I pride myself on trying to see things from other people's perspective, even if I don't agree with them. For instance, although I'm firmly pro-choice, I understand why some people are pro-life. I might disagree with them, but I can at least understand what their thought process is. But there are some people I just don't get. At all. I just can't understand why they think the way they do.
Chances are, I have no freakin clue where you are coming from:
1. If you love President Bush and think he is a great president
2. If in the event your child married someone of a different religion or race, you would pretend they were dead or stop speaking to them
3. If you think that the government is correct to lock up thousands (or millions) of people whose only crime is smoking weed
4. If you think sacrificing our personal liberties for increased "safety" is a good idea
5. If you think Obama is a secret Muslim
6. If you think rock music is "just noise and a bunch of people yelling"
7. If you think gay people can change their sexual orientation if they just try hard enough
8. If you think that we shouldn't raise taxes to provide free healthcare for everyone, since "why should you have to subsidize their lazyness, they should just get a better job"
9. If you exclusively drive SUVs and don't live on a mountain/in a bog/somewhere actually off-road
10. If you think that an unchecked free market will just work itself out so that everything/everyone will just be fine and dandy
FFTA
I would add:
ReplyDeleteIf you, at this point in the election process are still "undecided."
and
If you think it's okay to imprison and torture people who have no access to an attorney and no hope of a trial.
ReplyDelete9. If you exclusively drive SUVs and don't live on a mountain/in a bog/somewhere actually off-road
I laughed at that one. Great list.
I agree with you on everything except 1 and 4.
ReplyDeleteI don't "love" Bush, but I appreciate that he's trying to do something about the terrorist threat in the world. One day, when Iraq is a democracy, people's opinions of him will change. Harry Truman wasn't popular either upon leaving office, and he's now applauded for what are now seen as necessary actions.
And I'm really tired of hearing liberals be angered that we are "losing our freedoms" in the name of safety. I don't get that people would do away with things like wiretapping if they could let us find out about future attacks and prevent them! Why are these "freedoms" (which would affect you how, by the way? Are you on the government's list of possible terrorists? Let them listen to my calls, I have nothing to hide!) more important to you than SAVING ACTUAL LIVES?????
SUVs are quite comfortable. I've loved driving them whenever I had to rent one. I have no trouble understanding why people get them. People make different tradeoffs in life.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteLet them listen to my calls, I have nothing to hide!
(Cough)
So basically, anyone who doesn't have a liberal point of view........
ReplyDeleteMs. moon - I am undecided. That is because I am truly open minded. But that makes me a freak in your book?
People can do dangerous things under the influence of marijuana.
ReplyDeleteUsually it is the people who *sell* weed (drug dealers) who go to jail.
Bush is one of the three worst US presidents together with Hoover (Great Depression) and Harding (Civil War) IMO.
ReplyDelete"8. If you think that we shouldn't raise taxes to provide free healthcare for everyone, since "why should you have to subsidize their lazyness, they should just get a better job"
The US healthcare system needs improvements though when you do get healthcare I think it is the best in the world. But the cost is very high and access is patchy. The solution isn't neccessarily to raise taxes and provide free healthcare to everyone though. In Australia we have free healthcare and lower government spending as a share of the national income. But we have higher taxes because our government runs a surplus rather than a deficit. On the other hand the government encourages those who can afford it to get private coverage by using tax incentives.
This one isn't clear cut. I think children should get free health care because they can't choose their parents and then it can be a debate about how much healthcare adults can get.
There's been cause for a belief in laissez faire for the past 60 years. But it sounds like you disagree with Milton Friedman and the Chicago School's ideas - a disagreement I would share, but I still understand the opposing view.
ReplyDeleteAE,
ReplyDelete"If you think that we shouldn't raise taxes to provide free healthcare for everyone, since "why should you have to subsidize their lazyness, they should just get a better job""
Clearly it wouldn't be free if you're coercively taking money from others to pay for it.
Don't you think free healthcare would be ripe for abuse where people seek expensive care that they don't actually require?
What do you think would happen to the quality of doctors in the profession if 'free healthcare' actually turns into overburdened practices netting a fraction of the income they once enjoyed?
Not, of course, to mention the fact that many of America's uninsured are - in fact - wealthy enough to afford insurance, but simply opt not to in preference for other financial priorities.
