|
Written by Aleksei Garcia
|
|
The entire health care debate has been radiating sheer stupidity for some time now. Skipping past the usual idiots on both sides and their insane fundamentalist rhetoric... vaccines. It seems like, on average, there is less than 3.2 seconds between someone screaming about an optional government health plan because the government is evil and Obama would run death panels, and then wailing about the lack of H1N1 vaccine. I have to ask, while my mind is trying to process the thought pattern (if any) here... do you want the government involved or not? Since it seems that about 49% of the country doesn't want the government involved in health care (because it will kill them, obviously), they shouldn't be able to get the vaccine. I'm sure private industry will step in and provide an affordable and widely available vaccine any day now, since they have been at liberty to have been doing that all along. I mean, private medical insurance definitely provides when you're in need. They don't restrict your choice of doctors (provided the doctor is on their health plan) or pool money (aside from the part most employers deduct from your paycheck when they buy their insurance packages) or cause a drain on the health care centers (except when they retroactively don't cover a procedure) and they certainly don't have death panels of bureaucrats (just the for-profit companies deciding what is covered) or ever deny services (except for pre-existing conditions, or any other excuse), and they are very friend and available to contact (provided a few hours to wait between asking to speak to managers). The entire thing is ridiculous. Public money pays for hospitals and covers the bills not covered by insurance companies in a medical emergency (or pre-existing condition). No one is talking about privatizing health care... do people not understand the concept of public option? Yes, the government can create a competing health care program, but if it is competitive, that means you are already being vastly overcharged. At the very least, take a breath between declaring the government being murderous communists seeking to kill Americans and demanding that they provide you with vaccines every year and running both public hospitals and research institutes. If you want the government out of your health care, don't get vaccinated, don't go to hospitals, don't take any medications or practices that have been tested and/or developed at public institutes like university medical hospitals (I think that leaves you with the option of honey tea and grinding up leaves). Face reality. Most Americans have absolutely no choice in their health care. Their employer must purchase an insurance package, and that's what you have to deal with. Why do you trust a private company looking to maximize profit that answers to no one but their fellow for-profit companies more than the government, which is elected by the public and changes every few years, and is answerable to that election process and is not in the hands of one person, but has to answer to other government organizations as well. This is democracy giving you choice, not a company dictating whether you're worth it. |
|
|
Written by Aleksei Garcia
|
Now, I should note at the start that I am pro-"socialized medicine", at the very least the public option plan, and I'm glad this is a serious public conversation we're even having.
However, I think Obama has horribly, horribly mistimed his proposal. The main problem is that in light of dealing with the economy and the wars, public healthcare is a hard sell. We are still in the recession, and Obama is juggling too many initiatives at once. The Dow is steadily just below 9500, which is good, but unemployment is high and we're just getting into debt. Public option healthcare would be nice for the unemployed if it were already in place, but the startup costs just make it a stupid thing to be pushing in this economy.
Obama should have his focus on the economy at home. Some other stuff, yea, but not a major initiative that is unpopular before it even started. He's blowing his popularity index, the novelty of his historic election is out the window, and all we hear is something most Americans are opposed to. He should be explaining and outlining economic recovery and stimulus and dealing with Afghanistan/Pakistan.
If things don't change substantially in the economy and war, Obama's legacy could very well be minimalized by his being black and having a bad economy. If/when the Pubs come back in 2010, it will be his own fault, and getting anything done will be next to impossible. |
|
|
Written by Aleksei Garcia
|
|
I don't eat pork. Personal choice.
Of course, I mean to speak of economic/political pork projects. One man's pork is another man's project. People like John McCain have come out to protest pork, which is fine... however, we have to be careful what we label pork. Pork in a bill may be a waste of money, or it may finance a bridge retrofit that can save lives or enliven a community. Funds "wasted" on things like researching pig pheromones can actually be funds leading to important medical discoveries, new chemicals, or new ways of understanding and approaching problems. Very little, I think, is actually useless. Occasional projects like the Bridge to Nowhere are probably involved, and given the number of bills and projects done, this probably results in a lot of waste, indeed... but I think, not as much waste as is being proclaimed.
As is, "pork" projects, even as defined by McCain et al (including those ones researching animal biology which could be essential for anything from medicine to farming or a bridge retrofit that could prevent another disastrous bridge collapse) actually make up only a tiny percent of the actual budget. I'd bet that McCain has centered more articles/interviews/speeches around pork in his career than money is actually passed for pork projects.
Ideally (that is, originally), pork was meant to refer to a kind of "pet project" or special interest spending snuck into a larger budget or bill... and cutting out that kind of waste is a very good thing, I agree. However, there is a difference between public funding for some random useless application a senator promised someone, and money requested by a senator for a project that can bring jobs, promote security or health, or just further knowledge. Some of these things are worth the price... there are many studies that would have seemed useless, pointless, or stupid long ago that have revolutionized modern society.
For instance, in the '30s, during the Great Depression, we spent billions (then-money) bombarding elements with neutrons, to see what would happen... the result was atomic power. In this economy? I think that the bills passed should be done by the *states*, not the Feds. This would be much more efficient... perhaps the state could submit its own list of projects, and those are presented. Much more efficient than spending however many man-hours and spewing money as people debate minor details. |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 9 |
