Today I was on my way back from the corner convenience store, when I noticed a crippled pigeon flailing itself about in the dust, almost certainly a few hours away from death. It looked as though at least one of it’s legs was broken, and it was unable to lift itself far enough off the ground to be able to fly.
I spent a long time thinking about whether or not I should simply walk over to this poor creature, step on its neck, and kill it so it would not have to suffer any longer. A whole series of thoughts went through my head: How could I be sure that this bird would die? I’ve never taken a large animal’s life before; how could I be sure I’d be skilled enough at taking life in a humane way that the bird’s death would be preferable via my method? Is it right to interfere with nature’s natural course of action?
I couldn’t bring myself to do it, although on some level, I feel like perhaps I chose the easy wrong out of weakness, and then attempted to justify my lack of wanting to get my hands dirty.
In the same way, I think I may be choosing an easy distraction in my own life by deciding that I wanted to move from downtown Phoenix to a location a further away from the downtown core. While it is a much nicer apartment and a better value, I think perhaps I decided to do this as a way to bring some extra energy to my life, rather than addressing the root causes of why I’ve felt stagnant lately.
Even as I ask this, I know it doesn’t matter- I’m still moving.
Ironically, the change of scenery might be enough of an energy shift to get me thinking about things again.
I keep reminding myself of my New Year’s resolutions – and I wonder how I’m doing with them. Music hasn’t become my primary avocation. I’m a long way from that, and also justifying it by saying I still have the rest of the year to work on it. Weight loss goals are a little better, as I’ve been slowly losing pounds (and, I think, inches). My habit of reading a wide variety of subjects has been doing well, and I expect to do better this week as I’m trying to take more time for myself. Spiritual life? No progress.
Perhaps it’s time again to ask myself what’s important instead of simply what I’m able to justify.
1.29.2007
1.23.2007
Socialized Medicine
A friend of mine passed along this article on socialized health care recently. It’s worth reading.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=1503
Here’s the basic problem with this: Socialized medicine is but another example of how the government breaks your leg, but is generous and benevolent enough to buy you a cast so you get better. And then we all ask, "What would we do if the government weren't there to help us?!?!?!" So, a lot of people are drinking the Kool-Aid without seeing the whole picture.
Likewise, the authors of the article really aren't thinking things through very much, which is the problem with a lot of these kinds of things that I read. Thinking of the US as a control subject is just ridiculous. America is a socialist country - it's just socialist lite, being the "mixed" economy that it is. We have very heavy government laws here about health care. This government regulation drives up health care costs for everybody, so it's no surprise that we spend as much as we do on this. Since the government is so powerful, rich drug companies have a lot of influence over congresspeople who make laws that the FDA has to enforce, thereby making it difficult for others to be competitive. Less competition means higher prices.
I'm also not sure about the interpretation of some of these statistics - one could start with something to say about correlation not necessarily proving causation. Also, this isn't much different from how gun control advocates also cite statistics. Statistics aren't kept as carefully how many people save their lives by defending themselves with guns. Instead, we’re only given statistics on how many people die. And it also doesn't seem to take into account the long lines people have to go through in Canada and Britain to see a physician of one sort or another.
Of course, I don't have the statistics, but if there were a way to quantify that, I'd think that certainly would bring things down a notch in the countries with even more socialized systems than we have here. (Yes, they do kind of address this towards the end of the article discussing how similar the US and Canada are to one another . . . but I've always heard that the US was terribly unhealthy when compared to other countries, so this seems to be undercutting their own argument . . .)
Further, since so much of the Canadian population lives close to the US border, how skewed are these health numbers by people who travel to the US for those times they need to have surgery, rather than languishing on a waiting list? If the socialist system is so good, why is private insurance outlawed in Canada? It's so that everyone, regardless of income or ability to pay, has an equal chance to die during the long wait for surgery.
Maybe that's part of the solution to why Canada's programs work so much better: one way to make your country more healthy is to kill off of all of the people who are really sick.
Surprising, also, that some of the comparisons they mention say that the supposedly bad US system is comparable to Russia, what they call a third-world country. Of course, Russia has been even more totalitarian than these other places they've mentioned, so that's certainly not helping their argument any in my opinion.
Income inequality is certainly something to pay attention to, but how do the poor of our country compare with the poor in other countries? The gap may be greater, but the standard of living for our poor is much higher here than in these underdeveloped nations. It seems like the solution for socialists is to have everyone pour their money into one big pot, it all gets doled out equally, so everybody has the same access to the same things. That way, there isn't any income inequality. Instead, everyone is equally (un)healthy! But at least they're equal; that's the important thing.
