I wasn't going to blog on Terry Schiavo, because I think making more racket about the issue only fuels the conservative agenda in the case (their principle apparantly being if you muddy the water enough you can obscure the real issue.) In fact I'm not really even going to offer my opinion on whose right or wrong here, because I really believe that this is an issue for the family that loves her and the courts in Florida to work out. I don't think it's any of our business, nor is it the business of "pro-life" nuts who are too busy tarring Terri's husband to believe that she might have actually expressed a wish not to live this way or members of Congress who see a political opportunity they can't resist. But I do think there are some great resources you should look at before you make up your mind, that cover a variety of issues related to her case, which I'm including here. First here's a timeline of the events related to her case. And here, FindLaw's comprehensive coverage of the history of the case and the legal issues at stake. Slate has an article on how her care is being paid for(which links to a more in-depth article here.) Mark Kleiman writes about similar cases that have received no outpouring of support from the religious right. Matt Yglesias writes about the hypocrisy of Republicans who want to save Terri's life but cut the Medicaid that's paying for her treatment. Read some of these and then do some research of your own before you make up your mind.
Update: Dahlia Lithwick also has this great article over at Slate. Also, check out this little gem on Republicans admitting how great a political opportunity the Schiavo case is.
Update II: Right-to-Die Law Bush signed as Texas governor prompts cries of hypocrisy
19 comments:
An ABC News Poll showed solid majorities in support of the removal of the feeding tube and in opposition to the law. Likewise, most feel it is an inappropriate matter for Congress to be involved with and that those in support are doing so more for political purposes than anything else.
http://pollingreport.com/news.htm
That's a great site; thanks for posting it.
What I don't understand is how this has become an issue. Why are people so concerned with this case?
I think that's why this case is so compelling to the public in general. It's a tragic case about a very difficult issue, and people have strong feelings with it. It's wrong that anyone should use this issue to a make a political point, which is why my opinion is more that it's not our business, and we should leave it to the family and the courts. This shouldn't be an issue for the pro-life or right-to-die crowd to grandstand about. And I certainly agree with you on that last point.
That's Texas for you. Apparantly we're willing to execute more than criminals. I don't suppose anybody in the State Legislature actually justified the law out loud by saying how much it save the state, did they?
Whatever the solution, we shouldn't let people die for the sake of money.
You know Daniel, whenever you talk about Democrats you always talk about the most liberal positions that don't even represent the average Democrat. It's obvious you think they are something different than they are (I'm basing this on several things you've said before).
Most Democrats support major healthcare reform, but only the most liberal, like Dennis Kucininch, support universal healthcare. Please try to know the other party's beliefs better.
But, on that note, here's a good article on why market forces aren't the way to go on fixing the healthcare crisis.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=PbqApXAVf2BffqP9SzcsBG%3D%3D
I think we can all agree that a "free-market" economic theory does not apply in the realm of public health care.
But the Clintons didn't propose a single-payer Canadian-esque system, so again...
This is all jumbled up, so let me quote the part I'm replying to: "As far as market forcs driving healthcare, remember that those same market forces are what give America the capacity that draws Canadians south of the border for prompt treatment and the freedom to run the tests that make our cancer survival rates higher than the countries with the socialized health-care systems that are constantly being thrown in America's face. "
All this may be true, but basically what it means to a person like me is that Canadians are still better off than us. I get no benefit from our medical system because I have no insurance. Maybe we have a higher cancer survival rate, but we also have a higher infant mortality rate.
Obviously our medical industry would be fine if all of us were rich, but that's the same with every market-driven industry. We could all afford the biggest houses and the biggest tvs if we had tons of money. The problem is that we don't and we need to adust the system to deal with that. Of course it's socialized medicine, but so what? Social Security works, and according to real economists will continue to work fine for quite a while.
