So...Obamacare repeal. Big issue right now. Republicans are trying to mount their second assault against Obamacare, and as of posting this bill has passed the house, meaning unless senate democrats get it shut down or a few moderate republicans turn against it, we're screwed.
The logic behind this bill comes off as pure selfish sociopathy. The republicans don't want healthcare system in which the sick can afford healthcare. They want a system in which only those who can afford healthcare can get it. Everyone pays for themselves, and if you are sick and can't afford it, screw you. They don't even hide it, Alabama republican Mo Brooks basically pretty much said that, and also implied people who get sick do so for not leading good lives. I really don't have much to say about this than screw these people. The kinds of sociopathy required to be a republican these days, the idea that we should save tax payers a few bucks by leaving them to die, is so outrageous to me I don't know how this is acceptable in the modern political spectrum. This is lunacy. These people are sociopathic nutjobs.
The ACA may not have been perfect, I complain about it a lot. But the idea that it makes healthy people help subsidize sick people is a feature, not a bug. Sick people NEED healthcare the most, and under free market economics get royally screwed when trying to acquire it. ACA didn't go far enough but it took significant measures to improve that. And you know what? Guess what healthy people, you get sick too sometimes. And you will get sick as you get older. Everyone does. Has anyone seen anyone in their 80s and 90s who don't have medical issues? Heck, anyone hear of anyone in their 50s and 60s without one? The republicans are the real death panels here. Get sick? Screw off and die. That's their motto.
Trump voters, I hope you understand what you brought forth on this country. You brought forth extremist sociopaths who more or less don't care if people die as long as it lowers their taxes. These people are deplorable, and I hate to use the Hillary word, but if you still support these guys knowing this, you're deplorable too. And if you are morally outraged by this and voted for Trump, lesson learned, don't vote republican. Wish you would've learned this sooner, but just as I needed a rude awakening to realize these people are sociopathic crooks, so may you, and I won't judge you for it. Anyway,if that's you, welcome to liberalism, home of sensible public policy that helps people and doesn't leave them to die. We're happy to have you. Don't support the republicans again. You don't have to like the democrats even. I don't. Just make sure you never vote republican again. This is their true colors. Don't forget it.
Friday, May 5, 2017
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Dillahunty Syndrome and Me
So, I kind of am reluctant to post this, but it kind of explains why there has been so little content since the election. Long story short, I'm exhausted. I've been hyped up over the election for the last 2 years, I've discussed politics for much longer, and quite frankly, it gets old after a while. I think my problem is I've come down with a really bad case of Dillahunty Syndrome lately.
For those who don't know what Dillahunty Snydrome is, it's named after Matt Dillahunty, a host of the Atheist Experience. Long story short, debating the same thing over and over tends to wear you out after a while. You can explain a concept once, even twice, and it will be intellectually satisfying. But by the time you have to explain it for the 100th time, it gets old. You lack the energy to do it any more. You run out of craps to give. And when you do try you do it half ***ed and tend to get angry at the thought of having to do it again. It becomes like climbing a mountain, just to get some of the most basic thoughts out.
I've been spending a lot of time focusing on other stuff since the election, and I still likely will for the foreseeable future. I'm not really improving on this matter. It's not that I don't care. I care a lot. I just lack the energy to keep revisiting the same topics and debating with people and I have quite frankly run out of things to talk about at this current time. I might return to these topics in the future, but long story short, expect a further hiatus on this subject. I may shift focus here and there and focus on other things to talk about, but even then, I don't really have much energy right now. This is natural for me. I go through phases in which I'm fired up and can't stop talking, and then I go through phases at which the idea of discussing these subjects again gets old. I could focus on other stuff, related to, idk, PC hardware and gaming or whatever (another interest of mine that's getting much more of my attention lately, as I have recently upgraded my computer), but that's not really what this blog is about, so I really don't discuss it here.
Anyway, I just wanted to stop in and say a few things and let people know I'm still alive. I'm here. I'm just...not motivated right now.
For those who don't know what Dillahunty Snydrome is, it's named after Matt Dillahunty, a host of the Atheist Experience. Long story short, debating the same thing over and over tends to wear you out after a while. You can explain a concept once, even twice, and it will be intellectually satisfying. But by the time you have to explain it for the 100th time, it gets old. You lack the energy to do it any more. You run out of craps to give. And when you do try you do it half ***ed and tend to get angry at the thought of having to do it again. It becomes like climbing a mountain, just to get some of the most basic thoughts out.
I've been spending a lot of time focusing on other stuff since the election, and I still likely will for the foreseeable future. I'm not really improving on this matter. It's not that I don't care. I care a lot. I just lack the energy to keep revisiting the same topics and debating with people and I have quite frankly run out of things to talk about at this current time. I might return to these topics in the future, but long story short, expect a further hiatus on this subject. I may shift focus here and there and focus on other things to talk about, but even then, I don't really have much energy right now. This is natural for me. I go through phases in which I'm fired up and can't stop talking, and then I go through phases at which the idea of discussing these subjects again gets old. I could focus on other stuff, related to, idk, PC hardware and gaming or whatever (another interest of mine that's getting much more of my attention lately, as I have recently upgraded my computer), but that's not really what this blog is about, so I really don't discuss it here.
