Gabriel Mann's 2 cents
The Chief Source staff is encouraging readers to submit a post on any topic they choose between May 1st and Independence Day, at which point a winner will be crowned based on staff vote and your comments. The following is submission #1 from Gabriel Mann:
"I believe every person who works 40 hours a week deserves health insurance, either provided by their employer or the state.
I believe the true definition of sin is doing something that hurts other people. Too many people inflict their own definition of sin against actions that cause no harm, while not recognizing that their own actions are damaging the environment, social climate, and educational opportunities of others.
I believe we owe every child a true education. Those children should be first taught that resources are scarce; and as the providers of those resources, we will show preference to individuals that do not break the law. They may then choose their own actions with an understanding that they may be sacrificing future opportunities.
I serve no king, no master, no lord; but, I recognize that in order for my community to succeed, I need to participate in our inclusive government and encourage others to also do so.
This, I believe."
"I believe every person who works 40 hours a week deserves health insurance, either provided by their employer or the state.I believe the true definition of sin is doing something that hurts other people. Too many people inflict their own definition of sin against actions that cause no harm, while not recognizing that their own actions are damaging the environment, social climate, and educational opportunities of others.
I believe we owe every child a true education. Those children should be first taught that resources are scarce; and as the providers of those resources, we will show preference to individuals that do not break the law. They may then choose their own actions with an understanding that they may be sacrificing future opportunities.
I serve no king, no master, no lord; but, I recognize that in order for my community to succeed, I need to participate in our inclusive government and encourage others to also do so.
This, I believe."
By Robert - 4/30/2007
25 Comments:
More liberals spouting off. Terrific.
Anonymous,
Actually this is your not-liberal chance to spout off, too.
If you didn't notice, in the picture the largest word is "conservative." This is because (like our old promo 'Red Thursday') we encourage people like yourself to stand up and say something other than one-liners of negativity.
Let me guess..you're going to vanish into the woodwork now.
Gabriel, thanks for the thoughts.
You'll just have to get use to the anonymous people.
I believe you, Gabriel
Well said, Gabriel! I wonder what anon could possibly find wrong with your values. You seem to want people to be kind to others and value education and community. What could be better than that?
Where is education on our public discourse these days? Thanks Gabriel. I hope NPR picked this up.
"They may then choose their own actions with an understanding that they may be sacrificing future opportunities."
I completely and utterly disagree. Your statement is making it too simple for such a complex problem. These kids from the ghetto do not necessarily "choose" to become criminals. I think that if a lot of us we're in that environment (which usually consists of no father, no jobs, no values, etc) we would possibly turn out the same way.
Now I'm not saying that these kids should not be punished to the utmost, but there needs to be a little more understanding as to why they turn out as they do. Our peers exert an enormous amount of influence on us, as evidenced by the way we dress, act, etc. It is not so simple as showing Anthony "A-Boogie" Buford the two divergent paths. "Hey, A-Boogie, look here. Option 1 is to get an education, get a job, and live happily ever after. Option 2 is to try to rob a man at gun-point and get killed. Which is the better alternative?"
If things were this simple the problem would not be so insurmountable.
Well, I hate to say this but...
I completely agree with silent here.
"I believe the true definition of sin is doing something that hurts other people."
I get what you're saying, but some will argue that porn 'hurts' participants and their families and leads to real-life violent crime. Same thing with recreational drug use. Man, even booze becomes suspect.
I'm not saying I'd agree with them, but your statement is an oversimplification that everyone here can agree on until we start to define what does and doesn't hurt other people or issues like those silent mentioned.
Aside from universal health care and not believing in God, there wasn't anything I could sink my teeth into.
"I believe every person who works 40 hours a week deserves health insurance, either provided by their employer or the state."
RIght everybody gets healthcare but they don't pay anything for it. A negative right is one in which someone would have to act in some manner to remove it from you (It would take effort for me to censor you in order to deprive you of your freedom of speech). Healthcare is an extreme expense (the oppositie of a negative right). which if the state or employer would provide must be funded by somone other than that recieving the benefit.
What needs to happen is for participation in a healthcare plan be mandatory (excepting those financially unable to participate, who can be covered by medicaid and other programs already anyways). These plans should carry a high deductible to keep the monthly payments low, and people should budget for their own annual check-ups, physicals and self wrought chronic conditions. That way you are protectd from a calamity, but your general health and welfare is still your responsibility.
