OK, so writing the post about health care which shifted into social programs reminded me of my Wal-mart days. When I worked at Wal-mart, I saw all types, but I think the ones who burned me the most were the people using government assistance because they can't afford 5+ kids.
I don't know if they did it because they love kids or if they wanted more of them to leech off "the system" and get more assistance or if birth control pills are just a religious no-no. I think in one instance it was the birth control thing...which got me to thinking.
I firmly believe that government should not in any way, shape, or form, endorse, support, or otherwise favor, any religion (boy, that sure was a lot of commas).
I also believe in social programs and that, while sometimes abused, they are more often helpful than not and are integral to an advanced and wealthy society such as ours.
However - I think that we should potentially start encouraging smaller families so we don't end up with the China problem.
This is, in my unresearched opinion, quite easy to do. The number of private farms is falling (historically farmers had lots of children to help on the farm), people are living longer, and on the whole we don't need the birth rate to be as high. Most people do this on their own and only have as many children as they can afford, or only as many as replaces them (1 per person). So, where there is more education and better job opportunity, there are fewer children - mostly the middle and upper class.
In the lower class, those with less education and lower income (as illogical as that seems) tend to have more children. I don't know why exactly, but it has to do with birth control - affording it and knowing how to use it - religion, and sometimes welfare.
I will skip the education portion. I will also skip religion for now and address the welfare issue. I have not personally looked up how much more a person receives per child in food stamps but I know it does increase. That's only logical - it costs more to add extra food to the table. However, I think it is morally wrong to have another child simply to increase the amount of help one receives. It's just a bad reason to make a baby!
As for religion, there are still some stricter ones that frown on birth control. If this is indeed true, then I think it is the duty of the church to provide for the parishioners. Why should the government support a large family that has not chosen to use birth control because they are not allowed by their religious views? This is where I begin to draw the line for government assistance.
Unless you're Fertile Myrtle who gets pregnant every time she has sex despite using birth control, you have a duty to uphold. Every time you have sex, there is a possibility of creating a life. It is your duty as a future parent to make sure that you have made a conscious choice to have a child and can then also provide for that child. Yes, accidents happen, and those are not the people to who I am speaking. I am instead speaking to those who choose to create a life knowing that there is absolutely no way they can afford to support.
That's where I start thinking about my life and how we have chosen to wait for a baby so we are better able to afford one.
That's also when I began to resent those who came through my line with a food stamp card and 8 kids.
That's when I began to think that maybe federal assistance should have a cap, and if it already has one, perhaps it should be lower.
Studies would have to be done to make sure this is more fair than not, but let's put a cap of 4 people on that food stamp card. OK, you can have as many kids as you want and we won't restrict it, but we will only support 4 of you. That can be 1 parent and 3 kids, or it can be 2 parents and 2 kids, but 4 is the limit. This would encourage those who would otherwise abuse the system to stop popping out paychecks and churches to support (monetarily as well as morally) their own doctrine.
I am willing to share what I make in taxes so that people who are less fortunate can enjoy such benefits as food...but there is a limit to my kindness, dammit!
Discussion for next time: Is our society rife with the "You-owe-me" attitude, and if so, why and how can we fix it?
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Health care, as a right
OK, so my SIL sent me a link to this blog , and I am writing about the post 10/10/08 which also references this article.
According to both, Obama stated that health care is a right (I didn't see that part so I am trusting they are telling the truth).
As Mistress Matisse and Bill Whittle pointed out, it's difficult to qualify health care as a right without including other basics in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which include food, water, shelter, and clothing. While it's not included anywhere on the pyramid, I would probably place it on the bottom tier with food, etc. If you're not in good health, it's pretty difficult to focus on the higher tiers.
So, is health care a right when the other things are not? Well, I suppose not. However, health care as I perceive it - I will qualify my argument in that because I am not going to go do a master's thesis load of research - is something that has been allowed to spiral out of control where cost is concerned, unlike some of our other vital tier 1 needs like food and shelter. I am not going to point fingers because I don't think it's just greedy doctors - they have to cover cost like any other business owner, which includes schooling, malpractice insurance, and overhead for all the expensive machines they use. I won't even try to evaluate if the cost of the machine is fair.
However, with insurance companies around to take some of the burden off the individual it makes it such that fees rise higher than they might have normally. If the doctor visit is $100 and the patient pays a 20% fee of $20, most people can afford that which allows them to go to the doctor regularly. If the visit increases a year later to $150, the insured patient only sees an increase of $10 which, while annoying, is still quite affordable. We are not yet at the point where people begin to vote with their pocketbook, which in a normal situation helps to keep a lid on the prices we pay.
