It’s always helpful to have an expert help with the big questions. When the subject is politics, we should turn to our indie-rock musicians for answers:
“We are living through a seriously oppressive time when basic needs like health care and freedom of speech are up for consideration as though they were extravagant options and not necessities.”
Personally, now that I know that this is a binary matter, I’m voting for no health care and no freedom of speech. Doctors are so 2007 anyway. I’m glad this musician I’ve never heard of framed this so neatly for me.
Hm. I didn’t know that the Fairness Doctrine was totally gone. You’d think I would’ve heard something about that.
Ah well.
Didn’t you know, Klaw: Free healthcare is a right and the government provides it much better than the free market. Look at the successes of Medicaid and Medicare. Oh, wait…
Snide even for you, Keith.
To be fair, there are hysterical claims on both sides. There are plenty of those who frame the vote between turning the country over to a Muslim, commie terrorist (huh?) on the one hand and not doing that on the other.
Indie rockers would appear to know almost as little about policy and politics as baseball obsessives. But having seen your previous post, I believe they may know more about capital markets.
As gently as possible, I’ll suggest you not quit your day job.
When did health care become a right? And notice that health care comes before free speech. This guy is a constitutional scholar…
Actually, my biggest problem is that rights are “up for consideration.” Uh, excuse me but enumerated rights are never up for consideration. What a moron!
I have a very simple rule here: No insulting other readers. I’ll close the thread if it happens again.
Trieu, I completely agree. This was just something I stumbled across while reading about a new album from Smashing Pumpkins, and I was amazed by the way the speaker boiled it all down to binary issues – health care vs no health care, freedom of speech vs no freedom of speech.
“We as a country have also concluded that workers have a protected right to unionize, old people have a right to retirement benefits, etc. This guy is just saying that we should codify a similar right to healthcare-certainly not a ridiculous argument, considering a large portion of the country agrees.”
The right to unionize and social medicine are 2 totally different things. Not even remotely comparable.
I’m totally on board with the healthcare thing though. After watching governments handle Katrina, subprime mortgages, rising gas prices/shortages in the late 70s, etc. etc. etc. I can’t wait to see how this works.
In fact socialized medicine works so well in Europe, that anyone with any money comes to the US for major procedures.
Ironic the US fought against the basic principles of the Soviet Union, only 20 years later is fighting to replicate the basic principles of the same nation we fought.
First, “rights” aren’t only those things found in the Constitution. I have a feeling you’d be pretty upset if the government said you couldn’t cross state lines for any reason. We as a country have also concluded that workers have a protected right to unionize, old people have a right to retirement benefits, etc. This guy is just saying that we should codify a similar right to healthcare–certainly not a ridiculous argument, considering a large portion of the country agrees.
Second, rights are always “up for consideration.” The extent of those rights is what keeps judges busy–for instance, whether, despite the First Amendment, the government may regulate television programming. Or how the First Amendment applies to the internet. The president appoints judges and pushes legislation, so he will always have some sort of effect on these rights.
I am just wondering how well Russia is doing these days. The last I heard, a hockey rink in Russia lacked a defib and an ambulance.
“The right to unionize and social medicine are 2 totally different things. Not even remotely comparable.”
They’re comparable in that they’d be two “rights” that, as a society, we would/could create. The content and scope are clearly very different.
They’re comparable in that they’d be two “rights” that, as a society, we would/could create. The content and scope are clearly very different.
Definitely, I agree. But the logistics are totally different.
Our healthcare system def has it flaws, no doubt. But it’s the best in the world. And the unisured/underinsured stats that politicians throw out are GROSSLY misrepresented.
Also- the way the socializing movement talks, it’s like people are dying on the street. It’s against the law for a hospital to deny you treatment. You may owe large amounts of money afterwards, but they won’t dump your body outside the ER, though some like to make it sound that way.
What’s most frustrating to me is how everyone speaking about politics on nearly any stage believes that EVERYTHING their side does is virtuous and well-intentioned, while EVERYTHING the other side does is evil and malicious, or at the very least, completely misguided. I mentioned this to a friend the other day and he went on a rant about how “George Bush and the idiot right” created this hyper-partisanship. Which makes perfect sense, because the nation wasn’t clearly divided along the same lines during the Clinton administration, were they?
If only the Libertarian candidate weren’t so flawed…
As for health care, I wonder–why is this believed to be such a popular stance for Democrats? If you already have health care, as the vast majority of us do, and you’re relatively healthy, which the vast majority of us are, why would you be inspired to vote for a candidate who supports universal health care? I understand that it’s a compassionate position, but the amount of applause Obama and other Democrats get when mentioning their health care plans staggers me–are these people really that emotional about the issue? Or are their crowds just full of insurance-less ringers?
I take some comfort in the fact that both parties are ultimately so poll-driven that extreme shifts in policy to either the left or right are unlikely.
