Grayson, of course, has become a folk hero; but lets just say, “Time for hardball.” How about this: A midnight amendment attached to the bill, the same dirty tactic often employed by Republicans, that prohibits insurance companies from raising rates for 10 years. In addition to a public option, this too would bring costs down. And it would serve justice to a cartel that has acted with murderous dishonestly.
Thanks for posting this. What a breath of fresh air. Democrats need to toughen up and get serious. I can only imagine the chuckling in GOP circles when fossils like Bachus & Reid & Conrad start up the 'bipartisan' blather. Give that bull***t a rest and let's deal with the formidable problems the nation faces.
I love this guy. Even though I don't live in FL I did send him a note of thanks and encouragement. I also sent a scathing letter to Harry Reid for his spineless lack of support for the public option and his active participation in cloaking Democrats who are also opposing the public option.
Strangely, I hope Alan Grayson keeps talking too. Of course, it's for different reasons than the rest of you.
I will give him credit for at least being clear on his beliefs, as wrongheaded or dishonestly expressed (I'm not sure which applies to him) as they may be.
I also note that in all of the concerns that "Americans" have, the word "freedom" is never uttered.
At the risk of starting one of those interminable and unrewarding exchanges, what freedom do you have in mind, Patrick, and how does it factor in the health care debate?
Surely you are not talking about "freedom" to go bankrupt by exorbitant medical bills? Or "freedom" to die of preventable and treatable diseases?
Elizabeth: I know exactly what freedom I'm talking about actually. In this insane rush of Washington (both Democrats and Republicans, in varying degrees) to "fix" health care, the economy, and every other damn thing they can think of, their instinct is to create a government option, a government program, a government solution for everything. And as far as I know, whenever a government program has come into existence to "fix" a problem, it generally grows the power of the government, which necessarily eats at our freedom of action.
In finding ways to pay for the program (and let's be intellectually honest and DOUBLE whatever number they say it will cost), they will continue to gain power, which, again, means we lose freedom.
This is something that many of you screamed incessantly about (and I had concerns as well) when it was the Bush administration taking power (and by default restricting freedom) to fight a war. Because any transfer of power over our lives (and health care sure does fit into that category) to the control of people who use programs to buy our votes means we lose that much freedom.
Arthur: This is where you always miss the mark. The reason I use the term freedom a whole lot is because the purpose of government is to secure our freedom, not give us stuff in exchange for power. It's why I have problems with some of the "conservatives" you'd probably trot out as examples, and why i have a distrust of the GOP if they get back into total power (although I flat out prefer that to total Democrat control, and would prefer total gridlock).
No,I think "freedom" here is code for "I've got mine, screw you." It's not really a useful word any more and more so because we still pretend that we're the only ones in the world that have any.
I'd tell him it ain't so, but he'd likely put his hands over his ears and chant "we're number one" or something inane like that - let's see. . .
Somehow the tea party twits have translated "taxation without representation is tyranny" into representation without taxation is "freedom" but I have to remind myself that over 150 million Americans have double digit IQ's and are hungry for anything they can use to cover it up. Wingnut politics works very, very well, from their viewpoint -- witness our recent chat with Ms. Rand.
I've been moaning the loss of the English language for years and am usually laughed at for suggesting any consequences to the fact that any word is immediately redefined by the last crook, con-man or idiot who used it, but most of these arguments occur not only because we have no common vocabulary but because we like it that way.
So we go on talking about freedom and Marxism and fascism saying nothing whatever: unwilling and unable to define our words.
Once when they talked about the four freedoms: freedom from want, freedom from fear, etc. one could see access to medical care as a part of overall freedom in a free country, but I think we have someone here who advocates a Hobbsian horror as a kind of freedom. He's got his, and as one of the Randian creator class he deserves it. As for the rest of us? Well, Social Darwinism has the answer.
Of course I'm a "liberal" as I'm sure he will soon explain.
Patrick, I'm pressed for time right now, so cannot do a full justice to your response (hope later), but, in my (not-so-unique) experience, calls for freedom tend to be significantly weakened by a persistent and incurable toothache.
Patrick: "it generally grows the power of the government, which necessarily eats at our freedom of action. "
Whenever I see this debate degenerate around the word, "freedom," I get mighty suspicious. One person's freedom becomes another person's servitude or hardship, or worse. In that recent Harvard University study, the one that says "In the population sample of those who lack health insurance, 44,000 people a year will likely die." How does this statistic embody freedom for those who will die?
If anything, it embodies a definition of freedom only in this sense: "Freedom to be dead and therefore free of pain and suffering." That is a pretty cheap definition of freedom, one that does not command my respect.