Now I do agree with some degree of subsidization for people who really cannot afford medical care, but it's got to be done in smart way that doesn't end in the easy pitfalls mentioned above.
AE,
ReplyDelete"4. If you think sacrificing our personal liberties for increased "safety" is a good idea"
Of course it's a good idea - and I bet you think so too. Unless you think it's too much sacrifice to keep people from bringing firearms with them onto airplanes.
Or requiring businesses to maintain safe working conditions.
Or the classic, forbidding the yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
The issue is where the proper line is drawn, not the concept.
"7. If you think gay people can change their sexual orientation if they just try hard enough"
Just curious, do you think pedophiles can?
I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is a great president because I'm not sure what makes a great president, but I do think he's far better than Clinton, Carter, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson, and is also better than Kerry or Gore (both of whom I consider to be head cases). That covers most of the Dems in the 20th century. (It's not really fair to go back farther than that because at some point all that the presidents were doing was supervising the post office,and the customs office, and signing trade agreements)
ReplyDeleteI'll grant that Bush is not the most articulate speaker in the world, but he understands economics, international relations and the limitations of what government can do better than the Dems
Sacrificing personal liberties for safety, well that depends on what the trade off is. The question is way too broad.
The problem with "free" health care is that it isn't really free and it can't provide effective health care. See what's happening in England.
Rock music? Well that depends. I never could stand the Beatles (I thought the Stones at their best were far better), or most of the stuff I've heard in the past 10 years or so. When I want to hear real rock music I'd listen to the 50's and early 60's stuff, or the Beach Boys, Anne Murray, Fleetwood Mac, and a few other groups. I also never could see what the attraction of Frank Sinatra was.
Unchecked free market work itself out? Don't know anyone who believes that. Even Reagan didn't believe that. What I have problems with are those who believe "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Ichabod Chrain
You are so funny! I think you just like pissing people off. Ok, so you try really hard to get people. Ok, I'll pick, um three of these:
ReplyDelete3. If you think that the government is correct to lock up thousands (or millions) of people whose only crime is smoking weed
Almost no one serves time for possession (iow, getting caught smoking weed). Certainly not thousands or millions of people!! At least not in this country. Places like Mexico, maybe. In this country, you might serve time for plowing your car into someone if you're high, or dealing the stuff to kids, but virtually no one does time for first time possession. If you're a repeat offender who gets caught and serves time, then you are incredibly stupid and probably deserve a little jail.
8. If you think that we shouldn't raise taxes to provide free healthcare for everyone, since "why should you have to subsidize their lazyness, they should just get a better job"
Aint no such thing as a free lunch, and aint no such thing as free healthcare. If you raise taxes to pay for healthcare, then guess what? YOU, the working class, pays for the "free" healthcare! And you have much less choice in it, because it is controlled by the gov't. (Picture the DMV, except instead of giving out licenses, they are giving out appointments for appendectomies. Yeah. You want to be part of that nightmare?) And, since about 40% of Americans pay no or very minimal taxes, well, you do the math there.
4. If you think sacrificing our personal liberties for increased "safety" is a good idea
Well, tell you what, if we're not safe, we're not going to be able to exercise our personal liberties anyway. That's an easy one. Of course I get what I think is your point...that we need to strike a balance to maintain a free democratic society. But frankly, I'd always prefer to err on the side of safety. Hard to be free if you're, say, dead.
I know I said three, but for the bonus round:
7. If you think gay people can change their sexual orientation if they just try hard enough
I don't think most gay men can change their orientation. But I wonder about gay women, having known a whole bunch of girls in college who decided to be gay for three or four years, and then after graduation, they magically became exclusively straight again. They all had one thing in common: horrible experiences with men (raped by uncles, molested by stepfathers, abused by boyfriends, forced into abortions, etc.). I think that with many lesbians (not all, did I say all?), it is a matter of choice. Call me closeminded. I call em like I see em.
Well, Moom, you're certainly entitled to your opinion that Bush is one of the worst presidents, but there are plenty of us out there who disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe man honestly gives a damn about making this world a safer place. He has the bad luck to be fighting this war in the Islamic Middle East, a part of the world that is VERY resistant to modernity and democracy. But one day Iraq will be a democracy, which can only be a good thing for the rest of the world (Al Quaida would love to establish a terror base in Iraq) and all you Bush-haters will be forced to admit that hey, maybe he knew what he was doing.