Anyway, I just wanted to stop in and say a few things and let people know I'm still alive. I'm here. I'm just...not motivated right now.
Clintonites give "identity politics" a bad name
So...identity politics. I rip on it a lot. I get a lot of flak for doing it too. It's one of those things that tries to elevate people and causes beyond question. If you don't agree with the person who wields such politics, expect to be called a bigot, a sexist, a racist, etc.
But identity politics in and of itself isn't a bad thing. There are real issues that women face, that racial and religious minorities face. That non straight white males of a protestant faith face. And you know what? The toxic identity politics of which I speak takes away from these very legitimate issues.
Hillary Clinton has recently blamed her electoral defeat on sexism. This is about 5% truth, and 95% BS. Sure, there was some sexist people in this country, but many people who didn't like her, especially on the left, didn't like her because she was a corrupt scumbag who stole the primary and arrogantly talked down and browbeat voters into submission.But hey, someone with that mentality isn't going to actually admit that they did something wrong, so they hide behind identity politics. It wasn't that she's a bad candidate, it's all those darned sexists who say bad things about her. And if you dare say anything bad about her, you are apparently a sexist. This is how scum like this protect themselves. They can't admit they did wrong. So they blame everyone else, and you know what? Doing this is a slap in the face to real women everywhere, who face real discrimination.
Many people are going to be turned off from identity politics completely because these obnoxious people abuse it to further their own political careers. It's sickening. This is how we get the right screaming about the left seeing themselves as victims. Because when identity politics is abused to actually make someone who did something wrong or pissed people off for other reasons appear to be innocent and a victim of sexism, it kind of makes everyone who points out legitimate sexism and crap into whiners too. It's sickening and needs to stop.
Another example of this identity politics being abused recently comes in the form of Trevor Noah's comments on Obama taking $400,000 to give a Wall Street Speech. He said something along the lines that apparently the first black president must also be the first one to not take money after all the white people did so. Seriously dude? Clinton came under fire for wall street money and the DNC sponsored media claimed sexism...now it's racism because we go after Obama for doing the same thing? Are we only allowed to criticize straight white male protestants now? That seems to be the game these people play. Only straight white male protestants can be criticized, any criticism of anyone else must fall into some form of "ism" or "phobia". Once again, it's sickening, and it detracts from the real issues that people face. Real women who struggle with the glass ceiling see their cause degraded because just about the most privileged woman in the country is throwing a hissy fit over not winning the election. Every black person who faces legitimate discrimination and double standards sees their cause degraded by these jokers running to Obama's defense for taking Wall Street money. Screw these people.
But identity politics in and of itself isn't a bad thing. There are real issues that women face, that racial and religious minorities face. That non straight white males of a protestant faith face. And you know what? The toxic identity politics of which I speak takes away from these very legitimate issues.
Hillary Clinton has recently blamed her electoral defeat on sexism. This is about 5% truth, and 95% BS. Sure, there was some sexist people in this country, but many people who didn't like her, especially on the left, didn't like her because she was a corrupt scumbag who stole the primary and arrogantly talked down and browbeat voters into submission.But hey, someone with that mentality isn't going to actually admit that they did something wrong, so they hide behind identity politics. It wasn't that she's a bad candidate, it's all those darned sexists who say bad things about her. And if you dare say anything bad about her, you are apparently a sexist. This is how scum like this protect themselves. They can't admit they did wrong. So they blame everyone else, and you know what? Doing this is a slap in the face to real women everywhere, who face real discrimination.
Many people are going to be turned off from identity politics completely because these obnoxious people abuse it to further their own political careers. It's sickening. This is how we get the right screaming about the left seeing themselves as victims. Because when identity politics is abused to actually make someone who did something wrong or pissed people off for other reasons appear to be innocent and a victim of sexism, it kind of makes everyone who points out legitimate sexism and crap into whiners too. It's sickening and needs to stop.
Another example of this identity politics being abused recently comes in the form of Trevor Noah's comments on Obama taking $400,000 to give a Wall Street Speech. He said something along the lines that apparently the first black president must also be the first one to not take money after all the white people did so. Seriously dude? Clinton came under fire for wall street money and the DNC sponsored media claimed sexism...now it's racism because we go after Obama for doing the same thing? Are we only allowed to criticize straight white male protestants now? That seems to be the game these people play. Only straight white male protestants can be criticized, any criticism of anyone else must fall into some form of "ism" or "phobia". Once again, it's sickening, and it detracts from the real issues that people face. Real women who struggle with the glass ceiling see their cause degraded because just about the most privileged woman in the country is throwing a hissy fit over not winning the election. Every black person who faces legitimate discrimination and double standards sees their cause degraded by these jokers running to Obama's defense for taking Wall Street money. Screw these people.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Dear republicans: regret Trump yet?
Yes, I'm still alive, I've just been burnt out on politics and don't really have much to say these days I haven't said many times before. I could rail against Trump, but I find that boring and the equivalent of blogging about how water is wet. And the democrats are as clueless and hardheaded as they always are. They still don't get it, and I don't think they want to get it either.
