Going Rogue

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Speaking as a grizzled old man, I'm compelled to point out that the last person who evoked the ridicule from the self-appointed elitocracy that Palin gets was Ronald Reagan, also regarded by his enemies as a light-weight. And he had plenty of fun, too, I think, particularly when it turned out that he not only got elected president, but was pretty effective as such.

Grizzled old man you might be, but you also seem to be forgetful if you don't remember the ridicule of Bush, Quayle and post-lewinsky Clinton, while you may want to try and portray this as some kind of agenda, the simple fact is that she is being deservedly ridiculed for doing or saying stupid things and as for being a lightweight, feeling like she was trapped by such a substantial question as what papers do you read does seem fairly lightweight.

I think Palin is laughing all the way to the bank. My guess is that she's going, not Rogue, nor John Galt, but rather, Al Gore or maybe even Oprah. She'll ride her popularity - and she is quite and I think increasingly popular with a lot of people - to become a multimillionaire, which in America is probably the best answer there is to those who seem to be so...threatened...by a capable female who doesn't tow the liberal line.

People aren't threatened by a capable female in this case since she isn't one, she is simply a very lucky person in that her 15 mins of fame have resulted in more money than the reality tv stars that have a similar level (or lack) of merit.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

This has nothing to do with being female and/or towing the liberal line, or, for that matter, the conservative line. It is about basic, core competencies – and as Palin has demonstrated time and again, she is lacking in that department. .

From everything I have read - except for the kind of generalities you just wrote, of course - it appears that Palin was a perfecty capable governor of Alaska. I must have missed the demonstration, perhaps because there hasn't actually been one...

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Her hastily scheduled exit interview - called on a Friday, before the start of a holiday weekend no less – was quite possibly the most surreal statement ever issued by a politician, and that alone is quite an achievement.

Funny...when all the hoo-ha broke in the mass media about it, I took the liberty of actually listening to her whole speech rather than getting my info second hand. What she said made sense to me. Of course, I'm sure you are not used to hearing politicians actually being open & aboveboard about their motivations, I can understand that you might think it all surreal.

She was giving real reasons, rather than laying down the usual political smokescreen. Of course, I have a little experience in government, so I recognized exactly what she was talking about.

But it's like Dr. Johnson observed - she can provide you with an explanation, but she cannot provide you with an understanding.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

The fear I have of her, is sort of like the fear I might experience if I were to come upon a toddler brandishing a loaded shotgun, pointed directly at my head, with finger on trigger.

There's not much I can say about a man unable to handle an armed toddler.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

All utopians think that immoral systems can be corrected by limiting someone else's freedom. But what actually happens is that one immoral system is simply replaced by another. In the case where a private immoral system is replaced by a public immoral system, you not only get immorality, but risk tyranny, and guarantee inefficiency....

Waldman's quote was:
* A system is immoral if it allows (or encourages) insurance companies to turn you away exactly when you need help most. (Thanks to exclusions for "pre-existing conditions.") That's unfair.
* A system is immoral if it allows (and incentivizes) insurance companies to write policies full of fine print that leaves shocked patients with devastating bills. That's dishonest.
* A system is immoral if it means that losing one's job means not only losing income but the ability to take your child to the doctor. That's cruel.
* A system is immoral if it forces people to stay in jobs that they hate because they don't want to lose their health coverage. That's tragic.

If having a system where you are not refused treatment for pre-existing conditions, you cannot be tricked into owing devastating bills because of fine print, you're still able to take your children to the doctor even if you lose you job, and you feel free to change jobs without worrying about losing your health coverage is utopian, then our country is the only non-utopian country in the Western world.

In an earlier post, I asked if MobileRead forum members living in other Western democracies would trade their health-care system for ours. So far, no takers, one "Certainly not," and one "what you have in the USA scares the living hell out of me."

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

In an earlier post, I asked if MobileRead forum members living in other Western democracies would trade their health-care system for ours. So far, no takers, one "Certainly not," and one "what you have in the USA scares the living hell out of me."

Well, If I were raised to expect the government to take care of me, from cradle to grave, (like many multi-generational welfare families here in the states) I wouldn't want to trade that out either.

And having to rely on myself and my family to take care of our own needs would scare the hell out of me also.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

If having a system where you are not refused treatment for pre-existing conditions, you cannot be tricked into owing devastating bills because of fine print, you're still able to take your children to the doctor even if you lose you job, and you feel free to change jobs without worrying about losing your health coverage is utopian, then our country is the only non-utopian country in the Western world.

This - among other things of course - sums up quite well why I, living in my country in my system, feel safe and free to pursue my own happiness and way of life.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Crowl

Grizzled old man you might be, but you also seem to be forgetful if you don't remember the ridicule of Bush, Quayle and post-lewinsky Clinton, while you may want to try and portray this as some kind of agenda, the simple fact is that she is being deservedly ridiculed for doing or saying stupid things and as for being a lightweight, feeling like she was trapped by such a substantial question as what papers do you read does seem fairly lightweight..

Ridicule is not an agenda, it is a tactic. When I see the left indulging in the same rhetoric toward Palin as they did toward Reagan, I think "hmmm." It's not the same sort of thing that was directed toward Bush, Quayle or Bill Clinton. I don't think that the left wing was scared of those three. I do think they were scared of Reagan, and now, of Palin.

Why would anyone read the papers, were it not for the need to train the dog?

Originally Posted by Crowl

People aren't threatened by a capable female in this case since she isn't one, she is simply a very lucky person in that her 15 mins of fame have resulted in more money than the reality tv stars that have a similar level (or lack) of merit.

Luck is a political attribute of successful politicians. I agree she has that attribute.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

In an earlier post, I asked if MobileRead forum members living in other Western democracies would trade their health-care system for ours. So far, no takers, one "Certainly not," and one "what you have in the USA scares the living hell out of me."

