Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Election position 3 - Drugs
Ah, the drug war. Fuck the drug war. We waste billions of dollars on it to no avail. Legalize, regulate and tax drug production and consumption. People should be able to do what they will with their bodies. Now that that's said, I do believe there are limits. There are drugs that should not be allowed on the market. For example, PCP is a drug which should not be produced and/or distributed on the market. My criteria? Posing a threat to another humans life is my only criteria. PCP can make a person entirely unaware of the consequences of their actions. For a drug to be legal in my book you have to be aware enough to know if what you're doing is having consequences on folks around you and of course yourself. Employers should also be allowed to regulate drug use as a condition of your employment. That's their right. If they don't want you stoned while paving a road...fine. However, it should be limited to (as with alcohol) your functioning at your job. In other words, if you smoke pot on the weekend but don't come to work on Monday stoned...they shouldn't have anything to say.
Freedom of choice is not the only reason to stop the drug war in the USA. The cost of the drug war is disturbing and it's shown little by way of effectiveness. The USA should have learned it's lesson re: Illegal substances after Prohibition but that lesson seems lost on the current round of politicians. There's, of course, another cost outside of enforcement and that's incarceration. Every prisoner in jail for having or distributing drugs is a drain on our tax dollars.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Enough with capitalism vs. communism-I wanna get high!
Not to discourage discussion of important issues, but moving back to the original topic...
I agree with you 100%, Rick. Unless I am running crazed down the street destroying property or injuring people, where the hell does anybody get off telling me what I can or cannot ingest? It amazes me how Americans constantly blow their horns about all the wonderful freedoms here, when they do not even own their own bodies! If you don't pay my rent, feed me, and protect me 24/7, then you can take your ideas about MY body, and the anti-drug propaganda and stick it. Stick it deep.
Sorry if I'm ranting, but I've never understood how the propaganda can be so effective on a "free" people. How can supposedly freedom loving people be so cowed by such obviously untrue hype? This is one issue that gets surprisingly little attention on the internet as well as in American politics. There has never been any reliable data to justify the demonization of drugs that our government endorses, particularly in regard to marijuana.
I have heard no end of ignorance on the subject, and it is rare to see a politician or pundit bother to correct anyone.
In my Fantasy America, every last DEA officer, as well as any government employee who has been paid to pass false information on the subject, would be tried for treason and given a sentence equal to the greater drug penalties, maybe 10 or 20 years or so. Every prisoner of the drug war would be pardoned. Two actions, full solution. To justify my harsh postion I ask a few simple questions: Which of these groups has caused more trouble? Stolen liberties? Caused more pain and suffering? Demonized the other into silence or counter-culture? Cost more money? Accomplished ANYTHING other than an incredible reduction in American liberty? I've known some wonderful stoners in my day, but I've never met a strict prohibitionist who was worth a shit, or any fun to be around for that matter!
This sounds quite extreme to most of you, I'm sure. But living here on the beach I have had the opportunity to meet and hang out with literally thousands of pot smokers, without ever witnessing a single other crime attributable to the drug. (That statement also goes for every other drug I've encountered with the exceptions of alcohol and meth, and the vast majority of meth users were harmless as well.) But I have had the chance to be perjured against in court by an officer who claimed that I and three others were all high in public. It must have been great weed, because the officer stole it before we even got the chance to enjoy! Must have soaked in through my pocket! I have had the chance to be discriminated against for employment purposes-I never knew I couldn't run a cash register or a computer while stoned-I guess I've been imagining my lifetime of full-time employment! Must be some good shit!
O.K.-enough. I've had my rant. It's difficult to restain myself when I'm reminded of the lies, the bigotry, the plain-old assholishness of the prohibitionst mindset. You can tell your fellow Americans that you're an atheist, and they might think you're evil. Tell the same people you smoke weed or have done l.s.d. a time or two, and they will laugh you out of any serious discussion with Chong-style pot jokes. I've seen it happen too many times to expect any rational response from a drinker of the anti-drug kool-aid.
