Posts Tagged ‘ politics

Politics: HealthCare

First, read these two posts by Jay Lake.

the long and grinding road

More on the weird billing, and costs of healthcare

Just to be clear: He has insurance. And is probably going to be driven penniless by the cost of his treatment. Got that? Okay… now my opinion.

The entire health care issue, in my overly something opinion, can boil down to this: is every human life worth fighting for, to the bitter end… or do we value some lives over others, value some lives longer than others?

And by we, I mean literally we, we the people, the ones who live and breathe and suffer and die. All of us.

Do we value life so much that we will pay for radical treatments, experimental drugs (and the research that goes before), and optional surgeries? Or do we think that some lives are worth more than others?

This has all sorts of implications from abortion policies to euthanasia. Too many implications for my mind to do more than boggle over right now.

If some lives are worth more, how do we sort it out? Who is worth more? Why? Maybe the ability to pay for insurance IS our sorting mechanism.

If that is the case, the current state of insurance seems to me to indicate that the most valuable lives are the ones that are HEALTHY and insured (i.e. paying into the system.)

That strikes me as a really piss poor way of choosing who is valuable enough to save.

-=-=-=-

On a different angle, the idea that public for-profit companies run health care insurance is foolish. The goals and mottoes of the company and customers are in direct conflict with each other. The company’s goal is to increase profit. Which simply means taking in more money while paying out less. The customer’s goal is to pay a small amount frequently so that in the event of a situation (or emergency) there is not a large amount to pay out.

Okay, that’s probably not quite accurate. The customer really wants to put in a little bit frequently in order to stay healthy. The customer doesn’t really want insurance so much as steady and covered care. If the ends to the means is through insurance, so be it.

I spent years buying into the idea that the government was the scary evil thing. Since the government is people and we are the people, well, it is still a scary thing. Scary and stupid rather than scary and evil. But now I’m buying into the idea that corporations are evil. When the ultimate goal, for which everything else is sacrificial, is to increase profit every quarter, then there is NO ROOM FOR GOOD. In the same way that the absence of light is dark, the absence of good is evil.

So yeah, I trust the tea party idiots more than I trust any insurance company. And those tea party yipyaps probably want to kill me because I LOOK different.

Freedom for all or just for me?

A few weeks back I had a conversation with my brother about this idea I’ve been playing with for a while. The gist of  it is this, which is better; a homogeneous mix of peoples of all diversities and types or a total segregation? Oil and vinegar or thousand island dressing?

After getting over the whole impossibility of either extreme, just from a logistical point of view, we kind of agreed that a clumpy mixture halfway in between pure blend and total separation is probably not only best but also the balance point that humans and their society are naturally going to grow towards.

Today I was listening to Dan Carlin’s Common Sense podcast about how it seems like the political situation in the States is getting kinda depressing, where we are so different that it barely seems worth the fight to come together. And when he brought up the idea of states seceding, I started thinking that it was perhaps time for me to get a copy of the fabulous Mr. Tom Merritt‘s Boiling Point. And that I feel like it would both be best for the country (hell, for the whole world) if the US split up into little state countries and that it would also be utterly horrible, leading to segregation, hate, and repression.

Okay, to explain a little bit. First off, Tom’s book Boiling Point is about the future when the US isn’t so united anymore because states have been breaking off into their own independent countries. Or at least that’s the impression I have, since I haven’t actually read the story yet.

I like the idea of breaking the US up because I realize that freedom for me means that everyone gets to believe whatever bullshit they believe. I’m not sure how to articulate this idea fully, but the idea is that while I find people who disagree with same sex marriage repugnant, I also believe that their freedom to believe (wrongly) is being impinged when we do the right thing and bring equal rights to all. If, for example, South Carolinian (I chose them ‘cuz I hate SC) decides to disallow homosexuality and, why not, colored people (including those damn no good injuns)…

Yeah, see, I can’t even make the argument FOR breaking up without devolving into why it is a terrible idea.

So extend this further. If we mandate freedom for all on people who don’t believe in freedom for all, don’t we dimish their freedom? But isn’t it the greater evil to not allow the equal freedom for all? So shouldn’t we be out busting up other countries to MAKE FORCE them to have freedom for all also?

I mean, that sounds like an obvious wrong idea, but isn’t that what we did as a country in the civil war? Aren’t we all rpoud of ourselves for forccing the south to stay in the country, for forcing them to become “better people”? So doesn’t it follow that we should continue to FORCE betterment?

Doesn’t that lead to double ungood?

I’m so fed up with the fear mongering, hate, and lies in goverment, but.. well, what do I expect from a gigantic group of humans animals who can barely remember to think even some of the time?