But what is probably worth writing about is the regret people are getting for voting for Trump. I could say, see I told you so, but once again, it's something that goes without saying. Trump may have made promises to make America great again, but he has no real clue of how to do this and his first few months in office are rocky and uneventful. He couldn't get the ACA repealed because, surprise, healthcare is complicated and just repealing Obamacare would've led to all kinds of harm done. I have to say I'm pleased with that falling through.
What has gotten through though is this bill to expose peoples' internet history to the public. Now, from what I heard it's nowhere near as bad as some are saying, you can't just ask to buy X person's history, you get a bunch of anonymized data that you might be able to piece together if you really try and match with a name, but this is likely going to be difficult. It's concerning nevertheless, but it's not the end of the world from what I've seen. Regardless, a lot of republicans are having regret voting for Trump. Some people are a certain kind of special and love their ACA but hate their Obamacare, and others feel taken advantage of by having the republicans pass this bill that threatens their internet privacy.
Once again, I could say see I told you so, but it's too easy. Anyway, at this point, you shouldn't be surprised. After all, the republicans don't care about you, they don't even care about their principles. They care about the interests if the donor class. They were never gonna make America great again, that was just what they said to sell their ideas that serve the donor class to you. And because your alternative was Hillary Clinton, who also is corrupt and hypocritical, you actually believed Trump and gave him support. Way to go.
This is why I didn't go for Trump. I might have my grievances with the democrats being corrupt hypocritical scumbags, but you wanna know who the real master of being a corrupt, hypocritical scumbag is? The republican party.
If you're a republican, if you're a conservative....just support the democrats and their policies at this point. Just support people like Hillary, please. Hillary and the democrats these days are basically conservatives with brains. Sometimes that "pragmatic" crap they sell comes in handy, because their views are way more pragmatic and doable in practice than the republicans' ideas ever are. It turns out, hey, Obamacare is good for something if you're not a single payer pushing progressive like myself. It actually does do a lot of good. And it is better than literally nothing. Wanna know why that is? It was a republican plan in the first place! Obamacare is what happens when right wingers apply themselves to actually fix the problems we have. It isn't the best plan in the world, and it isn't in line with my philosophical outlook on the world, but hey, at least it's something, right? And it turns out repealing it is actually a bad idea that could do all kinds of screwed up things and hurt people. I guess politics is more complicated than abstract promises to reduce the size of government. Also, the democrats didn't want to sell your personal browsing history to corporations, so how about that?
With democrats, you basically get pro free market, "small government", American civil religion supporting incremental change. You get people trying to solve problems, without really trying to do much to fix them. As a former conservative, let me just say that even if I still had conservative principles, I would still find the democratic party to be a much more attractive option than the republican party. The republican party is run by thieving rich people and lunatics. The democratic party is run by more moderate and rational thieving rich people and policy wonks who push what used to be conservative policies but are rebranded as liberal because the republican party has gone so insane that it doesn't have a semblance of good policy any more.
So...that's what I'm encouraging. I'm encouraging the republicans to start starting more like the democrats, and then we liberals, we can move left, get actual progressive ideas in politics to counter the more moderate right wing plans pushed by the current democrats, and we are all happy. Except for the lunatics on the right who can't be trusted with a city council position, let alone high ranking positions in the federal government.
Maybe if republicans start sounding more like democrats and the democrats move to the left we can actually get crap done again. We will actually get some decent leadership and be able to debate issues like adults, and not have to deal with the travesty of people like Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan running things. I may have disagreements with the modern democratic party, but I still find their views at least substantive and worth discussing. They're not as far left as I would support, but sometimes you need a more right wing conservative party with more moderate ideas to rein in the excesses of the left and stop them from going full on communist or something. The modern republican party? No. They don't do anything good for anyone. Except maybe killing the TPP. Everything else has been a travesty so far.
But what is probably worth writing about is the regret people are getting for voting for Trump. I could say, see I told you so, but once again, it's something that goes without saying. Trump may have made promises to make America great again, but he has no real clue of how to do this and his first few months in office are rocky and uneventful. He couldn't get the ACA repealed because, surprise, healthcare is complicated and just repealing Obamacare would've led to all kinds of harm done. I have to say I'm pleased with that falling through.
What has gotten through though is this bill to expose peoples' internet history to the public. Now, from what I heard it's nowhere near as bad as some are saying, you can't just ask to buy X person's history, you get a bunch of anonymized data that you might be able to piece together if you really try and match with a name, but this is likely going to be difficult. It's concerning nevertheless, but it's not the end of the world from what I've seen. Regardless, a lot of republicans are having regret voting for Trump. Some people are a certain kind of special and love their ACA but hate their Obamacare, and others feel taken advantage of by having the republicans pass this bill that threatens their internet privacy.
Once again, I could say see I told you so, but it's too easy. Anyway, at this point, you shouldn't be surprised. After all, the republicans don't care about you, they don't even care about their principles. They care about the interests if the donor class. They were never gonna make America great again, that was just what they said to sell their ideas that serve the donor class to you. And because your alternative was Hillary Clinton, who also is corrupt and hypocritical, you actually believed Trump and gave him support. Way to go.
