The abuses of health insurance companies are well-documented and have been so for years.
Roger, again I ask this question. Why are you so focused on a free market solution to healthcare? We know what works based on our programs like the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid and what other countries do. Why not just scale Medicare up to cover everybody and allow the purchase of supplmental insurance or free market purchase of things like cosmetic surgery. Whats with this obsession with having a free market solution just because we are America and thats what we do?
Roger, these are all easy-peasy solutions with single-payer to and we have evidence that single-payer works. We have this evidence in the United States, we call it medicare. People on medicare seem to really like it and get pissy when any changes to it are announced. We have no evidence that your free market solution would work. Why can't we do what we know works?
One big difference between health insurance and car insurance is that car insurance companies are relatively sure that people are going to do everything they can to avoid accidents. Probably. Health insurance companies know that people get sick even if they do everything possible to stay healthy. In order to make money they have to find a way to collect premiums while providing minimal coverage or ideally no coverage.
I'm not buying this. I think that we have enough evidence from our own experience with Medicare to show that single-payer can work in this country. I'd even argue that the VA is a sign that we can pull of NHS if it was desirable. I'd prefer NHS over single-payer but most liberals seem to prefer Medicare for All as the solution. The problem is that doing either of these things is politically impossible but they can work.
Why should the public, government-run program only cover the catastrophic and extremely serious? If there is a government program, it should cover the routine and non-catastrophic as well. One way you prevent illnesses from becoming castastrophic is to nip them in the bud if possible. People would get more necessary, routine care if they could do so without getting hit in the pocket book or penalized by their bosses for taking time off work to go to the doctor or take their kids to the doctor.
Roger, at this point can't we just use the evidence available from other countries rather than try for some market-based solution that has never been attempted before because we are devoted to the free market or something like that.
People shouldn't take the law into their own hand. It might start with simple self-defense but enough people do it, it escalates into dangerous vigilantism and possibly lynch mobs.
Mike, as explained above, a lot of liberals are very weary of the ability of the private sector to provide quality healthcare to the bulk of the population. Health insurance companies have long histories of doing anything they can to deny care in the name of profits. If healthcare was provided on a free market basis rather than through insurance, most of us would believe that everything but the most ordinary care would be too expensive for most people. Most liberals wanted a more statist healthcare reform than the ACA but accepted the ACA as the best possible reform possible under our political system. Healthcare is an area where socialism really does work.
When did this change? I took criminal law in the Fall 2003 semester of law school. I was taught that self-defense was an affirmative defense and the burden was on the defendant.
Yes, self-defense was always a rebuttal to charges rather than something that the prosecutor had to disprove. It was the defendant's burden to show that he or she acted in self-defense and since self-defense is basically the defendant arguing for his own version of the events than it should be the burden of the defendant to prove it.
I'd argue that tackling isn't okay either but to an extent its better than punching, its because tackling is less likely to result in serious harm or the domino chain that led the drunk being in the hospital in critical condition. If physical confrontation is necessary the goal should be to restrain rather than harm.
Who gets to determine what racist language justifies physical violence? Do certain groups, like African-Americans, get more of a right to react violently than other groups, say Asian-Americans, because overall the racism against African-Americans wrecks more havoc on them than anti-Asian racism wrecks on Asian-Americans?
And George Zimmerman's problem was that he thought he lived in the latter when he lived in the former or at least African-American men only walk around slowly to because of the latter. Sometimes presuming the worst causes more trouble than presuming the best.
Honestly, the prosecutors should have tried Zimmerman for mansalughter rather than murder. That would have resulted in a conviction probably.
New York law states that people have a duty to retreat before they can act in self-defense. This becomes an absolute duty to retreat when death is involved, which pretty much means you have to be in your dwelling or cornered. In New York, the law is if you have a choice between acting in self-defense or running like a scared kid who pissed in his or her pants than you run like the scarred kid who just wetted themselves. I support this. The law should presume that violence is never an acceptable solution to most problems.
Its really hard, maybe even impossible, for the law to take all contexts into consideration though. Thats why the law has to often ignore some really significant past evils like the treatment of African-Americans past, present, and future or the subjecation of women throughout history in order to be theoretically equitable. The law can't say in X situation Class Y is allowed to do Action Z but in all situations Class B can never do Action Z. Thats even worse than some or many prosecutions that seem egregious. Trying to put morality or historical contexts into the law is not going to work.
Its right for the man to be charged for assault. Your right, he adn his girlfriend had the right to eat without being ranted at by a drunk but the proper legal response was not violence. It was for the staff of the Burrito restaurant to eject the drunk or to call the people; not to punch the drunk guy. The couple might have been uncomfortable but they weren't under any physical threat. The drunk was just ranting and cursing at them. Its annoying but it doesn't rise to the level of justifying an act of violence.
I think Scott Lemiuex is right. More focus should be paid on the sometimes ludicriously lenient standards for self-defense in many jurisdictions. We shouldn't get away with the right to self-defense in its entirety but they need to updated because in most parts of the country, professsional law enforcement is readily available. Even in rural areas. People should only be allowed to kill in self-defense in very limited circumstances. I'm fond of New York's absolute duty to retreat standard personally.
