Unless you've been living in a missile silo the last few days, you've likely heard about how one Elliot Rodgers spent his Friday night on May 27 (spoiler: he killed six people). And you've likely read his 140-page wall of text or seen his videos, or at least heard about their content. And I'm sure you've likely heard everyone who has uttered a single word about this tragedy use six dead people as props for a useless gun control debate (because California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire country and that obviously didn't stop this guy) before they've even been embalmed. Or worse yet, as props for a debate on mental health, because clearly a guy who murders six people in cold blood has got to be nuts.
Well, this isn't a rehash of any of that, so pay the fuck attention.
Elliot Rodgers was not crazy. Elliot Rodgers was pure fucking evil. Do not contribute to the stigma that those with mental illness face by confusing the two. Because it's entirely possible to be a violent, dangerous person and still be perfectly sane. As in you are perfectly aware of reality and perfectly aware that what you're doing is wrong, you just don't give a shit.
Rodgers made the motivation for his killing spree more than obvious. He didn't think the people he killed were demons or space aliens or government spies. He didn't think there was some vast global conspiracy out to get him. He planned his killing spree as revenge on others who had what he did not, or who didn't give him what he thought he deserved. He hated women for not finding him attractive. He hated men for being attractive when he wasn't.
That doesn't make him mentally ill. That makes him vindictive, self-absorbed, and violently petty. It speaks not to a sickness of the mind, but to a sickness of the society that taught him to be vindictive, self-absorbed, and violently petty. It speaks to a toxic culture of privilege and entitlement that, when unchecked, produces those with the inability to empathize with others, or to care about anything but their own wants and desires.
Rodgers was rich, the son of an assistant Hollywood director behind a very lucrative film franchise (The Hunger Games). And if you have the stomach to read his rambling manifesto, it becomes apparent that he didn't hear the word "no" a lot as a child, at least in regard to material possessions. So when he got to high school and college and started getting the word "no" from women who didn't want to date him and men who didn't want to hang around with him, he eventually heard it one too many times and decided he'd had enough.
Because to Elliot Rodgers, there was no difference between people and possessions. A girlfriend was no different than a sportscar. That's why he didn't want just any woman to find him attractive. He wanted a hot blonde sorority girl. She would be as much of a status symbol as a pair of Armani shoes and nothing more.
No doubt you've heard many feminist blogs talk about the issue of misogyny in Rodgers' motives. And yes, to a point they're right. He was raised to see women as objects and trophies, and hated them when they defied his will by rejecting him; he took it as an insult to his entire being that they didn't act like the characters in his father's movies and throw themselves at him because he's The Hero.
But his pathology went beyond simple sexism and rape culture. Hollywood is also the epicenter of toxic human consumerism, where people are used and thrown away daily like condoms in a nightclub restroom. Thus, Rodgers rejected the idea that human life has value beyond amusing and entertaining him. If you could not (or would not) pump a neverending supply of air into his bloated ego, he had no use for you. Why shouldn't he kill you if you pissed him off?
We might be quick to call him delusional or a sociopath, but we would be wrong. Because to do so is to remove his agency. And with it, his responsibility for what he did.
And worse yet, when we dismiss people like Elliot Rodgers as "crazy", we inadvertently tar all the mentally ill with that same brush. We punish everyone else for the sins of this waste of oxygen. We reinforce the idea that mental illness inherently causes violent behavior, when the opposite is true; the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence, not perpetrators.
And all this tarring strengthens the stigma that mental illness already has and makes those who do experience these problems, from depression to schizophrenia, less likely to seek help. Because doing so is admitting you have a problem in the first place. Admitting you're "crazy." Admitting you're a time bomb. Admitting you are all of the things that we associate with Elliot Rodgers.
So please, the next time you see someone refer to Rodgers or anyone like him as "a nutcase", do kindly correct them. Take that brush away from them and call people like Rodgers out for what they are: products of a toxic culture that devalues people -- all people -- into playthings and tools of amusement, taken to its extreme logical conclusion.
Elliot Rodgers wasn't crazy. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew it was wrong. He knew why.
He didn't give a shit.
