With all this hubbub about who is and who is not going to vote YES on the health care bill, wouldn't it be nice to know who the reps are that are in question? The New York Times has a handy dandy chart which identifies these folks. Check it out.
I was asked the following question in comments recently.
Tell me M, riding a motorcycle is dangerous. If we really wanted to save lives (and improve everyones health) we wouldn't let anyone ride one. Once you accept that people have a right to make that choice for themselves, they take on the risk that goes with it, no? Same goes with helmet laws - which are really just a fig leaf covering the otherwise naked risk. If you want to protect that person from their own bad decision making - you are arguing for a totalitarian system.
Honestly, I've given this a lot of thought and I don't accept this "if...then" principle. In fact, this is a core problem with how we debate things in our culture right now and it's especially frustrating to me because...ahem..certain people are usually the ones defining the issue with the limp noodle, milk toasters on the "left" sitting...amoeba like...wondering how to respond. This wondering usually turns into months of analysis-paralysis which then leads to people believing that sensible laws are totalitarian. They are not and I completely reject this view.
Riding a motor cycle is dangerous but it has been shown to be not enough of a danger to outlaw it entirely. Drinking and driving is dangerous and there are laws in our country which prohibit doing this because it has led to so much death. This is a law that protects us from bad decision making...does it make it totalitarian? No, it doesn't because it affects someone else more adversely than motorcycle riding. Smoking is another example of this. People bemoan the outlawing of smoking and yet it has been proven that second hand smoke causes cancer. Again, we see someone's bad decision making having an adverse effect on someone else so a law was passed.
Now we get to health care. If someone wants to eat like shit and take shit care of themselves and then die, who cares, right? But now this person's hospital bills are causing my rates to rise by 25 percent. His bad decision making is now having an effect on my life. One must look at all of these issues (drunk driving, smoking, poor eating habits) on a case by case basis and not be so black and white about everything. The question that needs to be asked is: to what degree does this affect other people? How many other people? How adversely?
There are many people in this country who are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that we live in an interconnected society. Somehow "interconnected" has become totalitarian. Again, that is because we have allowed...some people...to define the picture. These same people having the bizarre notion that we if we somehow become "rugged individualists" that we will be stronger. Aside from the fact that this isn't even close to being feasible anymore, it's simply not American. We are a country that helps other people out-at home or abroad-through both private and public means. Just because the help comes from the government doesn't immediately make it wrong, bad, or evil. This would be an excellent example of how well...a collective of like minded people...have cast the government in a negative light and corporations in a positive one.
Imagine what would happen if President Obama announced that there would be a 25 percent tax hike across the board. People would be outraged and rightfully so. But a 25 percent--40 percent in many cases--raise in insurance rates? Just fine. In fact, it's even OK when ALL corporations do it so each consumer doesn't have any real choice or freedom. Why?
(cue trippy chime music and blurred vision)
Because private industry is beautiful, golden, warm, and translplendant. You will love the Corporation....the corporation is your friend....You will love the Corporation....the corporation is your friend....You will love the Corporation....the corporation is your friend....You will love the Corporation....the corporation is your friend....You do have a choice...you do have freedom...You do have a choice...you do have freedom...You do have a choice...you do have freedom...
17 comments:
There are tradeoffs with any activity we engage in. Vigorous exercise increases general health by improving heart, lung and immune system function, reducing bad cholesterol, increasing good cholesterol, etc., more than just about anything (perhaps even more than diet). Studies have shown that sedate exercise (walking) helps some, but provides nowhere near the benefit of vigorous activity. But active people are inevitably injured due to accidents and general wear and tear on the body (osteoarthritis, etc.).
However, it's still cheaper for the health care system to pay for the inevitable sprains and broken bones that beleaguer those who are active. Much cheaper than feeding fat people drugs for their entire lives to lower cholesterol, control diabetes, etc. And sedentary individuals will constantly require stents and other procedures, frequent visits to the doctor, and will suffer more frequent heart attacks and strokes. Even when fit individuals require more serious medical procedures (such as orthopedic surgery for torn ligaments and back problems), these procedures are cheaper than heart bypass surgery or brain surgery in the aftermath of a stroke. And the fit individual is able to care for themselves afterwards, while heart attack and stroke victims are often incapable of doing anything.