Even Bob Geldof, not exactly a conservative right-winger, praised Bush for his efforts to help Africa battle poverty and AIDS. So he can't be ALL bad, much as you hate to admit it.
Nice too see that you are so tolerant and that there are so few things that you can "absolutely not understand". Murdering your mother would be fine?
ReplyDeleteBush ran huge deficits during a boom which are now rapidly widening in the recession and huge financial bailout. US national debt is going to be massively higher. And it isn't all just because of the Iraq war, but cutting taxes and raising discretionary expenditure at the same time. The war in Iraq is egregious. I was certainly opposed to the occupation of Iraq at the time even if some action against the Iraqi regime was warranted, even though that had nothing to do with the "War on Terror". Action in Afghanistan was warranted of course. And there has been no progress on lots of other important issues like social security, medical costs, and climate change. The bailout is partly neccessitated by reduced regulation during Bush's presidency, though the seeds were sown during the Clinton administration.
ReplyDeleteOrthoprax, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Don't you think free healthcare would be ripe for abuse where people seek expensive care that they don't actually require?"
I do not think that this is the main problem. The problem is expensive health care that people do require. There are cancer treatments that cost about 100 000$ a year and people who have this kind of cancer have to take it till the end of there lives. That means: Ten more years living = 1 million $.
No one could morally accept to exclude anyone from this treatment.
And pharma industry knows it. They say explicitely: We are ready to invest into research for rare diseases, because the "added value" we will have from selling the treatment to those few people will be worth while.
In other words: pharmaceutical industry develops very, very expensive treatments because they know that in the end, society will not be able to refuse them to patients, because it is deemed immoral.
There is a treatment against macula degeneration (macula degeneration gradually leads to blindness) that costs even 240 000 $ a year...
Shoshi,
ReplyDelete"I do not think that this is the main problem."
I agree. But it is one problem with "free" healthcare.
"The problem is expensive health care that people do require."
Ok, sure. But that's more of an intrinsic problem with modern medicine, not with universal coverage per se. With costs like that, little doubt they'd already be covered by existing government programs.
"And pharma industry knows it. They say explicitely: We are ready to invest into research for rare diseases, because the "added value" we will have from selling the treatment to those few people will be worth while."
Huh? No that's all backwards. They don't make big money by producing drugs for very rare conditions. For those kinds of diseases they actually run at a steep loss.
They make up for the loss by potentially opening up other avenues of research and by making great humanitarian sounding commercials.
"There is a treatment against macula degeneration (macula degeneration gradually leads to blindness) that costs even 240 000 $ a year..."
I believe it's *macular* degeneration, but in any case your figure sounds like a big exaggeration to me. I know there's a big hooha going on recently between Lucentis vs Avastin, but even so the costs of Lucentis treatments are maybe a tenth of the total you're giving per year. Still expensive, but not bank breaking.
It's a new treatment, where you receive a shot a month and every shot costs 20 000 $. (I'll go and verify the figure, but it struck me that it cost more than the 100 000$ a year you pay to stay alive when you have some types of cancer.)
ReplyDeleteOf course you never heard of it, since this figures do not tend to be publicised a lot.
By the way: this is the way it goes with medicine. When penicilin was invented, it was also very expensive and unaffordable for the average citizen.
I think you can say "macula degeneration" = degeneration of the macula or "macular degeneration", where macular would be used as an adjective.
English is a foreign language to me, so please do not insist on language errors.
Abandoning Eden, I have good news for you:
ReplyDeleteI learned yesterday at the shabbes table from someone who spent over 10 years in kollel and has smicha that it is no aveira whatsoever for a jewish man (married or not) to have sexual intercourse with a non-jewish woman.
So this is good news for all the guys who want to marry out.
On the other hand, it seems to be bad news for the average jewish woman who does not marry out, since it means that her husbund can cheat on her, and she has no way of defending herself.
So the solution is obvious: Do not marry jewish. If you marry a non-jew, you can cheat on him as much as you want, since the marriage is not recognised.
You will never have a problem getting a get, since you do not need any.
Shoshi,
ReplyDelete"It's a new treatment..."
