Is Healthcare A Right Or A Privilege?
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence, 1776
As the debate intensifies over society's obligation to make adequate healthcare available to all its members, many Progressives embrace the notion that the unalienable right to life inevitably implies the right of all Americans to the healthcare needed to save lives and avert suffering.
Others disagree, invoking the established principle that no one can claim an unlimited right to infringe on the freedoms or well-being of others.
"Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more "goods" seem to be becoming "rights" in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.
First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a "right" to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you." - Ron Paul
Who is correct? Is there an unlimited right to adequate healthcare? Is there a right to healthcare, but limited by a requirement that your "right" not impose burdens on others? Or is healthcare not a right at all, but simply a privilege - a gift we may choose to bestow on others as a token of our generosity?
Because these questions involve fundamental differences in social philosophy and individual temperament, I expect them to remain as intractable in the realm of current policy disputes as they are contentious. My own perspective, therefore, is that the right to healthcare is an issue best left unresolved.
In support of this position, let me quote next from a document that also refrains from suggesting that any human has a "right" to demand a service from another human, but rather rephrases the question in terms of what humans must demand of themselves.
It is from Matthew 25. "The King" refers to Jesus, and I must preface this citation by disclosing that although I am not a Christian, I find the spiritual dimensions of what follows too fundamental not to be shared beyond the confines of a particular belief system.
"Then the King will say...'for I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you welcomed me...
I was naked and you clothed me. I was sick and you visited me. I was in prison and you came to me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me'"
Now, I find it striking that nowhere in the above passage does God refer to the right of the hungry to demand food, nor the right of the sick to demand care. God says instead, "No, they are not demanding food from you, nor are they the ones demanding care from you - I am the one who demands it."
Whether this is the literal God of Christianity, or the essential humanity within us that is our own form of divinity, it is a power that imposes the obligation to care not from outside but from within. And for some of us at least, who hear our own inner voices louder than the shouts of outside demanders, it is a power that must be obeyed.
Not all may hear voices equally loud, but we can ask all to listen for them. And so, I suggest that if friends or colleagues are reluctant to concede another's right to impose healthcare expenses on them, it might be wise to agree. Instead, you can ask what it means if they impose that same obligation on themselves. Would they see that as a relationship with their God in which, as the document goes, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me", or do they think they would merely be doing God a favor?
jesus christ. you took my blog. hahahahah
I copieD Mathew 25: 35-46 first thing this morning AND HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT ALL DAY. It was just the intro, but I will simply link this and move on.
;hahahaha
Good for you.
Yes. You nailed it. We gots Christian problems here.
No doubt about it.
GOOD POST
September 20, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though not perfectly analogous, a little over 100 years ago, similar discussions were taking place regarding education.
Now we have public, mandatory education provided by the government and though, arguably, in the strictest terms, it is not a "right", few question the good it has done our nation.
Maybe someday we'll look back at this part of history and wondered and think in similar terms.
September 20, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not nationwide, education was not a government function nationwide. But local communities, especially in the northeast made school mandatory for certain ages.
These are the seeds that eventually bore the great tree of learning.
Funding of course was made local, based upon property taxes so that rich exurbs and gated communities pool their monies to provide one hell of an education to their kiddies.
Kind of funny though as far as health care. Congress made access to health care mandatory by the act that kept ER's from denying treatment to anyone.
Brings me back to St. Elsewhere, from whence many of today's stars and super stars came from. It was called St. Elsewhere because richer hospitals that denied emergency care sent the poor patients to St. Elsewhere.
Yeah, its becoming a right. Good point. Seeing it as a societal issue, a morphing so to speak, an evolution in cultural perspective.
Good point.
September 21, 2009 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typically thoughtful and measured post.
The debate on the current proposals for health care reform is focused on the degree of the government involvement in managing health care in this country:
- direct provision of service (insurance)
- redistribution of income to finance that service
These are not the only issues in this debate (federal vs state is another one that comes to mind, but also involvement of the employer, issues of efficiency, etc), but they are the most obvious.
So the question of right vs service is critical for both (some) opponents and (some) proponents of the reform method we're debating because for both it creates the context and the rationale.
What you seem to be suggesting, Fred, is to replace the justification based on law and constitutional principles with the justification based on an appeal to morality.
My own view is that the justification of the reform on the basis of morality is not entirely sincere. The Christian moral imperative to help those in need is based on strict voluntarism. It is the voluntarism that makes it the most sincere and genuine form of caring for those around you, because you're not compelled by anyone other than yourself.
However, moral voluntarism cannot be imposed - it stops being voluntary and it stops being moral.
Besides, different people may be hearing different inner voices and express their voluntary care of others differently.
And finally, the question of voluntarism hinges on the definition of who is really in need. Traditional Christian morality focuses on helping the poor, not the middle class.
In the end, I think the society can decide that its in its interest to provide subsidized health insurance for those at or below poverty level. But that would result in a targeted program that has an explicit objective of providing relief. And even though it could be done in a way that makes everyone happy, the truth is that's not the objective of the health care reform.
September 20, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Operationally, health care is a privilege. The "rights" talked about in the founding documents are really about the government leaving you alone (which doesn't cost anything), rather than providing something specific.
Note the words from the Constitution:
...provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare...
Very Lockian: government is simply there to allow the collective interest to do its thing. It will promote decent things, but only has to provide for a defense.
The UN documents (which are often brought up) have no teeth because they talk about "rights" which cost money...
One of the weakest points of the left is a refusal to deal with the reality of the world. The real world is finite. One of the great things about the "old right" (not the neo-cons, who are, in fact, radical) was a notion of fiscal conservatism (last scene from them in the mid-70's or so).
The left has to learn to pay as you go. I'm not proposing how to pay, or how we should shift budgets. That becomes an issue of setting priorities -- and there are legitimate political differences there. But to argue for healthcare because it is a "right" means that you can't figure out how to raise the money to pay for it. (And by "figure it out", I mean getting results... figuring out how to have a majority of the Congress go along with the plan.)
I wish that TPM readers would focus on more substantive issues like: the disparity of how Medicare is dealt with on a state-by-state basis. It is because of this root reason that some of the blue dogs don't want to change their systems -- the blue dog states see net money coming in that would stop with reform. Solving this issue would help bring the blue dogs along. It's simply not realistic for someone to expect someone else giving up an advantage for no good reason. Appealing to "morality" is never convincing. If they agreed with that argument, you wouldn't have to make the appeal to begin with.
Distribution of healthcare is a political issue since it is not free. Arguments that are essentially non-political in nature should be abandoned because (a) they don't solve the problem and (b) haven't been effective for the past 50 years. Arguing in terms of a deity (however cleverly you skirt the issue by talking of the deity within or whatever), only make the topic more difficult because now you have to convince someone that the deity even exists to want something in this direction.
September 20, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My deity is not a God damn conservative.
September 20, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker presents a typically constructionist argument regarding the 'founding documents'. It could very well be that if the founders knew the advances to come in medical science they may have included some sort of basic medical care under 'provide for the common defense' given that many illnesses back then were seen as attackers.