When I read these concepts of freedom, I think of self-indulgence, greed, and over-consumption. Then we define ourselves, NOT by our better angels, but by what we OWN (usually at the expense of someone less fortunate than ourselves).
Why I don't respect conservative thought: Pick any group - blacks, Jews, women, Asians, Hispanics, gays, working people, the handicapped. In every case, the impetus for providing equal access to rights guaranteed under law ... came from leftists, pinkos, liberals, and bleeding hearts. When it came to ensuring a fair shake for every American, the contribution from conservatives has been virtually NIL.
Your definition of freedom turns on materialism and oppression. Given that choice, I'd rather be a flaming socialist.
Capt: No,I think "freedom" here is code for "I've got mine, screw you."
"I've got mine"? Uh, no. I don't have shit. Really. I'd probably "benefit" if all the government programs, including Obamascare went through.
It's the asinine assumption that I oppose this because "I've got mine" that makes your "argument" truly laughable.
And as for the veiled suggestion I wouldn't know freedom if it bit me in the ass, let me clarify it:
Freedom is the ability of the individual to manage his life and pursue his individual goals without molestation by external forces (such as the government), and is only limited inasmuch as it affects the rights of other individuals to do the same.
It is necessary for us to surrender some of our freedom (including taxes) to sustain the government that has a purpose of securing those freedoms. However, we have lost sight of this as we have had an ever-growing government that nitpicks at every facet of our lives.
And the step from the hodgepodge control the government has now, to de facto total control, will mean we look to the government, and not ourselves for yet another "service".
You can make a case for the government taking control of almost everything. Where do you draw the line?
Because I can't imagine them doing it in Washington, no matter who is in charge.
Arthur: Let's just make a list of a few things that government says I can't do that would not affect the freedom of others (and this is not a complete list).
I can't enter a government building with a gun (either on my hip visible or with a conceal and carry permit).
I can't come to Washington state, get married to another man, then come back to Ohio and have it recognized.
I can't dress my kids the way I might choose for Halloween and send them to preschool without violating some "zero tolerance" law.
I can't legally drive the speed I choose to, or decline to wear a seat belt in the passenger seat if I'm not driving.
I'd have to fight if I chose to NOt vaccinate my children, because the government schools require it.
I have to pay into taxes, which the government holds for up to a year before they "give" them back.
I can't legally smoke in a private business.
I'm legally welded to a government-issued Social Security number, to which I am identified in thousands of systems.
I can't legally run games of chance.
I can't buy sex or drugs.
Shall I continue? A few of these things are federal, some are state. Some I'd personally pursue (like the speed thing), some I wouldn't. Some have a reasonable need to be enforced. But most of the examples are bits and pieces of the nanny state our country has become.
It ties into what I wrote above, that freedom involves being able to make choices. Government, by taking control of things, limits them.
8pus (since i missed your comment while typing the above): To address much of your comment, see the above one.
Now I won't deny that there are a lot of people who have been denied that freedom in the past. And where they are still being denied those freedoms, you'll probably find me alongside you in defending them (I might have a little "liberal" somewhere down in my conservative base).
Conservatism, when properly followed, is supposed to be about equality of opportunity. This has not always been, and I certainly can't speak for those who don't believe this in their hearts.
Where we're disagreeing on the issue of health care is that almost all of us believe in making sure everyone has health care available. What many on the left seek, though is to ensure equality of outcome, or everybody does get health care. And until this point is reconciled, we'll continue to fight over what the role of government is. And others like Alan Grayson will spew what he spews.
I don't think any of it Patrick. Most people realize by the time they are five or six years old they cannot do whatever they want whenever they want. And those people often, with age, gain a far greater sensitivity for personal actions which really do affect others. Those who fail to make this adjustment grow up (and I use the term loosely) to become 'Conservatives'.
Now make a second list of all the things you can't do because you're too poor or poorly-educated or not Catholic (if you wanted to be Pope) burdened by kids, married to the wrong spouse or have otherwise made any number of selfish and/or ill-informed or rash life decisions.
Elizabeth: While I think I answered your question in general, let me be specific with health care in a term that gets bandied about: Rationing.
In any system where there is a finite supply (in this case, health care), the care will be rationed.
In a system where individuals paid, it's rationed on a basis of need versus cost.
In our current mess, where most everything is paid for by a third party, it's rationed by need vs cost vs a profit margin formula, all regulated by a government that dictates some things, but not others, and encourages (through these twisted regulations) companies to work around the system.
In the government option (this is the part where what freedom dies), the state ultimately gets decision power on how those funds will be spent. And whether this means more resources get allocated to one class or group over another is the decision of people who have the power to adjust things to get votes. In addition, as the last vestiges of the private system are swept away, options for all but the few who can travel to other countries (the really rich) cease to exist.
