https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Unblogged Bits for Wednesday, 02 December 2009

Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….

Unblogged Bits for Monday, 23 November 2009

Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….

Unblogged Bits for Monday, 19 October 2009

Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….

Why should we pay for your health care?

It’s all about the selfishness. The “I got mine — you fend for yourself to get yours.” The fear that someone might take “my stuff.” It’s the attitude of a four-year-old, and a poorly-raised one at that.

Vjack raises this interesting point:

Have you seen any of the clips from Rep. Lynn Jenkins’ (R-KS) July town hall? I was watching it the other night, and I think it contained a moment that perfectly sums up the Republican mind set when it comes to health care reform and most social programs. Jenkins received a great question from Elizabeth Smith, a constituent whose employer does not provide health insurance and cannot afford private insurance.

I want an option that I can pay for. I work. I pay my bills. I’m not a burden on the state. I pay my taxes. So why can’t I get an affordable option? Why are you against that?

It is a fair question at which Jenkins initially laughs and then responds in a condescending manner, suggesting that “people should…go be a grown-up and go buy the insurance.”

Right. “Grow up.” Belittle those who have fallen through the cracks. Assume it’s their moral failing, not our responsibility.

But none of this was what really got my attention.

No, even though Rep. Jenkins appeared to be saying something akin to “let them eat cake,” this was not the significant moment for me. That came when someone in the crowd could be heard shouting the following to Ms. Smith:

Why should we pay for your health care?

The horror! The idea that one might feel any obligation to care for another! That “I got mine” and that to help someone else get “theirs” would be tantamount to theft.

Isn’t it ironic that this is the sentiment of groups like Glenn Beck’s “9/12” organization, which ostensibly seeks to reinstill the spirit of pulling together like we did after the 9/11 attacks?  Would it be right to say, “Hey, I didn’t get trapped in a building? Why should we pay for someone to dig you out?”

“Why should we pay for your health care?”

Maybe this story will be illustrative:

And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Decades of GOP rabble-rousing about “welfare queens” and “illegals stealing our jobs” and “deadbeats who won’t work” have turned the idea of a compassionate society (let alone a “compassionate conservatism”) into a joke. People are so angry, or so selfish, or so frightened, that they’d just as soon see others die, or be crippled, or be driven to bankruptcy, than lend a hand. They see nothing wrong with telling people to “let them buy insurance,” or to insist that anyone who wants care can get it by going to the Emergency Room.

“Why should we pay for your health care?”

As a literary character put it.

“At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

scrooge1951

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

“You wish to be anonymous?”

“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides — excuse me — I don’t know that.”

“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.

“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”

“Why should we pay for your health care?” Why should we mind others business? Why should we be our brother’s keeper?

Because morality — Christian, among many others — demands it. Because it is what we should want to do — to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, as someone once put it. Because a society cares for one another, holds a social contract to stand together, so that life is not, as Hobbes put it, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Because it’s the right thing to do.

Do I hate cheats? Sure. Do I get pissed off at deadbeats? Of course. Do I worry that some person who doesn’t “deserve it” will get something paid for with my taxes, earned by the “sweat of my brow”? Yeah, I do.

But my offended sense of fairness is trivial compared to the thought that people’s lives may be ruined, or lost if I don’t help.  If once I have “mine,” my greatest imperative is to keep it at any costs, which means throwing anyone else off the sleigh, then I can hardly claim any moral high ground — unless it’s morality as defined by Ayn Rand.

So have we come to the point that John Galt wins? Where everything is a matter of who comes out at the top of the zero-sum game of “all against all”? Where all that matters is that, for this moment at least, “I’ve got mine, and if you try to take it, I’ll frackin’ kill you, man!”

Is that what your parents taught you? Is that what your church teaches you? Is that how you treat your neighbors? Is that the lesson you want to pass on to your children?

And if your children fall through the cracks, if despite working hard they (or their children) fall ill, and can’t afford insurance, or the treatment they need, will you ask them, “Why should we pay for your health care?”

It’s the right thing to do.

Unblogged Bits for Monday, 10 August 2009

Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….