Absolute freedom
I'm undecided if there are some drugs that should be outright banned. There are a few that probably should not exist, Meth comes to mind, I have no experience direct or indirect with PCP so I can't comment on that but the world would probably be better of if some of these were simply gone. Unfortunately as we are all in agreement on, banning them will not stop their existence.
Legalizing, regulating, taxing just like alcohol and tobacco is the only reasonable answer, some of the taxes must be used for rehabilitation programs, there will still be abusers. Marijuana is the most obvious one to start, there is simply no way to argue that weed should be illegal while tobacco and alcohol are legit. If we could get that passed and show that society does not fall apart then maybe we could legalize the rest and forgo this wasteful and destructive war on drugs.
We've never had absolute freedom over our bodies I don't suspect we ever will. Given the nature of freedom and rights there will always need to be limits for the overall good. Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
OH and why was it asking me to install some software when I tried to loin?
Limits are for totalitarians
While I understand your criteria for "limits" on the production and distribution of (some) drugs, I think you miss the actual point of your own post: that trying to fight this kind of "war" is a losing proposition, even with such "dangerous" drugs as PCP. As with firearms, drugs don't hurt people; people hurt people.
Your call for limits on "dangerous" drugs requires answering other questions: What does "dangerous" mean? How dangerous is too dangerous? What qualifies as a "drug"? Allowing government to answer these, and other more troubling questions, is an irresistible temptation to power.
Rather than "punishing" the drug (by banning it), we need to punish the people who do violence while on drugs; further, we need to remove the idea that being on drugs somehow excuses or reduces responsibility for violent behavior -- a removal that has already, in large degree, been accomplished for alcohol. If anything, violent behavior while on drugs is arguably worse than such behavior while sober, in the same sense that a robbery using a firearm is considered worse than a simple burglary.
Laws should be about what people do to each other, not to themselves.
Before WWI, drugs of all
Before WWI, drugs of all sorts were quite freely available. I don't know if they were all "legal" but there didn't seem to be much concern. Governments invented a "drug problem" after the war by signing treaties restricting use and distribution.
The only solution is legalization and it is hard to see how one can rule out some drugs.
For some details on the wastefulness of the WOD both in financial and human terms, look at the budget, and this is just for the Federal government.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/justice.html
Nearly $3 billion is dedicated to "combatting" use of drugs. Furthermore, the prison policy is a disgrace.
"The 2008 Budget provides $5.4 billion for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and $1.3 billion for the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT). These DOJ components ensure that Federal criminals and those awaiting trial or sentencing are safely and cost-effectively incarcerated and detained. At present, there are more than 193,000 inmates in BOP’s custody, of whom approximately 64 percent were convicted of immigration or drug-related offenses.
The population of Federal detainees in the custody of OFDT has experienced record growth, having more than doubled during the past decade. The President's Budget requests $169 million to expand prison capacity by completing the first phase of the activation of a new prison in Pollock, Louisiana, completing a current prison project in Mendota, California, and expanding the number of contract prison beds by more than 1,100."
Nearly $7 billion dollars and rising for a system incarcerating 64% for drug and immigration violations.
A population that has more than doubled in 10 years and more prison building on the way. Are we now twice as safe?
When you add all the individual state spending, the total sum must be astronomic--not that 10 billion is not already astronomic. Recently I saw an article that California now spends more on prisons than it does on higher education.
Which is more criminal, using drugs or locking up users? Anti-drug laws simply create an arbitrary and artificial "crime".
Clarification
I do see your point and I do agree with your last sentence. That is, in fact, the ultimate point.
I should clarify my position a little here. I think that there are only 2 kinds of drugs currently considered illegal. Drugs that should be legalized and drugs that should be decriminalized.
Pot would be an example of a drug that should be legalized, put on the market, and regulated.
I don't think PCP should be available for purchase, but if you're caught doing PCP and you haven't harmed anyone there's really no foul. If you're caught doing PCP and you've killed someone while you're on it (I feel the same about alcohol btw) you should spend the rest of your life in jail.
Does that clarify my position for you?