Ok, so give me the name of the drug and I can look it up.
"Of course you never heard of it, since this figures do not tend to be publicised a lot."
This is kind of my field and I haven't heard of any great new treatments for macular degeneration within the last couple of years. None that cost that much, surely.
"By the way: this is the way it goes with medicine. When penicilin was invented, it was also very expensive and unaffordable for the average citizen."
Of course. This is the way it is with many forms of technology. Cars, microwaves and VCRs all used to be prohibitively expensive.
"I think you can say "macula degeneration""
You can say lots of stuff and I understood what you meant, but the name of the condition is the name of the condition.
"I learned yesterday at the shabbes table from someone who spent over 10 years in kollel and has smicha that it is no aveira whatsoever for a jewish man (married or not) to have sexual intercourse with a non-jewish woman."
Who told you that? There are actually numerous issues with niddah, as well as the Rambam famously saying that such an act deserves capital punishment. And as far as it being from a married man, performing such an embarrassment to his wife is implicitly condemned by Halacha.
I've said it before, AE. You've spent way too much time in the echo chamber of a lefty sociology department. With all due respect for your academic achievements, your inability to see things from any perspective outside your ivory tower is a reflection of some serious deficiencies in the critical thinking skills you've been taught.
ReplyDeleteTo take a few of your one-liners:
#1) The country hasn't had a terrorist attack since 9/11 (and it's not because al Qaeda likes us now). Yes, Bush had something to do with it.
#3) As a rule, people don't get locked up for that alone. However, the law is the law, and people are expected to follow it or suffer the consequences. Alternately, they can have it changed.
#4) Which personal liberty have you sacrificed? In fact, you haven't sacrificed any. Heck, what have you done to protect other people's liberties?
#8) How much free healthcare for everyone? Do you want to live in a society where a government bureaucrat gets to decide how much healthcare you get? In England, one of the leading moral philosophers has just proclaimed that people with dementia should be terminated. In Canada, you can wait several months to see a specialist after being referred for vital treatment. And you just want to raise taxes so we can have all that here, too? Sorry, I'm not interested in having my taxes raised so I can stop having good healthcare and pay for mediocre healthcare for everyone.
Seriously, AE, it looks like the only thing you learned from the intolerance you allegedly received from your frummy parents is how to be intolerant.
Hi orthoprax,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your answers.
As far as macular degeneration is concerned, I am not sure that I will remember all the details, and I did not find anything on the web.
It seems to be a new treatment which combines a kind of coloring liquid that makes the blood vessels visible and laser technology to cauterise them within the eye...
Does this seem plausible to you? And the coloring liquid seems to be very expensive.
As far as the second point is concerned:
"who told you this"
Someone who learned in Kollel for over ten years, wears a black hat, etc...
He said that in fact there is no issur for a man to have extraconjugal affairs, but he should not do it with a jewish woman, because of the nidda issue. But if he takes a non-jewish woman, everything is fine.
He challenged me to cite any source that forbids it.
So if you know sources that say that this is not allowed, I would be very grateful if you told me where they are to be found...
Hi David
ReplyDeleteDid I understand your standpoint right: You do not want free healthcare for everyone (= you do not want poor people to have access to health care) so that there will not be too much demand, so that no one will have to decide who gets a treatment and who doesn't?
So you prefer the "economic" selection over all other types of selection?
Is this what you meant?
Why do you think that selection via monetary resources is particularly moral?
There was a report on "60 Minutes" several months ago about a surge in Canadians who are choosing to come to the USA for medical procedures, costly though they are, because the waiting time in Canada is unbearably long. In some cases, the wait put people's lives at risks and they paid for US healthcare so as not to die while waiting their turn for an operation.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that there shouldn't be some sort of health carereform in America, but socialized health care isn't perfect, not by a long shot.
PS: to orthoprax.
ReplyDeleteI did a bit of research on the web. It could be that I mean a product called verteporfin commercialised under the name visudyne by Novartis...
But I am not sure, and I could not find the exact costs.
But it seems that the british health service refuses to pay for it (because it is too expensive?)
Ok. You were right. It costs just above 2000$ per shot, i.e. 24'000$ a year...
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps I was mistaken...