The founders were great, not clairvoyant.
September 20, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to break the news...
. . . to you here Not Too Clear Thinker . . .
Your quote:
That's from the Preamble... And the following clarifies that the Preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government:
NOW ... From the actual body of the Constitution it reads:
It's quite clear that the word "promote" is nowhere in Paragraph 1 of Sec: 8...
PLUS ... IF one wishes to get into what and what is not "general welfare" and what is allowable and what is not allowable in relationship to the Constitutional power of Congress to "lay and collect taxes" for the "spending for the general welfare" take your time and absorb the following:
The grant of power to “provide . . . for the general welfare”
Scope of the Power | Cornell University Law School
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html
Have fun . . .
~OGD~
September 21, 2009 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think Howard got you on this one, CT. I would add that the founders were purposely vague in many details though an understanding of how much would change over time and how reluctant we would be to rewrite those documents to face those challenges.
I happen to think that providing for the general welfare means setting up a system of laws and then enforcing them, but apparently that is too simplistic for the US government. If we set up fair rules and enforced them, the system we have would have never gotten so out of whack.
No money to be made with simplicity, so both parties have to provide excuses for a lack of innovative solutions that would actually fix the disease rather than mask the symptoms.
September 21, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typical of Howard, he pulls out a very specific reference to micro-debate a point. I love the idea of this guy sitting there with veins pulsing while he googles away. And then he shows a - voila! - see? see? You're wrong!
Here Howard obfuscates the point in that he wants to claim I was arguing law rather than intent.
Most of the regular posters on TPM are people within eyeshot of retirement, if they aren't already in it. They aren't prepared for what is coming: as cheap energy goes away and we once again see $5/gal gas (already prices are creeping above $3/gal), you'll see the economy take an even bigger cratering because this time we have already overprinted monies on the first bailout.
At that point, you will see the real cracks in the system. People will "insist" on all these payouts -- and they will quickly find that are not "rights" by any means. They were, in effect, a show of empathy in a country with a lot of excess wealth. But if the wealth goes away, so will these social programs. Then we will be going back to what your real "rights" are... those that don't require excessive wealth to support social systems.
People have no clue about (a) how lucky they are to be born in a country with excessive wealth and (b) how their political views are based on a very tenuous situation.
Naturally, the people at TPM will see statements like "healthcare is a privilege" as anti-healthcare. That's because they are steeped in their own "wing-nut" philosophy. Most on TPM, as you know, are out of step with the average American (and the average American isn't a Glenn Beck fan either).
September 21, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just visited family in Nashville this weekend and you are right on target.
The echo chamber makes it next to impossible to moderate a presentation in a way that is likely to connect with people who don't already agree with your take.
Problem now is that the hard-left framing is starting to taint the president, who was elected as a fairly moderate left-leaning centrist.
September 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? Your personal health is not the general welfare.
General welfare is infrastructure. You know: public education, roads, post office.
Things we all benefit from.
Medicare is certainly a privilege. Spending national treasure on the elderly to allow them a longer life, especially when they aren't significant consumers nor provide for economic growth of the country, is hardly a right. People here, of course, will read this as a diatribe against Medicare, but that's because they are stuck in their own personal dogma.
September 21, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Twist, fold and mutilate to your heart's desire . . .
Wow, this is weird (as per usual) ... No one is claiming anything but CT.
And, I didn't attempt to confuse anything. My comment was and remains quite relevant and appropriate to CT's specific reference.
The crux of CTs subject matter was portraying her/his position on "rights" versus "privilege" and CT used the Preamble here in the original comment to support her/his position.
I simple explained, through reputable links of case law and well respected commentaries where CT was incorrect in her/his understanding and that the Preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government in my comment here.
CT had exhibited that her/he had absolutely no legal understanding in relationship between the Preamble and that of the the body of the Constitution.
The law of the land is the written Constitution and the Congress is empowered through Art 1 to decide what the "spirit and intent" is in conjunction with case law and what they deliberate to be in the best interest of the "general welfare" of the country when crafting law.
It's not up to some blogger, like him/her or me to be pissing in threads with anecdotal fantasies of what things should be, or should not be.
Oh and ... The "infrastructure" meme is a total non-starter. Again, see:
"...and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States..."
Once again: The powers vested by the Constitution empowers Congress through Art 1 to decide what the "spirit and intent" is in conjunction with case law and what they deliberate to be in the best interest of the "general welfare" of the country when crafting law.
Keep throwing out the dogma, turn your back on the laws, and remain ignorant.
It's CT's choice.
~OGD~
September 21, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me, the debate is irrelevant. The constitution provides for the government to pass laws for the greater good of society. The question is what kind of society do we want to create. Most arguments along this line (and along the lines of wealth redistribution) are kind of red herrings. If congress is constitutionally empowered to pass health care reform then the only real debate is if the solution they propose passes constitutional muster and meets the needs of today's society.
I know you disagree, but IMO there are some hanging constitutional questions about mandated coverage the way it is being implemented that almost assuredly will end up in court. Beyond that, as Clearthinker points out it's all politics.
September 20, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, whether you believe it is a moral right (and those of us taught the social Gospel emphatically do NOT interpret Christianity the way Republicans are teaching Christians to interpret it) or a civil right or not, the recent history of American right-wing dogma on the subject diverges from what is pretty much settled opinion in most every other civilized country.
September 20, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Everyone else does it" is not a compelling argument either. Remember that Europe had to exhaust itself with two devastating wars before it came to the place we know today. That was a social revolution as well. Are you willing to pay that price?
You keep turning this into a dogmatic issue - and that is the reason why the left hasn't been able to be as compelling as the right.
I should not have to subscribe to your belief system for you to make your political case. The left makes its own burden heavier by adding this additional requirement.
September 20, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You keep turning this into a dogmatic issue - and that is the reason why the left hasn't been able to be as compelling as the right."
You have somehow missed the force feeding of right-wing dogma the past 30 years!! The real problem is that the amoral, soulless Democratic Party has refused to stand for anything for 30 years which has made it easy as pie for right-wing Christians to paint Democrats as a bunch of heathens.
If our belief systems diverge too far, then you aren't going to buy my political case. Politics is about the practical expression of values.
September 20, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one was force feeding. That's the point. People were swallowing.
When the Dems learn how to pitch a message that people swallow, the Dems will regain political clout.
September 20, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker said:
"When the Dems learn how to pitch a message that people swallow, the Dems will regain political clout."
Need I state the obvious?
September 21, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it is a good argument. Because everybody else does it we are at a competitive disadvantage and a economic disadvantage when the closest developed nation to us spends 10% of its' (Switzerland) GDP on healthcare.
September 20, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Our auto companies can't begin to compete with ones in Canada or Japan, for example, when all employees have health-care UNRELATED to their employment.
How many entrepreneurial thinkers can take a chance to open a small business when they know that they have to pay too much for health care? Instead, they take a job with a big employer and their good ideas are lost.
