joke? Please. Getting off oil in an expedient manner has multiple benefits- environmental, foreign policy, and even economically as gas will continue to soar in price over the next 50 years till it's gone. Obama supports simple, common-sense stuff like the aforementioned inflating your damn tires which would on average save the american consumer more than increased domestic production (while the McCain camp mocks Obama for the inflated tire comment, go figure). In addition, T. Boone Pickens (oil tycoon launching a wind venture) had praise for Obama's energy stance. And virtually all economists sided with Obama on the gas-tax holiday, while McCain's economics represent a huuuuge weakness. Yet in spite of all that, Obama has said he'd be willing to compromise on drilling if it wasn't a free-for-all and required alternative research efforts.

Maybe you don't like Obama personally, maybe he just rubs you the wrong way, I don't know. But trying to say his policy is poorly thought out, especially in comparison to John McCain, is pretty nigh-impossible to back up.

[Charla]

damn, i really want to comment on this thread but there is just so much to type that I don't know where to begin.

Here are some of the things that trouble me about Omaba and what people fail to see.

Everyone is up and arms for Universal Health care. They want universal health care but fail to see the harm that it will bring us. Anyone who says they're voting for Obama because they want universal health care is, I'm sorry, clueless. Pharmaceutical would stop developing cures/vaccinations because the millions/billions they invest would not be made back. The market would also not be profitable because the government would only offer a few pennies per pill/drug for profit. There would be no motivation for say, continuing to find a cure for specific cancers/aids/whatever because the government would just come in and say hi, we need this give me now. Just look at children’s health care. There hasn’t been a single drug/vaccination in what, over 7 or 8 years because of reasons like this.

Obama’s energy policy is also a joke and people who say it’s the oil company fault that we’re paying higher at the pump are clueless. I'm not saying McCain is better than Obama, Hell, I don't like McCain that much but when you compare the two...

How odd... I was under the impression that medical research is most commonly carried out by research universities, not some sort of proprietary lab owned and operated directly by each pharmaceutical company. Of course, this still allows for the practice of pharmaceutical companies funding research at universities via grants, which according to these numbers constitutes about one fourth of total research spending in this country. One could certainly expect the research contribution from the pharmaceutical industry to drop off significantly if health care reform led to ironclad price controls on all new medical technology. Does compulsory national health insurance tend to impose price controls? I'm not quite sure. But you've clearly done your homework on this issue and I'm sure you have a very revealing link all ready to show us the connection between national health insurance and price controls on health services, which would surely make your argument far more convincing.

edit: Beckwin, I'm not sure what PPV is, but you might mean the HPV vaccine, which I seem to remember was brought to market around 3-5 years ago.

[Dantrag]

Americans receive overall inferior health care compared to countries like France, Britain, etc.

Sorry beck, wrong.

[aurik]

Sorry beck, wrong.

no u

[Dantrag]

Aurik camps me

[Saphirea]

What scares me with the UHC is the lines and the what seems like lack of specialized care.
That with this, Doctors would be allowed to make their own health care things. It sounds like socialism and I'm not a fan.

[Charla]

He's probably talking about this list, which ranks the USA 37 out of 190 based on various factors. Although naturally, certain organizations such as the CATO institute have challenged the World Health Organization's ranking system because it makes ideological assumptions. From what I can tell, the major assumptions with which they take issue are the idea that ideally, the cost that each household pays for health care should be commensurate with its income, and that the overall life expectancy should not vary significantly within a population.

Unfortunately, however, until someone devises a better way of measuring the benefits and drawbacks of a largely private health system, the WHO appears to have the best rankings available, which do indeed place America below most of Western Europe including France and Britain.

edit: Saphirea, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to be referring to a lack of standardization between "health care things". But isn't socialization generally considered a centralizing influence, and therefore less standardization would be the opposite of socialism?

[Dantrag]

Most people get their ideas that we're so far behind those other 36 countries listed due to a list like that. Which in my own perspective isn't true. Sure it's covered by the government but France also has the highest taxes out of any country. Also for those listings things such as waiting list don't apply. It can take upwards to 2-3 months to get basic non-life threatening out patient surgeries done. Infant mortality rate was also something that I've heard being raised. US is claimed to have the highest infant mortality rate amongst that list. Which is another thing that is also skewed. We actually report what happens for one thing. And more importantly our hospitals do every thing they can to help the infants. Where as other places will let them go asap so that they don't have to report it. It's difficult to say how true or untrue it is. But I do not want my health care to be any different other than a price drop. I know too many people (mostly family throughout all different industries in the medical fields) that are 100% against a UHC.

[Kuya]

What scares me with the UHC is the lines and the what seems like lack of specialized care.
That with this, Doctors would be allowed to make their own health care things. It sounds like socialism and I'm not a fan.

Would you mind explaining this a little further? I don't quite get what you mean, especially with the sentence before the last.

[Amele]

I find that 200k barrels a day by 2030 if we start "drilling" to be somewhat sketchy. But 27% of people on the road getting an extra 1-2 mpg is a realistic solution compared to new oil drilling is what your saying?

EIA OCS report it's kind of long so I'll summarize.

comparing the expanded offshore drilling on the Outer-Continental Shelf (OCS) plan proposed with the reference plan (what we're currently leasing/drilling/plan-to-drill) we come up with 2.4m barrels for the OCS vs. 2.2m barrels for the reference plan in 2030. - which is a difference of 200,000bbl/day.

and I think it's pretty clear what the numbers are saying.