Statcounter
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
Why Religion and Law Mix Like Coke and Grape Soda
They mix, all right, in the sense that they form a solution that doesn't separate if it sits in the back of the fridge for too long. The problem is the mixture tastes like shit and you'll be looking for a potted plant to dump it into the minute you try to gag down that first sip. There are three root problems with a theocracy. Three core issues of why, much like that one friend's off-and-on romance, government and religion can never reconcile without somebody getting fucked, and they're better off acknowledging they aren't made for each other and going their separate ways:
1. Religion and government were designed for incompatible purposes.
Religion was developed with two major purposes: helping people deal with looming mortality, and simplifying observations that made ancient people's heads hurt because we didn't have the technology to explain them yet. These purposes have gotten corrupted over the years to serve terrible, selfish leaders, but those were the initial reasons we came up with invisible sky-parents.
Government, on the other hand, was designed to maximize the survival of our species by creating a lawful society; that is, rules and norms that encourage fairness and cooperation so that we can better survive shit like harsh winters and bear attacks.
The reason the two purposes are fundamentally incompatible is because people who do not fear mortality any longer have less incentive to cooperate in order to survive. And people who are happy with overly simple explanations are more likely to ignore the nuances of a situation that lead to fairness and teamwork for the greater good. In essence, you get people who are afraid of knowledge, but not of death, and this can't end well for anybody.
2. Religion is too fatalistic to function as a basis for ruling society.
This should be obvious, but for anybody not familiar with various religions (because it's not unique to Christianity), lemme 'splain you a thing. Religions tend to have one of two common fatalistic threads: outright prophecy, or at the very least a simplistically negative view of human nature. If they aren't predicting doom and gloom (either in apocalypse form or an endless cycle of suffering, death, and rebirth for the individual), they're agreeing that humanity is awful and only their particular beliefs can motivate people to be good. Occasionally, a combination of both (yes, Pentecostalism, I'm looking at you).
This takes all point and purpose out of governing. If the world is going to end or we're just going to suffer and kill each other while boning lamp-posts anyway, then what's to be gained by trying to govern ourselves at all? It's like washing the windows on the Hindenburgh. None of it's going to matter once everything goes down in a giant fireball because God hates us.
3. Religion declares inequality from the outset, ensuring that fairness is impossible under a theocracy.
The other thing you'll find about virtually all religions is that there is a baseline inequality inherent in the doctrine of each one. There are those who are "chosen", those who are not, and those who are condemned (with those last two often interchangeable). When your basis for law has already decreed a certain subset of people as worthy or unworthy from the start, it's impossible for a society based on such doctrine to treat each other fairly. And fairness is the cornerstone of a successful and functioning society because when things are unfair, the people who are being treated unfairly tend to get pissed off. And as both history and the modern era have demonstrated, there is only so much they will take before shit gets real.
And this is not even counting the fact that religious people are not a homogeneous hive mind, even within the same religion or the same faction of that religion. When a government seeks to limit rights rather than grant them for reasons that -- to the people -- do nothing for the public good or are outright insidious, that government isn't going to last long once the people figure out they have their government outnumbered.
This is why the separation of church and state is one of the first laws we ever wrote as a country. Because our Founding Fathers, coming from England, saw what happens when you weave religion and government together and said "oh hell no, we are not having that shit here." And they thought it was important enough to list it as law right after freedom of speech and the press.
That's right; despite what the Tea Party wants you to think, the U.S. was never intended to be a Christian nation. It was never intended to be a religious nation of any sort. Because, as the Founding Fathers believed, religion is a personal matter between the individual and their deity of choice.
Plus, you get way fewer civil wars and shit that way.
1. Religion and government were designed for incompatible purposes.
Religion was developed with two major purposes: helping people deal with looming mortality, and simplifying observations that made ancient people's heads hurt because we didn't have the technology to explain them yet. These purposes have gotten corrupted over the years to serve terrible, selfish leaders, but those were the initial reasons we came up with invisible sky-parents.
Government, on the other hand, was designed to maximize the survival of our species by creating a lawful society; that is, rules and norms that encourage fairness and cooperation so that we can better survive shit like harsh winters and bear attacks.
The reason the two purposes are fundamentally incompatible is because people who do not fear mortality any longer have less incentive to cooperate in order to survive. And people who are happy with overly simple explanations are more likely to ignore the nuances of a situation that lead to fairness and teamwork for the greater good. In essence, you get people who are afraid of knowledge, but not of death, and this can't end well for anybody.
