Reply #93: Wow, no sweat. [View All]

If I were truly offended regarding the education remark, one of two things would have happened: you would have known immediately (when I'm offended, I'm not polite at all), or my post in response would have been deleted before you got a chance to see it. I simply didn't know what you meant - I had a logical assumption to work with, but we all know what happens when one assumes, which is why I brought it up. Thanks for clarifying.

In response to your "I never said 'Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' guaranteed us the right to health care," I apologize. I took it to mean you meant it was (or at least was meant to be) a guarantee.

However, in response to your "No, but it is a right that there can be no debate," this is where we disagree. I think providing health care to all is the decent, proper and compassionate thing to do (we can agree to disagree as to how it would be done; I think having the government run the whole show would be a disaster - remember, Republicans run the government every now and then), but I do not consider it a RIGHT. A "right," in my view, is something you have which in no way infringes on others - even financially. You have a right to freedom of speech, but not a right to a guaranteed (much less approving) audience - something that the Dixie Chicks seem to have forgotten (I personally approve of what they said, but booing and / or cutting off airplay is also freedom of speech, like it or not - and I admit that in this case I don't like it). You have a right to freedom of travel, but not the right to expect a free car or free tickets on Delta Airlines. Not perfect examples, but I'd bet you'll know where I'm going with this.

Similarly, health care is something that you SHOULD have in a decent society, but others still have to pay for it. Seemingly a small hurdle in a compassionate society, but I'll give you an example of my attitude on this: anyone who has clearly messed up their body with cigarettes (full disclosure: I'm a smoker), alcohol (full disclosure: I do like my beer) or drugs (no full disclosure necessary here: I'm a virgin when it comes to illegal narcotics) and / or has messed up their body by eating at McDonalds every day for years has no right to demand that you or I shell out money to bail them out for years and years of stupidity. Not the best example, but here goes: what if someone you love has liver cancer but has to wait behind someone who got on the waiting list first despite 30-40 years of hardcore drinking? Why does the lush have a RIGHT to a new liver first?

While I'm in full disclosure mode, you should know this: I'm 44 and I was a Republican up to 1991 or 1992. Bush 41 cleared up a shitload for me, believe me. Lots of things have changed since my misguided "Reagan is God" era for me, but there are some traces of fiscal conservatism that are still there (and the gun thing, of course, but that's another matter). If someone is ill through no fault of their own, they need and should get society's help - through a combination, in my view, of SOME government programs, some tax credits, some charity and so on (I will never sign off on universal health care because I have no confidence that the government could handle it, but you get the idea - basically, I'm on your side, we simply disagree on the way to attack the problem).

As for the "Republican playbook" thing, please note that I'm not saying the sort of "fuck 'em,, let charity handle it - and if that doesn't work, it simply means society has voted it down" thing that I hear so often. I never once said "government is the enemy," as I took your words to attribute to me - I simply say that in terms of universal health care, I do NOT trust the government to handle it entirely. My stance: more programs for the poor (which would involve the same government youseem to think I consider the "enemy") so that insurance is available to everyone in one form or another, but not one massive program that everyone is roped into. Government, as I said before, can't handle health care for active duty soldiers and vets, so why would I trust it to take care of 300 million people? Here's the thing: you may disagree with me on that point, but if we ever switch to universal health care and it turns out that I'm right in my notion that it would turn into a massive clusterfuck (as I'd bet anything I owned that I am), there's no turning back once the universal system is in place. I often wonder why people who advicate more social programs for the poor are so quick to want to jump to an all-encompassing program instead of a few new ones (you know all the old quotes about how change for the better has to come gradually, I assume).

You're right that in one way health care is universal given unpaid medical bills and all, but can you give me an example of how a program run by the same people who fucked up New Orleans rescue efforts would solve the problem? Go to my MySpace page, you'll see that I spent years in Canada. My parents moved here because they couldn't get seen by doctors. My father finally made the call after being told that he'd need to wait 16 months for hip replacement surgery. If Canada - a country far more progressive than ours - can't do the job with a tenth of our population, why would you want to trust our government to handle it?

Sure, if we had a guarantee that the government would be run by Democrats until the end of time, I'd be willing to at least consider it - but what happens when Republicans run it? Look at Bush and SCHIP and tell me you feel comfortable letting the feds run the whole thing. Think of this: Democrats win in 2008 and 2012, but while the universal system is still in some degree of growing pains mode Republicans take over. Might as well give up the idea of doctor visits completely at that point - can you imagine the cutbacks we'd suffer in the name of so-called "fiscal responsibility?"

Wrapping up, since it's miles past my bedtime:

1.) My remark regarding education was merely an aside reflecting my opinion on programs like NCLB. Throwing money at bad education programs like what there is in D.C. (basically in my backyard, I live in Laurel, MD) doesn't work if the decisions are being made by stupid assholes. This is what I meant when I said Franklin's use of the word "always" was misplaced. I have friends who have kids in the school systems in MD, DC and VA, and I can't begin to tell you how sad this is. The most money in the area per student is spent in DC, and their schools are a fucking disaster. The kids I'm referring to are in high school and can't calculate a 20% tip in a restaurant without using the calculators on their cell phones.

2.) The militia wasn't much "regulated" at all; the definition of "militia" in most states back then was "any able-bodied man between 17-45." However, if we're going to debate the Second Amendment it's probably best done in another thread or via PM. The one thing I know is that I spit upon anyone who wants my vote even though he or she openly states his or her intent to disarm me, and I scoff at those who claim "uh, golly, we don't want to disarm hunters." If you ever needed a good case for individual gun rights, look at what we've dealt with since January of 2001. Further, having lived in D.C,. for years - where there's a gun ban that I happily ignored for the entire time - I eventualy moved to Maryland after suffering my second armed intrusion (in a supposedly "crime free" area like Woodley Park). If not for being armed myself, we might not be having this conversation. I look at gun bans as victim disarmament (BTW, in THIS case if you want to accuse me of reading from the Republican playbook, I won't argue - this is one area where I actually agree with the Repugs) and a form of OSHA for criminals. If we're ever going to a gun ban, count on me not to obey that law.

3.) Kudos to you on recognizing Frasier Crane's remark to Cliff Clavin. After I wrote it I felt kind of bad because I didn't mean to be that snide, but upon reading my post a while later (seeing if you responded), I realized you could have taken it that way. Thanks for being cool enough not to do so.

4.) Religion and pro-choice - nice to know we do have some common ground :)

That's it, friend. I wish you a good Thanksgiving as well, and I should add that I'm really enjoying this coversation. Muchos Gracias.

R