Or perhaps, organ donors.
Or perhaps, organ donors.
That's a good distinction.
Rick,
I like the "legalized/decriminalized" distinction. If you're just harming yourself, it's really your business.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
The Seatbelted Biker
Jim, I've nearly always taken the same position you do here (If you're just harming yourself, it's really your business). My interest in it was not in the arena of drugs but the road, tool guards, and so forth. Though I wear both a helmet while on my KZ and a seatbelt in the car, I've argued that it isn't the government's business to protect me from myself. In fact, according to the Framers, it's the people's business to protect themselves from the government, but that's another issue.
My question here has to do with the evolving question of insurance and healthcare. If US pols adopt "universal healthcare", they then have a bit more ground to say I have to wear a seatbelt, otherwise I'm causing an increase in taxes due to injury costs. The same could be said about rising healthcare costs due to illicit drugs. What would be the answer to any or all of this?
-Col.
Where do you draw the line?
Well, where do you draw the line? Or "lines", I should say, since it then becomes a matter of intruding government will on what people eat, how much exercise they get, what sports they play, what recreational activities they have, who they have sex with, what hobbies they have, et cetera, et cetera.
I actually am in favor of universal health care - the US spends significantly *more* than any other country on our health care, we get less for it, fewer people are covered, and so forth. It just makes economic sense to me. But I would not say that doing so gives the gov a mandate to tell us how to live our lives: it just expands the pool of coverage and removes the profit incentive for the insurance companies & marketing consultants. Sure, spend money to persuade people to do healthy things, and still have protections in place for manufacturers who construct faulty or inherently unsafe products. But otherwise, it's all just random chance who will have an accident or come down with a given disease, as far as the billing is concerned.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Exactly where I'm coming from
Precisely. There is already talk in metro areas about the government having the "right" to intrude more in such arenas because of the "strain on emergency services" that impinges on all tax-payers. So, "where the line?" is the pivotal issue. I'm honestly not sure much of the time. I would be quite Jeffersonian about most of it, but not all.
As to government health care, it is again a bit of a quandary. I agree that there needs to be basics, but having lived in a country with socialized medicine, I've also seen its absolutely horrendous (you could hardly imagine) downside as well. I would likely favor some kind of two-tiered system, but haven’t worked any details on it. What I am sure of, is that once government assumes control of something, it frequently goes in a direction other than or beyond what the common man wanted.
In my original post, I mentioned tool guards. In my state, there were stickers placed by OSHA or their surrogate on ladders to keep us blithering idiots from hurting ourselves. They had to be placed on the top two rungs. But the law said on all ladders. So you bought an aluminum step ladder, and on both of the only steps it had it said, “Do not sit or stand on this step." Handy item to have around.
-Col.
Your right, I can hardly
Your right, I can hardly imagine. Saying that you don't want to do something because it's unimaginably bad is a really piss poor arguement. It's like telling someone not to do something because you said so. Personally I've heard a lot about the horrendous downside to capitalist medical system too. And hey, better the monster you don't know than the monster you do.
Ya there are tool guards and stupid warnings in my state too. My favorite was a bucket, about big enough that you could put it over your head, that said "warning: you can drown in bucket" and I'm like "no shit man, maybe if you're committing suicide you'll drown in that bucket." Then there's the ever hilarious "flammable/Cumbustable, do not place near open flame" warnings on things like gasoline, fireworks, lighter fluid (...) and the like. It's because our society can't seem to accept that stupid people will die in stupid accidents and that's just the way life is, Darwin Award time, and because idiots have a hard time accepting their loved one is really dead and died for a laughably stupid reason instead of whatever a "heroic death" is.
I know one and one-half monsters
Actually, I think if something is unimaginably bad, that frankly could be a good reason for not doing it. But since I've lived both places, I know both monsters. The free-market health care is much, much better, but has the down-side of those that have none. This is why I said I favored a two-tiered system--to attempt to get the best out of both monsters; care for everyone from the full monster, and quality care from the half-monster.