2. Religion is too fatalistic to function as a basis for ruling society.
This should be obvious, but for anybody not familiar with various religions (because it's not unique to Christianity), lemme 'splain you a thing. Religions tend to have one of two common fatalistic threads: outright prophecy, or at the very least a simplistically negative view of human nature. If they aren't predicting doom and gloom (either in apocalypse form or an endless cycle of suffering, death, and rebirth for the individual), they're agreeing that humanity is awful and only their particular beliefs can motivate people to be good. Occasionally, a combination of both (yes, Pentecostalism, I'm looking at you).
This takes all point and purpose out of governing. If the world is going to end or we're just going to suffer and kill each other while boning lamp-posts anyway, then what's to be gained by trying to govern ourselves at all? It's like washing the windows on the Hindenburgh. None of it's going to matter once everything goes down in a giant fireball because God hates us.
3. Religion declares inequality from the outset, ensuring that fairness is impossible under a theocracy.
The other thing you'll find about virtually all religions is that there is a baseline inequality inherent in the doctrine of each one. There are those who are "chosen", those who are not, and those who are condemned (with those last two often interchangeable). When your basis for law has already decreed a certain subset of people as worthy or unworthy from the start, it's impossible for a society based on such doctrine to treat each other fairly. And fairness is the cornerstone of a successful and functioning society because when things are unfair, the people who are being treated unfairly tend to get pissed off. And as both history and the modern era have demonstrated, there is only so much they will take before shit gets real.
And this is not even counting the fact that religious people are not a homogeneous hive mind, even within the same religion or the same faction of that religion. When a government seeks to limit rights rather than grant them for reasons that -- to the people -- do nothing for the public good or are outright insidious, that government isn't going to last long once the people figure out they have their government outnumbered.
This is why the separation of church and state is one of the first laws we ever wrote as a country. Because our Founding Fathers, coming from England, saw what happens when you weave religion and government together and said "oh hell no, we are not having that shit here." And they thought it was important enough to list it as law right after freedom of speech and the press.
That's right; despite what the Tea Party wants you to think, the U.S. was never intended to be a Christian nation. It was never intended to be a religious nation of any sort. Because, as the Founding Fathers believed, religion is a personal matter between the individual and their deity of choice.
Plus, you get way fewer civil wars and shit that way.
Barack Obama: Worst Socialist Dictator Ever
The two favorite insults that those on the right love to throw at the President: "socialist" and "dictator" (or "emperor" or "king" or something equally scary). But like a sheltered suburban teenager who just discovered Urbandictionary.com, calling Barack Obama either a dictator or a socialist requires Opposite Day to become a federally recognized holiday.
See, if Obama was a socialist? He'd be calling for the dissolution of private-owned infrastructure altogether, in favor of resources and utilities being controlled by the state, because that is what socialism is. The public ownership of agriculture, finance (banks and credit), energy (both electric and gas/oil), water management, waste management, healthcare...you get the idea. Or I sure as hell hope so because I'm running out of small words.
Advocating for a tax system that gives people more money to spend buying privatized resources they can't live without is the exact opposite of socialism.
So the next time you see someone complaining about the socialist dictator in the White House, ask them who they're talking about. Because ironically, if there was anyone in the White House who was remotely close to a socialist dictator (and even then, only if you squint) -- someone who imposed wage and price control strangleholds and circumvented checks and balances to grab as much power as he could -- it was Nixon.
You know, a Repu--
...Oh yeah. Nevermind.
See, if Barack Obama was actually a dictator, the 2010 midterms wouldn't have mattered, because he would've ordered every single Republican congresscritter (and their aides) to be marched onto the White House lawn and executed by firing squad. Because that's what dictators do. A dictator -- or any ruler with absolute power -- does not follow a checks and balances system. A dictator eliminates enemies by whatever means necessary, full stop.
Ah, but the infamous executive orders! He's going over Congress' head, and that somehow makes him a monarch in the eyes of the Koch brothers' personal army. Well see, funny thing about that: Barack Obama has issued fewer executive orders than nearly every other two-term president in the last century.
So if Barack Obama is trying to be a dictator, he's doing a lousy job of it.
But there's still socialism, right? After all, the ACA--
Yeah, stop. Right there. Because if you equate the ACA with socialism, you've just proven you have no idea what either one of them is.
Socialism is not a system of government, for one thing. It's an economic policy wherein the means of production is owned by the people. Or in smaller words that conservatives can digest, socialism is when people work to produce what is needed and make sure that everyone has enough, rather than to make as much money as possible.