Part of the issue, also, is that libertarianism is about a complete overhaul of the whole system, not tweaks that essentially exchange one government solution for another, which is what Republicans offer. The job of libertarians now is to hold before people the vision of what it means to be nearly totally free of all forms of government interference - government that does anything more than protecting the rights of the individual.
If you eliminate taxes, there's much more money left over to give to charity to help the poor, and with less regulation, insurance companies aren't forced to cover things, so the prices drop, making things more affordable. Health insurance could work more like car insurance - it covers you if you have a big accident, but you pay for minor repairs out of your pocket. True, everyone is at sometime going to need healthcare, so it's not like homeowner's insurance against fires or theft, which won't necessarily happen to people. But many people, except for the very poorest among us, are able to afford to drive, and all cars do eventually have mechanical problems. We're able to afford to pay to fix things ourselves because auto mechanics aren't regulated heavily by the government.
Freedom, while not a panacea, is the answer to many of our questions. Government is force, and it is never the answer.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=1503
Here’s the basic problem with this: Socialized medicine is but another example of how the government breaks your leg, but is generous and benevolent enough to buy you a cast so you get better. And then we all ask, "What would we do if the government weren't there to help us?!?!?!" So, a lot of people are drinking the Kool-Aid without seeing the whole picture.
Likewise, the authors of the article really aren't thinking things through very much, which is the problem with a lot of these kinds of things that I read. Thinking of the US as a control subject is just ridiculous. America is a socialist country - it's just socialist lite, being the "mixed" economy that it is. We have very heavy government laws here about health care. This government regulation drives up health care costs for everybody, so it's no surprise that we spend as much as we do on this. Since the government is so powerful, rich drug companies have a lot of influence over congresspeople who make laws that the FDA has to enforce, thereby making it difficult for others to be competitive. Less competition means higher prices.
I'm also not sure about the interpretation of some of these statistics - one could start with something to say about correlation not necessarily proving causation. Also, this isn't much different from how gun control advocates also cite statistics. Statistics aren't kept as carefully how many people save their lives by defending themselves with guns. Instead, we’re only given statistics on how many people die. And it also doesn't seem to take into account the long lines people have to go through in Canada and Britain to see a physician of one sort or another.
Of course, I don't have the statistics, but if there were a way to quantify that, I'd think that certainly would bring things down a notch in the countries with even more socialized systems than we have here. (Yes, they do kind of address this towards the end of the article discussing how similar the US and Canada are to one another . . . but I've always heard that the US was terribly unhealthy when compared to other countries, so this seems to be undercutting their own argument . . .)
Further, since so much of the Canadian population lives close to the US border, how skewed are these health numbers by people who travel to the US for those times they need to have surgery, rather than languishing on a waiting list? If the socialist system is so good, why is private insurance outlawed in Canada? It's so that everyone, regardless of income or ability to pay, has an equal chance to die during the long wait for surgery.
Maybe that's part of the solution to why Canada's programs work so much better: one way to make your country more healthy is to kill off of all of the people who are really sick.
Surprising, also, that some of the comparisons they mention say that the supposedly bad US system is comparable to Russia, what they call a third-world country. Of course, Russia has been even more totalitarian than these other places they've mentioned, so that's certainly not helping their argument any in my opinion.
Income inequality is certainly something to pay attention to, but how do the poor of our country compare with the poor in other countries? The gap may be greater, but the standard of living for our poor is much higher here than in these underdeveloped nations. It seems like the solution for socialists is to have everyone pour their money into one big pot, it all gets doled out equally, so everybody has the same access to the same things. That way, there isn't any income inequality. Instead, everyone is equally (un)healthy! But at least they're equal; that's the important thing.
Part of the issue, also, is that libertarianism is about a complete overhaul of the whole system, not tweaks that essentially exchange one government solution for another, which is what Republicans offer. The job of libertarians now is to hold before people the vision of what it means to be nearly totally free of all forms of government interference - government that does anything more than protecting the rights of the individual.
If you eliminate taxes, there's much more money left over to give to charity to help the poor, and with less regulation, insurance companies aren't forced to cover things, so the prices drop, making things more affordable. Health insurance could work more like car insurance - it covers you if you have a big accident, but you pay for minor repairs out of your pocket. True, everyone is at sometime going to need healthcare, so it's not like homeowner's insurance against fires or theft, which won't necessarily happen to people. But many people, except for the very poorest among us, are able to afford to drive, and all cars do eventually have mechanical problems. We're able to afford to pay to fix things ourselves because auto mechanics aren't regulated heavily by the government.
Freedom, while not a panacea, is the answer to many of our questions. Government is force, and it is never the answer.
1.01.2007
New Year's Day
Well, it’s New Year’s Day.