Lol, I love how everyone who is defending bush is anonymous. With the exception of david, who gave the weakest argument: oh we've never had a terrorist attack since 9/11?? First or all, what about the terrorist attack on an american embassy that happened like a week ago? So what you really mean is a terrorist attack on American soil, right? Well that's the biggest bullshit argument for what makes a 'good president' that I have ever heard. By that standard everyone EXCEPT Bush is a good president, cause he's the only president we've had during which an attack by terrorists (if you define terrorists as foreigners, which you shouldn't) occurred on American soil. And if you don't define terrorists as foreigners, um, what about those anthrax attacks? Which happened AFTER 9/11 as I recall?
ReplyDeletePlenty of people get locked up for weed possession. It just depends on the state. In NY State, where I presume most of you are from, most people don't get locked up long term because it is mostly decriminalized- although if you are caught with some weed, you can spend up to 72 hours in jail without being charged. In most other states, you do go to jail.
Meanwhile, I don't have the motivation to rebut you all point by point, but thus far nothing has given me a greater understanding of the positions you have...all i've heard is a bunch of easily rebutted arguments that I've heard before(and someone who has less work to do today, please do so). And maybe, just maybe, it's because you are wrong. That doesn't make me 'intolerant.' That just makes you 'wrong.' Tolerance has to do with tolerating people with other religions or races or whatever, not tolerating blatantly misguided ideas. By that argument, I can't ever have an opinion that counteracts anyone else, cause that would make me 'intolerant.' But way to set up a straw horse. I particularly like how you brought up my parents there, personal attacks are always appreciated.
AE
ReplyDeleteHo, not everyone except David who defended Bush was anonymous. I put down my name at the end of entry.
Also we had terrorist attacks on the US during the Clinton years. The two presidents before him were Republicans. Carter had the hostage crisis. As I recall during FDR's administration there was an attack on American soil.
The main point though is that before the 90's the Islamists weren't trying to attack American soil.
Ichabod Chrain
Ichabod Chrain
ok but how does that translate into Bush being a good president exactly?
ReplyDeleteIt just shows that it's not b/c of Bush that we had 9/11.
ReplyDeleteNot saying he is a good pres or anything, he's obviously not. Just that 9/11 is not his fault lol! It would be very *extreme*, & not productive to say it was.
Shoshi,
ReplyDelete"He said that in fact there is no issur for a man to have extraconjugal affairs, but he should not do it with a jewish woman, because of the nidda issue. But if he takes a non-jewish woman, everything is fine.
He challenged me to cite any source that forbids it."
Mishneh Torah, Issurei Biah, 12:10 -
ישראל שבא על הגויה--בין קטנה בת שלוש שנים ויום אחד בין גדולה, בין פנויה בין אשת איש, ואפילו היה קטן בן תשע שנים ויום אחד--כיון שבא על הגויה בזדון, הרי זו נהרגת: מפני שבאת לישראל תקלה על ידיה, כבהמה
This says that if a Jew and a non-Jewish woman are found having relations, zealots can stone them to death like animals.
Masechet Avodah Zarah 36b - "R. Nahman b. Isaac said: [The Schools of Hillel and Shammai] decreed that [non-Jewish] daughters should be considered as in the state of niddah from their cradle"
Sanhedrin 82a:
"R. Hiyya b. Abuiah said: He who is intimate with a heathen woman is as though he had entered into marriage relationship with an idol, for it is written, "and hath been intimate with the daughter of a strange god" (Malachi 2:11) hath then a strange god a daughter? — But it refers to one who cohabits with a heathen woman."
"When R. Dimi came, he said: The Beth din of the Hasmoneans decreed that one who cohabits with a heathen woman is liable to punishment on account of Nashga."
Nashga is an acronym, standing for: "N = niddah, a menstruous woman; SH = Shifhah, a non-Jewish maidservant; G = goyyah, a heathen woman; and A = esheth, ish, a married woman. He is regarded as having transgressed in respect of all four, and as such will be punished by heaven."
And, anyway, like I said before. Implicit in Halacha is instructions to not being a jerk, which one would easily accomplish by having affairs with non-Jewish woman while being married.
AE,
ReplyDelete"thus far nothing has given me a greater understanding of the positions you have...all i've heard is a bunch of easily rebutted arguments that I've heard before"
Sure, if you 'rebut' them only in the protective corners of your own mind then you likely won't discover the weaknesses of your rebuttals.