The label thing is often just typical government stuff. For example, the law may be that you have to wear eye protection if you use a dangerous liquid. Sounds good until one is in the real world. Motor oil could be a liquid listed, so does the tech have to put goggles on every time he tops off your crankcase? Politicians should all have had to run a business before they can be elected. It would straighten up a lot of the kinks in this old world....
-Col.
Universal healthcare, what monster?
Colonel-
I have used the 'socialist' health care system at two different points of my life. The first time was for 5 years in the Navy and the second was for 4 years while in college. I found that my Universities health care system was truly excellent and the Navy was pretty darn good. Really, I have no complaints about either. You call yourself Colonel and use an airplane avatar, so I would assume you are or were a Colonel in the Air Force. I am wrong? The reason I ask is that I was wondering how you rate the military health care you received?
I never was wounded in a war and had to deal with a stay in a Veterans hospital, so I can't really comment too much about the recent horror stories at Walter Reed. Still, no matter how bad a healthcare system is, it's better than nothing. The last number I heard was something like 47 million Americans have no health care. That's one in six. If one of them gets hurt or sick, they must use the local emergency room which is expensive and we all have to pay for it anyway. If America moved to a socialized medical system we could be more efficient in many ways. Most emergency room visits by the uninsured would be eliminated. Profit driven medical insurance companies would be eliminated. Big pharma would have to negotiate lower prices. And finally, American medicine could focus on prevention instead of treatment only.
America is the only major industrialized country to still use the outdated privatized healthcare system. We are falling behind in life expectancy, infant mortality and a whole bunch of other categories I can't remember off the top of my head. Yet we spend 3 times as much per person for this crappy service. I have trouble seeing the downside to moving to a socialized system of medicine. Care to explain in more detail this terrible monster you keep referring to? The only arguments I hear against universal healthcare are anecdotal unverifiable stories.
The above reasons don't even begin to touch on the financial boost a universal health care system would give to business large and small.
Dirk
The driver's license debacle
No, I'm not referring to military care at all--one of those industrialized nations you spoke of. I had interaction with a large group of people such that I was aware of their medical situations. In the first six months, I anecdotally estimated that above 50% had to have surgeries or other procedures done over due to lack of precision or outright malpractice. Part of the problem is lack of incentive; socialized anything always struggles at this point. Governments always treat you like you are treated when you go in to get your driver's license. It's as though you are there for their sake, not the correct way around. If that is what you like, then fine. But if you like being treated as a customer whose business is sought after by excellence in provision and product, then communistic/socialistic means never get there.
In the country I am referring to, one that is often held up as having a so-called "model" system, people often went outside the nation to purchase surgeries and other critically needed care. Waiting in line for months for an MRI and sometimes years for surgery was normative. This could, on occasion, pay off for the government, since a percentage of these people die in the intervening wait. One hospital I was in literally looked Korean War vintage.
The same area had a government-run one-size-fits-none vehicle insurance monopoly. The law stated you had to have insurance, and you had to come to them for it. Kind of an Al Capone scenario. For the same base-line motorcycle insurance I was paying $55.00 per year for in the U.S., it was as much as $1079.00 with the government-run "mafia". Competition is always good for the consumer, and in those systems it is egregiously lacking. It is an important thing to have quality in health care, not just quantity. My idea would be to try to tap both.
-Col.
No Thanks to the Two Tier Healthcare System
Col-
I would be against the two tier system you favor. If the upper class is able to get better health care by opting out, then the system for regular people will be neglected. Same with the Iraq war. If rich people, Senators and Congressman had their kids drafted, we would have been out of Iraq years ago.
No offense, but you sound just like the "compassionate" Christian conservatives on ABP. I hope this is not true of you, but they believe government run anything is bad. Conservatives always think the government is bad, because they are bad at governing. Like I said, my healthcare in the military and college was pretty good. Sure I had to wait a bit for an appointment now and then, but I would have to give them pretty high marks. Wouldn't you call that socialized medicine? They were not motivated by incentives as you suggest. As a matter of fact, this country has all sorts of 'socialized' institutions. Education, law enforcement, post office, roadwork, and fire department to name just a few. Can you imagine if policemen got paid per criminal?