Arthur: Let me quote you in pieces here:
"Now make a second list of all the things you can't do because you're too poor" - find a way to make money "or poorly-educated" - learn more stuff
"or not Catholic" - convert
"(if you wanted to be Pope)" - (insert clergy molestation humor here)
"burdened by kids," - raise them well"
"married to the wrong spouse" - divorce
"or have otherwise made any number of selfish and/or ill-informed or rash life decisions." - The key word is decisions. Decisions you were free to make.
Trust me, on the children thing, I understand better than you. I'm seriously limited by my mistake in screwing the wrong person. So I have two of those kids of my own and I'm raising them on my own. But that was a responsibility I took on by making a free choice. No one in the government mandated I bone a psycho and pop out kids.
We are all limited by our choices. We should not be limited by a government that circumscribes our horizons.
I've still never gotten over the fact I'm not allowed to recycle spent nuclear fuel rods in my downtown Seattle loft.
As far as 'circumscribing horizons' clearly most of us do that ourselves. Slapping a speed limit on the highway or withholding some of one's salary to help pay for and maintain said highway is the absolute, very least of it.
And then there's this business of decisions which (as you emphasize) we WERE free to make. Certainly the founding fathers didn't have speed limits. Nor likely zoning laws.
There was no Arcadia from which we fell here in the good old US of A.
Of course you realize (and you almost say as much) that in our current system we have the most obscene and inhumane form of rationing at work. The wealthy can afford medical care, the non-wealthy not. This kind of rationing assures that health care (and health itself) becomes a privilege afforded to the well-off. Nowhere else in the civilized world health care is considered a privilege for the rich only.
Now on to the bogeyman of government-rationed care. (BTW, why do you object to the government "rationing" care, but not to the private insurance mafia doing the same in a much worse way?)
When I hear this, I smile. I grew up in a country with socialized health care (and everything else). Never heard of rationing or denying care to anyone during my 23 years spent under that dreadful system.
We did not have anyone die of treatable diseases or lose their home and everything else trying to pay off medical bills -- can you imagine that? This, BTW, is the norm in the civilized world.
There was no waiting for care when you needed it; heck, if you were so sick that you could not to go to the doctor's office, but not sick enough to go to a hospital, the doc came to your house. Again, this is how the rest of the civilized world approaches health care (though I'm not sure about home visits anywhere else these days except France, where a delightful doc showed up at the home of my mother-in-law when my kid and I got sick -- with a cold! -- during our stay there).
The concerns over inhumane and criminal (yes) rationing (i.e., death panels, denial of care, etc.) are fully applicable to the current US health "care" system, but not really anywhere else.
It is morbidly fascinating to watch how the Republican propaganda has warped (too many) Americans' interpretation of reality.
I am fully convinced that if Americans got a taste of this scary universal/nationalized health care, they would march on the streets at a prospect of having it taken away from them.
But you don't have to take my word for it. Read what Americans living abroad have to say on the subject of national(ized) health care.
"an ever-growing government that nitpicks at every facet of our lives"
This morning I was awoken by an alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the NOAA determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by NASA. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I got into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the EPA, using legal tender issued by a Federal Reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposited my mail with the US Postal Service and dropped the kids off at a public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and OSHA, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drove my NHTSA-approved car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then logged on to the internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration, and found you complaining that government is "nitpicking" my life.
Patrick and I have had this argument innumerable times, and on his blog innumerable times, and in many of those arguments it comes down to defending the right of the insurance companies to make money.
It doesn't matter that the way they make money is by raping the public, by unethical practices, by denying care to those that need it most.
Because this is the USA, folks, and that's capitalism, and it's &@)R*@)% PATRIOTIC to make money at the expense of your fellow countrymen.
To do less would be-dare I say it?-socialist.
It amazes me how, in this country, people are so incredibly brainwashed, so deluded, so absolutely ignorant that they will stand up and cling to the very chains that bind them, while their neighbours die, or go homeless, or are forced to choose between electric bills and medication bills. But this is America, people, the government is taking away our freedoms by trying to give everyone healthcare!
Next you hear the litany from those who want to blame everyone for their medical problems: they're fat. They're diabetic. They smoke, God forbid. They're lazy. Why should we, good God Fearing Patriots, pay for their unhealthy habits? They have cancer because they live on a toxic industrial plume? The dumb bunnies should have picked up and moved somewhere else, or if they weren't such lazy, crack addicted welfare recipients, they could have lived somewhere else to begin with. It always boils down to the person's, and another excuse why 'we' shouldn't care about 'them'.
