Turn on the television and you’re bound to see a debate concerning universal healthcare in the US and whether we should have it. In my opinion if you even have to ask this question you need to put down your drink, put away the bong and spit the LSD back out of your mouth that is making you out of your fucking mind.
Now seriously speaking beyond the fact that on every level it could never work effectively in this country lets go over a few points on how bad this could be.
The first point would have to be the big brother and big government factor. We spend our entire lives carrying the burden of the “man” on our backs, bitch about things like the Patriot Act that encroach on our rights, complain that the government interferes too much already and now we want to hand over the reigns of our healthcare to them? Is it because they’ve already been in the healthcare business for a better part of the last century and failed miserably at it? The Veteran’s hospitals are shameful, the welfare system is the biggest failure our government could and have ever offered. We still even treat the Native Americans through their programs like shit. How about government run clinics, been to one of those lately?
Another point is taking the capitalism out of the health industry destroys the quality of care we get. Hate it all you want but the profits these drug companies make goes towards the production and research behind new techniques and medicines. Much of it is wasted to experiments that were over expensive and didn’t work but some of its findings made the medicine that saves our lives. The companies that play this game play it with our money and against each other all striving to give us the very best products ensuring we always buy more. We the consumer fund them and in turn they give us a tangible product that we have a choice to buy or not buy. But the government controlling the healthcare system doesn’t work that way. The government would force us to choose one of three packages like they always do and that’s that. They would then have the leverage on the big drug companies to limit the monies going back to them. The government would have the ability to drum up fear in an American public with smoke screens like the “Swine Flu” and make companies produce more medicines to treat just that. When the government is involved in making those kinds of decisions the drug companies lose their ambition to be creative in treating many other issues. Companies lose their ability to control their own production and even worse their research. Obviously with this retarded amount of money the current Administration is spending the government will have a “great” grant and loan program that we'll pay more for and the drug companies can take advantage of. Once those companies have latched on the government can have one more control over them and their finances. If you don’t believe that to be true ask GM how they lost their CEO and they’re still going to file for bankruptcy protection.
Not to mention the government controlling the healthcare system stifles physicians and surgeons and significantly reduces their compensation. Again check your local VA hospital and see what that’s looking like. With government run healthcare you’ll not see any pioneers as you may see today. With their fancy offices and ridiculously expensive cutting edge equipment they are on the forefront of medicine at a level we see and feel as the capitalist consumer. Everyone seems to forget the government grows and limits us more and more each time it does. The government will lowball ALL doctors every chance they get until ultimately they take the incentive away to even be in the profession in the first place. A buzz topic always seems to be “the best Physicians are from foreign countries so they must have a great health system”. What is always forgotten when that is said is, “but all those best doctors come and work here”. They’re the best in their field and they’ve come to the United States for what? Could it be our charming personalities? No, it’s the money. We the consumers, with our Baskin and Robbins assortment of health insurance policies, pay good money for what we’re getting done. They love us for it and we love them for fixing us… done.
In England where the healthcare system is run through the government someone gravely ill could potentially wait weeks for aid while the bureaucracy finds everyway to rear it’s ugly red taped head. Here in the States you can walk into a hospital or immediate care center with no insurance card and a splinter. You’ll leave with a bill but with every exam under the sun. There are many horrible instances we have in the hospitals too where people aren’t getting the care they deserve, unfortunately they’re usually veterans and welfare recipients. Odd huh? We the free American and the professional consumer do what we want when we want, when the government gets involved we get more deadlines and more orders coupled with more restrictions and more privacy invasion.
Oh but there is the argument of those without health insurance and how it’s their civil right to be taken care of. EXCUSE YOU!? Most of the people in this country who don’t have insurance are either illegal or crack heads. I’m supposed to feel bad they’re not being paid for in a health system that struggles in part because of them and the programs they come attached to? Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. My family got here off a boat and they stood on the damned line to get in. If you jump that line and get sick now that you’re here that’s karma and tough shit. If you went through life and never had a job, preferred drugs over food and now you are homeless with no health care… fuck you too. There is no reason that I should feel obligated to help you through my taxes. You should have stepped up and did the right thing. Fortunately for fuck-ups like you, the illegals, and God forbid those people that actually really need assistance, the mentally handicapped and abandoned have all kinds of charity and privately funded aid to help you in getting the care you need, a roof over your head and some clothes on your back. They’ll feed you, educate you and start teaching you that in America you have a 95% chance of having affordable health insurance if you meet one requirement… get a job. If you’re the other 5% working without any you have an assortment of programs to help. If you’re this supposed 23% of “American’s” without health insurance you’re generally beyond any help I’m willing to give but still you have many private foundations that will aid you in anything you need. However, your health should not be someone else’s financial burden. The most you should get from us is a buck on the street corner in a tin can before you get up and get what’s on the silver platter this country already affords every one of it’s citizens.