Shoshi:
ReplyDeleteDid I understand your standpoint right: You do not want free healthcare for everyone (= you do not want poor people to have access to health care) so that there will not be too much demand, so that no one will have to decide who gets a treatment and who doesn't?"
No, Shoshi, you didn't. My point is that there's no such thing as "free" healthcare for everyone. Someone pays. What you want is socialized healthcare, which means that I may have to wait for important treatments, and can't properly provide for my family's needs, because some socialist bureaucrat will be deciding how much treatment everybody gets, and when. And, no, I don't want that.
"Why do you think that selection via monetary resources is particularly moral?"
Shoshi, you're absolutely right. And why limit it to healthcare? So, from now on, let's all live in a society where the government takes all of our money, and decides on a case-by-case basis what each of us needs. Think that will work out, Shoshi?
Shoshi,
ReplyDelete"So you prefer the "economic" selection over all other types of selection?
Is this what you meant?
Why do you think that selection via monetary resources is particularly moral?"
Because medical care is a service not an entitlement. You don't have a right to medical care anymore than you have a right to food and water - you get to pay for them.
Now I think we agree that a basic public charity to provide these necessary services to people who cannot otherwise afford them is very good, but that doesn't mean that the poor should feel entitled to caviar and tenderloin steaks every evening for dinner.
The engine that drives the best and newest medical therapies is the market system and for frank quality control, these cannot be provided to every person who requests it free of charge.
There is little doubt that a publically financed medical system is going to suck. It will. And there is also little doubt that a two-tiered system will develop where those who can afford it will opt for the much preferred private insurance.
Well. I live in Switzerland. In this country, health insurance is mandatory, and it costs quite a lot, especially for families with children, since insurance premiums go per capita, with some discount for children. But a family with two children pays easily 1000 CHF (roughly 1000 $) for health insurance per month.
ReplyDeleteYou can choose your health insurance, but all insurances have to pay for a certain catalogue of health services.
This means: Of course health insurance is not free, but it is socialised through the insurances. The guy who gets his 100 000 CHF per year medicine (and here the costs for MRI etc. are not yet counted) does not pay more than someone who doesn't need any medication at all...
...Well there are some "safeguards": You pay the first 300 CHF of health costs each year yourself, than you pay 10% of costs till you reach an amount of 700 CHF, there is no insurance for dentists.
The insurance has to reimburse any doctor you see, they cannot choose doctors for you.
Swiss health system costs about 40 billion francs (or $, it's roughly the same) a year for about 7 million inhabitants, dentists not included.
This is 50% to 100% more than health systems in other european countries.
On the other hand it is true: in general, we do not have to wait for critical operations (except organ transplants, but this is another problem, linked to the scarcity of organs).
So it's quite easy: the more you spend on it, the more you get out of it.
In the end, it is always "social", that's what insurance is all about, even if each single person has to pay their own insurance premiums.
And no: I do not think that it would be all right to see "he's too poor, well, let him die".
AE, you consider my (very brief) point that Bush has kept you safe to be "BS." I'm not sure where you get your insights, but my point is not to persuade you to change your opinions. Your original post indicated that you "have no freakin clue" why people might disagree with you. On this, we agree-- you obviously don't.
ReplyDeleteThere are, as you may not be aware, a number of people in this world who want you and your way of life to die. You may not like it, but Bush and his policies have managed not only to stop them from accomplishing any more terrorist acts in this country, but have killed or imprisoned most of their leaders, and left the rest on the run.
You're entitled to your opinions, and you may not believe that breaking al Qaeda and defeating the Taliban constitutes a worthy accomplishment (and how fortunate that you have that luxury). But, you're still alive, safe and bitching about your problems with your mom and dad, and that's something.
There are those of us-- and we know whereof we speak-- who recognize that there was a great deal of good management that went into that, and it was Bush who led the effort.
Thank you orthoprax for the sources, I sent it to the relevent person and I am waiting for a response...
ReplyDeleteUmmm...david, I really think it's not nice to personally attack ae....this discussion is just about politics.....no offense tho.