We've had plenty of this argument. I assume we will have plenty more. I will never understand how people can, or why on earth I should, be defending the insurance companies' right to 'make money' by treating people unfairly and unethically.
I will never understand how people can, or why on earth I should, be defending the insurance companies' right to 'make money' by treating people unfairly and unethically.
You and the rest of the thinking, civilized world, Sat.
P.S. Matt, you are clearly a commie! ;) More seriously, your comment deserves to be made into a full post.
Patrick, I wish I had more time to respond (trying to make a Thursday deadline), but here are a few quick responses:
P: “However, we have lost sight of this as we have had an ever-growing government that nitpicks at every facet of our lives.”
We also have a scofflaw population inventive in the ways of putting more and more people at risk. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin: Act with responsibility, you’ll have freedom. Act stupidly, you will be sent to your room and lose freedoms. Any kid knows this.
P: “I can't enter a government building with a gun (either on my hip visible or with a conceal and carry permit).”
Why would you want to? Do you also have a burning desire to drive an Abrams tank on the White House lawn?
P: “I can't come to Washington state, get married to another man, then come back to Ohio and have it recognized.”
Then why has the GOP allowed right-wing theo-cons to erect barriers to gay marriage? Just to pander for their votes? This kind of discrimination comes from your side of the aisle, not mine. Take it up with the GOP.
P: “I can't dress my kids the way I might choose for Halloween and send them to preschool without violating some "zero tolerance" law.”
I am not quite sure what you mean by this: A pirate costume with a rubber knife, or a real knife?
P: “I can't legally drive the speed I choose to, or decline to wear a seat belt in the passenger seat if I'm not driving.”
Patrick, you oughta be a ashamed. Safe driving protects people. Didn’t you know that? By the same logic, would you also want an open bottle of Canadian whiskey by your side to swig while driving?
P: “I'd have to fight if I chose to NOt vaccinate my children, because the government schools require it.”
Private schools require vaccinations too, unless you choose to home-school. But I can’t imagine why you would NOT want your kid protected against diseases that can kill them.
P: “I can't legally smoke in a private business.”
Patrick, stop smoking! It isn’t good for you, and second-hand smoke is even more harmful to those you love (unless you really despise them).
P: “I can't legally run games of chance … I can't buy sex or drugs … ”
For your sake, I hope your wife isn’t reading this (Attention Zoners: Shall we tattle on Patrick?) Ahhh, what can I say? A small price to pay for the benefits of civilization.
That is the BEST comment ever posted on the Zone. I laughed myself silly!
A post, as Elizabeth said, yes - a post!!
ELIZABETH - thanks for posting what you did and introducing me to my now favorite politician. I would have commented earlier, but when the word "freedom" was somehow erroneously launched into the discussion - I lost interest or patience.
Actually the "I've got mine, screw you" chip shoulder doesn't seem to confine itself to expensively dressed shoulders. Such is the power of advertising.
Perhaps we'll also get an attack on the pernicious "death tax."
Funny though, back when we didn't have all this "nanny state" stuff, most of us lived in poverty and disease and hardly anyone ever had anything like retirement.
That's not to say I don't find all kinds of government interference obnoxious. I certainly do dislike a lot of the arbitrary and intransigent regulatory attitudes toward consensual behavior, and yes, many speed limits are way too low for the modern world, but strange to say, it's the Republicans behind giving a legal voice to Christian taboos and requiring religious oaths and ceremonies. It's the Republicans behind the "if it feels good make it illegal" puritanism. It's the Republicans behind telling us who we can marry and what kinds of things consenting adults can do in privacy and for the most part, Republicans who are willing to give the state the power to kill in cold blood.
It was the "government is bad" people who set aside habeas corpus, posse comitatus, much of the bill of rights as well as any implied right to privacy and they mock us for opposing it, so forgive me Patrick, but I can't understand how you can support and oppose at random, but thanks for keeping it civil.
We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.
Robert Reich’s new post, The Audacity of Greed: How Private Health Insurers Just Blew Their Cover, is an annoying understatement. We already knew about the greed of the health insurance cartel, and there never was any cover to be blown.
ReplyDeleteGrayson, of course, has become a folk hero; but lets just say, “Time for hardball.” How about this: A midnight amendment attached to the bill, the same dirty tactic often employed by Republicans, that prohibits insurance companies from raising rates for 10 years. In addition to a public option, this too would bring costs down. And it would serve justice to a cartel that has acted with murderous dishonestly.
Thanks for posting this. What a breath of fresh air. Democrats need to toughen up and get serious. I can only imagine the chuckling in GOP circles when fossils like Bachus & Reid & Conrad start up the 'bipartisan' blather. Give that bull***t a rest and let's deal with the formidable problems the nation faces.