There’s some type of holiday letdown sinking in today that I can’t quite put my finger on. A feeling that I’m searching for something but I don’t know quite what it is that I’m searching for. I skipped church on Sunday, and I think when I do that, it makes me very off-kilter. My worship in a corporate setting is a huge part of my spiritual practice. Even missing it for one week throws me off, as I recall feeling like this the last time I didn’t go to church on a Sunday.
It started yesterday as I felt melancholy about missing New Mexico. After traveling there for several days over the past week, I was again reminded of how devoid of character Phoenix is and how much I love the vast emptiness of our neighbor state to the east. There really is something quite special about it.
Some of the New Year’s Eve activity, while fun, felt very different from my typical experiences. A friend invited me to tag along with him at a party, and there were many young 20-somethings there. I felt a little on the older side, but had a nice time of it anyway, although I felt sort of older brother-ish.
New Year’s time is always a little bit of a downer anyway for me. I’m not sure why. I think it’s more of a time to think of all I didn’t get done in the last year rather than all that did happen. Obviously, I need to change my perspective on this a little.
But this year, I did something new! I wrote up four New Year’s resolutions. I haven’t really made resolutions before, thinking that I wouldn’t keep them anyway, but a good friend of mine told me about how much he loves the celebration of the New Year and the time that it gives you to reflect and think about your life goals.
So, I’ve been doing a little of that today as I said hello to 2007. I get the feeling on the inside that it’s not going to be any easy go of it this time around, and I was hoping for some type of break. 2006 certainly wasn’t all that pleasant, although it got better as it went. It was an auspicious year, certainly.
I think part of this blue mood is that I’d really like to have a significant other this year. I’d be foolish to make this a goal, because this isn’t dependent on what I can do on my own. I’ve spent a lot of energy on that this past year, and it has gotten me some good friends, but not the connection I realize I would really like. But I’m also thinking of what I’d have to give up if I had that kind of relationship. My life would not be my own any longer.
As I write this, the sun is sinking down at the end of the day again, casting a clear glow onto the west wall of the fountain courtyard of the apartment complex. It makes me remember the truly beautiful scene of sunset on the mesas in the Rio Grande Valley outside of Truth or Consequences. It’s truly beautiful territory out there, although very lonely – perhaps somewhat like monument valley.
The starkness of New Mexico is meaningful, somehow – but painfully empty. I love it so much because I can relate to it.
There’s some type of holiday letdown sinking in today that I can’t quite put my finger on. A feeling that I’m searching for something but I don’t know quite what it is that I’m searching for. I skipped church on Sunday, and I think when I do that, it makes me very off-kilter. My worship in a corporate setting is a huge part of my spiritual practice. Even missing it for one week throws me off, as I recall feeling like this the last time I didn’t go to church on a Sunday.
It started yesterday as I felt melancholy about missing New Mexico. After traveling there for several days over the past week, I was again reminded of how devoid of character Phoenix is and how much I love the vast emptiness of our neighbor state to the east. There really is something quite special about it.
Some of the New Year’s Eve activity, while fun, felt very different from my typical experiences. A friend invited me to tag along with him at a party, and there were many young 20-somethings there. I felt a little on the older side, but had a nice time of it anyway, although I felt sort of older brother-ish.
New Year’s time is always a little bit of a downer anyway for me. I’m not sure why. I think it’s more of a time to think of all I didn’t get done in the last year rather than all that did happen. Obviously, I need to change my perspective on this a little.
But this year, I did something new! I wrote up four New Year’s resolutions. I haven’t really made resolutions before, thinking that I wouldn’t keep them anyway, but a good friend of mine told me about how much he loves the celebration of the New Year and the time that it gives you to reflect and think about your life goals.
So, I’ve been doing a little of that today as I said hello to 2007. I get the feeling on the inside that it’s not going to be any easy go of it this time around, and I was hoping for some type of break. 2006 certainly wasn’t all that pleasant, although it got better as it went. It was an auspicious year, certainly.
I think part of this blue mood is that I’d really like to have a significant other this year. I’d be foolish to make this a goal, because this isn’t dependent on what I can do on my own. I’ve spent a lot of energy on that this past year, and it has gotten me some good friends, but not the connection I realize I would really like. But I’m also thinking of what I’d have to give up if I had that kind of relationship. My life would not be my own any longer.
As I write this, the sun is sinking down at the end of the day again, casting a clear glow onto the west wall of the fountain courtyard of the apartment complex. It makes me remember the truly beautiful scene of sunset on the mesas in the Rio Grande Valley outside of Truth or Consequences. It’s truly beautiful territory out there, although very lonely – perhaps somewhat like monument valley.
The starkness of New Mexico is meaningful, somehow – but painfully empty. I love it so much because I can relate to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