If your an Orthodox Marxist or an Anarchist than the Nation will of course seem at best Center-Left or not really Left at all. It depends on how you define being a leftist.
I'd also like to argue that in a democratic system, no policy decision is really top-down. If a policy decision is made by the elected representatives and leaders of the people and these officials are subject to removal through the democratic political process than its not really top down. Even in the case of sweeping court decisions there is enough democratic pressure that its not top down.
A lot of people are going to hate this but I think that you need to view Reagan-mania through the same lens of Kennedy-mania or even Obama's popularity among African-Americans. Most informed people today know that Kennedy was a bit of a "meh" as a President and had many flaws personal and in his leadership abilities. At the time Kennedy was elected, he seemed like a Godsend to the children and grandchildren of what used to be called the ethnic whites. An Irish Catholic President was a sign that they arrived and were really American. Its probably how a lot of African-Americans felt when Obama won in 2o08.
Reagan-mania is kind of similar but its tinged by a return to the way things should be. He was seen as providing relief from all the ceaseless, hectic change that seemed to besot America from the mid-1960s onward. A lot of people from our socio-economic status and geographic area see the mid-1960s to early 1970s as a time of great and important social change and experimentation. Many view them more negatively. Nearly everybody sees everything after Water Gate to 1980 as a very bad hangover. To many Americans Reagan was a sign that things were going to be the way things should be.
Walmart was not the first chain store. Chain stores and franchises were well-established phonemona before Mr. Walton was conceived. Woolworths is a predecessor of Wal-Mart and existed since the late 19th century. People didn't buy local either. The Sears catalog was the predecessor of internet shopping and it existed in the late 19th century.
Walmart, Amazon, and company just took already existing trend to their natural conclusion.
I'd argue that its the former. Romance novels were one of the few openly sexually explicit media aimed at women for a long time. It was also one of the only sexually explicit media that was considered acceptable for women to read. This gave them the function of telling women that its fine to be sexual as opposed to the prevelant "good girls don't" message that existed up till the mid-1960s. It told women that you can enjoy sex to and you to have a right to dream about being with a tall, dark, and handsome man.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Health Insurance Changes”
The abuses of health insurance companies are well-documented and have been so for years.
Roger, again I ask this question. Why are you so focused on a free market solution to healthcare? We know what works based on our programs like the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid and what other countries do. Why not just scale Medicare up to cover everybody and allow the purchase of supplmental insurance or free market purchase of things like cosmetic surgery. Whats with this obsession with having a free market solution just because we are America and thats what we do?
"
Roger, these are all easy-peasy solutions with single-payer to and we have evidence that single-payer works. We have this evidence in the United States, we call it medicare. People on medicare seem to really like it and get pissy when any changes to it are announced. We have no evidence that your free market solution would work. Why can't we do what we know works?
"
One big difference between health insurance and car insurance is that car insurance companies are relatively sure that people are going to do everything they can to avoid accidents. Probably. Health insurance companies know that people get sick even if they do everything possible to stay healthy. In order to make money they have to find a way to collect premiums while providing minimal coverage or ideally no coverage.
"
I'm not buying this. I think that we have enough evidence from our own experience with Medicare to show that single-payer can work in this country. I'd even argue that the VA is a sign that we can pull of NHS if it was desirable. I'd prefer NHS over single-payer but most liberals seem to prefer Medicare for All as the solution. The problem is that doing either of these things is politically impossible but they can work.
"
Why should the public, government-run program only cover the catastrophic and extremely serious? If there is a government program, it should cover the routine and non-catastrophic as well. One way you prevent illnesses from becoming castastrophic is to nip them in the bud if possible. People would get more necessary, routine care if they could do so without getting hit in the pocket book or penalized by their bosses for taking time off work to go to the doctor or take their kids to the doctor.
"
Roger, at this point can't we just use the evidence available from other countries rather than try for some market-based solution that has never been attempted before because we are devoted to the free market or something like that.
On “On Zimmerman and Stand Your Ground [Updated]”
People shouldn't take the law into their own hand. It might start with simple self-defense but enough people do it, it escalates into dangerous vigilantism and possibly lynch mobs.
On “Health Insurance Changes”
Mike, as explained above, a lot of liberals are very weary of the ability of the private sector to provide quality healthcare to the bulk of the population. Health insurance companies have long histories of doing anything they can to deny care in the name of profits. If healthcare was provided on a free market basis rather than through insurance, most of us would believe that everything but the most ordinary care would be too expensive for most people. Most liberals wanted a more statist healthcare reform than the ACA but accepted the ACA as the best possible reform possible under our political system. Healthcare is an area where socialism really does work.
On “On Zimmerman and Stand Your Ground [Updated]”
Thats why tackling isn't okay in my book either. The law should presume that no violence is justified on its face.
"
When did this change? I took criminal law in the Fall 2003 semester of law school. I was taught that self-defense was an affirmative defense and the burden was on the defendant.
"
Yes, self-defense was always a rebuttal to charges rather than something that the prosecutor had to disprove. It was the defendant's burden to show that he or she acted in self-defense and since self-defense is basically the defendant arguing for his own version of the events than it should be the burden of the defendant to prove it.
