"I’d be willing to “take” a fair amount of money away to keep unnecessary, easily-preventable death from lack of medical attention due to financial constraints."
Keeping an overweight smoker from dying from a heart attack is cheap and easy. Keeping a child with, e.g., ichthyosis congenita alive and healthy is expensive and difficult.
"You’re arguing that having to pay for freeloaders is more ethically problematic than letting an innocent suffer/die."
What I'm arguing is that boiling this down to pithy statements like "why do you hate children and want them to die?" or "the only acceptable number of preventable deaths is zero" doesn't do anything to move the debate forward, because there's always an equally-pithy counter-statement, and from there on out it's just a rap battle.
"So people born with illness or who contracted cancer through no fault of their own deserve to go without health insurance because other people don’t take care of themselves?"
So people who didn't take care of themselves deserve to have all their health problems fixed for free just because other people developed cancer through no fault of their own?
"The difference is of course, this is big news in Britan. That happens everyday in the US."
Cite please, and yes you do have to provide a link, particularly when the person you're snarking at actually did.
Besides, if "dragged out dead by the heels" is a bad thing that shouldn't happen, then doesn't the fact that it still happens in a UHC country imply that UHC isn't the solution to all the problems?
Well, but most criticisms of NCLB are indeed saying that the gold and silver groups ought to get all the resources--but they're saying it's because there'll always be a brown group(*) and you can't do much to help them.
You're right that everyone in the education debate tends to assume that all students would be equally proficient if only it weren't for (bad teachers, overly-constrained teachers, poor cirriculuae, liberal attitudes, whatever).
(*) one of the ways you can tell this was the 1980s was that nobody felt it at all strange to call the less-intelligent cohort the "brown group".
It would be quite interesting to hear Matt Groening's thoughts on the modern education-reform debate.
"What makes you think teachers are such a bad domain for establishing education policy?"
How do you ensure that it won't lead to the attitude of "there are no bad teachers, only bad parents and bad administrators, and any evidence to the contrary must be either fake or misinterpreted because (A) there are no bad teachers..."
"[C]ritical citizenship would be prioritized over docile acceptance of the status quo."
And, of course, we'd have to make sure that they were the right kind of critical citizens who had the right ideas about things. Because, you know, there's "being critical of the status quo" and then there's being dangerously recalcitrant towards understanding important fundamental aspects of society, right?
"[W]hat about kids in truly failing schools, in impoverished neighborhoods where there are no good options?"
I think there are plenty of people who believe that there is no such thing as a failing school. Only failing parents who fail to make their kids care about education.
Actually, though...every area is one in which outsiders with little knowledge will arrogantly claim perceptiveness. That's because there are a great many people whose reasoning goes "I'm smart, and I thought about this, and smart people who think about things always find the right answer, therefore my idea is the right one and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or lying".
I love how there are more people bickering over "innocent undocumented immigrants" than discussing the Libertarian attitude towards a government using military activity to enforce the majority's moral views on a minority.
Although the language was not chance-chosen. I was specifically trying to create an emotional response in the reader, and it looks like it worked.
The last paragraph of my post was an attempt to show how terminology drift over time might describe the situation.
Let's say that tomorrow the Federal Government declares that it's sending the National Guard into Arizona to dissolve a clearly-out-of-control state government that was using the machinery of the law against innocent undocumented immigrants. The Arizona state guard (and numerous private citizens) begin a military resistance.
What is the appropriate Libertarian position?
Be aware that a hundred years hence, we'll be hearing about how the horribly-racist Arizona Rebels were desperate to keep exploiting the Chicano population, and that it was a moral imperative to use military force against them, just like in the First Civil War when we fought against slavery.
Hell, I'd argue that most of the Left doesn't even actually listen to Palin. It's just that it's so easy to make fun of the things that someone said she said. Certainly better than arguing with someone who's actually smart and isn't operating on a purely-emotional level.
"Goddamit, this clock might be stopped but it was still right! In fact, it's been right twice so far today!"
Look, the "Party like it's 1773" thing was legit, but this is a "57 states" moment. If you listen to the actual clip it's the usual word-salad babbling of someone who is A: a poor communicator and B: knows it.
People "denied your premise" because you're inventing a scenario with only one logical answer, just so that you can later say "oh well even you admitted that punishment isn't the point"
I mean, it's like you're asking "on the one hand you could eat a delicious donut which would spontaneously cure world hunger. On the other hand you could pound some nails through your dick. Which would you choose?" and then you're getting upset that people mocked the question.