ReplyDeleteI love this guy. Even though I don't live in FL I did send him a note of thanks and encouragement. I also sent a scathing letter to Harry Reid for his spineless lack of support for the public option and his active participation in cloaking Democrats who are also opposing the public option.
ReplyDeleteI love him too, Rocky. Said almost as much in a thank you note I sent him. This clip is perfect, IMO -- he says all that needed to be said.
ReplyDeleteStrangely, I hope Alan Grayson keeps talking too. Of course, it's for different reasons than the rest of you.
ReplyDeleteI will give him credit for at least being clear on his beliefs, as wrongheaded or dishonestly expressed (I'm not sure which applies to him) as they may be.
I also note that in all of the concerns that "Americans" have, the word "freedom" is never uttered.
At the risk of starting one of those interminable and unrewarding exchanges, what freedom do you have in mind, Patrick, and how does it factor in the health care debate?
ReplyDeleteSurely you are not talking about "freedom" to go bankrupt by exorbitant medical bills? Or "freedom" to die of preventable and treatable diseases?
Oh please.
ReplyDelete*Freedom* & its unmentioned companion, *Liberty*.
Two Conservative terms du jour describing what we are 'losing' in our alleged slide into the mucky morass of collectivism.
Again. Or is it still?
Elizabeth: I know exactly what freedom I'm talking about actually. In this insane rush of Washington (both Democrats and Republicans, in varying degrees) to "fix" health care, the economy, and every other damn thing they can think of, their instinct is to create a government option, a government program, a government solution for everything. And as far as I know, whenever a government program has come into existence to "fix" a problem, it generally grows the power of the government, which necessarily eats at our freedom of action.
ReplyDeleteIn finding ways to pay for the program (and let's be intellectually honest and DOUBLE whatever number they say it will cost), they will continue to gain power, which, again, means we lose freedom.
This is something that many of you screamed incessantly about (and I had concerns as well) when it was the Bush administration taking power (and by default restricting freedom) to fight a war. Because any transfer of power over our lives (and health care sure does fit into that category) to the control of people who use programs to buy our votes means we lose that much freedom.
Arthur: This is where you always miss the mark. The reason I use the term freedom a whole lot is because the purpose of government is to secure our freedom, not give us stuff in exchange for power. It's why I have problems with some of the "conservatives" you'd probably trot out as examples, and why i have a distrust of the GOP if they get back into total power (although I flat out prefer that to total Democrat control, and would prefer total gridlock).
No,I think "freedom" here is code for "I've got mine, screw you." It's not really a useful word any more and more so because we still pretend that we're the only ones in the world that have any.
ReplyDeleteI'd tell him it ain't so, but he'd likely put his hands over his ears and chant "we're number one" or something inane like that - let's see. . .
Somehow the tea party twits have translated "taxation without representation is tyranny" into representation without taxation is "freedom" but I have to remind myself that over 150 million Americans have double digit IQ's and are hungry for anything they can use to cover it up. Wingnut politics works very, very well, from their viewpoint -- witness our recent chat with Ms. Rand.
I've been moaning the loss of the English language for years and am usually laughed at for suggesting any consequences to the fact that any word is immediately redefined by the last crook, con-man or idiot who used it, but most of these arguments occur not only because we have no common vocabulary but because we like it that way.
So we go on talking about freedom and Marxism and fascism saying nothing whatever: unwilling and unable to define our words.
Once when they talked about the four freedoms: freedom from want, freedom from fear, etc. one could see access to medical care as a part of overall freedom in a free country, but I think we have someone here who advocates a Hobbsian horror as a kind of freedom. He's got his, and as one of the Randian creator class he deserves it. As for the rest of us? Well, Social Darwinism has the answer.
Of course I'm a "liberal" as I'm sure he will soon explain.
Patrick, I'm pressed for time right now, so cannot do a full justice to your response (hope later), but, in my (not-so-unique) experience, calls for freedom tend to be significantly weakened by a persistent and incurable toothache.
ReplyDeleteAt this precise moment in time Patrick just what 'freedom' does 'government' prevent you from exercising in full?
ReplyDeleteJust wondering.
Patrick: "it generally grows the power of the government, which necessarily eats at our freedom of action. "
ReplyDeleteWhenever I see this debate degenerate around the word, "freedom," I get mighty suspicious. One person's freedom becomes another person's servitude or hardship, or worse. In that recent Harvard University study, the one that says "In the population sample of those who lack health insurance, 44,000 people a year will likely die." How does this statistic embody freedom for those who will die?
If anything, it embodies a definition of freedom only in this sense: "Freedom to be dead and therefore free of pain and suffering." That is a pretty cheap definition of freedom, one that does not command my respect.