It's a hard question: how do we get people take proper care of themselves, and what should we do when they don't and something bad happens? Part of me says we should just let motorcyclists who suffer brain damage from not wearing a helmet just die, or let 400-lb heart attack victims smother under their own weight.
That's the decision that conservatives have already made: right now if you don't have health care, you'll die shortly your local hospital dumps you the street (after costing them a boatload of money for your emergency treatment).
But look who started screaming about rationed health care and "death panels" when Congress began to look at these questions. Costs have to be contained, and it seems extremely hypocritical for the right to rail about death panels while expressing contempt for the very idea of universal coverage.
Because we already have death panels: those faceless insurance company employees who deny coverage all the time. Why is a corporate death panel preferable to a federal one?
No matter what kind of health care system we have, no one will be denied treatment they can pay for. This country will always have a way for the rich to get what they want. At a minimum, those who are caring properly for themselves should be able to get the basic care they need regardless of wealth.
I've given this a lot of thought and I don't accept this "if...then" principle.
MWuahahahahahah.
You don't accept it. Just fuckin' fine. Funny as all shit since you were the one that posed the following just a couple of weeks ago...
"The Federal Government can solve much of the health care crisis.
The Federal Government will create death panels and pull the plug on Grandma."
Remember that little "if... then" OF YOURS?
Riding a motor cycle is dangerous but it has been shown to be not enough of a danger to outlaw it entirely.
So, you are willing to accept that people are going to cost YOU more money on healthcare because they ride motorcycles. There is nothing wrong with just saying that.
People bemoan the outlawing of smoking and yet it has been proven that second hand smoke causes cancer.
Fucking pseudo-science idiocy. If this were remotely true I sure as hell should be dead. Besides, the new threat is THIRD hand smoke - please keep up.
His bad decision making is now having an effect on my life.
Really? How did it effect you again? Oh, it COST you some MONEY? You greedy little bastard.
Somehow "interconnected" has become totalitarian.
It certainly is when you and any other bunch of people can decide how I should live my life. That you perceive yourself in the majority, and therefore safe, does not change the fundamental reality.
Just because the help comes from the government doesn't immediately make it wrong, bad, or evil.
No but it probably means it will be inefficient at best and presume that one size fits all.
have cast the government in a negative light and corporations in a positive one.
I didn't say one fucking word about corporations, but the demon's name came right to your lips, didn't it?
But a 25 percent--40 percent in many cases--raise in insurance rates?
You still can't figure out the difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE?
(cue trippy chime music and blurred vision)
Shouldn't you have cue'ed that at the beginning of this post?
Amiable fill someone in on and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you on your information.
Is there still a fight against the notion that second-hand smoke is harmful to people? I thought most people had given up that fight. Most of the arguments around here against the smoking ban take the form "if I don't like it I'm free to go somewhere else." I rarely encounter anybody who tries the "it's really not bad for you" argument anymore.
How the heck can you say "There are many people in this country who are having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that we live in an interconnected society" and "We are a country that helps other people out-at home or abroad-through both private and public means" right after saying "His bad decision making is now having an effect on my life"? Welcome to the interconnected society and what suddenly happened to helping one another? You switch back and forth so easily.
Your constant theme is that conservatives think all businesses and corporations are all wonderful. Never said that. This constant theme of yours is an attempt to paint your opponents into a far right corner that you think they will spend time trying to argue their way out of. You want the casual reader of your blog to associate their words with that idiotic position that you have created out of thin air.
