Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Maia Rodriguez on October 31, 2010 at 12:50am

Park, I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on the rally. Also, your philosophical approach to health care is very intriguing. It's hard to imagine someone saying that a person deserves better health care than another. I'd love to hear what you think we could do. And where do you stand on Obama's Health Care plan?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda on October 31, 2010 at 1:11am

Park - Thanks for sharing. On the news someone said one of the rally signs someone had was "God hates nags" lol. Was that you? LOL

You said:
if this is a country of equality, then why are we arguing over this? this issue isnt' with the implementation, its about the philosophy behind it all

I have been thinking about this. Whenever I would hear Neal Boortz (Libertarian) say "YOU do not have a right to healthcare" I would always think "YEAH! Damn straight!

But after hearing your point of view on this post and a previous post and talking to you a little bit, now I find myself asking myself... what would be so wrong about having health care available to all just like justice, police, firemen, and schools are available to all, as you say.

Now I am trying to figure out why I agreed with Neal so adamantly?....

Well, I have been sitting here for a least 30 minutes, staring at this, as yet, incomplete post still trying to answer this question. Why did I agree with him so adamantly?

I'll sleep on it. I'm very perplexed (I'm just really tired). Why, why, why...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maia Rodriguez on October 31, 2010 at 1:34am

I think these people like Neal Boortz get to where they are because they are dynamic personalities and they can be very convincing. It's like they cast a "charm" spell over us. I am very much not a fan of Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly, but I force myself to listen to them from time to time just for a different point of view. And sometimes I *almost* find myself agreeing with them.

Park is presenting a different side of the health care argument that I've never heard before either. And it's an excellent point. So let's all sleep on it and explore this further.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on October 31, 2010 at 3:22am

It's very easy to emphasize just one angle and be persuasive. If you just keep pounding away on the idea of personal responsibility (everybody should carry their own weight) and set aside extenuating circumstances, then the libertarian perspective sounds pretty good. Why shouldn't people be expected to take care of themselves? The problem is that by emphasizing just one aspect, you miss the bigger picture. It's like looking at a person's head and saying that since the nose is the furthest forward, that's all that matters, and we should value our noses more highly than any other part of our head. Of course that's silly, and so is any other worldview that obsesses on one or a few aspects of issues and ignores any others.

Like people who are obsessive about abortion--it's like nothing else matters to them, but in truth, abortion is just one little part of the big picture. People who focus on the national debt are making the same mistake; sure debt can be a problem, but are we really in too deep to dig out? The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (commonly known as "the stimulus" or "Obama's socialist takeover of America") cost about $787 billion over ten years. That's 5.5% of 2009 GDP ($14.3 trillion). That is a lot. But to put it in perspective, the Savings & Loan bailout in 1989 was about 2.3% of GDP. And the 2009 ARRA stimulus includes $105 billion in infrastructure spending on roads, bridges, federal buildings, etc. These are things that we will enjoy the use of for decades.

You really have to look at the bigger picture to put things in perspective. I don't know anything about Boortz specifically, but libertarians aren't too keen on spending for public infrastructure because they don't like being forced to chip in thru taxation, which they often refer to as "theft". But they never seem to complain too much that they don't have to pay to drive on the interstate. The libertarian worldview is just amazingly myopic. It all seems to come down to the fact that they don't want other people controlling any of their money. Of course, they don't seem to notice that taxation and representation means that they get to share in the collective control of other people's money. They see the costs, but they ignore the benefits. And if they only ever talk about the costs, which you also pay, it sounds like they have a reasonable point of view, because you can identify as a taxpayer. But whenever anybody sounds like they're giving you a good argument, always ask yourself what they are leaving out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maia Rodriguez on October 31, 2010 at 9:44am

Jason,

I love your perspective on things. The analogies you bring to the table really help make things much more clear to me about the way I've always felt. It will help me in dealing with my wonderful in-laws, who support the Tea Party & are very Christian. I love them, but I just don't agree with them on this piece.

The infrastructure point is an extremely good one. I can't imagine getting on the LA highways out here and having to pay tolls on each one. I mean, that would be ridiculous. That's what it's like to drive through West Virgina. :)

Great analogy about the nose. I'm going to use that one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david perry on October 31, 2010 at 10:00am

W. Virginia? The parts of NJ I've been through are toll infested as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maia Rodriguez on October 31, 2010 at 10:09am

I think tolls are literally the only way W. Virigina makes income.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jaume on November 1, 2010 at 3:43am

I think tolls are literally the only way W. Virigina makes income.

Is this how legends are born? "In West Virginia, there's a toll under every bridge."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on October 31, 2010 at 10:18am

Don't forget Chicago.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on October 31, 2010 at 3:41pm

Another reason is one one people don't think about. They think health insurance costs are just about them. Some of it is to offset the cost of those without insurance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on October 31, 2010 at 8:49am

you probably agreed because people with views will often use the various fallacies that religions do as well. So if he makes an argument off of a false premise that you accept, such as "people should only carry their own weight" it can easily evolve into "some people don't have the right to healthcare, some people deserve better treatment than others" and "no one has the right to healthcare"~ although for the latter, I find it hard to accept just based on face value~ if that were how we felt, then why would ambulances be required to treat everyone? why wouldnt we find it acceptable to just drive away when people can't present insurance? doesnt make sense does it? i swear, it seems like conservatism is trying to turn us away from being human. Did we spend the last ten thousand years fighting and struggling, just so we can continue now when we have the power not to?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on October 31, 2010 at 10:02am

Another one of the things with healthcare is people say that "you'll have to wait!" to get treatment, but thats not really the case. what it involves is people being more invested with their doctor in receiving preventative care~ so yeah, you may have to wait a little later to get a mammogram or whatever, but you should be working with you doctor and planning these things; but emergencies won't be impacted. people will be taken on a basis of severity, just like things are done now. if you need a kidney transplant, you will get priority over a non critical appendix removal, just common sense stuff. Its stupid, you hear the pundits saying things like there will be death panels and it sounds ridiculous, but thats because it IS ridiculous. I personally don't think its unreasonable to say that an 85 year old shouldn't get the new heart, it should go to the 16 year old. I think that the 85 year old might agree, i know that i would in that instance. thats where death panel comes in, and "rationing healthcare" as if there isn't enough to go around, but the real issue is if prices were lowered to where they should be, there would be no reason to ration at all. and besides, a doctor makes all those decisions, another human being that you have a personal relationship with... I just hear a lot that doesn't make any sense and see people become afraid of what could actually change their lives for the better. sorry, i know that one was a rant

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• 33
• …
• 37
• Next ›
• Page