When I read these concepts of freedom, I think of self-indulgence, greed, and over-consumption. Then we define ourselves, NOT by our better angels, but by what we OWN (usually at the expense of someone less fortunate than ourselves).
Why I don't respect conservative thought: Pick any group - blacks, Jews, women, Asians, Hispanics, gays, working people, the handicapped. In every case, the impetus for providing equal access to rights guaranteed under law ... came from leftists, pinkos, liberals, and bleeding hearts. When it came to ensuring a fair shake for every American, the contribution from conservatives has been virtually NIL.
Your definition of freedom turns on materialism and oppression. Given that choice, I'd rather be a flaming socialist.
Capt: No,I think "freedom" here is code for "I've got mine, screw you."
ReplyDelete"I've got mine"? Uh, no. I don't have shit. Really. I'd probably "benefit" if all the government programs, including Obamascare went through.
It's the asinine assumption that I oppose this because "I've got mine" that makes your "argument" truly laughable.
And as for the veiled suggestion I wouldn't know freedom if it bit me in the ass, let me clarify it:
Freedom is the ability of the individual to manage his life and pursue his individual goals without molestation by external forces (such as the government), and is only limited inasmuch as it affects the rights of other individuals to do the same.
It is necessary for us to surrender some of our freedom (including taxes) to sustain the government that has a purpose of securing those freedoms. However, we have lost sight of this as we have had an ever-growing government that nitpicks at every facet of our lives.
And the step from the hodgepodge control the government has now, to de facto total control, will mean we look to the government, and not ourselves for yet another "service".
You can make a case for the government taking control of almost everything. Where do you draw the line?
Because I can't imagine them doing it in Washington, no matter who is in charge.
Arthur: Let's just make a list of a few things that government says I can't do that would not affect the freedom of others (and this is not a complete list).
I can't enter a government building with a gun (either on my hip visible or with a conceal and carry permit).
I can't come to Washington state, get married to another man, then come back to Ohio and have it recognized.
I can't dress my kids the way I might choose for Halloween and send them to preschool without violating some "zero tolerance" law.
I can't legally drive the speed I choose to, or decline to wear a seat belt in the passenger seat if I'm not driving.
I'd have to fight if I chose to NOt vaccinate my children, because the government schools require it.
I have to pay into taxes, which the government holds for up to a year before they "give" them back.
I can't legally smoke in a private business.
I'm legally welded to a government-issued Social Security number, to which I am identified in thousands of systems.
I can't legally run games of chance.
I can't buy sex or drugs.
Shall I continue? A few of these things are federal, some are state. Some I'd personally pursue (like the speed thing), some I wouldn't. Some have a reasonable need to be enforced. But most of the examples are bits and pieces of the nanny state our country has become.
It ties into what I wrote above, that freedom involves being able to make choices. Government, by taking control of things, limits them.
What part of this are you missing?
Patrick, how does having easy access to universal, affordable medical care interfere with your (or anyone's) freedom?
ReplyDelete8pus (since i missed your comment while typing the above): To address much of your comment, see the above one.
ReplyDeleteNow I won't deny that there are a lot of people who have been denied that freedom in the past. And where they are still being denied those freedoms, you'll probably find me alongside you in defending them (I might have a little "liberal" somewhere down in my conservative base).
Conservatism, when properly followed, is supposed to be about equality of opportunity. This has not always been, and I certainly can't speak for those who don't believe this in their hearts.
Where we're disagreeing on the issue of health care is that almost all of us believe in making sure everyone has health care available. What many on the left seek, though is to ensure equality of outcome, or everybody does get health care. And until this point is reconciled, we'll continue to fight over what the role of government is. And others like Alan Grayson will spew what he spews.
Patrick M wondered:
ReplyDelete'What part of this are you missing?'
I don't think any of it Patrick. Most people realize by the time they are five or six years old they cannot do whatever they want whenever they want. And those people often, with age, gain a far greater sensitivity for personal actions which really do affect others. Those who fail to make this adjustment grow up (and I use the term loosely) to become 'Conservatives'.
Now make a second list of all the things you can't do because you're too poor or poorly-educated or not Catholic (if you wanted to be Pope) burdened by kids, married to the wrong spouse or have otherwise made any number of selfish and/or ill-informed or rash life decisions.
The second will be an infinitely longer list.
Elizabeth: While I think I answered your question in general, let me be specific with health care in a term that gets bandied about: Rationing.
ReplyDeleteIn any system where there is a finite supply (in this case, health care), the care will be rationed.
In a system where individuals paid, it's rationed on a basis of need versus cost.
In our current mess, where most everything is paid for by a third party, it's rationed by need vs cost vs a profit margin formula, all regulated by a government that dictates some things, but not others, and encourages (through these twisted regulations) companies to work around the system.