ReplyDeleteShoshi,
ReplyDeleteSwitzerland is also blessed by having rather few poor people and a large well-to-do middle class. There is more supply of medical infrastructure in your country than there is demand. This is how you can get away with socialized medicine without the typically negative consequences of rationing and long wait times.
Odds are, you'd have a pretty balanced system even without mandatory insurance because almost everyone would be able to afford it anyway. Though I know the top-down managed care part of the system is really irritating to a good number of healthcare workers in your country.
The key in America is the larger social problem of fighting poverty. Having the Swiss system grafted onto the American population would end up with severe problems.
Hi Orthoprax.
ReplyDeleteIf you spent the same amount per capita in the US, I suppose you would get the same results. That's about 5500$ per capita, per year, dentists not included. So this would amount to about 1,7 trillion $ in total for 341 million inhabitants.
How much do the US really spend on health care?
You are right. The Swiss have a "redundancy" mentality in general, also in health care, wich results in overcapacities.
Everyone is complaining that the insurance premiums are to high and that something should be done about it. In the past 10-15 they started reducing capacities, but met a lot of resistence within the population.
What I am saying is: If you want no waiting periods, you have to have overcapacities, since the patients will not come all at the same time.
When health insurance was not mandatory, some people were not insured, especially peasants in rural region. So they had to die or pay the bill.
Now, there is still a problem, because some people cannot or do not pay the insurance premiums, and theoretically they would have to die or foot the bill.
The advantage of the Swiss system is that everyone sees the costs he provokes: You get the bill, you pay it, and later the insurance reimburses you.
One further advantage is that the system is not centralised, but on the other hand, decentralisation also costs.
Hi Orthoprax,
ReplyDeletethank you one more time for the sources you sent me. There is one thing I do not understand:
Mishneh Torah, Issurei Biah, 12:10 -
ישראל שבא על הגויה--בין קטנה בת שלוש שנים ויום אחד בין גדולה, בין פנויה בין אשת איש, ואפילו היה קטן בן תשע שנים ויום אחד--כיון שבא על הגויה בזדון, הרי זו נהרגת: מפני שבאת לישראל תקלה על ידיה, כבהמה
"zu nehereget" seems to be female, right? Does this mean that the woman is killed? But she has no issur! The issur is on him, not?
I mean let's take the situation: a prostitute sells her services here in Zurich. A jew goes and uses those services. She does not even have to know that he is jewish. And still she would be considered at fault?
(This is a honest question, not meant to challenge you).
Sorry AE, that I take advantage of your blog to ask this question, but it intrigues me.
Health insurance:
ReplyDeleteI just read in an article by a serious swiss newspaper (NZZ) that the US spend more on health per capita than Switherland. (US: 6401$ per capita per year, CH: 4177 $ per capita per year)
So it seems that the necessary resources are spent. There just seems to be a serious problem with the administration of resources.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDelete1. a. I do think that Bush is a great president. He did not hide like Clinton did when we got attacked. In fact, despite the fact that he started with virtually no military forces when he took over the office, he managed to put together and train enough to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine how more effective he would have been if on 9/11 US military had enough bullets, or even better, had enough trained personnel to attack all the points of terrorist activity. There would have been no need for threats and actions which gave enough time for both Bin Laden and Hussein to hide.
ReplyDeleteb. I do think that Bush is a great president because he abolished a death tax. Imagine spending your whole life working and paying taxes and then as soon as you’re dead government coming in taking half of your possessions.
c. I do think that Bush is a great president because he abolished dividend tax. That was double taxation. Corporation had to pay taxes on all profit. Then corporations had to pay taxes on part of the profit that was given to shareholders. This prompted many companies to forgo dividend distribution. Once dividend taxes were abolished, these stocks became more attractive and more people chose to invest.
D. I do think that Bush is a great president, because despite popular opinion he went with what he felt was right and stopped taxpayer’s money funding embryonic stem cell research.
e. Is he a perfect president? No. No one is perfect. But I am proud to have him in the white house.
3 Smoking weed is against the law. Those who break a law and get caught must suffer consequences. You don’t like it, lobby your government. Government is there to enforce laws. If people didn’t get punished for smoking weed then there would be something wrong with our government.
4. Our personal liberties get sacrificed all the time. I should be able to breathe fresh air, yet there are smokers everywhere polluting my air. I haven’t found a single person with a last name Freedman that didn’t irritate me sooner or later. My personal liberty is being sacrificed every time a Freedman walks within my vicinity.