I know the word socialism has been demonized, but sometimes it really is the best solution. If you can take it, here is a link to an evil liberal website. The evil lib in questions name is Michael Moore. There are some very interesting facts in his new movie "Sicko". Facts like:
There are many many more facts for you to look at and look up if you want. All of the information given also has the source posted.
Competition and capitalism work very well in some cases, but not in others....like people's lives.
Dirk
Not about opting out
I didn't mean to infer that someone would opt out. There would be basic health care universally, but you could supplement it with additional health care. Some socialist health care systems do this now--including the nation I'm familiar with. Punishing everyone down to the lowest common denominator is never a good answer, let alone the best one. Your example of education is a good one to start with. Our social school system has been the worst of the top 14 industrialized nations, and the most expensive after only Sweden. There is nowhere where the market should be freer than in the marketplace of ideas.
Sorry, don't know what ABP is. Just know how the marketplace works. Has little to do with being a Christian or an atheist. Just knowing a bit about human nature, running a business, how government grows and how power corrupts.
-Col.
Absolute Power
Yes indeed, but it isn't just the government that is corrupt. It is the corporations as well. At their heart they desire nothing more than to suck money out of you and give you absolutely nothing in return. Selling nothing for something is the corporate dream. Competition is a nice idea. Kind of like communism, but when a corporation grows large enough to dominate an industry (by buying influence and rigging the game in their facor) it has the power to squeeze out competition and the motivation to do so. No corporation wants competition. They want to hold the market alone and unchallenged because as I said they exist to make money not to make products or provide services. The insurance companies make money by denying people services not by providing them. They will bury you in a mountain of paperwork and wind you in a constricting serpent of red tape to keep from paying you anything. All the insurance companies are hellaciously expensive. No health insurance is cheap. Many of the 'American' things make sense only if you append the words 'if you are rich' to the end.
America has the best health care system in the world if you are rich.
In America you can be free if you are rich.
Any American can become president if you are rich.
Walmart
Which is exactly why Walmart sucks. Walmart, in case you didn't know, is in the habit of forcing its suppliers to accept less pay for goods than the cost of the things they're supplying. What makes the suppliers accept Walmart's offer? Because it's their price or nothing. Recently an old family owned store, Strawbridges, got bought out by the guys who own Macy's. At first the Strawbridges store kept its name, but the quality of the service went down noticably. Gone were the big appliances, the beds and the recliners. Gone was the restaurant with its delicious clam chowder, its "best in the area" hot fudge sundaes and the marine aquarium in the center. In addition the clothing goods that did stay in the store noticeably decreased in quality after the buy out.
There was a man in the newspaper a while back. Fifties, relatively minor health problems but he was basically uninsurable under the current system. That's because insurance companies don't want to help people, they want to make money. Ideally as Thameron says they'll sell you health insurance for 50 years and you won't have any problems. If they suspect that you'll cost more than the money they can suck out of you they'll cut you off without a second thought.
There was a woman a while back who died on the operating room floor while staff walked around her and stepped over her because she didn't have the health insurance to pay for an operation.
There's stories of maternity wards in my area closing down because the cheap "health insurance" that a lot of low-wage people are forced to get doesn't completely cover the cost of the delivery but demands that the hospital pick up the tab. This may sound good for the patient, but not if the hospital is forced to close down the delivery room because it can't realistically pay for it.
The worst system in all the world
...except for all the others.
-Col.
Tell that
To that woman who spoke with Bush on the campaign trail who was working three jobs to support her children while oil CEO's make record profits. I will assume that, since you think that this is such a great system, you have money and health insurance that you pay for but don't use much so they don't up your premiums to where you can't pay for them anymore. Let's see what you think of competition when they dump toxic waste into your drinking water because it improves someone's bottom line. Who will you call then, the corporation?