The ACA has about as much to do with socialism as Christmas does with Bastille Day. See, the ACA is not socialized medicine. The law doesn't change who the doctors work for. Only how they get paid. That is, the law is making private insurance available to everyone and requiring everyone to have it, in order to make sure that everyone can see a doctor when needed (and that doctor can get paid). The only part that is even vaguely-socialist-if-you-squint is the subsidy program. But the insurance itself is still not provided by the federal government; the federal government is merely footing part of the bill.
Yes, there was a comment from Obama in a speech from 1998 about redistributing the wealth:
"The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot."Now, if Republican Tea Party Fantasy Island denizens could rip out the Kool-Aid IV for five minutes and read that with a clear head, they'd understand that the federal government is not coming for your paycheck with a fully outfitted M-1 Abrams. In this case, the redistribution of wealth means a better use of the taxes you already pay. Because that's what "government systems that pool resources" are. That's what taxes do. Taxes already redistribute wealth. Obama's idea then was that we should be using that tax system more efficiently and fairly.
See, if Obama was a socialist? He'd be calling for the dissolution of private-owned infrastructure altogether, in favor of resources and utilities being controlled by the state, because that is what socialism is. The public ownership of agriculture, finance (banks and credit), energy (both electric and gas/oil), water management, waste management, healthcare...you get the idea. Or I sure as hell hope so because I'm running out of small words.
Advocating for a tax system that gives people more money to spend buying privatized resources they can't live without is the exact opposite of socialism.
So the next time you see someone complaining about the socialist dictator in the White House, ask them who they're talking about. Because ironically, if there was anyone in the White House who was remotely close to a socialist dictator (and even then, only if you squint) -- someone who imposed wage and price control strangleholds and circumvented checks and balances to grab as much power as he could -- it was Nixon.
You know, a Repu--
...Oh yeah. Nevermind.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Quit Shooting the Messenger Just Because He Brings You Bad News
Or, Why You Should Be Pissed Off At Your Insurance Company Instead of the ACA.
As every "Obamacare Horror Story" Fox Noise uses to try and make "fetch" happen gets picked apart with pesky facts and omitted relevant details -- the bane of every Fox story -- it's becoming apparent that the ACA is not our enemy, here. The law is simply a convenient scapegoat for the real reason people are angry.
What the law has uncovered is the systematic fleecing of the American populace by the insurance industry itself. And the ACA uncovered this because it's these dishonest, terrible, expensive practices that the law was written to eliminate.
The most frequent "horror story" we hear on the Scared Old White People Channel is that some poor sod's insurance company canceled their policy for ACA noncompliance, or switched them to a compliant plan with a ridiculously higher premium. The reason every single one of these stories falls apart under even mild scrutiny is twofold: 1) Fox and other right-wing propaganda outlets purposely do not explain what a "non-compliant" insurance policy means in practice, and 2) these same outlets purposely omit any information regarding subsidies for insurance premiums. Thus making it seem like the ACA is costing the consumer more money, when in reality it's saving the consumer from being ripped off.
See, before the ACA, there was no minimum standard when it came to health insurance policies. A policy could quite literally cover/not cover anything. And that "anything" was solely up to the company's discretion. As a result, many of the plans in the individual market were actually worse than having no coverage at all. Because at least if you don't have insurance, you aren't paying a premium. Many of these plans didn't cover doctor visits of any kind, and deductibles ran into five-digit figures for individuals.
I should know. I had one of these terrible plans back in 2008-2009 when I was working at a call center because it was the only one I could afford. My premium was around $80 per month, and the policy didn't cover anything unless I was treated through the ER or urgent care. And even then, the ER was a $100 copay, and for urgent care, $50. And it didn't cover prescriptions, either. Nor did it cover anything if your injuries or condition were self-inflicted (so, you know, if you were going to attempt suicide like I wanted to do so many times, you better make damn sure you succeeded).
Bottom line was that even though I had insurance, I was still fucked sideways with a chainsaw anyway if I was unlucky enough to need medical care.
What the ACA has done is made these terrible policies illegal by setting a minimum standard for what insurance companies need to cover. Hospital visits, emergency services, doctor's visits, prescriptions, mental health, maternity care/reproductive health, outpatient, preventive care, lab services, rehabilitative care, and pediatrics are all mandated coverage. Before the ACA, these were "Cadillac" services. Stuff you had to pay through the nose for with a blood sacrifice and half your soul. Now, they must be built into every policy.
What this means for you is that the ACA is forcing insurance companies to actually cover you instead of taking your premium and laughing at you when you need treatment. Especially for pre-existing conditions.