5. No one thinks Obama is a secret Muslim, but people are questioning why is that that countries that want to see USA destroyed are also anxious to see Obama as a president. Did he promise them anything?
6. As I get older I have less and less tolerance for loud sounds. So, yes, loud music starts to irritate me.
7. I don’t care if gays can or can’t change what they are. I don’t want to see gay parades. I don’t want my children to be taught in elementary school about homosexuals. Being gay is a mental problem and being gay should not be treated as a normal way of life.
8. If you’re paying taxes it’s no longer free.
9. This is a free country and I could drive anything I want. It’s none of your business. If you want to control people’s lives and habits move to a communist country. There are a few still left.
10. Since when do we have an unchecked/free market? There are government regulations in every part of our market be it metal trading, stock trading, real estate or medicine.
AE, I said
ReplyDelete"I'll grant that Bush is not the most articulate speaker in the world, but he understands economics, international relations and the limitations of what
government can do better than the Dems"
You responded to my comment by saying,"ok but how does that translate into Bush being a good president exactly?"
So let me explain more. Actually I wouldn't go as far as some of the commenters who say that Bush is a great president. I just think he's better than Kerry or Gore would have been or than Clinton was.
One of the main reasons, and one of the reasons we can give him credit for the lack of attacks on US territory after 9/11, is that he realized that you don't fight terrorism as a law enforcement issue, you fight it as you would fight a war. One of the reasons that we haven't had attacks on US territory is that our wiretaps --the ones the Dems are complaining about--intercepted plans for such attacks.
Another reason that Bush is a good president is that he's at least putting up some resistance to the ways the Dems want the federal government to grow. Of course we need regulation, but we also need a private sector that's not encumbered by the political agenda of the Northeastern and academic elites.
Other reasons I think Bush is a good president are his nomination of Bolton to the UN, and Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. He's also all but taken Libya out of the terrorism equation. His policies helped break up the underground nuclear market that was being run out of Pakistan, and I believe that Putin isn't being anywhere near as provocative as he would have been if Gore or Kerry were in office.
Plus he's lowered taxes, isn't taking away people's guns, and isn't pushing racial quotas.
Ichabod Chrain
Shoshi,
ReplyDeleteYes, it's true that Americans do pay more per capita for healthcare than do the Swiss, but the money also goes to other places besides plain medical care - like medical research which the US government heavily invests in and the fact that Americans essentially subsidize drugs for the rest of the world.
But, yes, there also is a large amount of wasteful spending.
The main reason why the Swiss method would have difficulty working well in America is precisely because we don't have an oversupply of medical infrastructure and what we have is expensive and centered in particular areas.
""zu nehereget" seems to be female, right? Does this mean that the woman is killed? But she has no issur! The issur is on him, not?"
Yes, that is what the Rambam is saying - stoned like an animal, which would likewise be stoned if a man performed bestiality. He justifies the view by the case of what happened to the Midianites in the Bible.
"zu nehereget"
ReplyDeleteBut than it does not support my case, since it says only that the woman gets punished, not the man.
Wow, I am always astounded by confirmation of the fact that while many people who leave Orthodoxy present themselves as simply rational beings, they display overt signs of being as closed-minded as those they berate. Your responses here and your initial declarations are so lacking in nuance and thoughtfulness as to show that you engage mentally in the very same emotional and mental 'protections' that religious people do when they encounter an idea or thought that challenges their world-view.
ReplyDeleteMaybe your next blog will be about how you learned to open your mind and accept that not every idea from the liberal cocoon is true. But enjoy the cocoon while you're in it.
why do my liberal views have anything to do with leaving orthodoxy exactly? I fail to see the connection, so I'm going to count that as a personal attack.
ReplyDeleteShoshi,
ReplyDelete"But than it does not support my case, since it says only that the woman gets punished, not the man"
It's well understood that both can be so attacked. The Mishnah from the Gemara from Masechet Sanhedrin (81b) that I referenced says specifically:
"If one...cohabits with a heathen woman, he is punished by zealots."
It's based on the story of Pinchas and Baal Peor, as I mentioned.
Ah, I understand. Thank you.
ReplyDelete