I know, because I wanted to start a business and instead went to work for a hospital -- why? For the health benefits, which of course I would lose if I got chronically ill.
September 20, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an entrepreneur, I can tell you that if healthcare issues were what prevented you from starting your business, you aren't an entrepreneur. That's okay. Most people aren't. Most people can't handle that level of risk.
Lost ideas? Plenty of small companies fail -- after having been started. Stand in line with your lost ideas. Stand in line behind the people that did risk big, only to have their company fail anyway.
Seriously, this sounds like blaming the world for one's own failings.
September 20, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you say so, CLEARTHINKER, then it must be true. Some people have a great idea, but lack the money and backing to see it through, and just a little help, like not having to spend a fortune on every employee (like that one great guy who has had a back problem, but is the only one who can make the prototype of your invention) - but oh-well - obvious losers, as you say.
..BUT if I may say so, I am so glad that you feel morally unable to have children. I would hate to imagine the constant demeaning and condescension that children would have to suffer under your indignant and superior eye. The poor buggers wouldn't stand a chance at even getting through first grade!
I mean, a little kid with an idea would be totally squashed under your heavy-handed bludgeon! Steve Jobs would probably have ended up working at McDonalds if he had had the horrible bad luck to be raises by you. Oh, well...fortunately we'll never know.
September 20, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are very ignorant on so many levels, CVille. You know nothing of business, nor of the history of Silicon Valley.
By the way, you would never be able to work for Steve Jobs -- he would eat you alive.
So you can take this fairy tale and put it right next to the one where Ted Kennedy was trying to protect Mary Jo Kopechne because she crawled into his car without his knowledge. Amusingly, that you'll take someone's word on!
I've had plenty of ideas squashed because they "weren't important enough". Things like a means to detect IDEs. Don't speak to me about good ideas not out there. I've had my failures... and successes.
All you seem to have is your fairy tales pumped into you the very media that don't trust elsewhere.
September 20, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had plenty of ideas squashed because they "weren't important enough". Things like a means to detect IDEs.
What's an IDE? Did you mean IED? Who squashed it? Dastardly commenters at TPM or Cheney's boys at DOD? They pay big money to established defense contractors they plan to get hired by someday to develop expensive toys that dot he same job. You oughta know by now that's a closed bidding system.
September 21, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
markg,
Yes, IED corrects my typo.
It's a shame your comment was flip because you are usually such an intelligent poster.
The system isn't rigged like you suggest. Yes, there are larger fish and smaller fish, but it's clear to me from your comment you haven't seen the inside of the beast.
Quite simply, if the system was as simple as you see, it would be more easily controlled. "Cheney and the boys" would be happier that way, but they aren't.
I suggest you find out how the government really runs. It's not all cabals, you know.
September 21, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So who squashed it CT? I read one article about the development of IED detection equipment a few years ago and as I remember the purpose of the report seemed to be to expose the DOD's same old expensive hitech make work project with a 5 year delivery date while GIs were getting attacked hundreds of times a week in Iraq. The website looks nice but that doesn't mean they actually buy anything from anybody who doesn't have a lobbyist.
September 21, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one "squashes" a good idea. Lobbyists aren't required, nor are line items from your Congressmen.
Venture Capitalists are notoriously wary of dealing with the government as a customer. Not for reasons of lobbyists, but for reasons of lateness in bill paying, shifting milestones, increasing order beyond your capacity, etc. Government contracts can be the most lucrative of all -- or they can sink your business in one fell swoop. Moreover, you have to get to the right "buyer"... this is a real trick in an of itself, which is why so many military people can consult to help you with that (it's not a lobbyist) via their Rolodex. These are ordinary people.
I'm sorry I can't go into specifics, but if you believe that lobbyists are required to sell to the government, then you've never tried it. NASA also does a significant business with high tech people -- you will find, I believe, that Cheney pretty much didn't care about that government organization. Nevertheless, the same obstacles are there as for DOD.
September 21, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS The use of the word "squashed" was CVille's and that's why I used in my original comment to her.
September 21, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you couldn't get venture funding for a product where your sole customer would be the DOD? Maybe you should have tried selling it to one of the outfits with better DOD connections and established money lines who were wasting their time and our money on more expensive solutions.
September 21, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry if I don't lay out the entire plans to you, but I've done more than talk to VCs. If you have particularly good contacts I'd love to hear about them.
And, as I said, I've had my failures... and successes. I know how the game is played. But timing and chance is more important than most want to recognize. The universe isn't against us -- but it doesn't work for us either.
September 21, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well shit happens CT. We all live and learn. And don't tell me the universe doesn't work for me or I'll have mother nature open up a tectonic fault on your ass and swallow you whole. ;-)
September 21, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, shit happens. So does love. :O)
September 22, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
So is this a dead deal or are you still working on it? You're pretty vague here so I'm gonna assume the latter. Can you give me any more details? Did you build a prototype? Can you tell how it would work or why it's better than the other solutions they're considering?
September 22, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, a working prototype existed. And that's all I'm going to say on the topic. It's not to be coy, but it's to protect identities. "Build it and they will come" is the novice entrepreneur's line. But I assume you already know that.
September 22, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not an inventor but I know what you're talking about. It's gotta be tough when you;re dealing with just one potential customer.
September 22, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, CVille Dem, here are things *real* entrepreneurs do to raise money:
a) run up credit cards
b) downsize their life
c) re-mortgage their home
d) spend life savings
e) giving up the security of a corporate job (includes healthcare)
If you aren't willing to do that, then no one will trust you with their money for your "brilliant" idea.
Starting out a company doesn't require you to buy health insurance for anyone. Not at all. You would know that if you really bothered to try to start a company.
You remind me of all the people who walk around convinced they have the great American novel in their heads. Either write it down, or stop asking us to believe your delusions.
September 20, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh fuck off. I've been an "entrepreneur" for over 15 years. I still am, but it's more of a side business now. I also hold a full time job.
How many people do you employ? I would bet none, as unlike most successful small business people, I have yet to hear you speak about your employees. That is a dead giveaway.
You are likely one of them newfangled "entrepreneurs" the kind that have a consulting job 3 times a year and think they're the cats pajamas. They're really unemployed losers too proud to admit it.
Now the owners at my full time job clearly think about their 300+ employees, and medical benefits is a big issue. They have given us a high deductible policy in which they are assuming a big risk by paying those high deductibles ($10,000 a family) and betting that a majority won't get ill. If you had any employees you wouldn't sound so abysmally ignorant. Nor are you accurate in your descriptions as a sole proprietor buying an individual policy. You simply are WRONG. I KNOW this, as do all the other "entrepreneurs" here.
You don't know what kind of business C'Ville was thinking of starting, or how many she was thinking of employing, so you are simply being the asshole we've all come to know and loathe. You know "nothing" about business, as is evident by your stupid and ignorant comments.
But do go on, and show us all what a total arrogant jerk knows about "business."
September 20, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You confuse your being a freelancer with being an entrepreneur, Bwak. If you were a real entrepreneur (after 15 years), you wouldn't have time for a day job.