But Daniel, that's the whole point! The question isn't how well the system serves the insured, it's how well it serves everyone! Perhaps you disagree with the findings of the New Republic article, but as he said, before it became an industry most people could afford medical care out of pocket and didn't carry insurance. The situation of the uninsured now is that they cannot get that kind of medical care and it is directly because of the "marketization" of health care, so yes, my situation is entirely relevant as it wouldn't be a problem except for the current state of the system.
I like the way you put that Daniel, because it shows how certain people think of those who receive benefits from the state. "Free riders" indeed.
As for your question, let me rephrase it to this: Would I be happier receiving 50% benefits than 0%? What do you think my answer would be?
What is an acceptable service level? Is it 100% service for 50% of the people, or 50% service for 100% of the people?
I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that the majority of people want the government to provide a safety net for them so that when something bad happens they don't just fall off the map.
It seems we always end up at suppositions where we believe different things. Unlike you, I don't think the majority of people who are unemployed or underemployed choose to be so. Given that they don't have a choice in the matter, I don't believe they should suffer unduly from it simply because they've been unfortunate. If that's true, the idea of people who just don't want to work is marginal. Society can handle a few freeloaders if it's the cost of taking care of everyone.
Rich people will always be more privileged than us, but so what? I still say 50% service for 100% of the people is better than 100% service for 50%. That's just a belief of mine.
There was a time when people weren't guaranteed anything by the government, and I doubt most people want to go back to that. The ages of the robber barons or the Great Depression are not exactly historic high points.
Conditions for workers only got better during the period of the robber barons because during that period were the populist and progressive movements. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson did a lot for workers' foreshadowing the New Deal.
And Daniel, the fundamental difference I think is that conservatives seem to see the poor and unemployed and uninsured as the bigger enemies and threats while liberals see the big money making corporation that leach off of people's sickness as the enemy and the threat. You're more concerned about "free riders" whereas I'm more concerned about HMOs denying people care they need. This is just like how conservatives have been made to hate labor unions over big business. It's absolutely ludicrous given your class, and you're fighting against your own intersts, and largely, you're own people.
You may not believe so, but I truly think you can take it for granted that even if people were guaranteed food, clothing, and shelter (none of which would have to be too nice), everyone would still show up for work the next day. There might be a few people who take advantage of the system, but I really don't think most people would. We all want the American dream, not subsistence living, which is incentive enough. Why punish people by taking away the necessities instead of taking away the luxuries? It's just a different order of magnitude to take away someone's television as opposed to their health.
If corporations and the rich aren't supposed to give up their money in taxes, who is? And exactly what's so sacred about the wealth of the wealthy anyway?
I agree, it's a ridiculous belief. There are a few people happy to live in filth on their welfare check or whatever, but most aren't going to be satisfied by that...
Look, of course, not every corporation is evil. However, a business doesn't have to reach the calamity of Enron to take unfavorable actions towards its workers, the environment, etc.
Listen, we all know that corporate interests are sometimes at cross-purposes with the interests of private citizens. The problem is that too often the big corporations who have billion dollar pockets don't wish to make compromises, they want to do what is most profitable for themselves. You'd have to be a fool to think that you don't have to watch out for the big corporations.
As far as viewpoints, we see Republican congressmen (DeLay) who happily take their money from the corporate interests and vote to de-regulate every industry. Since our only recourse as private citizens so solve problems with corporations is to go through the government, that doesn't make us too happy.
That would be because "other areas of our society" are actually multitudes of people, such as the labor unions, NAACP, ACLU, the Rainbow Coalition, etc. There is something wrong with a corporation or even a body of corporations affecting the course of government when those corporations do not represent large blocks of actual voters. In other words, there's nothing wrong with the Dems responding to the wishes of thousands or millions of voters, whereas there is definitely something wrong with Repubs responding to the wishes of fiver or ten corporations.
Oh yeah, and it's not " 'bribing' a Delay" (in quotes) it's bribing DeLay.
Post a Comment