Talk to This Year's Quirkiest Senatorial Candidate 364
Not many candidates for the U.S. Senate are 4'9" tall and only have one hand. But Oregon Democrat Steve Novick qualifies on both counts -- and uses them as pluses in his TV ads. Like this one, where he shows why he's the best beer-drinking partner among all the candidates. Or this one, where it's obvious why he's for "the little guy." Also, as far as we know, he's the only candidate this year for any major office who has his own brand of beer. And his online campaign manager is a major Slashdot junkie, too, which is certainly in his favor. But will humor and oddness get Steve into the Senate? We don't know. So ask him. In fact, ask him anything else you'd like about campaigning and politics. He's promised to respond, and seems like the kind of guy who will give interesting answers, at that. (Please follow Slashdot interview rules, as always.)
Slashdot's Hive's Net Neutrality View (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, you say yourself that the companies with money are going to want this, how do you plan to fight the opposition? If your opponent Gordon Smith opposes net neutrality, you're going to face a lot more of that in the senate. Voting to ensure it in bills is one thing but what makes you unique to any other Senator trying to keep the net neutral? What are the best things we can do to help this? I tried explaining it to my friends and family but often find I've at best confused them.
Allow me to play the devil's advocate, argue against this point:
Environment & Fiscal Responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
On Slashdot, we often get stories where great new ideas come but require extra cash to go green. They are under heavy fire from fiscally responsible people. Where do you stand on this? I can think of many things if you'd care to address them. Like the investment to move to a wind powered infrastructure, compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb usage being enforced by the government, tighter emissions on all transportation, electronic circuitry recycling costs, etc.
If you care to further elaborate, I'm also interested in how fiscal responsibility can be maintained in addition to your pledge to reform healthcare.
Pork... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why Democrat? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nucular... (Score:4, Interesting)
Beer (Score:5, Interesting)
But seriously, you state that The manipulation of scientific data and government reports by political appointees must end. And we must stop the revolving door that has put industry lobbyists in charge of protecting our natural resources. How would attempt to improve the reliability of the EPA's research and encourage transparency within its ranks as to thwart its recent politicization and "bullying" of its scientists who don't produce data to support a political agenda?
Internet's Effect on Campaign Finances (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a fan (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there a way I can support you without getting you in trouble with your constituents? I know even a donation opens you up to the story of "funded by San Francisco Democrats" which would probably play pretty poorly in some parts of Oregon... Should we just stay on the side-lines or is there something folks outside your state can do to help you get your message out?
And one more related question: In this increasingly interconnected world, how do you see interstate involvement in local campaigns as changing the United States as a whole? The DSCC seems to be a pretty critical source of extra-state funding for instance...
Re:Pork... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interrogation... (Score:4, Interesting)
Building the team? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nucular... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly enough, it's the people who understand the most about both in which nuclear energy and guns find the safest hands.
Medical Marijuana (Score:5, Interesting)
Iraq Pullout (Score:4, Interesting)
You want to pull out of Iraq within 6 months.
How to you propose to do that? What efforts are you going to put into rebuilding.
Just leaving would be a horrible mistake that would cause even more strife to the Iraqis.
Wouldn't it be better to ahve a rebuild plan that is shared with the rest of the world? remove more of out troops as specific goals are met?
Will you uphold the Law? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Forest Grove School District is currently attempting to intercept conversations between students on it's school buses, in flagrant violation of ORS 165.540(1)(c) and Federal Statute 2511(1)(b). What will you do make sure all governmental entities comply with existing law?
Health care (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Pork... (Score:5, Interesting)
The combined total of which results in closer to 45% of the total budget.
The last time I checked, SSA, Medicare/Medicaid and HUD were not explicitly mentioned as a role of our government in the Constitution, while Defense most certainly is. Unlike so many wrong-headed individuals, I believe that unless the Constitution actually grants a power to the Federal government, then it DOES NOT have it, regardless of what others may wish to be the case.
Re:I'm a fan (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks for your help!
Re:Universal Health Care (Score:3, Interesting)
My only assumption is something everyone agrees with: that it will cost a lot of money. Therefore, how that money will be raised is a perfectly reasonable question.
Universal Health Care is cheaper than the current system due to economies of scale, less bureaucracy, more preventative care accessibility, and more, as it is everywhere else in the world. It will thus cost less than what we pay now.
Unfortunately, that is false, on several counts. The first is that it is a false dichotomy to say we should do Universal Health Care because it is better than "the current system," because there are other options to improve the current system.
I never set up a dichotomy. I think it's the best system of many alternatives.
For example: deregulating who can provide basic preventative care would make it far more accessible than the current system, and perhaps moreso than a universal system. Deregulation (along with other reforms) can also reduce the COST of health care, thus reducing the need for insurance to cover many things, thus reducing bureaucracy. And don't say it won't work, because this is how it used to be, and it still works for many people today.
Single-payer health care does not regulate the decisions of the AMA and other medical agencies composed of practitioners who would be delegated the role of making policy, just as it is done in many other western nations.
Are you clumping one proposal with another? Clear your mind, first.
Another way that you're wrong is that you assume that bureaucracy will be smaller, or that we will necessarily pay less due to economies of scale. I see no reason to accept either of these assumptions.
I don't actually assume it. Insurance company overhead is around 25%, but medicare is less than 5%. Insurance companies consistently pay more than medicare reimbursements, as well. Total cost of providing health care is greatly increased by private insurance. Since you haven't actually worked in the industry and clearly make false statements without having done any research, you don't have a basis either in experience or research for understanding the problem.