There are far too many reasons on why universal healthcare in America is such a ridiculous idea but here is just a start that has already tired me out. The government tangles every web it weaves and truly my fear is to now say we’d like them to control our health.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Follow Up: to Science and who is in the right? How to start arguing for our causes...
The way to argue for a cause and get any kind of real change is going to take a new course of action.
Jim, my only blogger follower, you recently asked me "What a conservative do" and the question confused me. What I pride myself in is not to conform to the idea that I need to do what a party or philosophy would do but to what I would do. The conservative movement is the movement that most closely follows my ideals but I'm not quite sure they would get to some ends the same way. Perhaps they would (especially the RLC) but again I don't base my ideals on what they would do rather I do what I do and they just happen to agree much of time.
An example to a societal conundrum of current day is Gay Marriage. If asked what a conservative would do I couldn't give a shit but what I would do is limit the government's role in marriage. While everyone questions whether it should be legal or not, I question whether or not we should even ask that question. Who makes the government so mighty and powerful that they can tell us who we can and can not love for the entirety of our lives?
This should be at most the decision of the sanctioning body that instituted the marriage. If Church A doesn't allow gay marriage because they say God frowns upon it; OK. There will always be a Church B that says "Church A is out of their minds, God loves everyone and come get married here". If Nutley doesn't allow it, you know Belleville will because one group ideology in a place where people had to live together prevailed. A towns ability to issue a marriage shouldn't be more powerful than any other approved institution. We get the choice of where we want to marry and who we want to marry and get more of those choices. The only role the Government has is to set laws that One human made arrangements through a certified body IE Church, Town Hall, Cruise Ship, Little Vegas Wedding Chapel or whatever to FINANCIALLY tie the knot for life to another Human and or Humans.
Here are a slew of answers all tied into one. Could gay people marry? Of course. Polygamists, sure why not? You love each other, you have the bond and you have every right to be financially tied to that person(s) for the remainder of your life if that is your so choosing. The government has no right to intervene when it comes to whether a significant other can visit an ailing mate, if they're basing it on whether individually the socially sanctioned group to which they belong to doesn't agree. If my local, state or federal politician's religious or party affiliation doesn't agree on whom should be married it should not be allowed to be a factor on how they vote to benefit "us".
Why I write this is simple. While the socially liberal debate is to beg the government to see their own way and allow them to marry whomever they choose and socially staunch religious people beg the Government to see theirs instead, we all need to put our Government in check and remind them they work for us. We shouldn't be begging for anything. Religious zealots would not be hurt because the institution they belong to would still not issue marriages outside their core beliefs. Gay people would not be hurt because they would find many institutions that believe the same as they do and would issue the marriages. And the people we hire to employ our government can not make laws that govern on their own individual beliefs to supersede what we the people want to believe. As long as an institution validates themselves as one that can issue a marriage by the government's "should be" standard of human to human(s) their is nothing else to argue. We are protected in our freedom of choice, freedom to practice religion and freedom from an overbearing government.
if none of that makes sense forgive me... I'm heavily medicated with this bug and get dizzy to even try to proofread. :P
Jim, my only blogger follower, you recently asked me "What a conservative do" and the question confused me. What I pride myself in is not to conform to the idea that I need to do what a party or philosophy would do but to what I would do. The conservative movement is the movement that most closely follows my ideals but I'm not quite sure they would get to some ends the same way. Perhaps they would (especially the RLC) but again I don't base my ideals on what they would do rather I do what I do and they just happen to agree much of time.
An example to a societal conundrum of current day is Gay Marriage. If asked what a conservative would do I couldn't give a shit but what I would do is limit the government's role in marriage. While everyone questions whether it should be legal or not, I question whether or not we should even ask that question. Who makes the government so mighty and powerful that they can tell us who we can and can not love for the entirety of our lives?