In the government option (this is the part where what freedom dies), the state ultimately gets decision power on how those funds will be spent. And whether this means more resources get allocated to one class or group over another is the decision of people who have the power to adjust things to get votes. In addition, as the last vestiges of the private system are swept away, options for all but the few who can travel to other countries (the really rich) cease to exist.
Arthur: Let me quote you in pieces here:
"Now make a second list of all the things you can't do because you're too poor" - find a way to make money
"or poorly-educated" - learn more stuff
"or not Catholic" - convert
"(if you wanted to be Pope)" - (insert clergy molestation humor here)
"burdened by kids," - raise them well"
"married to the wrong spouse" - divorce
"or have otherwise made any number of selfish and/or ill-informed or rash life decisions." - The key word is decisions. Decisions you were free to make.
Trust me, on the children thing, I understand better than you. I'm seriously limited by my mistake in screwing the wrong person. So I have two of those kids of my own and I'm raising them on my own. But that was a responsibility I took on by making a free choice. No one in the government mandated I bone a psycho and pop out kids.
We are all limited by our choices. We should not be limited by a government that circumscribes our horizons.
I'm sympathetic Patrick.
ReplyDeleteI've still never gotten over the fact I'm not allowed to recycle spent nuclear fuel rods in my downtown Seattle loft.
As far as 'circumscribing horizons' clearly most of us do that ourselves. Slapping a speed limit on the highway or withholding some of one's salary to help pay for and maintain said highway is the absolute, very least of it.
And then there's this business of decisions which (as you emphasize) we WERE free to make. Certainly the founding fathers didn't have speed limits. Nor likely zoning laws.
There was no Arcadia from which we fell here in the good old US of A.
Patrick, rationing, you say...
ReplyDeleteOf course you realize (and you almost say as much) that in our current system we have the most obscene and inhumane form of rationing at work. The wealthy can afford medical care, the non-wealthy not. This kind of rationing assures that health care (and health itself) becomes a privilege afforded to the well-off. Nowhere else in the civilized world health care is considered a privilege for the rich only.
Now on to the bogeyman of government-rationed care. (BTW, why do you object to the government "rationing" care, but not to the private insurance mafia doing the same in a much worse way?)
When I hear this, I smile. I grew up in a country with socialized health care (and everything else). Never heard of rationing or denying care to anyone during my 23 years spent under that dreadful system.
We did not have anyone die of treatable diseases or lose their home and everything else trying to pay off medical bills -- can you imagine that? This, BTW, is the norm in the civilized world.
There was no waiting for care when you needed it; heck, if you were so sick that you could not to go to the doctor's office, but not sick enough to go to a hospital, the doc came to your house. Again, this is how the rest of the civilized world approaches health care (though I'm not sure about home visits anywhere else these days except France, where a delightful doc showed up at the home of my mother-in-law when my kid and I got sick -- with a cold! -- during our stay there).
The concerns over inhumane and criminal (yes) rationing (i.e., death panels, denial of care, etc.) are fully applicable to the current US health "care" system, but not really anywhere else.
It is morbidly fascinating to watch how the Republican propaganda has warped (too many) Americans' interpretation of reality.
I am fully convinced that if Americans got a taste of this scary universal/nationalized health care, they would march on the streets at a prospect of having it taken away from them.
But you don't have to take my word for it. Read what Americans living abroad have to say on the subject of national(ized) health care.
@Patrick M
ReplyDelete"an ever-growing government that nitpicks at every facet of our lives"
This morning I was awoken by an alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the NOAA determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by NASA. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I got into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the EPA, using legal tender issued by a Federal Reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposited my mail with the US Postal Service and dropped the kids off at a public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and OSHA, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drove my NHTSA-approved car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then logged on to the internet, which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration, and found you complaining that government is "nitpicking" my life.
Patrick and I have had this argument innumerable times, and on his blog innumerable times, and in many of those arguments it comes down to defending the right of the insurance companies to make money.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter that the way they make money is by raping the public, by unethical practices, by denying care to those that need it most.
Because this is the USA, folks, and that's capitalism, and it's &@)R*@)% PATRIOTIC to make money at the expense of your fellow countrymen.
To do less would be-dare I say it?-socialist.
It amazes me how, in this country, people are so incredibly brainwashed, so deluded, so absolutely ignorant that they will stand up and cling to the very chains that bind them, while their neighbours die, or go homeless, or are forced to choose between electric bills and medication bills. But this is America, people, the government is taking away our freedoms by trying to give everyone healthcare!