[Amele]

Most people get their ideas that we're so far behind those other 36 countries listed due to a list like that. Which in my own perspective isn't true. Sure it's covered by the government but France also has the highest taxes out of any country. Also for those listings things such as waiting list don't apply. It can take upwards to 2-3 months to get basic non-life threatening out patient surgeries done. Infant mortality rate was also something that I've heard being raised. US is claimed to have the highest infant mortality rate amongst that list. Which is another thing that is also skewed. We actually report what happens for one thing. And more importantly our hospitals do every thing they can to help the infants. Where as other places will let them go asap so that they don't have to report it. It's difficult to say how true or untrue it is. But I do not want my health care to be any different other than a price drop. I know too many people (mostly family throughout all different industries in the medical fields) that are 100% against a UHC.

If I include my healthcare/Insurance costs (as a 24yr/old with no chronic illnesses whose typical expenses in a year include about 4 stitches, 2 dentist visits, and a physical) into my tax rate, I don't pay particularly less than I would in France; and I have a "good" Health plan.

as for the rest of it, I'd like to see your sources for the claims of under-reporting, etc.

[Dantrag]

If I include my healthcare/Insurance costs (as a 24yr/old with no chronic illnesses whose typical expenses in a year include about 4 stitches, 2 dentist visits, and a physical) into my tax rate, I don't pay particularly less than I would in France; and I have a "good" Health plan.

as for the rest of it, I'd like to see your sources for the claims of under-reporting, etc.

Right now in Taxes/SS/Medicare/Health/Dental/Accidential i pay 23% of my pay check. I don't wish to pay another 10-15% to have UHC. I'm 23 with no chronic illnesses. Generally no stiches($0), 2 dental visits yearly($10 - 5 bucks each), and a physical once every 2 years or so($5).

That in noooooooooo way adds up to them taking that extra % out.

As far as the info I shall see if i can contact my uncle who has the info.

[Charla]

Most people get their ideas that we're so far behind those other 36 countries listed due to a list like that. Which in my own perspective isn't true. Sure it's covered by the government but France also has the highest taxes out of any country. Also for those listings things such as waiting list don't apply. It can take upwards to 2-3 months to get basic non-life threatening out patient surgeries done.

According to the methodology of the WHO's study (and therefore its inherent assumptions, which as I mentioned have been questioned by the CATO institute), higher tax rates supporting a publicly funded health system are by no means a bad thing. For one, because western taxation systems tend (at least in theory) to assign one's tax burden according to one's ability to pay it, a health system funded by a properly designed and functioning taxation system would be far more likely to meet the criterion that the cost of health services be distributed according to "capacity to spend". To quote the WHO's report on their own ranking system:

Fairness of financial contribution: When WHO measured the fairness of financial contribution to health systems, countries lined up differently. The measurement is based on the fraction of a household’s capacity to spend (income minus food expenditure) that goes on health care (including tax payments, social insurance, private insurance and out of pocket payments). Colombia was the top-rated country in this category, followed by Luxembourg, Belgium, Djibouti, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Norway, Japan and Finland.

As for the issue of "waiting lists", the US appears to have scored very well in the Responsiveness category for this very reason.

Responsiveness: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden. The reason these are all advanced industrial nations is that a number of the elements of responsiveness depend strongly on the availability of resources. In addition, many of these countries were the first to begin addressing the responsiveness of their health systems to people’s needs.

In conclusion, while publicly funded health systems do appear to have longer waiting periods for certain procedures such as elective surgery (including Medicare, from what I understand), this issue would seem to be far easier to resolve than some of those that apply to private systems. In addition, the increased efficiency of a public insurance system (by virtue of the removal of the need to advertise or to return a portion of profits to stockholders) should in theory be able to dramatically improve the issue of waiting periods, by the brute force method of making more money available for all types of services.

edit: Dantrag, while I'm sure the exorbitant number of 23% in combined taxes and insurance premiums would be compelling to someone, it also doesn't provide any comparison to what you would be paying under a publicly funded (or "socialist" if you prefer) health system. Indeed, if my above assertion regarding the relative efficiency of a public system holds true, your share of the cost could be expected to be less under such a system, given the same level of overall spending.

[Amele]

Right now in Taxes/SS/Medicare/Health/Dental/Accidential i pay 23% of my pay check. I don't wish to pay another 10-15% to have UHC. I'm 23 with no chronic illnesses. Generally no stiches($0), 2 dental visits yearly($10 - 5 bucks each), and a physical once every 2 years or so($5).

That in noooooooooo way adds up to them taking that extra % out.

As far as the info I shall see if i can contact my uncle who has the info.

taxes/etc for me are about 31% and I pay ~12% of my pre-tax income in health insurance and associated other fees. My *income tax rate in France would be 42% (vs. 43% here) after I convert my income from USD to EUR.

while this isn't including social taxes from France (which are also high) France would allow me to deduct significantly more of my pre-tax income, since generally speaking, France (and many other European nations) treat people and businesses the same: they both only get taxed on net income and not gross (in the US you are taxed before your* cost of living, in most of Europe, you're taxed after).

[Tyche]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/...l_race_ap_poll

Title change!