What this also means, of course, is that the $80-a-month-for-nothing policy will have to become a $250+-a-month-for-real-care policy. And that is where the other pesky detail that Fox wishes would go away comes in: the federal subsidy program for the middle class.
See, based on your yearly income and the state you live in, you may qualify for a subsidy toward your insurance premium. Meaning that the federal government foots part of the bill so that you can buy the insurance you need.
In many of these "horror stories" touted by the right, the "victim" didn't even go to Healthcare.gov to shop for a new policy or apply for a subsidy; they simply took whatever their current insurance carrier offered them (you would think the ideologues who worship Ayn Rand's fossilized feces would realize that the "free market" can't work if people don't shop around for the best deal they can get, but since when has the team at Fox let logic get in the away of bashing a black guy?).
For an idea of how this works outside of Republican Tea Party Fantasy Island, I went to Healthcare.gov myself for a look around. First thing I will say is that I'm probably making less money than a lot of people reading this. Before taxes, I bring in about $16,000/year, and I live in Florida (a state that refused to expand Medicaid, but that's another rant entirely). Silver plans (which are the minimum I would need) for me would run about $230-$290 a month regular price. But because of my income, I qualify for subsidies that bring that cost down to $50-$65 depending on the policy.
This means I'm getting comprehensive coverage for less than what I was paying for the plan I had before that was so shitty it's illegal now.
Blaming the ACA for increased premiums and canceled policies is a bit like blaming Watergate on the security guard. The problem is that we've grown so used to a broken healthcare system run by professional crooks that when someone finally tries to fix it, it's easier to get mad at them for having to rip apart the wall than to get mad at the roaches they're trying to exterminate.
And right-wing blowhards are all too ready to take advantage of that complacency if it pleases and lines the pockets of their corporate masters (many of whom are insurance companies, to the surprise of absolutely no one).
See, unless you are independently wealthy and can afford to pay out of pocket, someone else is going to have to pay for any medical care you receive. And if you can afford out of pocket costs, you are paying for a bunch of other people's care whether you want to or not. So the Ayn Rand argument is kind of moot because if you can pay, you're already shouldering the cost of those who can't. That's why saline IV bags that cost the hospital $1 end up being $90+ when the patient gets the bill. Under the ACA, requiring that everyone who can afford insurance buy some or pay a fee makes that system a little more efficient and less costly by spreading the burden of risk to as many people as possible who can afford to pay it (which, if you didn't know, is how insurance works). The ACA isn't perfect by any means. But it's a start. It's something that can be tweaked and improved, and in some states it's already gotten people talking about a move to single-payer. Something that, I might add, the rest of the world already has.
When it comes to healthcare, we're one of the most backward nations in the world, for one very simple reason: in places that are not the United States, being able to see a doctor and not come away broke is considered a basic human right. Here, it's as much a privilege as caviar and edible gold flakes. When some of the poorest nations on earth have excellent universal healthcare, it becomes apparent that America's problem is not that we can't provide everyone in the country with the health services they need, it's that we won't.
Because the only thing America is truly exceptional at is pure, unfettered greed.
As every "Obamacare Horror Story" Fox Noise uses to try and make "fetch" happen gets picked apart with pesky facts and omitted relevant details -- the bane of every Fox story -- it's becoming apparent that the ACA is not our enemy, here. The law is simply a convenient scapegoat for the real reason people are angry.
What the law has uncovered is the systematic fleecing of the American populace by the insurance industry itself. And the ACA uncovered this because it's these dishonest, terrible, expensive practices that the law was written to eliminate.
The most frequent "horror story" we hear on the Scared Old White People Channel is that some poor sod's insurance company canceled their policy for ACA noncompliance, or switched them to a compliant plan with a ridiculously higher premium. The reason every single one of these stories falls apart under even mild scrutiny is twofold: 1) Fox and other right-wing propaganda outlets purposely do not explain what a "non-compliant" insurance policy means in practice, and 2) these same outlets purposely omit any information regarding subsidies for insurance premiums. Thus making it seem like the ACA is costing the consumer more money, when in reality it's saving the consumer from being ripped off.
See, before the ACA, there was no minimum standard when it came to health insurance policies. A policy could quite literally cover/not cover anything. And that "anything" was solely up to the company's discretion. As a result, many of the plans in the individual market were actually worse than having no coverage at all. Because at least if you don't have insurance, you aren't paying a premium. Many of these plans didn't cover doctor visits of any kind, and deductibles ran into five-digit figures for individuals.