September 21, 2009 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of wasting your spiel here . . .
Why not run your over "thinking" and stinking attitude back up to this comment and read how unclear your "thinking" is . . .
You wouldn't be able to find your ass with both hands in a real world court of law... or business, especially if you think reading without comprehension is your forte.
Good frickin' luck . . .
~OGD~
September 21, 2009 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oopsie
Here's the link . . .
Gremlins . . .
~OGD~
September 21, 2009 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike you, I never have to seek out work. And there's no difference between a sole proprietor and a "freelancer."
But do go on, your ignorance and self-aggrandizement amuse me.
September 21, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, health care costs don't hurt the mighty entrepreneur... but environmental regs and energy costs and labour costs can?
It's awesome the way you come on a thread, bluster about every single point, and say stuff that is so absolutely and utterly stupid, it takes the breath away. The idea that somehow, health care costs are mot a problem for business... but these OTHER costs are... well, that's just idiocy.
Same as your little bleat about the left needing to learn how to pay as it goes. Got ANY evidence, data, on this? Hell, from you, at this point I'll take a good anecdote.
"One of the weakest points of the Clearthinker is its refusal to deal with the reality of the world."
September 20, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll not waste my time with someone spoiling for a fight where they don't even have a stake in it.
But I do love how your ego is clipped every time I post. Self control must not be one of your strong suits.
Time for your "witty" celery comments. The cackling hens here love you for those, quinn.
September 20, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here ya' go ...
Go chew on this Rand Fact Sheet.
I'm sure that the dummies there with the facts and data at Rand are 1000 times more ignorant than you and your anecdotal fantasy stories.
~OGD~
September 21, 2009 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This report has zero to do with entrepreneurs. As in, guys out there starting new businesses on a whiff of hope and whatever security they can manage much in the way that CT outlines above.
Here is a key paragraph:
CT didn't contend our screwed-up health care system isn't damaging to large industries or even small to medium sized businesses, but that wasn't the argument being offered.I have started three companies since leaving the Navy ten years ago and am still working my way toward multiple new ventures, both with partners and without. Not being able to afford health insurance had zero to do my decision to pursue them and zero to do with why those businesses failed to spark, though it may be why spouses stay at jobs they hate, which my wife did and is now able to go to school full-time next year as a result.
I can't think of a single successful entrepreneur or business professional who didn't jump at an opportunity based on a lack of health insurance being attached.
September 21, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: First Paragraph should have read: As in, guys AND GALS out there starting new businesses.... Didn't mean to neglect half the population! :O)
September 21, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, here's one part of the population you left out: You make it seem brave and daring to break out and start a business without considering health insurance. I guess you aren't single, and that you never had breast cancer.
I would have to have been crazy to continue my $5,000 yearly deductible, $600+ a month premium instead of just going on to a group plan with a hospital. If you and CT call that being a loser, then I will just have to consider the source(s).
Jason, I can tell from what you have written that you've never faced being declined by an insurance company; you had options that not everyone had. According to the republican groupthink everyone who has insurance deserves it and everyone who doesn't is just lazy or spending their money on wide-screen tvs.
I won't even go into CT's pathology; I just know it does not make him a happy person. You can't get insurance against self-loathing.
September 21, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is forcing you to leave your job, CVille. If you want to start a company, by all means. If you prefer the security, by all means. What you want is society to subsidize you for taking a risk. That's just plain greediness... and convinces no one.
No one used the word "loser". That's your projection. Most people can't stomach the risk. That's natural. What isn't natural is expecting society to stomach it for you.
September 21, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I sat somewhere that I didn't support health insurance reform? Did I say I didn't support sweeping, systemic changes to the way we do business?
Is disagreeing with your premise that health care inequities is killing the American entrepreneurial spirit now akin to not believing in anything having to do with this debate.
Your comment makes little sense and appears more to be a vehicle to convey a jab at the supposed size of our egos. Apparently, relative to your own or this line of attack would have never come up.
Are you sure you want to get into this with me? I did nothing but dispute your remark with personal experiences that run counter to your claims. I used no insulting language. Made no implications of idiocy.
This automatic refusal to even contemplate that your misconceptions are indeed ill-informed will ensure the democratic party continues to make more enemies than friends. At least in America, where we are currently having this debate.
September 22, 2009 6:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
For all everyone gives you a hard time about JEM, I will say this: you do at least read what is written. ;-)
September 21, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of hard to have opinions on something that doesn't include the entire thread and what everyone had to say.
As a fan of context, I fully support its emergence on the American political scene. If we can bring along nuance for the ride, we just might make some headway!
That being said, a few less comments with "idiot child" as the underlying subtext might go a long way toward smoothing the ruffled feathers around here.
September 21, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you have to wonder about people who choose birds as avatars... bird often have ruffled feathers...and smallish brains.
September 21, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I switched back to Teddy. That way I don't have to field questions about a lack of fiber in my diet.
September 21, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't think of anyone...
Your decision to start a company (that failed) had zero to do with insurance...
You had insurance through your wife, who stayed in a shitty job so you could have insurance...
Jason. I have some shocking news for you: You don't know everyone or everything.
Not every entrepreneur is a Steve Jobs; some people have one great small idea because they couldn't put it out there -- my point was only that not having to worry about affordable insurance is a huge asset in every other developed country. One of our national traits had always been one of problem-solving.
Sure there are people who have all of the characteristics that make them successful even when they risk not having health care for their families, and can't attract some employees who are not willing to take those risks.
There is no way you can convince me that we are operating on a level playing field when Canadians, Brits, French, Germans, etc simply don't worry about paying for their and their family's health care. It is a huge burden, and moreso for those who have family members with medical problems. Even people with sick relatives can have exceptional ideas.
But you and CT go on and demean everyone who doesn't have a wife who will stay in a shitty job; or as CT, pretends to be in the elite who don't have to worry about anything except his very fragile ego which only gets stroked by putting other people and their ideas down.
September 21, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You offered up a very lame argument for healthcare based on the fact you weren't willing to take a risk on your own.
Sorry you have physical ailments. But I find it interesting in this share-and-share alike world that you want to imagine, CVille, that if your idea is so compelling, why not simply give it away?
Or is it that now that you have something of value you want others to pay for this thing? How just like a capitalist! Shame on you!
Seriously: if this idea is good, you can license it to another company, etc. It allows you some participation while maintaining your day job. If you want more than that, you will simply have to take risks... just like everyone else who is a real entrepreneur.
By the way, you keep talking about framing this in terms of healthcare -- what on Earth are you going to do for an income flow in the meantime?
There are a many reason to argue for healthcare. Yours regarding entrepreneurship doesn't even pass the sniff test. I'm doing you a favor. Go back to the drawing board and construct a better argument.
September 21, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said that I don't know a single person who is a successful professional or entrepreneur who didn't do something because there was a lack of health care. You clearly don't read what I write.
No where did I say every entrepreneur is that willing to take risks, but I would challenge you to provide a single book, by a single entrepreneur of note and point to the chapter where they talk about giving up due to a lack of heath care insurance.