This is why I didn't go for Trump. I might have my grievances with the democrats being corrupt hypocritical scumbags, but you wanna know who the real master of being a corrupt, hypocritical scumbag is? The republican party.
If you're a republican, if you're a conservative....just support the democrats and their policies at this point. Just support people like Hillary, please. Hillary and the democrats these days are basically conservatives with brains. Sometimes that "pragmatic" crap they sell comes in handy, because their views are way more pragmatic and doable in practice than the republicans' ideas ever are. It turns out, hey, Obamacare is good for something if you're not a single payer pushing progressive like myself. It actually does do a lot of good. And it is better than literally nothing. Wanna know why that is? It was a republican plan in the first place! Obamacare is what happens when right wingers apply themselves to actually fix the problems we have. It isn't the best plan in the world, and it isn't in line with my philosophical outlook on the world, but hey, at least it's something, right? And it turns out repealing it is actually a bad idea that could do all kinds of screwed up things and hurt people. I guess politics is more complicated than abstract promises to reduce the size of government. Also, the democrats didn't want to sell your personal browsing history to corporations, so how about that?
With democrats, you basically get pro free market, "small government", American civil religion supporting incremental change. You get people trying to solve problems, without really trying to do much to fix them. As a former conservative, let me just say that even if I still had conservative principles, I would still find the democratic party to be a much more attractive option than the republican party. The republican party is run by thieving rich people and lunatics. The democratic party is run by more moderate and rational thieving rich people and policy wonks who push what used to be conservative policies but are rebranded as liberal because the republican party has gone so insane that it doesn't have a semblance of good policy any more.
So...that's what I'm encouraging. I'm encouraging the republicans to start starting more like the democrats, and then we liberals, we can move left, get actual progressive ideas in politics to counter the more moderate right wing plans pushed by the current democrats, and we are all happy. Except for the lunatics on the right who can't be trusted with a city council position, let alone high ranking positions in the federal government.
Maybe if republicans start sounding more like democrats and the democrats move to the left we can actually get crap done again. We will actually get some decent leadership and be able to debate issues like adults, and not have to deal with the travesty of people like Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan running things. I may have disagreements with the modern democratic party, but I still find their views at least substantive and worth discussing. They're not as far left as I would support, but sometimes you need a more right wing conservative party with more moderate ideas to rein in the excesses of the left and stop them from going full on communist or something. The modern republican party? No. They don't do anything good for anyone. Except maybe killing the TPP. Everything else has been a travesty so far.
Friday, February 17, 2017
There's a difference between criticizing a religion and xenophobia
So, I was debating a right winger about how the left should react to Islam, and there was considerable difficulty getting my point across, so I think this is something warranting discussion here. Long story short, there is a HUGE difference between criticizing a religion and engaging in right wing xenophobia toward members of certain religions. Some people on the right make massive strawmen and claim the left thinks can't criticize religions like Islam because it goes against our concept of tolerance. This is basically a strawman.
Yes, we can criticize Islam, and we should criticize Islam. We should criticize all religions. I'm very critical of religion. Before I wrote here I used to write under a different pseudonym on an atheist site criticizing religion. And I often enjoy the likes of the scathing atheist in criticizing religion. In short, for me, the more sacrilegious, the better. It breaks down mental barriers put in place by this idea of sanctity or an idea being off limits and only approached with respect.
But that's not what the right does with religion. In short, the problem with the right is falling into a sort of pit of "hating the sinner" so to speak, when we should "hate the sinner, not the sin." There's a huge difference between paranoia the right exhibits, which I believe is harmful, and intelligent criticism of religion. Here are the differences.
1) The right seems to base its views often on paranoia, fear of the other/unknown, and misconceptions about religion. The right fears Islam for the wrong reasons. They fear outside cultures and religion and see them as a threat to our own. They believe if we allow Muslims into the country we will be overrun by them and they won't assimilate, and they will try to take us over from within. It's the same argument racists make about non white people threatening "white culture" and racial purity and crap. These guys are culture warriors who see Islam as a threat. In reality, the biggest problem we have in this case is Christianity. Christians make up a majority of the population and one party explicitly tries to force religion down out throats, and the other tends to use religious undertones way too often. The right also fears Muslims will engage in terrorist attacks against us, even though only a very small minority will, and even though, guess what, Christians, who these guys have no problem with, do the same thing. This fear of Islam threatening our culture is largely unfounded. I'm sorry, it is.
2) There is a difference between criticizing ideas and attacking PEOPLE for holding them. I tried to make this differentiation with the whole punching Nazis thing. It's the same thing here. Religion, including Islam, is very much fair game for criticism. Trying to deny people rights, which the right is trying to do with their travel bans and discrimination, isn't. I want to remind people that regarding religion, there are two clauses to our constitution. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause tries to stop the government from establishing religion in government. Under current supreme court interpretations, it's essentially a dedication to having a secular state as the only real way the government can be neutral toward religion. This protects peoples' rights, and stops a religious majority from imposing its will on a minority. The second clause is the free exercise clause, which minimizes the government's ability to restrict people or discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. Once again, intended to protect their freedom. In this society, I have freedom to criticize ideas. I also have freedom to have my own ideas. They can be criticized too. But you know what? We can't be persecuted for our views, and the state cannot and should not take action against us simply for holding views.