@Sam: "The main story linked to above highlights the story of a woman who did not get an abortion because “she could not afford a legal procedure.” Not because it was banned."
Actually, it was banned, both by fetal age (more than 20 weeks) and by specifics of procedure (self-induced abortion).
@tom: If you're going to make a "just one is too many" argument about permitting abortions, then it's valid to make the same argument about botched ones.
Delete "drugs", replace "alcohol", and then explain why I can go right down the street and buy enough vodka to kill myself with no more than a quick flash of my driver's license.
"But that does not mean there isn’t a need for regulation, more drug rehab and maybe some drugs are just to dangerous. "
AA and MADD have government sponsorship. There are age limits on the purchase, provision, and consumption of alcohol; there are also severe restrictions on post-consumption behavior, e.g. operating motor vehicles. And there is extremely punitive enforcement of these laws.
Again: If it's okay to sell whiskey in grocery stores (and beer at gas stations!) then we have to admit that we've solved the problem of selling intoxicant drugs for unmonitored recreational use. Hell, I've got a perfectly-legal stimulant drug sitting here on my desk, in a glass with ice, and I didn't even have to show ID to buy it!
On “Why the debate over healthcare reform may be just beginning”
"If I had said either of the things you quoted, I would be deserving of a real finger-waggin’."
You've said all of the things I quoted.
(not every use of quotation marks is intended to indicate a direct quote from a primary source.)
On “The use of knowledge in our educational system”
"Nobody can achieve anything without the mandate for achievement. Teachers have none at present."
Why the fuck are you talking as though that's not exactly what I said?
On “Why the debate over healthcare reform may be just beginning”
"I’d be willing to “take” a fair amount of money away to keep unnecessary, easily-preventable death from lack of medical attention due to financial constraints."
Keeping an overweight smoker from dying from a heart attack is cheap and easy. Keeping a child with, e.g., ichthyosis congenita alive and healthy is expensive and difficult.
"You’re arguing that having to pay for freeloaders is more ethically problematic than letting an innocent suffer/die."
What I'm arguing is that boiling this down to pithy statements like "why do you hate children and want them to die?" or "the only acceptable number of preventable deaths is zero" doesn't do anything to move the debate forward, because there's always an equally-pithy counter-statement, and from there on out it's just a rap battle.
"
"So people born with illness or who contracted cancer through no fault of their own deserve to go without health insurance because other people don’t take care of themselves?"
So people who didn't take care of themselves deserve to have all their health problems fixed for free just because other people developed cancer through no fault of their own?
"
"What’s your solution for people with preexisting conditions, Scott? "
What's your solution for people whose health issues are due to smoking and overeating, Elias?
"
"The difference is of course, this is big news in Britan. That happens everyday in the US."
Cite please, and yes you do have to provide a link, particularly when the person you're snarking at actually did.
Besides, if "dragged out dead by the heels" is a bad thing that shouldn't happen, then doesn't the fact that it still happens in a UHC country imply that UHC isn't the solution to all the problems?
On “The use of knowledge in our educational system”
Well, but most criticisms of NCLB are indeed saying that the gold and silver groups ought to get all the resources--but they're saying it's because there'll always be a brown group(*) and you can't do much to help them.
You're right that everyone in the education debate tends to assume that all students would be equally proficient if only it weren't for (bad teachers, overly-constrained teachers, poor cirriculuae, liberal attitudes, whatever).
(*) one of the ways you can tell this was the 1980s was that nobody felt it at all strange to call the less-intelligent cohort the "brown group".
It would be quite interesting to hear Matt Groening's thoughts on the modern education-reform debate.
"
"What makes you think teachers are such a bad domain for establishing education policy?"
How do you ensure that it won't lead to the attitude of "there are no bad teachers, only bad parents and bad administrators, and any evidence to the contrary must be either fake or misinterpreted because (A) there are no bad teachers..."
On “Getting at first principles in the education debate”
"[C]ritical citizenship would be prioritized over docile acceptance of the status quo."
And, of course, we'd have to make sure that they were the right kind of critical citizens who had the right ideas about things. Because, you know, there's "being critical of the status quo" and then there's being dangerously recalcitrant towards understanding important fundamental aspects of society, right?