The biggest problem is that health care isn’t viewed as an expenditure. The automakers needed a way to pay employees without paying more in taxes, so they offered health benefits.
I do believe some issues are binary. Oil drilling and unfettered abortion are a couple. However, I did notice that Obama stated abortion is a moral issue but Americans should be willing to disagree on the issue. Sounds nice, but I have a problem with that statement. If I believe abortion is morally wrong, why should I tolerate its presence? Let’s put slavery in the previous statement. It’s a moral issue. Should that be something tolerated in society?
Some issues are binary and sometimes political parties want to see pain and suffering to promote a political agenda.
Are you a Pumpkins fan then, Keith?
The US is ranked #30 in the world in terms of life expectancy. However the US ranks #1 in terms of health care expenditures as a % of GDP. Doesn’t this indicate a major problem, not merely an exaggeration?
“Are you a Pumpkins fan then, Keith?”
This is the most important question.
Naveed: I don’t know anything about the methodology used to calculate the life expectancy numbers you cite, but, in general, country-to-country life expectancy comparisons are flawed because the definition of a “live birth” varies wildly, even in the “first world”.
From US News & World Report:
“The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth.”
I just want to point out, aside from the argument about whether we should or should not have universal health care, that the US does NOT have the best health care in the world. We have good health care, but spend more per capita than any other developed country.
People do come here for expensive procedures, but that in and of itself does not prove that we have the best system. It proves that we have amazingly capable doctors and hospitals… but not all Americans can afford that level of care.
My cousin is a doctor in CA and says that the quality of med school students is actually declining.
We may have very capable doctors now, but perhaps in the future we’ll have diminished quality?
I hope not… with the lack of meaningful preventative care in this country for the uninsured and under-insured, we’re going to need all of the quality we can get in the future.
“I understand that it’s a compassionate position, but the amount of applause Obama and other Democrats get when mentioning their health care plans staggers me-are these people really that emotional about the issue?”
I cheer because of my 150 students, around 30 of them have health coverage through their parents. Most of those covered are covered because they now live in group homes after losing one or both parents.
Some of those that aren’t covered have families in various states of disrepair, while many have single parents working three jobs, none of which provides health coverage at all (or that they can afford).
I cheer not for a specific plan, but for the compassion that might lead to a specific plan.
I do not cheer blindly, because I am very aware that any universal health care plan we end up with may be poorly written. But I cheer with faith that someone really will figure this out, while also understanding that not all faith is answered positively. As I tell my students, the hope is in the struggle.
I’ve spent nearly $1000 of my own money on books for my students in the last month. I do so because of how strongly I feel that they learn to love reading before they leave my classroom next June. I do so out of compassion. So when I hear compassion coming from a political candidate, I cheer. Sometimes out loud, sometimes internally. And sometimes I know it’s just a bunch of BS.
I agree with Todd; maybe having universal health care isn’t the most efficient. But to me, it’s a moral issue, and I think there are some things in this world more important than efficiency. Reasonable people can disagree.
Ben:
Agree that there may be issues with respect to comparing life expectancy at birth but the same sort of ranking seems to emerge when looking at life expectancy at age 50 (based on the WHO statistics).
A not so random sample:
Cuba: 30.5 years
US: 31.0 years
Germany: 31.6 years
Sweden: 32.4 years
Canada: 32.6 years
I meant Pete!
The numbers do not necessarily suggest poor health care. The American lifestyle unfortunately has become one of less activity and more unhealthy eating habits. Throw in the fact that aside from many Asian contries, Americans work more a year than most countries, which would lead to more stress and potentially an early death.
I’d also have to doubt any health statistics coming out of Cuba. I’m guessing they would also report zero dissidents in jail.
I think it’s fairly well established, though, that Cuba has exceptional health care.
The fear is that due to inefficiencies in a government health care program, people won’t be able to get the quality of care they desire when they need it. If people have coverage they cannot use, how is that any more moral?
I think we all agree the US health care system is distorted. But why are we looking to government to fix a problem they created via tax laws?
Cuba has exceptional health care? Castro went to Spain to get his intestine surgery. Rumor has it, he refused to live with a colostomy bag, sutures broke after surgery and he probably died from his own crap. What a way to go! At least Cuban surgeons didn’t get blamed!
Is average life expectancy a true measure of the health care system? Seems like there would be way too many other influencing factors to use that as a primary indicator of effective healthcare.
There would definitely be many factors other than health care that would affect life expectancy. There are some other measures of general population health (see the WHO website) but none of them point to the US currently getting its money’s worth relative to the amount of aggergate health care spending.
As for Keith’s comment on Cuba’s stats, I believe that these numbers are thoroughly vetted by the WHO and not simply reported by each country independently without any oversight.
Not quite, Naveed.
Cuba claims it has low infant mortality, but doctors tell us that Cuban obstetricians abort a fetus when they think there might be a problem. Dr. Julio Alfonso told us he used to do 70-80 abortions a day. And here’s an even more devious way of distorting infant-mortality data: Some doctors tell us that if a baby dies within a few hours of birth, Cuban doctors don’t count him or her as ever having lived.