You only talk about banks and insurance companies when talking about private industry these days. Those are pretty easy targets aren't they? There are a lot more businesses and corporations out there in private industry land that make toasters, appliances, cars, clothing, food, medical devices, furniture, cabinets, doors, lights, batteries, calenders, calulators, computers, cell phones, tv’s, shoes, dvd’s, speakers, pens, paperclips, copiers, fax machines, security systems, lawn mowers, shovels, paint, basketballs, softball bats, silverware, mattresses, bikes, cables, cameras, duct tape, and gloves and I don’t mind one bit if they raise their prices by 25% or 40% because I won’t buy that businesses products - I’ll just go buy their competitors products if I even have to buy their products at all. Are banks and insurance companies really the only examples you have nowadays?
99% of businesses are not too large to fail and bad decisions are enough to make a 99% of companies go out of business. Government can just paint over their incompetence with more tax revenues.
It is largely a dog eat dog world that is going to get worse, and in the end you, and you alone, are responsible for yourself, whether you like it or not. That doesn't mean if you work hard it will guarantee you success - it won't. It just gives you a shot at it. Along the way there are plenty of people who will undermine your chance of success, or minimize what you did succeed at in one way or another.
Don’t count on the government - it really is not the grand caretaker and it really is not there to "help". Only certain people run the government (any government) and when you see who they are, you will realize that they are wealthy and they aim to keep it that way (even the people you voted for).
pl my parents were heavy smokers up until I was about 15. If there were adverse health effects, I should be a prime candidate for them.
Let alone my oldest brother who also smoked for 30 plus years. He just recently quit. Oh, and our parents, both of them died of lung cancer - so, no I don't doubt for half a second that smoking is really, really bad for the person doing it. I just don't buy the bullshit that it is really much more than an annoyance for the people around smokers.
As for what last had to say - word!
juris - that's weird. your home life sounds eerily similar to mine growing up. Both of my parents smoked 2 packs a day, until each of them died of lung cancer. 5 of my 6 older brothers smoked multiple packs a day. Most have quit now. None of us (knock on wood) have had any manner of cancer so far, and some of my brothers are now in their 50s, so you'd think it would have hit somebody by now if it was going to.
That anecdotal evidence aside I have to admit that I have noticed an improvement in how I feel (which is such a subjective thing, I know...) after being in places where smokers tended to be prior to the smoking ban. So I truly don't know, and frankly don't really care, if there is truly a connection between second-hand smoke and health problems such as emphysema. The smoking ban makes me feel better, and as we all know that's what counts.
Right HMHC?
Yes.
Anytime you feel better pl, I feel better.
Here's a chart you should explore: http://americansforprosperity.org/obamachart.php
Feelings are what count?
I've grown more and more amused by these days by my colleagues on the right who deride the left for relying too much on "feelings." Yet, the right these days are defined ONLY by feelings--specifically three of them: hate, anger, and fear. Quite ironic.
1. Pl was being sarcastic in his line about what counts.
2. We are talking about feelings having to do with the human body like feeling tired, feeling hungover, feeling sore, feeling stuffy, etc...not the feelings you mentioned.
>Yet, the right these days are defined ONLY by feelings--specifically three of them: hate, anger, and fear. Quite ironic.
Poor Mark. Unable to grasp rational thought, he resorts to Yoda-like pronouncements (while presuming a Yoda-like ability to read people's minds) in order to try to make an "argument."
He seems pretty rational to me. It's the people here that could use some lithium. Or a barium enema.
>He seems pretty rational to me.
Sure.. I might agree he's got a start on it, just as soon he gets around to explaining just how corporations have more power over us all than the federal government. He's still got some work to do there, though I imagine in his mind, he aced that test..
"He seems pretty rational to me."
Marxy's entire post is an example of a straw man fallacy. In other words, he claims we believe things about corporations that we don't actually believe, then attacks his make believe version instead of our actual arguments.
A fallacy is an example of an irrational argument; and this particular fallacy has been known for centuries. Furthermore, the existence of logical fallacies has been known since at least ancient Greece.
Irrational Argument ≠ Rational
"though I imagine in his mind, he aced that test"
He moved the goalpost from "power" to "abuse" and "deemed" it a win.
The smoking ban makes me feel better, and as we all know that's what counts.
Sadly your sarcasm will be taken as earnest good faith by the locals.
Post a Comment