For christs sakes auto insurance is mandatory to drive. 2/3 of the uninsured are employed in some manner, also single young adults make up a large proportion of the uninsured who make a choice to forego health insurance for their own benefit. Under the idea stated above (these individuals would still not go to the doctor because in large part they are generally healthy) but they would be protected in case of a disaster, at a minimal expense
I resent the fact that people are so irresponsible and greedy (yes greedy if you expect others to pay for your health) that they feel it is someone elses obligation to give them healthcare at no cost. You have to budget for oil changes, tires, cable TV. I don't feel it is unreasonable to expect that you save $200 for a bi annual physical. The cost of existing plans are so high because everything under the sun is covered at minimal price (the $20 copay doesn't cover a damn thing) .
Institue a plan like this allowing people to flock to the high deductible lower coverage plans would also lower the cost of defensive medicine. Performing extensive tests or dupicate procedures in order to keep the litigious from feasting on your corpse is cost intense as well, but that is a seperate ball of wax.
t-dawg,
So by that same logic, I suppose you're against public education.
That's an extreme expense paid for by citizens other than those receiving the benefit, as opposed to a "negative right."
Well, listen to how silly your statement sounds if you substitute one "extreme expense" for another, health care for public education:
"Right everybody gets [public eduction] but they don't pay anything for it. A negative right is one in which someone would have to act in some manner to remove it from you (It would take effort for me to censor you in order to deprive you of your freedom of speech). [Public eduction] is an extreme expense (the opposite of a negative right). which if the state or employer would provide must be funded by someone other than that receiving the benefit...I resent the fact that people are so irresponsible and greedy (yes greedy if you expect others to pay for your [public eduction]) that they feel it is someone else's obligation to give them [public eduction] at no cost."
no I support public education and by the same token people pay into it through their taxes.
It is the idea of a shared expense, I didn't demean group plans and even offered an affodable option to cover more people. The point is that it becomes one of shared expense as opposed to what the author said that either the employer or the state should pay.
DO you understand negative rights?
People choose how much their schools recieve thru the passages of property taxes and operating levies (leave the amount contributed by state and federal aside for the moment-lthough both derived from taxes as well)
I am not limiting availability or access, but just like all things in this world nothing is free, and I have a sneaking suspicion you are unaware of the costs.
I would argue that the majority does benefit from high quality public education thru having an educated populus and property values-even if you don't directly attend or have a child that does. As opposed to healthcare which, when insulated from the cost allows an individual to recieve care at a cost above what he contributed yet still carried by another payor.
You are attempting to compare apples to watermelons-lts stick to a way to cover as many people as possible yet keep it in the realm of feasability
-this will be a more ideas based debate if you can refrain from terming my argument as silly (It isn't and one which has merits that I would love to hear your arguments against).
Also when I was referring to health care I was addressing it to an individual not the public, as you so slyly slipped that in there
t-dawg,
Considering what goes on around here, the word "silly" is pretty tame.
It's not like I said something inflammatory like stupid or moronic.
(Actually, I'd be ecstatic if the worst we saw around here were adjectives like "silly" and adverbs like "slyly.")
I'm making an effort to be less inflammatory.
We'll see how that goes.
I took it too personally, I always have to come in here ready to brawl. You were right not inflammatory-back to the topic, any other thoughts regarding my post
I've got work now, but I'll address you comments tonight at the latest.
I watched CNN today for a long time learning more about CNN's attitude towards the plight of the oppressed undocumented people and the victims demands. The demands varied from impeaching Bush/Cheney to the immediate halt of all deportation hearings. This years theme and CNN's coverage was "it is all about the children." How can anyone even an old grizzzled xenophobe like myself want to do anything that would not be in a child's best interest? Also is there any choice but to admire the members of a movement that
puts the childrens welfare above all other?
t-dawg
You said:
"I would argue that the majority does benefit from high quality public education thru having an educated populus and property values-even if you don't directly attend or have a child that does. As opposed to healthcare..."
