The notion of the "right to health care" contains a number of implications. First is the "right" of the individual to make demands upon his neighbors; his neighbors must financially underwrite his neighbor's health costs. Second, this demand on his neighbor's income contains--at least for the present--no demands upon the recipient for this largess. He may drink excessively, smoke, take drugs, weigh 600 pounds without any consequence to his health care coverage. Third, this "right" for health care demands the physician to acquiesce. This "right" constricts the rights of the physician who is now legally required to respond to the patient's demand. The physician is bound, indentured without his approval.
People are worn out by taxes. Taxes are unjust, inefficient, misdirected, misspent, skewered by influence--all of these and more--but the small necessary taxes somehow justify the larger unnecessary ones. Taxation in the average citizen's mind is a huge slush fund that sometimes is of benefit to the payer, sometimes not. It is the physician in this relationship that is of interest here. To take a free man, a physician, and bind him in a relationship without his consent--that accepts an infringement on personal freedom and that is new. Some jobs are created as indentured--like policemen or firemen--, some are created as jobs for the common good--like utilities--, but to take independent individuals and absorb them into a system and require thenm to serve without their consent--like eminent domain or a military draft--that is new in this free country.
And the thoughtless attitude towards the physician's liberty should chill everyone, even the most devoted who have entered the subsidized life.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Political Aphorisms
Observations on the two warring tribes on the left and right.
The right sees individuals, the left sees groups. The right seems obsessed with growth, the left with security. The right sees process, the left sees endpoint. The right sees the world as a process with growth a crucial enzyme, the left sees security as the crucial endpoint and sees a government mediated insurance as necessary. The right is willing to allow growth to evolve, to change and adapt as it matures and believes safety is a likely endpoint with many others, the left sees government as the enzyme today but has embraced revolution and science in the past when they seemed promising. The right sees institutions as depositories of the social values, the left sees institutions as ossified obstructions to progress. The right hates centralized power, the left trusts power. The right sees chaos without structure and effort, the left believes man and history have a positive direction and structure is an anchor. The right sees potential and progress in risk, the left sees only heartache.
Neither the left nor the right know they are only part of the current dialectic and neither will emerge intact for the next.
The right sees individuals, the left sees groups. The right seems obsessed with growth, the left with security. The right sees process, the left sees endpoint. The right sees the world as a process with growth a crucial enzyme, the left sees security as the crucial endpoint and sees a government mediated insurance as necessary. The right is willing to allow growth to evolve, to change and adapt as it matures and believes safety is a likely endpoint with many others, the left sees government as the enzyme today but has embraced revolution and science in the past when they seemed promising. The right sees institutions as depositories of the social values, the left sees institutions as ossified obstructions to progress. The right hates centralized power, the left trusts power. The right sees chaos without structure and effort, the left believes man and history have a positive direction and structure is an anchor. The right sees potential and progress in risk, the left sees only heartache.
Neither the left nor the right know they are only part of the current dialectic and neither will emerge intact for the next.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Snookie Summarized
An objection has been made about the Snookie Question, that it is little more than an attempt to justify rich people having less taxes.
The basic point about the Snookie Question is that in addition to raising money, taxes have motives. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed because they are felt to be harmful, short term gains are taxed more than long term gains because they are felt to be less advantageous to the economy, import taxes are thought to protect domestic industries. There was a recent Senate hearing where general business exemptions for oil companies were specifically targeted for removal because oil prices were rising and politicians wanted to hurt somebody associated with them. There will always be arguments over the accuracy of these policies--for example, many think import tariffs are bad for everyone--but, nonetheless, governments approach taxation as more than a revenue source; they think taxes a tool.
Snookie only takes the next step. In a world where the ability of the government to make a good "investment" is questioned, why not tax and distribute income based on how the money of the taxed and the tax recipients would benefit society. In that light, the debate over Snookie's investment/social value versus Bill Gates' doesn't seem that difficult.
The basic point about the Snookie Question is that in addition to raising money, taxes have motives. Alcohol and cigarettes are taxed because they are felt to be harmful, short term gains are taxed more than long term gains because they are felt to be less advantageous to the economy, import taxes are thought to protect domestic industries. There was a recent Senate hearing where general business exemptions for oil companies were specifically targeted for removal because oil prices were rising and politicians wanted to hurt somebody associated with them. There will always be arguments over the accuracy of these policies--for example, many think import tariffs are bad for everyone--but, nonetheless, governments approach taxation as more than a revenue source; they think taxes a tool.
Snookie only takes the next step. In a world where the ability of the government to make a good "investment" is questioned, why not tax and distribute income based on how the money of the taxed and the tax recipients would benefit society. In that light, the debate over Snookie's investment/social value versus Bill Gates' doesn't seem that difficult.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Sometimes They Are More Than Stupid
The real question that the theory of psychological homogeneity raises is this: Is someone clearly pathological in one area of his life capable in other areas? Can a man like Ted Bundy be trusted driving a car or baking bread? Is a serial rapist otherwise a good neighbor?
Is it dangerous to have a sexually depraved man like the IMF chief in control of international money decisions? Is the financial chaos in the world a function of the underlying pathology of the decision makers?
More, do you become a faithless, arrogant, bullying creep when you become rich and powerful or do those traits help you become rich and powerful? If women become rich and powerful, do they act the same?
Is it dangerous to have a sexually depraved man like the IMF chief in control of international money decisions? Is the financial chaos in the world a function of the underlying pathology of the decision makers?
More, do you become a faithless, arrogant, bullying creep when you become rich and powerful or do those traits help you become rich and powerful? If women become rich and powerful, do they act the same?
Monday, May 16, 2011
How Do You Say"Psychological Homogeneity" in French?