As such, the real liberal position, in my opinion, on Islam, is that it's okay to criticize it, but it's not okay to persecute people or deny them their rights because they hold such views. Period.
I don't like Islam. I don't like it at all. I think it's a primitive barbaric religion with a lot of harmful teachings. But I will defend your right to believe in it insofar as you obey our laws and respect the rights of others yourself. Same with Christianity. Same with any religion.
3) A lot of the criticisms the right makes are unfounded. The right likes to cherrypick teachings from the Quran or whatever, take them GROSSLY out of context, and then use them to fear monger against Islam. They take words that are clearly meant for a much different cultural and political context and claim the Muslims are trying to attack us and crap. You can't really understand a holy book or its teachings unless you understand the context within which they were written. This doesn't always absolve the religion of criticism since quite frankly, some lessons are bad regardless of context, but it helps a lot in clearing up misinformation. The same applies to the Bible. Try reading it some time, right wing Christians, especially the old testament. All kinds of horrid crap in there too. Especially the old testament. But...context, right? It has a context right that diminishes its harmfulness right? No crap, so does the Quran. So stop spreading misinformation.
That being said, there is a huge difference between being critical of religion and being a xenophobe. Criticizing Islam is a okay. Even more, I think it's something that should be encouraged. I do believe religions should be HARSHLY criticized, and I believe that the ideas within many of them are false and harmful. But once again, just like was the case with defending Nazis from being punched, we live in a civil society in which we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And it's wrong to discriminate against and fear monger about religious groups, often out of fear and ignorance.
Yes, we can criticize Islam, and we should criticize Islam. We should criticize all religions. I'm very critical of religion. Before I wrote here I used to write under a different pseudonym on an atheist site criticizing religion. And I often enjoy the likes of the scathing atheist in criticizing religion. In short, for me, the more sacrilegious, the better. It breaks down mental barriers put in place by this idea of sanctity or an idea being off limits and only approached with respect.
But that's not what the right does with religion. In short, the problem with the right is falling into a sort of pit of "hating the sinner" so to speak, when we should "hate the sinner, not the sin." There's a huge difference between paranoia the right exhibits, which I believe is harmful, and intelligent criticism of religion. Here are the differences.
1) The right seems to base its views often on paranoia, fear of the other/unknown, and misconceptions about religion. The right fears Islam for the wrong reasons. They fear outside cultures and religion and see them as a threat to our own. They believe if we allow Muslims into the country we will be overrun by them and they won't assimilate, and they will try to take us over from within. It's the same argument racists make about non white people threatening "white culture" and racial purity and crap. These guys are culture warriors who see Islam as a threat. In reality, the biggest problem we have in this case is Christianity. Christians make up a majority of the population and one party explicitly tries to force religion down out throats, and the other tends to use religious undertones way too often. The right also fears Muslims will engage in terrorist attacks against us, even though only a very small minority will, and even though, guess what, Christians, who these guys have no problem with, do the same thing. This fear of Islam threatening our culture is largely unfounded. I'm sorry, it is.
2) There is a difference between criticizing ideas and attacking PEOPLE for holding them. I tried to make this differentiation with the whole punching Nazis thing. It's the same thing here. Religion, including Islam, is very much fair game for criticism. Trying to deny people rights, which the right is trying to do with their travel bans and discrimination, isn't. I want to remind people that regarding religion, there are two clauses to our constitution. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause tries to stop the government from establishing religion in government. Under current supreme court interpretations, it's essentially a dedication to having a secular state as the only real way the government can be neutral toward religion. This protects peoples' rights, and stops a religious majority from imposing its will on a minority. The second clause is the free exercise clause, which minimizes the government's ability to restrict people or discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. Once again, intended to protect their freedom. In this society, I have freedom to criticize ideas. I also have freedom to have my own ideas. They can be criticized too. But you know what? We can't be persecuted for our views, and the state cannot and should not take action against us simply for holding views.
As such, the real liberal position, in my opinion, on Islam, is that it's okay to criticize it, but it's not okay to persecute people or deny them their rights because they hold such views. Period.
I don't like Islam. I don't like it at all. I think it's a primitive barbaric religion with a lot of harmful teachings. But I will defend your right to believe in it insofar as you obey our laws and respect the rights of others yourself. Same with Christianity. Same with any religion.
3) A lot of the criticisms the right makes are unfounded. The right likes to cherrypick teachings from the Quran or whatever, take them GROSSLY out of context, and then use them to fear monger against Islam. They take words that are clearly meant for a much different cultural and political context and claim the Muslims are trying to attack us and crap. You can't really understand a holy book or its teachings unless you understand the context within which they were written. This doesn't always absolve the religion of criticism since quite frankly, some lessons are bad regardless of context, but it helps a lot in clearing up misinformation. The same applies to the Bible. Try reading it some time, right wing Christians, especially the old testament. All kinds of horrid crap in there too. Especially the old testament. But...context, right? It has a context right that diminishes its harmfulness right? No crap, so does the Quran. So stop spreading misinformation.