I am pretty sure you will never produce such a book, so I won't both holding my breath.
PS: For what it is worth, I have yet to say I know everything about anything, so these charges are starting to wear a bit thin. Perhaps you can up with a new insult to my intellectual honesty next time?
September 22, 2009 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop replying to arguments I didn't make.
No wonder you were a swabbie rather than in control of men in the field. You constantly miss the larger pictures. Seriously, you have the time to read more carefully. Use it.
September 21, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, watch it with the swabby comments!
September 21, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, is your ego as small as your johnson?
September 21, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure you are proud of making remarks such as that, CVille. Share that one with your family, okay?
September 21, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sort of remind me of. . .
. . . an old dog we once had . . .
~OGD~
September 23, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ. Why are you back to just being an asshole?
this sounds like blaming the world for one's own failings. as our friend JEM likes to say: "mirror, shinny thing"
Actually don't answer that. Just please try to be civil. There is no need for unwarranted digs like that.
September 20, 2009 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Civil? Is this the same guy that thought it was okay to make fun of someone's looks? Yes, it is. Thought so.
Here's the deal:
When someone complains about "not being able to do something", they deserve to be shut down. The massive sense of entitlement from some of the posters here is not helping the discussion in the least.
I didn't bring up the fact that CVille was risk-averse... she did.
You need look no further than the last two Democrats in the White House as an example of being able to make it, despite humble beginnings. And it's much easier to get a successful business going then become POTUS.
When you go for "safety", you lose the right to complain. Be a grown-up and accept that there are consequences for all choices. This isn't a case of bad luck for her, she simply didn't have the guts to stomach the fear. And that's okay. Most people don't. What's not okay is to externalize that fear and blame the government's healthcare policy for her own fear.
Lots of people start businesses. Some succeed. Most fail. She can join the group, if she wants. But she can't blame the rest of us for her choice as everyone is playing by the same rules.
September 20, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to see CT off his meds again. You're making a really important point.
Despite myths to the contrary, the US has a relatively low rate of entrepreneurialism, at least measured by number of small companies. A big part of the reason for that is what you mention - the high down-side health care related risk. We already limit down-side risk by instituting bankruptcy procedures. And do so precisely to stimulate risk-taking. Limiting down-side risk through health care reform would be a good added measure.
Of course, putting aside CT's best efforts to turn this into morally tinged personal insults, it would be a good way to frame the HCR debate on simple economic grounds - stimulating dynamism and innovation.
Great point!
September 21, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
A good review of research on HCR and entrepreneurialism:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0905.gruber.html
September 21, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice Obey... I expect nothing less from you: a link of an editorial making a statement you agree with as "proof" that you are correct.
It's clear you aren't an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs are risk takers. Period. I have never met a tech entrepreneur who didn't move forward on the basis of healthcare. There is much in your link that requires further explanation like: if someone is working on an idea for years while employed elsewhere
a) that idea must clearly be separate from his day job else his employer owns it
b) he can continue to try to commercialize the idea while still being on the job if it is separate by having others carry the business forward
c) or he can take a leap of faith
Your article assumes the conclusion... and it's your conclusion.
By the way... personal insults? Like talking about how I am "off my meds"? You can only play to the crowd here... where your avatar allows you the luxury of soft thinking among friends.
September 21, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're incapable of googling - here is one of the research pieces whose conclusions the WI piece was summarizing.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=904703
By the by, Eakin-Holtz also has research on the issue, drawing your conclusion. But this is the way these issues need to be discussed. Not with your anecdotal personal experience.
I'm not insulting you, I'm merely pointing out your inability to discuss policy questions - here, about the optimal way to incentivize entrepreneurship - without backhanded personal swipes. If you quit it, I'll stop pointing it out.
September 22, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
obey,
Never taken a personal swipe -- I've only pointed out how wrong people are. Because they insert their personal experience as somehow universally meaningful they have already put themselves front and center.
Of course, you sit there smug because TPM has become an echo chamber to a large degree. Believe me, your arguments would barely pass a policy debate and your listening skills are about an F. Maybe an F-.
Googling has rotted your mind. Here's how it works for you: you have an opinion based on whatever emotional response you have. Possibly, in your case, you haven't even thought of the issue before -- but you just don't like that one of your friends can't hold an intelligent discussion and the Internet is wonderful at stripping away the "niceties" where people put up with inane remarks because no one likes a shouting match. So you pick a side -- without thinking about it -- and then hope to find something on Google as "proof".
This isn't fact checking. You are arguing by factoid.
That paper that you site requires you to pay to read it. Have you? Or did you just hope that having an abstract on the Internet would somehow prove to the less academically inclined the validity of your argument?
I'm betting that you never even read the paper. Which was from 2001... and used date from 1993.
Did you use Cliff Notes as a cheat to pass classes in High School as well?
The fact is that the literature on this topic is far from conclusive. If you knew anything about the real policy, you'd know that. Even the paper you cite makes a claim of just a few percent. That's few as in less than 5% change. That's not compelling for policy because it's difficult to unwind other factors.
Of course, cherry picking a paper is typical of the FNC style of reporting. I'm sure you will be proud of the company you keep.
People bitch and moan about why they didn't attain their dreams. The fact is that few really try. It requires dedication and sacrifice that most people don't possess. So they invent reasons: "I had kids", "I got married", "I wasn't financially secure". In CVille's case it was "I had breast cancer and needed health insurance."
Did she even bother to come up with a business plan? Did she even bother to come up with a prototype or test her idea? Did she even bother to come up with marketing data?
She doesn't say one way or another, but I can tell you this: if she did, I'm betting it would have been part of her comment.
Instead, her company is stillborn and she satisfies her psychological dissonance by blaming health insurance issues. You can even see her psychology at work -- she falsely claims that Jason and I called her a "loser" when we did not.
Do you know who called her a loser? She did.
And that's why she reacts so violently when someone reinforces what she knows deep down to be true: she didn't really try to set up her company at all.
Real entrepreneurs would have a boatload of other things accomplished (biz plan, prototype, etc.) long before that issue would even pop in their head.
Bottom line: Talent cannot be denied. Ever. If you have it, it does rise. Not in the way you might hope for, but it does become apparent. CVille simply doesn't believe in her idea enough to take a chance. That disqualifies her as an entrepreneur.
September 22, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading comments like this CT, I genuinely fear for your sanity.
Phone a friend.
September 23, 2009 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the long response. Still nothing on the policy issue I see. All about my and CVille's character. The literature on this IS complex, that's why I POINTED OUT Holtz-Eakin, whose research points in your direction. Thought it might be helpful to bring this discussion forward. But alas...
I'll suggest, gently, ... again... please stick to discussing policy, rather than insulting people.
September 23, 2009 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT if you don't think there are serious opportunity cost considerations for someone starting their own business that result in job lock for someone with a pre-existing condition you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on in this country over the last 30 years.