“”Are you a Pumpkins fan then, Keith?”
This is the most important question.” – Ben
I agree. ;-P
Keith first of all I think that we agreed above that using life expectancy at birth was probably not the the best measure.
The number that I quoted on Cuba was life expectancy for an average 50 year old so infant mortality or abortions are irrelevant.
Secondly the article that you posted, bases its assertions on interviews with Cuban dissidents. I’m thinking that this info would be just as reliable as the info from Iraqi dissidents with respect to WMDs that the general public accepted as fact.
I should say, however, that there is no chance at all that I would want to live in Cuba currently for a variety of reasons. And based strictly on my own personal experience of having lived in both the US and Canada, I would assert that the quality of health care in the US at the high end is far, far superior.
If you have super premium health care, then the U.S. is awesome. Everyone else, not so much.
I am fortunate enough to have an awesome PPO plan with zero restrictions and high reimbursements. I can only imagine how pissed off I would be if I had to jump through hoops to get simple care.
I am shocked this issue doesn’t drive even more voters then it does.
I was a Smashing Pumpkins
fan in the 1990s, loved Siamese Dream, thought Mellon Collie had its moments but was overproduced. Favorite songs would be “Siva,” “
MeddleMuzzle,” “Rocket,” “Cherub Rock,” “Drown.” Never liked “Today” or “1979.”FQ mentioned something that ultimately I think goes towards the biggest problem that we face, and one which unfortunately is more of a campaign slogan than something that anyone with power really seems to think is worth attacking with any real force…the education system. Many of this nations current problems and seemingly downward trajectory stem from the fact that our education system is completely broken, there are too many schools that are poorly run, too many teachers who are under qualified and lack accountability. I’m not claiming to know the fix to this, but I continually find it immensely disturbing that our politicians do no more than pay lip service to addressing this problem.
Based on your posts and comments, I’d guess you’re a libertarian. Bob Barr for President?
Healthcare I have no idea of the answer it is a vast expense/headache for every system and country. I had 2 day operations (cartilage clean up and something more personal that many people have as babies normally!) in the last year from the improved UK public health service but I doubt in a recession we can afford to keep it going – I even got 12 years of catch up dentistry but I was very lucky on that as most dentists have opted out of the public system it seems!
One thing the US system does bring is cutting edge drugs, procedures and equipment. Indeed arguably the US funds the world’s drug/health developments or put another way we leech off your system as we cap prices and there is arguakly less incentive to move forward.
The downside was when a friend lost his big corporate job and told me what he would now have to pay for health insurance for his family I choked.
Life expectancy tells us little as some of it is cultural. In parts of Glasgow it is 53 in a country where it is over 70 as the food/smoking/drinking culture is awful… Hell apparently if we put less salt in bread how many more people would live longer? In the UK 1 gram less a day = 7000 less deaths a year Govt figures – some loaves have 0.5 gm a slice and us Brits eat a ton of bread (I use none in mine).
On Abortion surely it is a practical issue which is why it is generally legal in the more secular societies. I think the vast majority of people (95+++++%) dislike the thought of abortion. Banning it is not going to stop it happening and brings other complications.
Is there any truth on Cuba either way? My best friend is there now at least I should get some good cigars but his prejudices mean I won’t be using what he says about it as fact.
I was a Smashing Pumpkins fan in the 1990s, loved Siamese Dream, thought Mellon Collie had its moments but was overproduced. Favorite songs would be “Siva,” “Meddle,” “Rocket,” “Cherub Rock,” “Drown.” Never liked “Today” or “1979.” –keith
Awesome. I’d recommend giving them a chance live–I saw them at the Orpheum last year, and the concert was excellent. I’m pretty sure they’ll be playing more old stuff (Gish/SD/Mellon Collie) than usual on this tour.
Great call on “Drown,” but what’s “Meddle” ?
Ben,
I, too, was at the Orpheum show last year, and somehow was able to score some front row seats. It was one of the best concerts I’ve seen in a while. When they played “United States,” they were rocking it so hard that I thought the place was going to collapse. It was surreal. Keith, I think you should give them a chance at one of their Wang shows.
I was in the balcony, and the “Cherub Rock” encore actually made me afraid that the balcony would come down.
I’ve got pretty high-quality audio of the show, if you’re interested.
Great call on “Drown,” but what’s “Meddle” ?
Whoops. I meant “Muzzle.”
Meddle is a particularly bland Pink Floyd album, is it not?
Ben, I am very interested!
Oh yeah, muzzle’s great. Malcom, email me: bsedrish at gmail
Kurt-
The fairness doctrine would be used to silence the explosion of the Conservative talk radio movement. It’s the anti-christ of free speech. My point was, it’s people like the guy in the article who champion free speech, as long as it suits them. It’s fraudulent and transparent.