The majority doesn't benefit from high quality health care in the same way? You linked public education to property values (on a national level?). Couldn't a similar, indirect argument be made linking mental health care to crime or health care to bankruptcy
& foreclosures to welfare & homelessness?
I guess I still don't see a big difference between public education and universal health care in your analogy.
And when people object so adamantly to the insurmountable costs of universal health care I just shake my head and wonder how so many of the same Americans sanctioned this trillion dollar mess in Iraq without even considering the long term costs.
"The majority doesn't benefit from high quality health care in the same way? You linked public education to property values (on a national level?). Couldn't a similar, indirect argument be made linking mental health care to crime or health care to bankruptcy
& foreclosures to welfare & homelessness"
The difference btwn the two is that we want everyone to have a basic level of education (reading, math). It is necessary to be able to be a functioning member of society. In healthcare the goal should be to avoid NEEDING it in the first place. Foreclosures bancruptcies(arising from an inability to meet hospital bills) and calamaties are all things that people should have insurance for, that is why I would like legally mandated participation. Now to keep the monthly payments down you have a high deductible and you only cover unforeseen drastic events (car wrecks, heart attack) and out of the individual pocket you budget for your own preventative health (yealry check-ups, mammograms pap smears, prostate exams). I don't think that is unreasonable (as I stated originally I have a built in caveat for those unable to afford anything using existing programs) Will the cost out of pocket per visit be higher-yes, but instead of paying 120/month you are paying less than 1/2 that. (obviously both numbers are for discussions sake)
In the last 5 years I have gone to the doctor 3 times yet I have paid around 5 grand for health care. Alll together with x-rays, tests, blood work I came in at a total of under a thousand if I were to have paid out of pocket, so I would have been better off not participating but then you are rolling the dice with financial ruin if you are hurt badly.
Yes society would greatly benefit from a healthier whole, but a large part of that is patient responsibility. Our healthcare system pays heavily for those that do a great deal of damage to themselves, at what point do we stop insulating people from the consequences of their actions. The talk is always of employer provided healthcare but that is just too costly anymore, when the big 3 did it back in the day our average expenditure on healthcare was significantly lower than it is today & see the financial ruin it has brought on them.
Think about my plan in these terms and maybe it will seem more palatable to you
1-are more people going to be covered-Yes
2-will it reduce the monthly amount paid for coverage-yes
3-over a lifetime (in most cases) will the cost paid for healthcare by an individual be commeasurate with what he recieves-yes
drawbacks
1-will people avoid seeking care when needed-yes but go look in an emergency room during flu season, and see the incredible waste of money on people who could sleep it off (or better yet get the $5 vaccine).
2-will the chronically ill pay more-yes they will
Also does the possibilty that people may view having good health as in their best financial interest-because we both know that peopel think with their wallets in most cases?
"And when people object so adamantly to the insurmountable costs of universal health care I just shake my head and wonder how so many of the same Americans sanctioned this trillion dollar mess in Iraq without even considering the long term costs."
this is borrowed money-and while I agree that it should have been spent on strengthening our infrastructure, it is just an off topic aside here
also what riles me up on when people start yelling universal healthcare is that nobody offers up enough specifics because at the end of the day-you will have to cut something. The same reason that preachers piss you off with their pie in the sky mentality.
The last time I asked about any specifics from Obama on health care, one of your cowriters started in on me about the war.
Or I ask specifics and I get told how hostile I am.
If you're illegal, you should be deported on the spot. They are ILLEGAL. If they come here legally, no problem.
This has nothing to do with xenophobia. Like I said, if they are legal, I'd personally hold their hand as they cross the border.
Would the children have a better opportunity in America? Probably. Do I fault the Mexicans for trying to come here illegally? Of course not.
Why don't we just allow every child born in any third-world country to come?
Silent,
Once again my satire came up short.
If the facts refute your view hide behind the children. It is becoming a disgusting political tool.
Robert, education is TOTALLY different. It is money spent on the one segment of society that has few rights, and little ability to lookout for themselves.
Adults can and should be expected to be responsible for themselselves, but the same cannot be said of children.
I would probably support free healthcare for kids, but never adults.
And I can't help but agree with the first anon poster.
Fred, I knew you were being sarcastic. I just had to throw out my view on illegals. Happy belated MayDay.
Post a Comment
<< Home