I have had my own business since 1982. I've also been single and uninsured for most of that time. Fortunately I've been pretty healthy. I've done all those things you cited, even ran up the credit cards which made me an indentured servant to the banks for awhile. Financially I've had great years, awful years, and some in between. I enjoy the freedom but financial insecurity goes with it.
If I had dependents or a pre-existing condition there's no way I could have taken the risks I have. As the song goes, I do things my way and I pay a high price. One of those sacrifices I've made is having a family.
If I had it to do over I probably wouldn't have taken this route. To start from scratch in the USA and carve out a business niche is not just an uphill climb these days with our flimsy social safety net it's a very bad bet. Most people with family responsibilities just can't afford to take that risk.
As an entrepreneur I understand your unrelenting bottom line view of the world. Nobody pays me for working hard or doing the best I can. If I don't sell, I literally don't eat. I depend on no one else but have no else to blame when I don't succeed. Most people don't have that mindset. They can't live with the financial insecurity that goes with the job and don't have an inheritance or trust fund to fall back on if they fail.
September 23, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making this point, from a political standpoint it is the most viable argument.
September 20, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can cut peoples wages significantly. That would make us "competitive" again.
Ever notice how prosperity tends to make a country unattractive for manufacturing and low skill jobs?
Seriously, healthcare isn't why we aren't competitive on the world market. It's because energy is so cheap you can make something in a country for slave wages and ship it here cheaper than making it here.
Another reason? We have many environmental laws and regulations that make things more expensive.
Mostly people simply shop price. This is the reason why Walmart trashed local economies, including people's neighbors. Americans are short sighted, even as consumers. For saving a few bucks on junk they didn't need, they handed their consumer clout over to companies that found places to manufacture with low wages and no regulations.
September 20, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or we can raise them elsewhere by slapping a surtax on corporations that take advantage of these deplorable wages and environmental rape in other countries.
That is what America would/i> have done not so long ago, and that is why we managed to lift others up, rather than grind them down. Apparently, you don't have the wit to see that.
I'd also note, that California is one of the few states where an shallow, self-centered ignoramus running an online porn shop out of his mom and dad's basement can stay on their healthcare plan.
Of course, they'd have to be kinda, ick, to do that.
September 20, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be honest Bwak: your "job" serves absolutely no function at all. Illustrator? Seriously. You get that job because other people grow food, provide for your security, etc. So you get to do what you "love".
Like many people. The difference is they either understand their role in the great chain of being and temper their comments... or simply don't get it and don't make flip comments at all.
Environmental rape? Don't get me started. How many of your books are really required? Do we really require the "product" you sell? With I get epiphanies on the basis of your products? Or do you require the mindless consumerism you constantly deplore so that you can earn a living? Ever do advertising design? Exactly what great contribution does that make?
Like so many people who narrow their focus, the problem is always somewhere else. Not at home.
You are welcomed to do something more useful to the economy to help make us competitive again. If corporations have it so easy, why not start a business? At the very least, you can give all your profits to exactly whom you wish.
September 20, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many people really need celery porn?
September 20, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really need to take a trip somewhere, like Paris. Go to the Musee d'Orsay and other art museums. Experience the transporting sensation that you get from seeing the world through the eyes of wonderful artists. But don't stop there; Italy, Germany, even Russia have wonderful things to behold. Then go to some concerts; you might find chamber music to be calming and pleasant.
You could even go to Australia and see the paintings by the ancients there and get a view of how important it has always been to express oneself in artistic ways. It is what humanizes us.
Now, CT, I know that you are going to say you've done all that; you'll say you've done more than I have (which is highly doubtful) but even if true, it was obviously lost on you. Time to try again.
You have so much to learn. I hope you'll start soon. Life is short, and if yours stays as bitter as it currently is, it will shrivel into a raisen and then what can you do? It could be too late unless you give it a try.
I hate to think of all the hateful things you would have said to Rodin or Michelangelo. Sad, really
September 21, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been, CVille.
I've also had the opportunity to attend show openings of NYC galleries from my friends -- real artists.
Artists, whom, by the way, struggled for their art -- and didn't ask for a public dole handout like you so that you can attain your "dream". As I said, there is no shame in avoiding risk, but don't expect us to subsidize yours when we all have our own dreams to satisfy.
Anything else irrelevant to the discussion you'd like to bring up?
September 21, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll cut off your ears anytime CT.
C
September 21, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are nonsensical as well as a putrid hypocrite.
I assume that if you have actual "friends" that are artists they might take exception to you trivializing their work as "useless." I seriously doubt that you know as many fine artists as I do. Or as many illustrators.
After all, "art" with a capital "A" is merely a form of illustration. Many illustrators are considered artists and vice-versa. But then, it doesn't surprise me that you obviously know nothing of process, let alone that you are jealous of any who have skills you don't possess. BTW, unlike fine artists that "suffer" for their art, plenty of illustrators do as well, and their work is taken into galleries and museums long after they have been paid for their work, you ignorant snob. You know nothing and this cannot be stressed enough.
Just like the difference between a sole entrepreneur and a freelancer are so moot as to be non-existent, you give exception to nothing more than what ignorant wannabes give credence to. In other words, if one charges enough, there is a difference, as far as you are concerned. That is exceptionally dim, even for you. As for fine art, most "fine artists" works nowadays are as valuable as fine illustrators. Tell me, was Alphonse Mucha an artist or an illustrator? How about Toulouse-Lautrec? How about Annie Lebowitz? Fine artist? Or commerical photographer?
You are such an addle-pated, hateful, fool sometimes, I have to call you out on your ignorance.
The fact that you have to constantly contradict yourself in order to put others down, is one of the myriad reason you are fairly and utterly dismissed as a crank. A self-centered, shallow crank, at that.
Here's a dollar, buy a clue, dude.
September 21, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak, let him be.
He is enjoying the fact that he is getting under your skin, he thrives on this. That is why he imeaditly goes personal with every commentator (i will forever be the guy who laughed at Jason's picture, until he gleans some more personal info from me to use in some snide way he guesses hurts me). Its a fucked up power-trip, and he is here looking for revenge.
I suppose it is better he spends his time in here then actually in personal relationships where he would destroy someone good. Most people probably sense his evil, which drives his loneliness and the cycle repeats.
He is a sad pathetic person, not worth your time.
September 21, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you call me an "asshole" -- especially not to a comment of yours -- that's personal. If you didn't do that, your own personal behavior along those lines wouldn't come up.
Of course, if you really recognized you crossed a line with your comments and expressed regret, it might be another story. But you didn't. Instead you dug in because you felt powerful being part of a majority here. That's against every liberal principle you think you believe, but don't live.
Something to think about.
September 22, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT you are smart, but mean spirited. You have done it way way too many times for me not to get pissed. I simply can't stand it.