Unblogged Bits for Wednesday, 06 May 2009

Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….

Presidential Debate #3

Yikes! Noting like turning on BBC first thing in the morning and running into … the last Presidential Debate!? A few notes (coming in a little late): Um, attacking…

Yikes! Noting like turning on BBC first thing in the morning and running into … the last Presidential Debate!?

A few notes (coming in a little late):

Um, attacking McCain’s health care plan is not an “attack ad” on McCain. Get serious.

Obama brings up the problems at the McCain/Palin rallies. McCain tries to turn it into an attack on veterans and all his supporters. “I’m proud” of them. Sure, a few fringe, we’ve “always” said it’s inappropriate?

Ayers thing comes up. McCain is all “I don’t care, but WE NEED TO KNOW!” Obama addresses the whole Ayers/ACORN thing very simply, plainly, effectively. McCain just repeats the charge.

Obama lauds Biden. McCain lauds Palin. Reformer! Breath of fresh air! (!) Reformer! And, um … special needs! Reformer! Obama won’t attack her directly — it’s up to the American people. Capable politician and special needs, that’s nice. But, of course, special needs are going to require added funding, and an across-the-board freeze would hurt that. McCain says Biden is qualified, but has voted wrong a lot (against GW I, in favor of partitition).

McCain turns the special needs thing into SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! And raising people’s taxes!

Energy. We can eliminate dependence on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil (Canada is okay). Nukes — store and reprocess (!). Nuclear power plants on navy ships is okay, safe, no problem! (Eek!) Obama — reduce in 10 years, that’s realistic. Biggest problem right now. Yeah, making some domestic drilling, but that’s not it alone. Glancing at notes. Alternates. Domestic US high-mileage car — that’s something we can work on.

NAFTA. Free trade cool, but Bush admin is “any trade treaty is a good trade treaty.” Environmental and labor concerns. Car imbalance in South Korea. McCain attacks because Obama’s only “looking at” offshore drilling. Free trade cool — and we need more (Columbia!) — and Obama hasn’t traveled — and Columbia free trade agreement Obama opposes, and they are helping us on the war on drugs! Travel down there! Neener! Obama notes violations and killings in Columbia’s labor movement — need to stand up for human rights. Need a president who likes free trade but who will stand up in the face of problems.

Need to lean on automakers — provide some loan support, but also get them to do both more fuel-efficient cars and other manufacturing alternate energy stuff. McCain: doesn’t want free trade with our good ally, but willing to SIT ACROSS THE TABLE WITH HUGO CHAVEZ!   He wants to restrict trade and raise taxes! Hoover!

Controlling health care costs over expanding coverage? Obama, need to do both and that’s what our plan does. Anecdotes. Describes plan. Like what you have, great; otherwise, get to join the federal employee pools, preexisting conditions, negotiate on drugs, IT, preventive care … (all good, probably insufficient). Costs money, but long-term savings. McCain: Fines if you don’t have health care! Health care bureaucracies! Single payer system! Canada and England! Obama: No, just described. Joe the Plumber pays zero — exempting small business. Just larger businesses — who are dumping costs into Medicare of uninsured.

And the McCain plan. $5K plan — employers will dump 20mn people, higher pool costs, taxing people health care benefits, $5K doesn’t cover squat vs $12K. And it strips state-based rules, cherrypicking and excluding insured. McCain: mangles the small business thing. Mandates! Big government! 95% of people will get more money under my plan — current (taxed) benefits, plus $5K, except gold-plated cadillac coverage. Democrats! Government spending! They’ve been in charge the last two years!

Obama: You just heard my plan. US Chamber of Commerce has condemned McCain plan.

Roe v Wade! Could you nominate someone to the SCOTUS who opposed you? McCain – I’ve never had a litmus test. But it’s a bad decision. State-based decisions. Nominate based on qualifications, not a litmus test. I voted for Breyer and Ginsburg. Obama voted against Breyer and Roberts because they weren’t ideologically right. Strict adherence to constitution. I believe in quals — not a litmus test, but can’t imagine Roe v Wade support being strict adherence to constitution. (So … what’s the difference?)