This should be at most the decision of the sanctioning body that instituted the marriage. If Church A doesn't allow gay marriage because they say God frowns upon it; OK. There will always be a Church B that says "Church A is out of their minds, God loves everyone and come get married here". If Nutley doesn't allow it, you know Belleville will because one group ideology in a place where people had to live together prevailed. A towns ability to issue a marriage shouldn't be more powerful than any other approved institution. We get the choice of where we want to marry and who we want to marry and get more of those choices. The only role the Government has is to set laws that One human made arrangements through a certified body IE Church, Town Hall, Cruise Ship, Little Vegas Wedding Chapel or whatever to FINANCIALLY tie the knot for life to another Human and or Humans.
Here are a slew of answers all tied into one. Could gay people marry? Of course. Polygamists, sure why not? You love each other, you have the bond and you have every right to be financially tied to that person(s) for the remainder of your life if that is your so choosing. The government has no right to intervene when it comes to whether a significant other can visit an ailing mate, if they're basing it on whether individually the socially sanctioned group to which they belong to doesn't agree. If my local, state or federal politician's religious or party affiliation doesn't agree on whom should be married it should not be allowed to be a factor on how they vote to benefit "us".
Why I write this is simple. While the socially liberal debate is to beg the government to see their own way and allow them to marry whomever they choose and socially staunch religious people beg the Government to see theirs instead, we all need to put our Government in check and remind them they work for us. We shouldn't be begging for anything. Religious zealots would not be hurt because the institution they belong to would still not issue marriages outside their core beliefs. Gay people would not be hurt because they would find many institutions that believe the same as they do and would issue the marriages. And the people we hire to employ our government can not make laws that govern on their own individual beliefs to supersede what we the people want to believe. As long as an institution validates themselves as one that can issue a marriage by the government's "should be" standard of human to human(s) their is nothing else to argue. We are protected in our freedom of choice, freedom to practice religion and freedom from an overbearing government.
if none of that makes sense forgive me... I'm heavily medicated with this bug and get dizzy to even try to proofread. :P
Is Science Ever "Right"?
There has been a slow but steady move in our country to blame and ridicule Christians for their theological beliefs. Being raised an Atheist and believing as such for my entire life I have my own set of beliefs that ultimately could be proven to be very wrong. Obviously, my belief is so strong that I don't leave myself on the fence but this recent influx in Christian slander is really leaving me sitting uneasy. The world is clearly a crazy place when a non believer feels the need to step up and defend the people that do believe.
Christians are being denounced in many places of the most left leaning parts of our nation and it amazes me that the ammunition of those nay sayers could be used as the same argument against their own progressive beliefs. "Because Science proves it". When all is said and done, the final straw that breaks the proverbial cow's back is that any non believer proves their stance by quoting the "scripture" of Science books. Christians are then rebutted into their losing corners as their proof is only in their hearts in the form of the morals they were taught in the bible. They can say that life is proof of God's existence but again, a non believer will show the science of how that life was created through the Earth's evolution.
Anyone that has debated me knows they never get to the core debate because I ask too many questions before hand. Perhaps we should all ask these questions because frankly I'm not sure Science is always right.
Christians believe that Homosexuality is a sin but what do Scientists believe? A Scientist essentially agree wouldn't they? They would say that humans can be born this way because of some malfunction in their chromosome structure or some miscalculation in their DNA. They would say that these people are not destined to survive the evolution cycle for the simple reason that they're mentally not designed to procreate.
Now me as an Atheist can jump all over Christians and remind them that people are people. That homosexuals have every right as I do to live in a world happy and carefree. They're contributions to the world thus far have been immeasurable and forcing their misery through restrictions and ill will is immoral and just plain wrong. Science however doesn't support me on this.