That being said, there is a huge difference between being critical of religion and being a xenophobe. Criticizing Islam is a okay. Even more, I think it's something that should be encouraged. I do believe religions should be HARSHLY criticized, and I believe that the ideas within many of them are false and harmful. But once again, just like was the case with defending Nazis from being punched, we live in a civil society in which we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. And it's wrong to discriminate against and fear monger about religious groups, often out of fear and ignorance.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
The healthcare debate between Sanders and Cruz
So, a week or so ago, there was a debate between Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders on healthcare and the ACA. And I just felt the need to talk about some of the things Cruz said. I'll preface this by saying I largely agree with Sanders on healthcare and support ACA insofar that we don't replace it with something better, like universal healthcare. As such my position is largely identical to Sanders on the debate. That said I'm going to respond to some of Cruz's arguments.
1) Rationing. Cruz's key argument against universal healthcare seems to be that there's rationing of care. I agree with Sanders here...we have rationing here in America too. It's called poor people not getting the treatment they need. America's healthcare is top notch, and arguably better than what is provided in the rest of the world...but only if you can afford it. And it's not affordable. We spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare whereas other advanced countries spend far less. Around 9-12%. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the entire population get 90% of the care free of charge at point of service for everyone, than to have some people getting 100%, others getting 90%, and others getting 50% (basic emergency room services and nothing more). I'd rather live in a world where everyone has affordable healthcare that's good than one where some have slightly better care and others get bottom tier care.
2) Wait times. Republicans love to bring up horror stories of people waiting for surgeries or hours to get treatment in the emergency room. What they don't tell you is this happens in the US all the time. When I was 19 I had periorbital cellulitis. It's basically an infection that makes the eyelid blow up like a balloon. I went to the emergency room with insurance...and was there for 6 hours. I wasn't given fast care at all. Seems to be common in emergency room visits in my experience. Then there's wait times for surgeries. My dad needed emergency surgery at one point and it took 2 months to get an appointment for it. He had to fight with insurance companies and their stupid in network out of network BS and all that crap just to get an appointment. The surgery went well, but don't get me wrong, you have to wait in the US too.
It seems when talking with people from other countries, a lot of wait times are often for less than necessary surgeries. People might have to wait 6 months for a knee replacement or something. Of course, you can live without one, and considering how healthcare priority is given to those who need it most, they might figure it's better to wait on a knee replacement while someone who needs emergency heart surgery gets it. I've also seen people claim to get stuff like heart surgery less, but I've also seen evidence there's little affect on outcome and we might just be surgery happy in the US. So it's not even clear that more care leads to better outcomes and our system might simply be inefficient. This might seem better for some people, but it's like a placebo in some cases. Immediate care might not impact mortality rates 5-10 years down the road for less than necessary surgeries.
3) Most of Cruz's arguments apply specifically to Obamacare. Obamacare is a flawed program. Yes, it may have had an impact on full time employment and hurt some businesses from growing. That happens when you don't have a government program independent of the employment system for most people. Yes, middle class families might pay more. Before Obamacare, people who were sick simply couldn't afford healthcare because of preexisting conditions. Here's the thing about market based healthcare....profits are the primary concern, not health. Insurance companies don't care if you die. They just want to make money off of you. And if they can't make money off of sick people and have to treat them like everyone else, other peoples' rates go up. It's a flaw with the for profit insurance system. Should've went with universal healthcare.
Another argument Cruz made was to allow people to buy insurance across state lines to lower prices. This might help the middle class who kinda got the short end of the stick with Obamacare and its high rates, but it absolutely won't help the poor or most vulnerable populations who need care most.
4) Government being the problem. In Cruz's mind, government is the problem. He's a typical conservative, and seems to believe if government got out of healthcare it would be more affordable. While there is certainly a lot wrong with how our government approaches healthcare (quite frankly medicare is a typical overly complicated mess that likely inflates prices since it combines the worst of both government and market based healthcare) , government acts to respond to market failures. The default approach to any good or service in our capitalist society is to have it run by the market. When that fails, we use government. Government responds to market failures and does things the market doesn't do a good job of themselves. Every government program is a response to a market failure. Medicare was a response to older people not being able to afford care. Medicaid was basically the welfare form of medicare. The ACA was intended to fix a lot of problems aimed at people who were poor or had preexisting conditions and couldn't afford care. It had some bad side effects, but that's because it didn't go far enough and still keeps the underlying market system. Cruz mentioned a Saturday Night Live skit about how the answer to everything for some people was "more cowbell." The cowbell was what was making the song in the analogy bad, but the answer was always to add more to it. The lesson was intended to be a stab at government. That the more government tries to run healthcare, the more it will mess it up. I see the problem as the opposite. The more market based we make healthcare, the more messed up it is, because let's be honest, businesses are there to make a profit and don't give a darn how affordable their care is. They'll take you for everything you got, and because you can't say no, you're left paying exorbitant rates for something you need to continue living. It's screwed up and immoral, period.