And most obviously, you are wrong because many people WILL PAY MORE, and will get no better care for it. It may cost less overall -- that is unknowable -- but we absolutely do know that many people will pay more. Even John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton -- and even Dennis Kucinich -- admit this. Saying it will cost less is false.
Of course some people will pay more. That's fine with me, particularly if they have the income to afford it. That's the entire basis for progressive taxation and the role of all healthy, modern governments: to ensure a strong middle class by wealth redistribution and equal opportunity.
If you'd like, I'd just have a 100% estate tax that would cover it and every other social program we need instead of an income tax, but an income tax is simply a more market-based approach. But I suppose being born with equal opportunity is not really an important part of your desires for the role of government.
If you're asking where the money would come from: the same place it comes right now: the existing health care system.
Nope. Many people would have to put more -- far more -- into a universal health care system than they do into the existing health care system.
I've actually worked in the health care system in Oregon
So have dozens of people I know personally, including members of my immediate family, who oppose single-payer. You won't win on an appeal to authority. Sorry: you have to try to win on the strength of your arguments themselves.
You're still not qualified to discuss the matter. I am, you are not. Get one of your family members to discuss it with me so we can talk about real issues.
Re:Medical Marijuana (Score:3, Interesting)
If you answered yes to the first, and no to the second, how do you reconcile those answers? Be sure to note the fact that marijuana is less toxic, less addictive, less likely to cause violence, and less harmful in every other way than alcohol.
If you answered no to both questions, thanks for your time anyway.
Re:Universal Health Care (Score:2, Interesting)
And the reason they keep going is because, by and large, they don't pay for it. Third-party "insurance" picks up the tab. If you don't pay for something yourself, the tendency is to try to milk it for everything you can get. This is why universal health care is a boondoggle. It will only be more of the same problem.
In the US, calling it "insurance" is really a misnomer anymore. [capmag.com] It's not just for unforeseen catastrophes. It's more like a payment plan system that covers even "maintenance" and routine expenses.
Bringing high-tech employers to non-Portland areas (Score:3, Interesting)
First, I work for a large software company that has a significant operation some distance away from Portland. But, they are one of the only high-tech companies in the area. With the thinly veiled threat of outsourcing and off shoring, what are you going to do to bring more high-tech jobs to areas in the state that are not the Portland metro area? The economic benefits of bringing highly-skilled and highly-paid workers to the rest of Oregon should be obvious.
Second, did you know that on the eastern side of the Cascades there is actually more of Oregon besides ski resorts and their associated towns? It always seems that people (and politicians) who live in the western portion of the state think that Idaho begins just on the eastern side of Bend and Sunriver - I was wondering if you knew about the rest of it, unlike the governor and most of the other state Democrats.
Finally, can you do something about all of the Californians moving here?
Re:Universal Health Care (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're going to accuse me of a false dichotomy whenever I make a comparison between a proposal and the existing system, then I need to know what other system you actually think is better and where in the world it's been implemented.
I already did. A system that encourages competition through deregulation and other means. Where it's happened before? Here, in the U.S. It served us well for many years until the last few decades, when government regulation and lawsuits consolidated the power in the medical business into the hands of a few. Ever notice how family doctors don't exist anymore? And how health insurance is required for pretty much everything you want done? It didn't use to be that way.
Do you realize that all comparisons imply you're comparing two or more things? That's not a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is when you say there are only two ways that aren't a full complement of each other and thus they don't cover the full range of possibilities. At no point did I say that you have to choose my way or the existing way.
Yes, in fact, you did: you said "we should have Universal Health Care because it is better than the current system."
Your grasp of logic is remarkably poor.
Um, since you literally stated that every person who has worked in health care is qualified to speak on this, and NO ONE ELSE is, I'll eschew your counsel on what is, and is not, a good grasp of logic.
Secondly, you are transferring my statement that an overall cost reduction implies that all will have cost reductions.
No. I addressed what you actually wrote. If you didn't mean to say what you wrote, don't blame me.
I told you where it could come from (multiple ways it could be done) and even said it would be an overall cost reduction due to reduced overhead. ... There are lots of assumptions going around in your arguments, Pudge.
Considering you still assume that there will be an overall cost reduction, you're one to talk.
Thirdly, I made no such assumption that the order was meaningful
False. You did precisely that. Your argument relied on it. I said liberty was the most important goal, and you said -- in rebuttal -- that life is the first goal. That necessarily implies that because it comes first, that it is more important. Please, you are far too transparent, and I am far too good at this, for you to convince me you didn't say what you clearly said.
Jefferson also didn't think that slaves or women were entitled to the rights of white men, either
False. I am unsurprised you didn't know that fact, though. He was one of the most outspoken opponents of slavery, and said, "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that [slaves] are to be free." He believed them to be inferior, as Abraham Lincoln did, but he believed them to have the same rights as all men. That he continued to own slaves is a sad thing, but it does not reflect his belief of what slaves were entitled to. Kinda like how Al Gore uses more oil than anyone else, despite believing it's a bad thing.
so, please, stop appealing to "authority" here
I am not, in the argument sense, appealing to authority. That would be what YOU did, where I would say something like, "Jefferson said something, so therefore it is right." I am not saying that. I am saying it is something I agree with, that formed the foundation of our government. I am stating facts.
I'm not a strict constructionist
Obviously; if you cared about following the law as written or intended, you would not favor the clearly unconstitutional federal health care plans.
and I don't think the intent of the framers is as important as more modern, progressive ideas that make the union more perfect
What matters is the intent of the people who wrote the law as it stands today, whoever and whenever they were