This same argument could be used for many principles and ideologies that face our nation today in the "questioning" arena. Skin color, body shapes, ethnicities, intelligence, health etc. Hell, Science even says people with Dimples are "deformed". So what gives? In my most humble of opinions I have to say "Science isn't always right". And surely "Science is never really Right"
My morals tell me this and nothing else. Some peoples morals are based on their religion and why is that such a bad thing? This is what they believe and if it gives them solace so be it. As long as what they preach doesn't physically bring harm to another it's not my place to question them or make fun of them. Other peoples morals are founded like mine, passed down from generation to generation and tweaked to be appropriate for the times and how they chose to live. My grandfather's generation had us being respectful to everyone but everyone was generally a the heterosexual WASP or heterosexual western European. Throughout the years morals have changed and we get to my generation. The someone I am is one who accepts anyone and everyone and only have a limit drawn to say don't hurt me in your process of liberty. My morals tell me that I don't give a crap if a woman marries a horse and adopts a guppy, if it doesn't hurt me directly it's none of my business. My morals also tell me not to judge her for what she believes or how her body is physically and chemically composed. Christians would call this person a sinner, but Science freaks would call this preposterous but would hope that natural selection would rid people like her from the planet.
Science proves a lot of things but using it as ammunition against the hate on Christianity is flat out wrong. I may not believe in all of what the Bible preaches nor do I believe it for historical content but I don't necessarily believe in Science either. Both of them assault my morals in many instances and I'd rather just go by my gut when it comes to judging people and their beliefs. We all need to approach our arguments differently and start asking the right questions before trying to come to an agreeable answer.
Christians are being denounced in many places of the most left leaning parts of our nation and it amazes me that the ammunition of those nay sayers could be used as the same argument against their own progressive beliefs. "Because Science proves it". When all is said and done, the final straw that breaks the proverbial cow's back is that any non believer proves their stance by quoting the "scripture" of Science books. Christians are then rebutted into their losing corners as their proof is only in their hearts in the form of the morals they were taught in the bible. They can say that life is proof of God's existence but again, a non believer will show the science of how that life was created through the Earth's evolution.
Anyone that has debated me knows they never get to the core debate because I ask too many questions before hand. Perhaps we should all ask these questions because frankly I'm not sure Science is always right.
Christians believe that Homosexuality is a sin but what do Scientists believe? A Scientist essentially agree wouldn't they? They would say that humans can be born this way because of some malfunction in their chromosome structure or some miscalculation in their DNA. They would say that these people are not destined to survive the evolution cycle for the simple reason that they're mentally not designed to procreate.
Now me as an Atheist can jump all over Christians and remind them that people are people. That homosexuals have every right as I do to live in a world happy and carefree. They're contributions to the world thus far have been immeasurable and forcing their misery through restrictions and ill will is immoral and just plain wrong. Science however doesn't support me on this.
This same argument could be used for many principles and ideologies that face our nation today in the "questioning" arena. Skin color, body shapes, ethnicities, intelligence, health etc. Hell, Science even says people with Dimples are "deformed". So what gives? In my most humble of opinions I have to say "Science isn't always right". And surely "Science is never really Right"
My morals tell me this and nothing else. Some peoples morals are based on their religion and why is that such a bad thing? This is what they believe and if it gives them solace so be it. As long as what they preach doesn't physically bring harm to another it's not my place to question them or make fun of them. Other peoples morals are founded like mine, passed down from generation to generation and tweaked to be appropriate for the times and how they chose to live. My grandfather's generation had us being respectful to everyone but everyone was generally a the heterosexual WASP or heterosexual western European. Throughout the years morals have changed and we get to my generation. The someone I am is one who accepts anyone and everyone and only have a limit drawn to say don't hurt me in your process of liberty. My morals tell me that I don't give a crap if a woman marries a horse and adopts a guppy, if it doesn't hurt me directly it's none of my business. My morals also tell me not to judge her for what she believes or how her body is physically and chemically composed. Christians would call this person a sinner, but Science freaks would call this preposterous but would hope that natural selection would rid people like her from the planet.
Science proves a lot of things but using it as ammunition against the hate on Christianity is flat out wrong. I may not believe in all of what the Bible preaches nor do I believe it for historical content but I don't necessarily believe in Science either. Both of them assault my morals in many instances and I'd rather just go by my gut when it comes to judging people and their beliefs. We all need to approach our arguments differently and start asking the right questions before trying to come to an agreeable answer.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
For you...
--- Your flower the Orquidea
--- Your Chocolate from Godiva...
--- a hug on the way...
--- Some love with a few more flowers for good measure
--- The warmth of the Sun
--- and a long slow kiss...:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