"
"[W]hat about kids in truly failing schools, in impoverished neighborhoods where there are no good options?"
I think there are plenty of people who believe that there is no such thing as a failing school. Only failing parents who fail to make their kids care about education.
"
Aerospace technology is another such area.
Actually, though...every area is one in which outsiders with little knowledge will arrogantly claim perceptiveness. That's because there are a great many people whose reasoning goes "I'm smart, and I thought about this, and smart people who think about things always find the right answer, therefore my idea is the right one and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or lying".
On “Of the Devil’s Side (and Knowing It)”
I love how there are more people bickering over "innocent undocumented immigrants" than discussing the Libertarian attitude towards a government using military activity to enforce the majority's moral views on a minority.
Although the language was not chance-chosen. I was specifically trying to create an emotional response in the reader, and it looks like it worked.
The last paragraph of my post was an attempt to show how terminology drift over time might describe the situation.
"
Let's say that tomorrow the Federal Government declares that it's sending the National Guard into Arizona to dissolve a clearly-out-of-control state government that was using the machinery of the law against innocent undocumented immigrants. The Arizona state guard (and numerous private citizens) begin a military resistance.
What is the appropriate Libertarian position?
Be aware that a hundred years hence, we'll be hearing about how the horribly-racist Arizona Rebels were desperate to keep exploiting the Chicano population, and that it was a moral imperative to use military force against them, just like in the First Civil War when we fought against slavery.
On “A New Political Dialectic”
So if Harris were a true Scot he'd be okay?
On “Anthony Weiner, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, and the Circus”
If these people are going to vote in legislation that defines moral behavior, then their own behavior needs to be extensively explored.
In particular, if they think that ubiquitous surveillance is a good idea, then they ought to be willing to live in that world.
On “What the hell is going on?”
Hell, I'd argue that most of the Left doesn't even actually listen to Palin. It's just that it's so easy to make fun of the things that someone said she said. Certainly better than arguing with someone who's actually smart and isn't operating on a purely-emotional level.
"
"Goddamit, this clock might be stopped but it was still right! In fact, it's been right twice so far today!"
Look, the "Party like it's 1773" thing was legit, but this is a "57 states" moment. If you listen to the actual clip it's the usual word-salad babbling of someone who is A: a poor communicator and B: knows it.
On “The Role of the Prison Guards Union in California’s Troubled Prison System”
People "denied your premise" because you're inventing a scenario with only one logical answer, just so that you can later say "oh well even you admitted that punishment isn't the point"
I mean, it's like you're asking "on the one hand you could eat a delicious donut which would spontaneously cure world hunger. On the other hand you could pound some nails through your dick. Which would you choose?" and then you're getting upset that people mocked the question.
"
He's poisoning the well, is the point.
On “Questions about abortion become less complicated as long as you refuse to recognize that they’re complicated”
@Sam: "The main story linked to above highlights the story of a woman who did not get an abortion because “she could not afford a legal procedure.” Not because it was banned."
Actually, it was banned, both by fetal age (more than 20 weeks) and by specifics of procedure (self-induced abortion).
"
@tom: If you're going to make a "just one is too many" argument about permitting abortions, then it's valid to make the same argument about botched ones.
On “Where are the incumbents?”
Delete "drugs", replace "alcohol", and then explain why I can go right down the street and buy enough vodka to kill myself with no more than a quick flash of my driver's license.
"
"But that does not mean there isn’t a need for regulation, more drug rehab and maybe some drugs are just to dangerous. "
AA and MADD have government sponsorship. There are age limits on the purchase, provision, and consumption of alcohol; there are also severe restrictions on post-consumption behavior, e.g. operating motor vehicles. And there is extremely punitive enforcement of these laws.
Again: If it's okay to sell whiskey in grocery stores (and beer at gas stations!) then we have to admit that we've solved the problem of selling intoxicant drugs for unmonitored recreational use. Hell, I've got a perfectly-legal stimulant drug sitting here on my desk, in a glass with ice, and I didn't even have to show ID to buy it!
"
"Just sayin’ the criminals will find their 3000% profit margins elsewhere and it won’t be pretty for their home countries."
Yes, just look at how Canada became a crime-ridden hellhole when Prohibition was repealed.
"
Happened in early 2001; US was voted off the Human Rights Commission and the International Narcotics Control Board.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.