If you go by the old WHO rankings of healthcare systems then we just need a few forum members from the rest of the americas to speak up since the usa is ahead of at least a few of them.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Well, If I were raised to expect the government to take care of me, from cradle to grave, (like many multi-generational welfare families here in the states) I wouldn't want to trade that out either.

Having the state social system taking total care of me would scare me to. It is a safety-net - not a means of living. It's socially unacceptable to rely on the state for your income - for by far most people - but it provides services that smoothes everyday life and makes sure you are not left destitute and unable to handle a job - as well as takes care of the long-run decisions of society in general. Thus helping our nation to advance and prosper

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Ea

Having the state social system taking total care of me would scare me to. It is a safety-net - not a means of living. It's socially unacceptable to rely on the state for your income - for by far most people - but it provides services that smoothes everyday life and makes sure you are not left destitute and unable to handle a job - as well as takes care of the long-run decisions of society in general. Thus helping our nation to advance and prosper

Well said.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Ridicule is not an agenda, it is a tactic. When I see the left indulging in the same rhetoric toward Palin as they did toward Reagan, I think "hmmm." It's not the same sort of thing that was directed toward Bush, Quayle or Bill Clinton. I don't think that the left wing was scared of those three. I do think they were scared of Reagan, and now, of Palin.

That's weird, she seemed to be getting ridiculed for being unsuited to be vice president which seemed fair given how little trust her own party had for her to speak publically, she has been ridiculed for preaching about the effectiveness of abstinence-only birth control while her daughter proceeded to disprove her, she has been ridiculed for quitting her job as governor halfway through to spend her time on facebook while somebody else wrote a book for her, none of that seems undeserved or based on fear to me.

Why would anyone read the papers, were it not for the need to train the dog?

If you look at the sales figures, it seems like nobody does.

Luck is a political attribute of successful politicians. I agree she has that attribute.

I guess we'll have to wait and see if she ever becomes a successful politician, but generally you would expect a successful politician to have more attributes than luck and a wink though.

On the plus side, she does mostly seem to be poorly or misinformed unlike some of the other conservative leaders in the republican party that seem somewhere between mildly delusional and borderline evil.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

If having a system where you are not refused treatment for pre-existing conditions, you cannot be tricked into owing devastating bills because of fine print, you're still able to take your children to the doctor even if you lose you job, and you feel free to change jobs without worrying about losing your health coverage is utopian, then our country is the only non-utopian country in the Western world.

You've overstated the situation, but certainly there's room for improvement of the heath care situation in the US.

I hope we remain a non-utopian country. The lessons of history - whether political or economic or social - are pretty clear: top down schemes for reforming things don't work, and frequently make things worse.

For crying out loud, just take a look at what's happening in Massachusetts. Read what the Dean of the Harvard Medical School has to say. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...994054014.html

I prefer a system that works fairly well for most people to one which will cover less for more people, at a greater expense and inefficiency.

I also prefer a system that's not run by the government. I work for the government. That's how I developed that preference. (Yeah, it's the argument from authority, but after 37 years, I actually AM an authority...)

[Crowl]

Not wanting things to be run by the government would be fine if the alternative was a reasonable one, but can you honestly say that a system run by companies who only want to make a profit and need to refuse as many claims as possible or refuse coverage to potentially expensive customer in order to make those profits is a system that is working?

Incidentally, maybe I missed something, but wasn't the bill that got through the house one that included a public option i.e. nobody was forced to use the government-run part of the system if they didn't need/want to?

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Crowl

..... she has been ridiculed for preaching about the effectiveness of abstinence-only birth control while her daughter proceeded to disprove her...

Actually, abstinence-only birth control is VERY effective. I only know of one case where a pregnancy resulted from abstinence, and there was a divine being involved.



(I know what you meant though. Just couldn't resist. )

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

good point... and I was thinking about this as I wrote it.

Perhaps health insurance should be more like other insurances or perhaps like and extended warranty insurance on a car. You must pay for the normal preventive maintenance... but when something unexpected breaks the insurance pays (or helps) for it.

So, perhaps we should all pay for preventive care out of our pocket. Insurance will kick in for sickness or accidents. However, if you don't keep up to date with your preventive maintenance (annuals, etc) then the insurance won't cover sickness/accidents... because they are less likely to occur if you keep well on a continual basis... and if you are going for checks problems can be caught before they get too bad and are MUCH MORE expensive to fix.

Prevention rather than cure does seem to be something that both your political parties shy away from, presumably the combination of telling the voters hard truths about things like diet combined with the amount of contributions that come from the pharmaceutical industry makes that a bad idea to most politicians.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Ea

Having the state social system taking total care of me would scare me to. It is a safety-net - not a means of living. It's socially unacceptable to rely on the state for your income - for by far most people - but it provides services that smoothes everyday life and makes sure you are not left destitute and unable to handle a job - as well as takes care of the long-run decisions of society in general. Thus helping our nation to advance and prosper

Where exactly does the safety-net stop and start? It seems more and more people believe that the government should provide a minimal base line required by everyone to live. This sounds reasonable, so --

Shouldn't everybody be provided with
___ - Education
___ - Healthcare
___ - Dentalcare
___ - Food & Water
___ - Basic necessities (shampoo, soap, haircuts, etc.)
___ - Housing
_____ - incl. heating, air conditioning, & electricity
___ - Household necessities (furniture, refrigerator, silverware, etc.)
___ - Transportation
___ - Clothing
___ - Childcare
___ - Job Training
___ - Entertainment (within reason)

Shouldn't every human being be provided with these neccessities, and shouldn't the rich pay for it?