On the other hand, we have the uninsured patient. I can't name all the reasons a person would be uninsured, but I know in a lot of cases it is simply too expensive. So, from that perspective, we look at the uninsured patient who has to pay $100 for a doctor visit (which is probably quite a sum). For me, I know I have to be pretty damned sick to go to the doctor for that kind of money - and I have insurance (laughable, that, but I digress) and flexible spending! In the same scenario we see a cost increase of $50 per visit the next year. Instead of a minor $10 increase like the insured patient, the uninsured patient has seen an increase of $50 on top of an already expensive fee for what can be as short a visit as 15 minutes.
Uninsured patient is almost guaranteed to visit a doctor less often, which potentially means they do not treat illnesses such as contagious bacterial infections with prescribed, effective antibiotics***. While there are some who would say "Survival of the fittest, bitches," I would like to point out that a) people have an instinct to survive, however necessary b) those sick people make other people sick and c) medical bills are either the top reason or one of the top reasons for bankruptcy.
So, back to what I was saying before - health care cost, through many factors, has been allowed to rise exponentially compared to other needs. As I stated, I blame that partly on insurance because we as consumers don't really care what it costs period, we care what it costs us - period. If we had a subsidized housing market or food program, I am sure we would see something similar.
If none of this really stands out for you, consider then company expense vs. personal expense. At work, I would probably be willing to spend $250 for a cell phone. Compared to the budget we have and the cost of that phone, $250 is very small. Personally, however, I don't like to pay more than about $100. That cell phone manufacturer knows this and knows they can charge more and still sell phones - it will not greatly impact their revenue to raise the cost from $100 to $250, provided that businesses will buy the phone. Health care is not much different.
So, is health care a right? Well.......no, probably not. But it's something that will improve the quality of life and potentially save money nationwide because we won't just be doing damage control on illnesses, catching them after they are a problem. If people are able to go to the doctor more often, they will have a broader history to offer to the doctor. The doctor will be better able to recognize problems and maybe something like cancer can be treated early instead of late, which will save a lot of money. If the treatment costs less, the patient is less likely to file bankruptcy...and wow, that might solve some of our banking problems too...
*** Uninsured people, in my very limited experience, do still tend to self-diagnose and take antibiotics. While this might help, if they are not taken responsibly i.e. as a doctor has deemed necessary to eradicate infection, the bacteria can mutate and eventually become an immune "super bug" which, in turn, fucks everyone.
Moving back to the blog entry, Mistress Matisse says the following:
I think in that instance it (the section in bold) is a right because the right to "life", in my opinion, somewhat also implies that bottom tier of Maslow's Hierarchy. As I said before, I don't think the bottom tier items are necessarily rights, per se, but they do in part pertain to some of our basic human rights (like life). People need food, in some capacity, to live as they do shelter (again, in some capacity).
"Right" or no - without these programs, we may not have ever risen from the Depression. I know there are those who probably abuse the programs and that's incredibly unfortunate. I have, in fact, met people who appear to be doing that now (see here). On the whole, though, I do believe in our social programs and believe that they are necessary to account for the shortcomings of our modern, corporate, capitalist society. My mother, for example, is single and works 30-40 hours a week - more than that if she can get the hours. She makes $9.50 an hour and she can barely afford to live alone. She doesn't qualify for any assistance but even if she did - she is a productive member of society. Would it truly be fair to deny her assistance when she is trying in vain to survive on her salary? Through no fault of her own she is paid less than she needs to live because the corporation has to make or increase their profit margin... and it's not as though she could actually use resources from the land to become a self-made millionaire. While those days are not over, it is harder and harder to do that as a "Joe Sixpack" who has little liquid assets (if any assets at all).
Anyway...if social programs are not rights and should therefore not be provided, let's do something drastic. How about we eradicate corporate tax, guarantee a living wage, and install a fair tax? Oh, I guess that sounds too much like non-capitalism.
I think I've written long enough and lost my point more than once...eventually I might do a part 2 that's a little more focused. :)
According to both, Obama stated that health care is a right (I didn't see that part so I am trusting they are telling the truth).
As Mistress Matisse and Bill Whittle pointed out, it's difficult to qualify health care as a right without including other basics in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which include food, water, shelter, and clothing. While it's not included anywhere on the pyramid, I would probably place it on the bottom tier with food, etc. If you're not in good health, it's pretty difficult to focus on the higher tiers.
So, is health care a right when the other things are not? Well, I suppose not. However, health care as I perceive it - I will qualify my argument in that because I am not going to go do a master's thesis load of research - is something that has been allowed to spiral out of control where cost is concerned, unlike some of our other vital tier 1 needs like food and shelter. I am not going to point fingers because I don't think it's just greedy doctors - they have to cover cost like any other business owner, which includes schooling, malpractice insurance, and overhead for all the expensive machines they use. I won't even try to evaluate if the cost of the machine is fair.