Here, a major French political leader and the head of the International Monetary Fund, a man of some importance and influence on the lives of the work-a-day man, chases a young woman naked down the hallway of an exclusive hotel and rapes her.
Apparently if you are the head of the IMF you expect that a room as expensive as $3000 a night comes with a girl. No one with any financial experience would think such an expensive room came without amenities.
How is it possible that a man like this gets to influence anything other than the TV channel in the halfway house? Do these people think they are so separate from us that our rules don't apply? Is he, like President Johnson who used to urinate in front of female reporters, simply unhinged by power?
Does this guy violate the sacred law of psychological homogeneity or is this a total madman whose facade has sprung a leak?
Apparently if you are the head of the IMF you expect that a room as expensive as $3000 a night comes with a girl. No one with any financial experience would think such an expensive room came without amenities.
How is it possible that a man like this gets to influence anything other than the TV channel in the halfway house? Do these people think they are so separate from us that our rules don't apply? Is he, like President Johnson who used to urinate in front of female reporters, simply unhinged by power?
Does this guy violate the sacred law of psychological homogeneity or is this a total madman whose facade has sprung a leak?
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Reflections on the Heroes of Beslan
A group claiming to be Taliban/El-Qaida claims to be responsible for the bombing death of eighty Pakistanis several days ago. The reason stated was the attack was in retaliation for the death of Osama bin Laden.
Perhaps now would be a good time to start clarifying these muddled problems, first with better definitions.
A murderous attack on strangers is an atrocity. "Atrocity." The 911 event was not an "attack" or "terrorism." It was an atrocity and should be referred as such. There is no other explanation for such an event. It may also be pathological, the result of some illness, but group pathology is both rare and complex; such a designation would require some considerable debate. But it is, at least, an atrocity.
One can not claim credit for an atrocity. One can confess to it, be blamed for it, be held responsible for it but one cannot claim credit for an atrocity unless one is insane.
A random act perpetrated against random people does not have a "reason". Blowing up total strangers because someone you like was killed is a disconnected, vicious atrocity. It has only one rational purpose: Satisfying blood lust. Creating reciprocal pain. This is not the personal or symbolic retaliation of the Hatfields and the McCoys aimed at inflicting pain on a stated enemy or opponent; it is a howl or a sneeze made flesh. It is a malignant twitch.
There is only one possible explanation that might make such an atrocity reasonable: If the perpetrators were at war with life.
Perhaps now would be a good time to start clarifying these muddled problems, first with better definitions.
A murderous attack on strangers is an atrocity. "Atrocity." The 911 event was not an "attack" or "terrorism." It was an atrocity and should be referred as such. There is no other explanation for such an event. It may also be pathological, the result of some illness, but group pathology is both rare and complex; such a designation would require some considerable debate. But it is, at least, an atrocity.
One can not claim credit for an atrocity. One can confess to it, be blamed for it, be held responsible for it but one cannot claim credit for an atrocity unless one is insane.
A random act perpetrated against random people does not have a "reason". Blowing up total strangers because someone you like was killed is a disconnected, vicious atrocity. It has only one rational purpose: Satisfying blood lust. Creating reciprocal pain. This is not the personal or symbolic retaliation of the Hatfields and the McCoys aimed at inflicting pain on a stated enemy or opponent; it is a howl or a sneeze made flesh. It is a malignant twitch.
There is only one possible explanation that might make such an atrocity reasonable: If the perpetrators were at war with life.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Taking the Black 2
A few years ago a woman was conversing about her two children, one was healthy and the other had very poor vision. Of the latter she mused, "He was so close, so close." It was a moment before her meaning was clear: He was not quite impaired enough to qualify for disability. Apparently with just a bit more luck, he could have been officially blind.
Three healthy people I know personally have applied for disability this week. They have diagnoses, they see physicians for them but they are functionally healthy. What they want is to stop working and to have someone else work for them. They want to "take the black" and enter the subsidized life.
A few years ago the religious life was an excellent escape for those who were overwhelmed by the world and its responsibilities. Deep devotion was not required, only a mild personality and an inclination towards doing good. The life was structured, safe--as long as you did not do missionary work--and rewarding. It had the respect of the laity and the assurance of regular meals. The bureaucracy had limited aims so corruption was personal, not on a grand scale. And it provided something special: Community.
Recent numbers show that 8.5 million people are on federal disability rolls, up from 5 million ten years ago. It is gradually becoming a lifestyle, albeit not as rewarding as the old religious life. Like so many of these special subsets in the modern world, it is scheduled to go broke in seven years.
It must be difficult for these government people as they try to replace entities that have evolved over centuries only to atrophy now when they are most needed.
Perhaps faith-based subsidies for monasteries and nunneries?
Three healthy people I know personally have applied for disability this week. They have diagnoses, they see physicians for them but they are functionally healthy. What they want is to stop working and to have someone else work for them. They want to "take the black" and enter the subsidized life.
A few years ago the religious life was an excellent escape for those who were overwhelmed by the world and its responsibilities. Deep devotion was not required, only a mild personality and an inclination towards doing good. The life was structured, safe--as long as you did not do missionary work--and rewarding. It had the respect of the laity and the assurance of regular meals. The bureaucracy had limited aims so corruption was personal, not on a grand scale. And it provided something special: Community.
Recent numbers show that 8.5 million people are on federal disability rolls, up from 5 million ten years ago. It is gradually becoming a lifestyle, albeit not as rewarding as the old religious life. Like so many of these special subsets in the modern world, it is scheduled to go broke in seven years.
It must be difficult for these government people as they try to replace entities that have evolved over centuries only to atrophy now when they are most needed.
Perhaps faith-based subsidies for monasteries and nunneries?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)