Healthcare should be a human right, and the market should at best play a peripheral function in the system. Rather than the government responding to market failures, the healthcare system should be based on government care, with the market possibly offering extra services the government doesn't provide (this happens in some countries). The problem isn't too much government, it's not enough, with the government implementing band aids rather than full scale systemic solutions. The problem with ACA isn't that it went too far, it's that it didn't go far enough. So MOAR COWBELL I SAY, Mr. Cruz.
And yeah, that's my opinion on the debate and Cruz's positions in it. I don't agree with republicans on healthcare, and believe that while their ideas might be better for the middle class relative to ACA, it would be a raw deal for the most vulnerable populations in society who need help most. Repealing Obamacare would reintroduce the problems Obamacare was intended to solve and leave many people worse off. As a supporter of diminishing marginal utility being a deciding factor in who bears the costs of things in society, those who need stuff the most and are most unable to afford it should get it, and those who can afford it should pay a little extra. It's only fair and just in my opinion. And while ACA isn't perfect, I'll only settle for removing it if we're going to be serious about implementing REAL universal care.
1) Rationing. Cruz's key argument against universal healthcare seems to be that there's rationing of care. I agree with Sanders here...we have rationing here in America too. It's called poor people not getting the treatment they need. America's healthcare is top notch, and arguably better than what is provided in the rest of the world...but only if you can afford it. And it's not affordable. We spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare whereas other advanced countries spend far less. Around 9-12%. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have the entire population get 90% of the care free of charge at point of service for everyone, than to have some people getting 100%, others getting 90%, and others getting 50% (basic emergency room services and nothing more). I'd rather live in a world where everyone has affordable healthcare that's good than one where some have slightly better care and others get bottom tier care.
2) Wait times. Republicans love to bring up horror stories of people waiting for surgeries or hours to get treatment in the emergency room. What they don't tell you is this happens in the US all the time. When I was 19 I had periorbital cellulitis. It's basically an infection that makes the eyelid blow up like a balloon. I went to the emergency room with insurance...and was there for 6 hours. I wasn't given fast care at all. Seems to be common in emergency room visits in my experience. Then there's wait times for surgeries. My dad needed emergency surgery at one point and it took 2 months to get an appointment for it. He had to fight with insurance companies and their stupid in network out of network BS and all that crap just to get an appointment. The surgery went well, but don't get me wrong, you have to wait in the US too.
It seems when talking with people from other countries, a lot of wait times are often for less than necessary surgeries. People might have to wait 6 months for a knee replacement or something. Of course, you can live without one, and considering how healthcare priority is given to those who need it most, they might figure it's better to wait on a knee replacement while someone who needs emergency heart surgery gets it. I've also seen people claim to get stuff like heart surgery less, but I've also seen evidence there's little affect on outcome and we might just be surgery happy in the US. So it's not even clear that more care leads to better outcomes and our system might simply be inefficient. This might seem better for some people, but it's like a placebo in some cases. Immediate care might not impact mortality rates 5-10 years down the road for less than necessary surgeries.
3) Most of Cruz's arguments apply specifically to Obamacare. Obamacare is a flawed program. Yes, it may have had an impact on full time employment and hurt some businesses from growing. That happens when you don't have a government program independent of the employment system for most people. Yes, middle class families might pay more. Before Obamacare, people who were sick simply couldn't afford healthcare because of preexisting conditions. Here's the thing about market based healthcare....profits are the primary concern, not health. Insurance companies don't care if you die. They just want to make money off of you. And if they can't make money off of sick people and have to treat them like everyone else, other peoples' rates go up. It's a flaw with the for profit insurance system. Should've went with universal healthcare.
Another argument Cruz made was to allow people to buy insurance across state lines to lower prices. This might help the middle class who kinda got the short end of the stick with Obamacare and its high rates, but it absolutely won't help the poor or most vulnerable populations who need care most.
4) Government being the problem. In Cruz's mind, government is the problem. He's a typical conservative, and seems to believe if government got out of healthcare it would be more affordable. While there is certainly a lot wrong with how our government approaches healthcare (quite frankly medicare is a typical overly complicated mess that likely inflates prices since it combines the worst of both government and market based healthcare) , government acts to respond to market failures. The default approach to any good or service in our capitalist society is to have it run by the market. When that fails, we use government. Government responds to market failures and does things the market doesn't do a good job of themselves. Every government program is a response to a market failure. Medicare was a response to older people not being able to afford care. Medicaid was basically the welfare form of medicare. The ACA was intended to fix a lot of problems aimed at people who were poor or had preexisting conditions and couldn't afford care. It had some bad side effects, but that's because it didn't go far enough and still keeps the underlying market system. Cruz mentioned a Saturday Night Live skit about how the answer to everything for some people was "more cowbell." The cowbell was what was making the song in the analogy bad, but the answer was always to add more to it. The lesson was intended to be a stab at government. That the more government tries to run healthcare, the more it will mess it up. I see the problem as the opposite. The more market based we make healthcare, the more messed up it is, because let's be honest, businesses are there to make a profit and don't give a darn how affordable their care is. They'll take you for everything you got, and because you can't say no, you're left paying exorbitant rates for something you need to continue living. It's screwed up and immoral, period.