However, with insurance companies around to take some of the burden off the individual it makes it such that fees rise higher than they might have normally. If the doctor visit is $100 and the patient pays a 20% fee of $20, most people can afford that which allows them to go to the doctor regularly. If the visit increases a year later to $150, the insured patient only sees an increase of $10 which, while annoying, is still quite affordable. We are not yet at the point where people begin to vote with their pocketbook, which in a normal situation helps to keep a lid on the prices we pay.
On the other hand, we have the uninsured patient. I can't name all the reasons a person would be uninsured, but I know in a lot of cases it is simply too expensive. So, from that perspective, we look at the uninsured patient who has to pay $100 for a doctor visit (which is probably quite a sum). For me, I know I have to be pretty damned sick to go to the doctor for that kind of money - and I have insurance (laughable, that, but I digress) and flexible spending! In the same scenario we see a cost increase of $50 per visit the next year. Instead of a minor $10 increase like the insured patient, the uninsured patient has seen an increase of $50 on top of an already expensive fee for what can be as short a visit as 15 minutes.
Uninsured patient is almost guaranteed to visit a doctor less often, which potentially means they do not treat illnesses such as contagious bacterial infections with prescribed, effective antibiotics***. While there are some who would say "Survival of the fittest, bitches," I would like to point out that a) people have an instinct to survive, however necessary b) those sick people make other people sick and c) medical bills are either the top reason or one of the top reasons for bankruptcy.
So, back to what I was saying before - health care cost, through many factors, has been allowed to rise exponentially compared to other needs. As I stated, I blame that partly on insurance because we as consumers don't really care what it costs period, we care what it costs us - period. If we had a subsidized housing market or food program, I am sure we would see something similar.
If none of this really stands out for you, consider then company expense vs. personal expense. At work, I would probably be willing to spend $250 for a cell phone. Compared to the budget we have and the cost of that phone, $250 is very small. Personally, however, I don't like to pay more than about $100. That cell phone manufacturer knows this and knows they can charge more and still sell phones - it will not greatly impact their revenue to raise the cost from $100 to $250, provided that businesses will buy the phone. Health care is not much different.
So, is health care a right? Well.......no, probably not. But it's something that will improve the quality of life and potentially save money nationwide because we won't just be doing damage control on illnesses, catching them after they are a problem. If people are able to go to the doctor more often, they will have a broader history to offer to the doctor. The doctor will be better able to recognize problems and maybe something like cancer can be treated early instead of late, which will save a lot of money. If the treatment costs less, the patient is less likely to file bankruptcy...and wow, that might solve some of our banking problems too...
*** Uninsured people, in my very limited experience, do still tend to self-diagnose and take antibiotics. While this might help, if they are not taken responsibly i.e. as a doctor has deemed necessary to eradicate infection, the bacteria can mutate and eventually become an immune "super bug" which, in turn, fucks everyone.
Moving back to the blog entry, Mistress Matisse says the following:
"I can see that there’s some disconnect between my ideas that “It’s okay that taxes fund some food/shelter/medical care for people who need it” and “But it’s not a right”. If it’s not a right, then why is it acceptable for the government to pay for it? I don’t know." - Mistress Matisse's blog entry 10/10/08
I think in that instance it (the section in bold) is a right because the right to "life", in my opinion, somewhat also implies that bottom tier of Maslow's Hierarchy. As I said before, I don't think the bottom tier items are necessarily rights, per se, but they do in part pertain to some of our basic human rights (like life). People need food, in some capacity, to live as they do shelter (again, in some capacity).
"Right" or no - without these programs, we may not have ever risen from the Depression. I know there are those who probably abuse the programs and that's incredibly unfortunate. I have, in fact, met people who appear to be doing that now (see here). On the whole, though, I do believe in our social programs and believe that they are necessary to account for the shortcomings of our modern, corporate, capitalist society. My mother, for example, is single and works 30-40 hours a week - more than that if she can get the hours. She makes $9.50 an hour and she can barely afford to live alone. She doesn't qualify for any assistance but even if she did - she is a productive member of society. Would it truly be fair to deny her assistance when she is trying in vain to survive on her salary? Through no fault of her own she is paid less than she needs to live because the corporation has to make or increase their profit margin... and it's not as though she could actually use resources from the land to become a self-made millionaire. While those days are not over, it is harder and harder to do that as a "Joe Sixpack" who has little liquid assets (if any assets at all).
Anyway...if social programs are not rights and should therefore not be provided, let's do something drastic. How about we eradicate corporate tax, guarantee a living wage, and install a fair tax? Oh, I guess that sounds too much like non-capitalism.
I think I've written long enough and lost my point more than once...eventually I might do a part 2 that's a little more focused. :)
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Deception
This ad is lying because I am fairly certain the two women are indeed two women, not different versions of the same one.
The brow line, eyes, cheek bones, BOOBS, are all different. OK, maybe she lost 35 pounds but I don't think she lost 20 of it in the boobs...I know they would get smaller but that was like a D or DD to a small B or large A...
Anyway, just something I noticed and had to share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)