Capitalism
Colonel-
Thameron pretty much stole my thunder. I was going to comment on free markets and competition as well. If you love the free market so much would you use Chinese toothpaste? Would you buy pet food made in China? Would you give your kids toys made in China? Capitalism and free trade are a good thing up to a point. Unfortunately, greed and corruption are by-products that go hand in hand with competition. Like I said before, socialism is not always a dirty word.
Dirk
The last I checked
...China was a communist nation, not a free one. And communism has worked so very, very well the world over. Greed and corruption never make their way into government, do they? Yes, I trust the market far more than I trust government. Markets tend to self-correct much, much faster (as in your toothpaste, etc., example) and incentive is the engine that drives the machine of discovery--whether that is in pharmaceuticals or other life-saving arenas. Seen it first hand. Where there is no incentive, everybody pays a draconian price.
Always remember that government is a consumer. It produces nothing. Producers carry governments.
-Col.
Last I checked
China was very much a capitalist nation and a very successful one at that. The big money in pharmeceuticals isn't life saving medicines, its medicines for minor chronic conditions that you will pay for the rest of your life. There is certainly an incentive to treat someone, however there is absolutely no incentive to cure them, because then they stop paying. In fact all of the incentive would in fact be on infecting them in the first place. A free market of disease if you will. I just can't wait for that zenith of capitalism when they ask for your credit card number when you call 911.
By and large...
Col., it will probably come as no surprise that by and large I agree with you on this subject, since I tend towards the libertarian aspect of things. However, in fairness it has to be said that without the infrastructure and security that a stable gov provides, most private enterprise would not be able to thrive.
Anyway, to get back somewhat to the larger topic, I have to say that while there are indeed problems with any system, the first world economies which have some variety of national health care do not see much in the way of their population lobbying to go to a private system such as we have here. I think that alone is telling.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
How recent is your data?
I'm not sure you are as correct today in your assessment as you would have been in it 10 years ago. For example, some friends and a family member were recently telling me about a Canadian free-market health venture they had seen news on. A poll was done that asked if one could get away with not having to deal with the social health system in certain situations, would they be willing to pay an extra $200 out of pocket to get directly in? I didn't see/hear the coverage myself, but it was an overwhelming majority. The figure 80+% sticks in my memory, though I am not certain what the exact figure was.
It is true government does provide infrastructure, and that is good. When it becomes superstructure, that is very bad. In this regard, Jefferson was a sage.
-Col.
A problem
There's a problem here is that both sides presented in this thread are right. The government does not have a good track record running social programs like our education system. They do it poorly, inefficiently and waste tons of money. Corporations take advantage of their power to squeeze consumer's and employees.
Running solely with either of these systems is going to eventually suck.
Unfortunately, I don't have a solution.
same boat
One of Sen. Wyden's ideas is to prohibit corporations and other organizations from providing health insurance to employees at all. Think about it. Currently we have 250 million riding in a nice comfortable health care boat and the other 50 million out in the water dodging sharks. If tomorrow 300 million were in the water dodging sharks, there would be a national health care system in place by close of business.
Maybe I like that because I have always felt that organization providing any benefit other than wages is both unhealthy and unAmerican.
two sides
On the one hand I get your point. On the other offering incentives to qualified labor is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
I don't really think that a national health care system would be created that quickly (especially not with the current president). But you've got a good point that if the people sitting pretty with company owned health insurance were suddenly to be dunked in the drink there'd be much more voter incentive to elect someone who promises a national health care system. Also with health care removed from the package companies would be forced to offer incentives like paid vacation days.
I'm not sure how current this is but I read that smaller companies are having to stop offering health care as an incentive because it would cost the company too much. This, naturally, gives the advantage to big corporations that can still afford to give their workers better health benefits.
just tossing this in the ring
Instead of two tier, how about intertwining streams of of effort to solve a terrific problem.
In the mortgage industry, banks are private, competitive enterprises providing services to the public. The government operates in the background to standardize paperwork and process, to facilitate the moving of money to where it is needed, etc. Most customers wanting loans are unaware of what goes on in the background.