KGB had a message from the President for you over in TruthSeeker77's blog today.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+( Get Help )++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++(_)++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++O++++++++#######+++++++++++++++++
+++O+++++++############+++++++++++++++
+++o++++++###############+++++++++++++
++++o++++#####++++++++###++++++++++++
+++++o++###++++++++++++###+++++++++++
+++++++.##++++++++++++++###++++++++++
+++++++##+++++++++++++++####+++++++++
+++++++#+++++++++++++++++###+++++++++
++++++##+++++++++++++++++####++++++++
++++++#+++++++++++++++##++@##++++++++
+++++##++++++++++++############+++++++
+++++##++++++++#+++##+####+####+++++++
+++++##++++#####+++#++#####+####+++++++
+++++##+++##+###+++#+++****++####+++++
+++++##+++++#++#+++#+++++++++##++++++
+++++##+++++++++++++#+++++++##+#+++++
+++++#+++++++++++++++#++++++##+#+++++
++++++#+++++++++++++#++++++####++++++
++++++##+++++++++++####++++####+++++++
++++++++++++++++@#+###++++++####+++++
+++++##+#+++++++++++++++++++##+#+++++
+++++#++++++++++++++##++++++####+++++
+++++#+@++++++++++######++++##+++++++
+++++#+#+#+++++++##+++#+++++##+++++++
++++++#++#++++++##+++###++++##+++++++
+++++++#++++++++++++++++++#####++++++
+++++++++#+++++++++++#++++#####++++++
+++++++++++#+++++++++++++############++
++++++++++++#+++++++++++#############++
+++++++++++++#++++++++###############++
++++++++++++++##++++########+########++
+++++++++++++#++###########++########++
+++++++++++###+++#########++#########++
++++++++#######++++######+++#########++
++++++#########+++++++##++++#########++
+++++##########+++++###++++##########++
+++############+++++#++++++##########++
++##############++++#++++++##########++
++##############++++++++++###########++
+###############++++++++++###########++
+############### ++++ +++++##########++
+###############++++++#++############++
+################+++++#++############++
(H/T -via a random HuffPo blogger)
Please cease the meanspirited attacks. Other opinions do not have to be "righted", nor do personal failings need to be identified as the underlying issue. And of course you are right, When you go there, we go there too. It ain't pretty, but it will keep happening. So please just the facts at hand please.
Best.
September 22, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is more mean spirited than making fun of someone's looks?
What is more mean spirited than calling me an asshole?
Do you know the game of tit-for-tat? Do you see I deal with people as individuals here?
I'm willing to overlook your smarmy "get help" which was a laughable forum post circa 1998. Perhaps you will put your next efforts with me to discuss ideas.
Something to ponder.
September 22, 2009 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
And of course you are right, When you go there, we go there too. It ain't pretty, but it will keep happening.
Tit for tat right, think I said that.
1. Jason I still consider a friend- if he is offended then let him ask me for an apology i offered to give one in that blog, he did't ask for, in fact he said he didn't care. I believe he saw the humor too, maybe i am wrong, but I can only take him at his word. He doesn't care, neither do i, and neither should you.
2. You're not an asshole? Really? "these people need to be corrected, they wouldn't know entepeneur if my buddy Steve Jobs punched 'em in the face. Or maybe last weeks' your an engineer? oh well fancy that? engineers aren't really that impressive anyways, and I am CT THE MAGNIFICENT inventor of..>>> blahblahblah
Back your shit up CT? Show me your fucking company, inventions, Congressional testimony, and shagmobile. If you are so awesome why are you such a coward about this.
But sure maybe you are a swell guy on the outside, even with your simplistic objectivist crap. Great. I am happy for you. Please hang out with your friends more.
Take the prez's advice,
goodnight, and peace be with you.
September 22, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tis a shame that you use quotes when I said none of what you quote.
Did you not see even more personal attack in your response to me? I suppose not.
But your misquoting gives insight into how insecure many here are. Most would rather whine and feel the "there, there" from the group, I suppose. But in a public forum there are others.
It's a public forum and I do wish to discuss ideas. Not feelings. Save that for the chat room.
September 22, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
No I DID dipshit.
tit for tat.
Night.
September 22, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS I also expect you to lecture people like Bwak the next time she snipes at someone. Shouldn't take too long, she does it at least several times a week.
Unless, in the end, you aren't really about your principles, only when convenient. But I can be convinced.
September 22, 2009 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't Toulouse Lautrec, dear. But you keep on dreaming. Just because you scribble with crayons doesn't make you an artist. Either with an "a" or an "A".
Some of the artists I know have paintings hanging in the Metropolitan as well as the LACMA. Of course, these are the older artists. The younger ones are still being collected actively.
You see, Bwak, as you know more of society, you get introduced to people... and those upper percentage of creative people recognize themselves in others... and invite you right in.
That's the reason why I don't have to talk in terms of "celery porn" or childish insults here. But you keep trying to institute change with a clenched fist and your low-class talk. See how far it gets you. Sadly, I think you already know.
Change comes from within, Bwak. Let yourself bloom. Or hold on to your anger and be sad. The choice is yours.
September 22, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. Unfortunately, given our current money-based political system, the day when industries OTHER than health insurance and pharma/device give more money than they do to our leaders is the day we will get real reform legislation. Fucking sad but true.
September 20, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell, the best way I have found to set a conservative religious types back on their heels is to ask them if they a series of questions:
1) If you saw a small child or toddler about to do something that would injury themselves, would they stand there and watch?
2) If they witnessed an accident and heard the cries for help would they stand there?
3) If one of their loved ones was severely injured, would they cry out for help hoping someone would stop and assist?
It is human nature, if not a pure gut reaction, to immediately go to the aid of someone in distress. Something in our brain chemistry that goes back to the time as we were evolving that's still with us today.
Perhaps the reason why the religious conservative are so against health care is because its too Darwinisticly evolutionary for them to come to grips with.
Also for the argument there's nothing in the Constitution concerning the government providing health care, one must remember health care back in those days was rudimentary. If you ever travel to a third world country, you'll experience what health care was like in American during the revolutionary war period
September 21, 2009 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing like have a power outage while commenting and trying to close everything down before the UPS dies.
September 21, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta fight for your right to part-eeeeee...
September 20, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
This debate becomes a little bit more insane by the day. Jesus wasn't big on "rights" talk (last I checked) but now we're bringing Him in to back up a position of NOT sorting it out. Cute that. Ron Paul's giving us little lectures, as though he had a grip on anything but his belt buckle. "The left has to learn to pay" - a statement which hasn't possessed the slightest connection to reality in many many decades - just gets tossed onto the fire like a fact. Christianity gets interpreted into a purely individualistic cult.
Start again.
September 20, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe health care to be a sound investment in our workforce. Leaving your workers, and future workers, in poor health is like failing to maintain infrastructure. Short term thinking.
Two challenges to national health care are that we're poisoning ourselves environmentally and nutritionally. Our health care is really disease management, with steadily rising costs.
September 20, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US has some of the strictest environmental regulations. That causes manufacturing costs to go up ... because consumers tend to shop prices.
Blame people's own greed for this mess. Just like when Walmart "destroyed" small town America. People sold their own future for a few pieces of silver.
As usual, the problem is rooted into the mass behavior of people, who then wonder why they got themselves into this mess.
September 20, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, when they're enforced.