Obama: Not a litmus test, but Roe v Wade was right. Abortion is very difficult, a moral issue, good people on both sides — but women are in the best position to make this decision. Right to privacy, not subject to state referendum, any more than First Amendment is. Pulls decision over the the Lilly Ledbetter decision; I supported the effort to change law, and McCain opposed it. McCain: trial lawyer’s dream! And we need courage and compassion to help women. Attacks Obama record for what he supported or voted “present” on all sorts of “pro-abortion” things. Obama: explains the situation on the Illinois votes, clearly. Abortion issue divides us — but surely there is common ground we can try to prevent unintended pregancies, through better education, adoption, etc. All in the Democratic platform this year. McCain: “Health of the mother” is a weasel phrase. Dinging Obama’s “eloquence.”

Education. We spend more per capita than any nation, but math and science K-12 trail the world.

Obama: Huge economic and national security issue. We need to invest — early childhood education, proven benefits. Recruit new teachers. Graduate debt. And parents need to be responsible. McCain: civil rights issue of the 21st century (?). Equal access to schools, but failed schools. Choice and competition among schools. Charter schools. Merit pay for teachers. Fire bad teachers. Need to provide folks school choice. More money not the answer — worst schools get most money (!). State certification rules inflexible. More student loan and affordable ones, and key to inflation.

Federal government / money? Obama – tradition of local control is good, but feds need to step up and help. NCLB, but money left behind, unfunded mandates. Ditto with special ed. Also need a way to get rid of bad teachers, yeah. But vouchers don’t secure problems with education. And McCain’s record against college affordability, dinged as an “interest group.” McCain: vouchers in DC cool, and you’re ignoring that example! NCLB – first beginning. Head Start not doing the job, need to reform and fund, but Dems oppose. Need reform! Transparancy! Accountability! Funding! Autism — I have Sarah Palin! We’ll fund and spend the money to research, and Americans will support that. I will fund stuff that is useful. Vouchers! Obama circles back to vouchers in DC. McCain’s voucher plan only expands the DC voucher program. Need to look at it nationwide.

Final statements.

McCain: Thanks, thanks. Need a new direction beyond last 8 years. Reformer! (Not Maverick, Refomer, I guess). Long record. Steward of tax dollars. Health care. Education. Stop spending. It’s all based on trust of you on steward of dollars, security, prosperity. My entire life in service of this nation, country first, long line of McCains, honor of my life, hope you’ll give me an opportunity.

Obama: Thanks. Tough times. Last 8 years, and decades of neglect from Congress. Biggest risk is to adopt the failed policies and politics of last 8 years. Fundamental change. Last 20 months — invited me in, fundamental generosity and decency. Need to invest in American people, tax cuts, education, health care, energy economy, policies to increase middle class. Not going to be easy or quick, but we need all come together.


 

Summary: Not much of a winner on points from either side. Obama was calm and cool, didn’t respond to needling, held his own rhetorically, addressed (in too much detail) some outstanding issues. McCain recycled a lot of standard talking points, stood his ground on the same ones even when addressed.

The more intimate across-the-table format probably favored McCain — no walking the stage, more “intimate.” There was definitely more interplay and interruptions between the two.

The McCain rhetoric was basically, “I’m a reformer, he’s a spender. I’m not about personal attacks, but he needs to answer these charges. Oh, I’m a reformer, by the way — here are a few more talking points and buzz words.” The Obama rhetoric was essentially, “Here is my plan, here’s how his plan won’t work, here’s the mystery explained, let’s band together.”

Not surprisingly, given the tenor of the campaign, Obama, the outsider and party-changer, seemed a bit more — if not assured of victory, then certainly the front-runner. He seemed presidential, despite McCain’s snarky and repeated snipes at his “eloquence.”  McCain was the “feisty underdog” again, but didn’t seem to be able to raise his points without dragging the conversation kicking and screaming to make them.

I’d give the debate slightly to Obama overall, though it was by no means a blow-out. Most importantly, I don’t see anything happening here likely to take away the momentum and lead that the Obama campaign holds.