And so, let's approach health care in the same way. Let the providing of health care remain private so the profit incentive and competition drive health care to become better. And let government demand that everyone be insured, standardize policies and paperwork, regulate but not operate insurance companies (just as they do banks), and fund the premiums for the poor (insurance companies would still have to compete for customers even though the government is paying the premiums for some).
Ok, that is the best I can do in a short comment. Senator Wyden of Oregon has some interesting ideas on the subject. No system will be perfect, but it is in our best interest to have universal coverage.
Merit
I can see some merit in both of your posts. Don't agree with everything, but can see where there is potential--most ideas start off needing refinement. As to provisions, I think it's only unAmerican if the employers are forced into it. If it becomes an entitlement--even if only in the heads of wackos--then the line has been crossed. If it is of the sheer good will of the employer, more power to him.
-Col.
Benefit slaves
I meant unAmerican in that people become tied to their jobs because they cannot give up the insurance and other benefits, especially those with children. It would be impossible for me to count the number of people I have known who wanted to find another job or start a business but could not give up the health insurance.
It seems to me that this is economic (benefit) slavery, which goes against the ideals of freedom and liberty this country was founded on.
Unhealthy in that people who can move to jobs they prefer or start a business are more productive and our whole society benefits.
It is not the fault of corporations and organizations who now provide benefits, it just got started that way.
Clarified
Thanks--I had not understood you properly. I see your point; I've not thought it through, but I think I agree with you. What you're basically saying is that the law of unintended consequences comes into play.
-Col.
A bit over a year ago...
Yeah, maybe. A bit over a year ago, I wrote this item about our experience with Hospice and how it related to health care in this country. (I just posted something of a follow-up on my blog.) My own experience, and what others have reported of theirs, is that a national health system can work at least as well as our system does, without leaving large parts of the population without health care or facing bankruptcy.
Well, I gotta get dinner ready...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
You're the kind of guy...
...that can make it hard on the rest of us. You cook too?
-Col.
Specialization is for insects.
Hell yeah I cook, and not just over a grill. Shape up, buddy, or you'll be passed by.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Jim: Surely
...you understand this is a TERRIFIC theist argument. All of this is exactly why God created Pizza Hut.
-Col.
So...
Did God create McDonalds to poison the poor people? Or was it to poison children by offering them the incentive of shiny yet crappy toys?
Not mutually exclusive
Its a twofer.
I don't know there, Rick.
I don't know there, Rick. Prohibition was so totally stupid we simply must do it again. Surely you can see that.
On a less facetious note, I agree that the WOD's is damaging our culture and wasting our resources. Incarceration is probably ruining as many lives as the drugs would if we did nothing.
Two points. Law enforcement at all levels has a very large vested interest in keeping the WOD's going. Voters do not want the WOD's to end, so politicians keep on funding the insanity.
Mine is a rural county so we actually meet candidates during elections. There were about ten people running for sheriff here in 2006. Every time one wanted to shake hands and give me a card, I asked about his position on legalizing marijuana. It was interesting. About a third sincerely believed our society would fall apart if we caved into the drug dealers. When forced to admit that marijuana was different from hard drugs, they each fell back to the "gateway" argument.
Another third gave a standard politicians answer, but surprisingly, three candidates, when pressed, agreed that marijuana should be legal.
Toward the end of these discussions, I would ask if he knew where I could get some marijuana without getting caught, until one of them asked where I lived and my wife told me in no uncertain terms to keep my mouth shut.
Anyway, thanks Rick for doing this series on issues.
The War on Drugs is over
The War on Drugs began in 1971 and ended a few years later. Drugs won.
Ever since then, TWOD has really a been a war on rights and freedoms, a war by the United States against its own citizens. It's spawned a police state, rampant corruption, and the heavy-handed global-bully foreign policy (against countries like Columbia and Bolivia, e.g.) that paved the way for today's neonazi-cons. Read about civic forfeiture, e.g. at this post I wrote, and tell me there is any such thing as civil liberties and due process anymore. The police can invade your home and shoot you dead just to give your land to the National Forest service!
- No More Mr. Nice Guy!