I should know. I had one of these terrible plans back in 2008-2009 when I was working at a call center because it was the only one I could afford. My premium was around $80 per month, and the policy didn't cover anything unless I was treated through the ER or urgent care. And even then, the ER was a $100 copay, and for urgent care, $50. And it didn't cover prescriptions, either. Nor did it cover anything if your injuries or condition were self-inflicted (so, you know, if you were going to attempt suicide like I wanted to do so many times, you better make damn sure you succeeded).
Bottom line was that even though I had insurance, I was still fucked sideways with a chainsaw anyway if I was unlucky enough to need medical care.
What the ACA has done is made these terrible policies illegal by setting a minimum standard for what insurance companies need to cover. Hospital visits, emergency services, doctor's visits, prescriptions, mental health, maternity care/reproductive health, outpatient, preventive care, lab services, rehabilitative care, and pediatrics are all mandated coverage. Before the ACA, these were "Cadillac" services. Stuff you had to pay through the nose for with a blood sacrifice and half your soul. Now, they must be built into every policy.
What this means for you is that the ACA is forcing insurance companies to actually cover you instead of taking your premium and laughing at you when you need treatment. Especially for pre-existing conditions.
What this also means, of course, is that the $80-a-month-for-nothing policy will have to become a $250+-a-month-for-real-care policy. And that is where the other pesky detail that Fox wishes would go away comes in: the federal subsidy program for the middle class.
See, based on your yearly income and the state you live in, you may qualify for a subsidy toward your insurance premium. Meaning that the federal government foots part of the bill so that you can buy the insurance you need.
In many of these "horror stories" touted by the right, the "victim" didn't even go to Healthcare.gov to shop for a new policy or apply for a subsidy; they simply took whatever their current insurance carrier offered them (you would think the ideologues who worship Ayn Rand's fossilized feces would realize that the "free market" can't work if people don't shop around for the best deal they can get, but since when has the team at Fox let logic get in the away of bashing a black guy?).
For an idea of how this works outside of Republican Tea Party Fantasy Island, I went to Healthcare.gov myself for a look around. First thing I will say is that I'm probably making less money than a lot of people reading this. Before taxes, I bring in about $16,000/year, and I live in Florida (a state that refused to expand Medicaid, but that's another rant entirely). Silver plans (which are the minimum I would need) for me would run about $230-$290 a month regular price. But because of my income, I qualify for subsidies that bring that cost down to $50-$65 depending on the policy.
This means I'm getting comprehensive coverage for less than what I was paying for the plan I had before that was so shitty it's illegal now.
Blaming the ACA for increased premiums and canceled policies is a bit like blaming Watergate on the security guard. The problem is that we've grown so used to a broken healthcare system run by professional crooks that when someone finally tries to fix it, it's easier to get mad at them for having to rip apart the wall than to get mad at the roaches they're trying to exterminate.
And right-wing blowhards are all too ready to take advantage of that complacency if it pleases and lines the pockets of their corporate masters (many of whom are insurance companies, to the surprise of absolutely no one).
See, unless you are independently wealthy and can afford to pay out of pocket, someone else is going to have to pay for any medical care you receive. And if you can afford out of pocket costs, you are paying for a bunch of other people's care whether you want to or not. So the Ayn Rand argument is kind of moot because if you can pay, you're already shouldering the cost of those who can't. That's why saline IV bags that cost the hospital $1 end up being $90+ when the patient gets the bill. Under the ACA, requiring that everyone who can afford insurance buy some or pay a fee makes that system a little more efficient and less costly by spreading the burden of risk to as many people as possible who can afford to pay it (which, if you didn't know, is how insurance works). The ACA isn't perfect by any means. But it's a start. It's something that can be tweaked and improved, and in some states it's already gotten people talking about a move to single-payer. Something that, I might add, the rest of the world already has.
When it comes to healthcare, we're one of the most backward nations in the world, for one very simple reason: in places that are not the United States, being able to see a doctor and not come away broke is considered a basic human right. Here, it's as much a privilege as caviar and edible gold flakes. When some of the poorest nations on earth have excellent universal healthcare, it becomes apparent that America's problem is not that we can't provide everyone in the country with the health services they need, it's that we won't.
Because the only thing America is truly exceptional at is pure, unfettered greed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)