Next you hear the litany from those who want to blame everyone for their medical problems: they're fat. They're diabetic. They smoke, God forbid. They're lazy. Why should we, good God Fearing Patriots, pay for their unhealthy habits? They have cancer because they live on a toxic industrial plume? The dumb bunnies should have picked up and moved somewhere else, or if they weren't such lazy, crack addicted welfare recipients, they could have lived somewhere else to begin with. It always boils down to the person's, and another excuse why 'we' shouldn't care about 'them'.
We've had plenty of this argument. I assume we will have plenty more. I will never understand how people can, or why on earth I should, be defending the insurance companies' right to 'make money' by treating people unfairly and unethically.
I will never understand how people can, or why on earth I should, be defending the insurance companies' right to 'make money' by treating people unfairly and unethically.
ReplyDeleteYou and the rest of the thinking, civilized world, Sat.
P.S. Matt, you are clearly a commie! ;)
More seriously, your comment deserves to be made into a full post.
Patrick, I wish I had more time to respond (trying to make a Thursday deadline), but here are a few quick responses:
ReplyDeleteP: “However, we have lost sight of this as we have had an ever-growing government that nitpicks at every facet of our lives.”
We also have a scofflaw population inventive in the ways of putting more and more people at risk. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin: Act with responsibility, you’ll have freedom. Act stupidly, you will be sent to your room and lose freedoms. Any kid knows this.
P: “I can't enter a government building with a gun (either on my hip visible or with a conceal and carry permit).”
Why would you want to? Do you also have a burning desire to drive an Abrams tank on the White House lawn?
P: “I can't come to Washington state, get married to another man, then come back to Ohio and have it recognized.”
Then why has the GOP allowed right-wing theo-cons to erect barriers to gay marriage? Just to pander for their votes? This kind of discrimination comes from your side of the aisle, not mine. Take it up with the GOP.
P: “I can't dress my kids the way I might choose for Halloween and send them to preschool without violating some "zero tolerance" law.”
I am not quite sure what you mean by this: A pirate costume with a rubber knife, or a real knife?
P: “I can't legally drive the speed I choose to, or decline to wear a seat belt in the passenger seat if I'm not driving.”
Patrick, you oughta be a ashamed. Safe driving protects people. Didn’t you know that? By the same logic, would you also want an open bottle of Canadian whiskey by your side to swig while driving?
P: “I'd have to fight if I chose to NOt vaccinate my children, because the government schools require it.”
Private schools require vaccinations too, unless you choose to home-school. But I can’t imagine why you would NOT want your kid protected against diseases that can kill them.
P: “I can't legally smoke in a private business.”
Patrick, stop smoking! It isn’t good for you, and second-hand smoke is even more harmful to those you love (unless you really despise them).
P: “I can't legally run games of chance … I can't buy sex or drugs … ”
For your sake, I hope your wife isn’t reading this (Attention Zoners: Shall we tattle on Patrick?) Ahhh, what can I say? A small price to pay for the benefits of civilization.
P: “What part of this are you missing?”
I was about to ask you the same question.
MATT!
ReplyDeleteThat is the BEST comment ever posted on the Zone. I laughed myself silly!
A post, as Elizabeth said, yes - a post!!
ELIZABETH - thanks for posting what you did and introducing me to my now favorite politician. I would have commented earlier, but when the word "freedom" was somehow erroneously launched into the discussion - I lost interest or patience.
But now Matt has put a smile on my squidly face!
If I had the time (which I certainly don't), I'd try to answer everyone. But i have my own blog, so I tried to kill two birds with one stone:
ReplyDeleteBalancing the Common Good with Freedom - Health Care
And thanks for the debate.
Actually the "I've got mine, screw you" chip shoulder doesn't seem to confine itself to expensively dressed shoulders. Such is the power of advertising.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we'll also get an attack on the pernicious "death tax."
Funny though, back when we didn't have all this "nanny state" stuff, most of us lived in poverty and disease and hardly anyone ever had anything like retirement.
That's not to say I don't find all kinds of government interference obnoxious. I certainly do dislike a lot of the arbitrary and intransigent regulatory attitudes toward consensual behavior, and yes, many speed limits are way too low for the modern world, but strange to say, it's the Republicans behind giving a legal voice to Christian taboos and requiring religious oaths and ceremonies. It's the Republicans behind the "if it feels good make it illegal" puritanism. It's the Republicans behind telling us who we can marry and what kinds of things consenting adults can do in privacy and for the most part, Republicans who are willing to give the state the power to kill in cold blood.
It was the "government is bad" people who set aside habeas corpus, posse comitatus, much of the bill of rights as well as any implied right to privacy and they mock us for opposing it, so forgive me Patrick, but I can't understand how you can support and oppose at random, but thanks for keeping it civil.