Healthcare should be a human right, and the market should at best play a peripheral function in the system. Rather than the government responding to market failures, the healthcare system should be based on government care, with the market possibly offering extra services the government doesn't provide (this happens in some countries). The problem isn't too much government, it's not enough, with the government implementing band aids rather than full scale systemic solutions. The problem with ACA isn't that it went too far, it's that it didn't go far enough. So MOAR COWBELL I SAY, Mr. Cruz.
And yeah, that's my opinion on the debate and Cruz's positions in it. I don't agree with republicans on healthcare, and believe that while their ideas might be better for the middle class relative to ACA, it would be a raw deal for the most vulnerable populations in society who need help most. Repealing Obamacare would reintroduce the problems Obamacare was intended to solve and leave many people worse off. As a supporter of diminishing marginal utility being a deciding factor in who bears the costs of things in society, those who need stuff the most and are most unable to afford it should get it, and those who can afford it should pay a little extra. It's only fair and just in my opinion. And while ACA isn't perfect, I'll only settle for removing it if we're going to be serious about implementing REAL universal care.
Hey guess what, I do care about the free speech rights of people on the left too
So, it was in the news recently that a member of the antifa organization was assaulted by a neo nazi. And with that, the perpetual outrage of the SJWs leaped into action and I suddenly find myself confronted by people because I previously defended neonazis from being assaulted by members of antifa. WHERE ARE YOU NOW PLATO? WHY AREN'T YOU SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THIS OUTRAGE?!
Um...because I have people on the left who do that for me. I don't play the virtue signalling game, I don't engage in the perpetual outrage the left is swept up in recently, and I don't like to blog about things I don't have a lot to say about. It's boring if I just post "I agree" over and over again on facebook or reddit or here. I don't blog about water being wet, because everyone knows water is wet. I don't blog about the republicans or Trump being stupid because everyone knows they're stupid (at least I hope we do). I don't talk about neonazis committing hate crimes, because they're clearly hate crimes and clearly wrong. The act of assaulting another is the problem I have, it doesn't matter who the parties are. The reason I come down harder on the left is because these people are supposed to be on my side and represent my views, and they're not. I'm harder on the left and the dems because I actually expect them to be on my side. To represent my views. I don't talk about the right as much because we know what to expect from them.
It's kinda like having two kids and critiquing the the A student who got the B because you know they can do better, but then you just expect Cs and Ds out of the other kid. One is reaching their potential, the other is not. And I care more about my side meeting their potential, because it's the only way, long term, we can actually beat the other side. In order for the left to beat the right, they need to clean up their act. It's not that I condone the right, or condone neonazis, their downfall will come in due time. I'm more interested in keeping my side's nose clean, in making it responsible, in allowing the public to come to their own conclusions about the right's ineptitude, which won't happen as long as the left is acting scummy too.
Lefties, we need to be better than the right. And that's why I push the left so hard. We all know what the right is capable of. What we need is for the PEOPLE to understand that. And if you act all aggressive and combative out of the gate and make our side look bad, people will continue to defend the right...against us. And that's not good for anyone.
That said, of course neonazis assaulting members of antifa who aren't assaulting others is bad. It's wrong to throw the first punch most of the time. And I don't care what party is aggressing against what on this matter. I shouldn't have to make a post clarifying my position here, because to me this is settled debate. Water is wet, hate crimes are bad. Can we move on now?
Um...because I have people on the left who do that for me. I don't play the virtue signalling game, I don't engage in the perpetual outrage the left is swept up in recently, and I don't like to blog about things I don't have a lot to say about. It's boring if I just post "I agree" over and over again on facebook or reddit or here. I don't blog about water being wet, because everyone knows water is wet. I don't blog about the republicans or Trump being stupid because everyone knows they're stupid (at least I hope we do). I don't talk about neonazis committing hate crimes, because they're clearly hate crimes and clearly wrong. The act of assaulting another is the problem I have, it doesn't matter who the parties are. The reason I come down harder on the left is because these people are supposed to be on my side and represent my views, and they're not. I'm harder on the left and the dems because I actually expect them to be on my side. To represent my views. I don't talk about the right as much because we know what to expect from them.
It's kinda like having two kids and critiquing the the A student who got the B because you know they can do better, but then you just expect Cs and Ds out of the other kid. One is reaching their potential, the other is not. And I care more about my side meeting their potential, because it's the only way, long term, we can actually beat the other side. In order for the left to beat the right, they need to clean up their act. It's not that I condone the right, or condone neonazis, their downfall will come in due time. I'm more interested in keeping my side's nose clean, in making it responsible, in allowing the public to come to their own conclusions about the right's ineptitude, which won't happen as long as the left is acting scummy too.
Lefties, we need to be better than the right. And that's why I push the left so hard. We all know what the right is capable of. What we need is for the PEOPLE to understand that. And if you act all aggressive and combative out of the gate and make our side look bad, people will continue to defend the right...against us. And that's not good for anyone.
That said, of course neonazis assaulting members of antifa who aren't assaulting others is bad. It's wrong to throw the first punch most of the time. And I don't care what party is aggressing against what on this matter. I shouldn't have to make a post clarifying my position here, because to me this is settled debate. Water is wet, hate crimes are bad. Can we move on now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)