September 20, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are enforced. Just not as much as they can be. Why? That costs money as well.
Moreover, your flip comment implies there is no enforcement at all. Which is, of course, wrong.
September 20, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just say that not enforcing them costs money, too. And don't presume that your inferences are necessarily my implications. That would be wrong.
September 20, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you are welcomed to pitch your case to the EPA and the Council of Environmental Quality and tell them your insights on how to provide better environmental justice on a fixed budget.
Seriously. That way I won't have to read between the lines of your flip comments at all.
Your comment about the costs is nice for a slippery piece of debate, but holds little solid weight. But that would be to say I understand your terse little epithets.
September 20, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to read my comments. Seriously.
September 21, 2009 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, CT, I think you should change your name to DEBBIE DOWNER. You manage, rather than expressing a Clearthinking point of view, to always shine the worst possible light on any subject. I'll bet you could think of something sinister to say about easter bunnies.
September 21, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You continue to indulge in your sugary confections... without worry, until the diabetes sets in.
And I mean that both metaphorically as well as literally on the marshmallow Easter bunnies.
Only children think they can avoid reality. America is very much a nation of children. You included for that comment.
September 21, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Privilege? Right? What??
It is a basic need. Like eating.
September 20, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the government should provide free food to everyone?
September 20, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Food Stamps ring a bell? Agriculture subsidies?
Hello?
September 20, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
They do. Do "free clinics" ring a bell?
Apples to apples.
Your comparisons aren't on point.
September 20, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are.
You know you have to twist around yourself into such contortions in order to object to otherwise obvious points that it's no wonder your knickers are constantly in a bunch.
Next time think clearly before you write such utterly nonsensical things.
September 20, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That reminds of a male dog we once had . . .
He really had to twist himself around but it wasn't for the purpose of self-gratification like some of the swill trying to be sold 'round these parts. Cleanest dog we ever had.
~OGD~
September 21, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really see the importance of this debate. No one serious on the right, okay with the exception of Krauthammer, thinks it's okay to let poor people die from preventable illness. The right wing counter-arguments are
1. we can't afford to do anything about it
2. everything is fine just the way things are
3. its just too hard to improve the system
4. free-market deregulation is the solution
In other words, the counter-arguments are overwhelmingly (bad) pragmatic arguments.
September 20, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate many thoughtful comments in this thread. However, I want to clarify that my original intent was not to make a case for healthcare reform, because that case has been convincingly argued elsewhere, and the optimal means of achieving reform have been thoroughly debated.
Rather, my purpose was to argue that our position on the issue can be profoundly influenced by how we view our relationships with other members of our society. The conflict between a "privilege" and a "right" has been a conspicuous element of the debate (one can Google the topic for the evidence of its salience), and its moral basis is an important part of the argument. It is the difference between saying "we must care for the sick" and "we must care for the sick, but we're not obliged to, so we'll not sacrifice too much to do it".
Clearthinker believes that appeals to morality are ineffective, but I tend to disagree at least in part. As the biblical quotation implies, appeals to the "better angels of our nature" have been an enduring feature of our civilization for thousands of years, and not for no reason. During the evolution of humans from our vertebrate ancestors, the biological basis of selfishness has remained thoroughly entrenched in our psyche, but evolution has also seen fit to impart to us an equally entrenched sense of empathy. The two will remain in eternal conflict, and though the selfish element will dominate, the empathetic side can always exert a moderating influence. To achieve that moderation requires well crafted appeals, because in the heat of argument, we can forget that we actually do care about others.
Politicians know how to appeal to our selfish side. Only a few are skilled at appeals to empathy, but they can be effective particularly when the public begins to suspect that selfishness has gone too far. Charities know how to appeal to our better angels as well, which is why they rarely focus on telling us how many thousands of children are starving in a foreign land, but prefer to show us the face of one.
We can learn from them.
September 20, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred:
1) Evolution isn't a process about "improvement" as I'm sure you know. It also has yet to be seen whether humans reach an evolutionary dead end. We are still in the cradle.
2) Many other mammalian species don't resort to killing each other over resources. Therefore, it's possible, evolution has taken a wrong turn even with how we are now.
3) Politicians can appeal to whatever side they want to... we are responsible to how we react to the stimulus.
4) Overpopulation (like what we have now) tends to disassociate ourselves from our "group" and therefore makes "empathy" much harder. The complexities of society have required us to deal with issues larger than 100 people -- which is about the number of the maximum human "tribe" that is thought "natural" given our evolution from apes.
5) Charities and the like do not have a model of longer term appeal. That's why they have to work very hard to get that second donation from people. It's a poor model to emulate for what you are trying to do here.
6) I would suggest your taking a look at Lakoff's latest book which talks about how to properly appeal to empathy without it sounding like an "eat your vegetables" message.
September 20, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT - What's the reference to Lakoff?
Evolution isn't about improvement, but it rewards attributes with survival value. The cognitive-emotional connection between the prefrontal cortex and the limbic and other emotion-related brain areas has enormous survival value, because it permits us to see ourselves in another's shoes, and to respond with sufficient emotion to adjust our own circumstances. The same emotions impel us that discomfit us enough to protect ourselves impel us to relieve the suffering of others as a means of ameliorating the vicarious suffering we feel.
Humans are still evolving. We may end up extinguishing ourselves through war or climate change, but otherwise we are likely to continue the process.
I agree that appeals to empathy are challenging, and I'm interested in how you suggest we make them more effective. My point is that our nature as humans has within it the soil in which the seeds of empathy can take root, if properly nourished. Despite some cynics, empathy does not violate our psychic constitution.
September 20, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred,
Lakoff's views are controversial, but they tend in the direction that you propose. He is a neuroscientist, so you will probably feel at home with some of the discussion.
His latest book (as all his books) can be gotten via Amazon. I'm still pondering his arguments, but they do have the benefit of at least being original if not practical. At this point, I'm not sure. Your mileage may vary.
September 20, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker, Fred did not use the word 'improvement' and did not imply evolution is a 'process that results in improvement'.
Your entrepreneurship seems to extend into legerdemain to blather on relentlessly with increasing irrelevance.
September 20, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If one were to channel William F. Buckley and declare healthcare a "privilege," how would he defend it? It is indefensible on its face. Even Buckley couldn't make this one sound plausible.
PS A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'
Indubitably, the above Buckley quotation might argue for a certain tergiversation (depending on what he was smoking).
September 21, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Healthcare is a right in the modern world. There will always be those who say otherwise. But those morons are against everything including public schools, publicly provided fire and police services, etc... If we were to listen to them we would soon return to feudal times. That is unworkable and despite how obvious this is, there's no convincing these fools otherwise.
Do we have a moral obligation to provide for adequate healthcare for all our citizens. You're damn right we do. That is why it would be immoral to pass a healthcare bill this year that is nothing more than an insurance industry subsidy bill, doesn't cover all Americans and does nothing but strengthen the rotten and entirely inadequate system we have now. If any bill begins moving through Congress without a strong public option it should be killed.