"
I'd argue that tackling isn't okay either but to an extent its better than punching, its because tackling is less likely to result in serious harm or the domino chain that led the drunk being in the hospital in critical condition. If physical confrontation is necessary the goal should be to restrain rather than harm.
"
Who gets to determine what racist language justifies physical violence? Do certain groups, like African-Americans, get more of a right to react violently than other groups, say Asian-Americans, because overall the racism against African-Americans wrecks more havoc on them than anti-Asian racism wrecks on Asian-Americans?
"
And George Zimmerman's problem was that he thought he lived in the latter when he lived in the former or at least African-American men only walk around slowly to because of the latter. Sometimes presuming the worst causes more trouble than presuming the best.
Honestly, the prosecutors should have tried Zimmerman for mansalughter rather than murder. That would have resulted in a conviction probably.
"
New York law states that people have a duty to retreat before they can act in self-defense. This becomes an absolute duty to retreat when death is involved, which pretty much means you have to be in your dwelling or cornered. In New York, the law is if you have a choice between acting in self-defense or running like a scared kid who pissed in his or her pants than you run like the scarred kid who just wetted themselves. I support this. The law should presume that violence is never an acceptable solution to most problems.
"
Than you either call the police or physically escort the drunk out like bouncers do in clubs.
"
Its really hard, maybe even impossible, for the law to take all contexts into consideration though. Thats why the law has to often ignore some really significant past evils like the treatment of African-Americans past, present, and future or the subjecation of women throughout history in order to be theoretically equitable. The law can't say in X situation Class Y is allowed to do Action Z but in all situations Class B can never do Action Z. Thats even worse than some or many prosecutions that seem egregious. Trying to put morality or historical contexts into the law is not going to work.
"
Its right for the man to be charged for assault. Your right, he adn his girlfriend had the right to eat without being ranted at by a drunk but the proper legal response was not violence. It was for the staff of the Burrito restaurant to eject the drunk or to call the people; not to punch the drunk guy. The couple might have been uncomfortable but they weren't under any physical threat. The drunk was just ranting and cursing at them. Its annoying but it doesn't rise to the level of justifying an act of violence.
"
I think Scott Lemiuex is right. More focus should be paid on the sometimes ludicriously lenient standards for self-defense in many jurisdictions. We shouldn't get away with the right to self-defense in its entirety but they need to updated because in most parts of the country, professsional law enforcement is readily available. Even in rural areas. People should only be allowed to kill in self-defense in very limited circumstances. I'm fond of New York's absolute duty to retreat standard personally.
"
If your an Orthodox Marxist or an Anarchist than the Nation will of course seem at best Center-Left or not really Left at all. It depends on how you define being a leftist.
On “Social Conservatives: The Republican Party’s Dilemma”
I know the picture is trying to say that woman plus man equals baby but all I see is woman plus man equals little person suffering from rickets.
"
I'd also like to argue that in a democratic system, no policy decision is really top-down. If a policy decision is made by the elected representatives and leaders of the people and these officials are subject to removal through the democratic political process than its not really top down. Even in the case of sweeping court decisions there is enough democratic pressure that its not top down.
On “Think of the Children. Won’t Somebody Please Think of the Children.”
A lot of people are going to hate this but I think that you need to view Reagan-mania through the same lens of Kennedy-mania or even Obama's popularity among African-Americans. Most informed people today know that Kennedy was a bit of a "meh" as a President and had many flaws personal and in his leadership abilities. At the time Kennedy was elected, he seemed like a Godsend to the children and grandchildren of what used to be called the ethnic whites. An Irish Catholic President was a sign that they arrived and were really American. Its probably how a lot of African-Americans felt when Obama won in 2o08.
Reagan-mania is kind of similar but its tinged by a return to the way things should be. He was seen as providing relief from all the ceaseless, hectic change that seemed to besot America from the mid-1960s onward. A lot of people from our socio-economic status and geographic area see the mid-1960s to early 1970s as a time of great and important social change and experimentation. Many view them more negatively. Nearly everybody sees everything after Water Gate to 1980 as a very bad hangover. To many Americans Reagan was a sign that things were going to be the way things should be.
On “Time to Be a Bad Liberal Again”
Walmart was not the first chain store. Chain stores and franchises were well-established phonemona before Mr. Walton was conceived. Woolworths is a predecessor of Wal-Mart and existed since the late 19th century. People didn't buy local either. The Sears catalog was the predecessor of internet shopping and it existed in the late 19th century.
Walmart, Amazon, and company just took already existing trend to their natural conclusion.
On “Canadians, Men’s Rights and our Problems with Rape”
I'd argue that its the former. Romance novels were one of the few openly sexually explicit media aimed at women for a long time. It was also one of the only sexually explicit media that was considered acceptable for women to read. This gave them the function of telling women that its fine to be sexual as opposed to the prevelant "good girls don't" message that existed up till the mid-1960s. It told women that you can enjoy sex to and you to have a right to dream about being with a tall, dark, and handsome man.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.