Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE CLUE HUCK IN?
  • WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE CLUE HUCK IN?

    Filed at 6:21 am under by dcobranchi

    The home education community is relatively small. And probably less than half of them are conservative Republicans. So why do they keep making a fuss over “Homeschoolers for Huckabee”?

    Mike Huckabee has announced a slew of endorsements in the state.

    Former transportation commissioner Carol Murray endorsed the former Arkansas governor and will advise him on transportation issues.

    Former state senator Dave Wheeler will head up the New Hampshire “Homeschoolers for Huckabee Coalition” and serve on the “Second Amendment Advisory Committee.”

    Is this a Generation Joshua thing?

    40 Responses to “WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE CLUE HUCK IN?”


    Comment by
    Darren
    August 22nd, 2007
    at 9:13 am

    “Is this a Generation Joshua thing?”

    Nope. I checked, and GenJ isn’t behind it or working with it.

    I worked for Dave Wheeler on several campaigns, and he’s enough of a politically-savvy self-motivated guy that he wouldn’t need GenJ encouraging him to do this. Wheeler is pretty popular with a lot of the right-wing homeschoolers in New Hampshire; I don’t know how the unschooling branch sees him, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were favorable. He’s a libertarian in a lot of ways.


    Comment by
    COD
    August 22nd, 2007
    at 9:26 am

    I’d guess it’s all about shoring up the base for the nomination, because he equates homeschoolers with conservative Republican.

    If he wins the nomination he’ll never speak the term homeschooler again.


    Comment by
    Jeanne
    August 22nd, 2007
    at 9:48 am

    Darren, I see an interesting thing in your comment — it seems sort of as if you are juxtaposing right wing homeschoolers and “unschooling branch” as mutually exclusive. This seems to be a common error in “classifying” homeschoolers. Unschoolers are not necessarily not right wing and right wing homeschoolers are not necessarily not unschoolers.

    In my wanderings, I have seen this reality over and over, but interestingly, this (in my opinion) false dichotomy continues to be casually promulgated as truth. If it is seen as truth by some segment of homeschoolers, I can only wonder at the limitation of the construct or lens through which they view homeschooling.

    Home/Unschoolers cross political and religious spectra with little regard to their homeschooling methodology. The “either/or” construct leads to a lot of weirdness – like “secret unschoolers,” who dare not let their religious/political homeschool group leaders know the extent to which they depart from acceptable curricula, but who seek solace and guidance among “heretic” unschoolers, and to a lot of unschooler-bashing and mischaracterization.

    Perhaps I am reading too much into your comment. If so, please accept my apologies. But there was this underlying little current that got my hackles up – and it is related to the larger conversation about why “Homeschoolers for Huckabee” is potentially harmful to homeschoolers, whether or not it is helpful to Huckabee. I defend the right of such associations/movements to organize politically, of course, how-ever much it saddens me because it provides further fodder for mischaracterization of homeschooling and homeschoolers – both by those who don’t know anything about homeschooling and those who should.


    Comment by
    sam
    August 22nd, 2007
    at 11:32 am

    I finally bothered to checkout Huckabee, and the guy sounds like a typical republican, cares more about people getting to own guns than being able to visit a doctor.


    Comment by
    Darren
    August 22nd, 2007
    at 2:24 pm

    Dear Jeanne,

    You’re probably right that I dichotomized too quickly. Actually, my wife and I have a fairly relaxed approach to homeschooling, much more to the unschooling end than my homeschool experience. And yet we’re both pretty right wing in a lot of our beliefs.

    Good catch. I actually debated using the term “progressive” instead of “unschooler,” and I probably made the wrong choice of word.


    Comment by
    Cindy
    August 22nd, 2007
    at 4:54 pm

    I consider myself to be a conservative homeschooler, but I haven’t seen anything among any of the candidates that impress me. Not one of them. On both sides. IMO, it is going to be a long and ugly election year. Again.


    Comment by
    JP
    August 23rd, 2007
    at 9:51 am

    Hey Sam, I’m a “typical republican” and while I do like my right to own and carry guns, I also care about people being able to see doctors, and even get affordable health care. The amazing thing is, while all of my “typical republican” friends agree that access to health care is high priority, not all of them think guns should be allowed in the home.

    Daryl – sorry about my little rant here, but I’m tired of being stereotyped just because I don’t believe the Democratic party has the answers (yeah, yeah – the Republicans don’t have all the answers either).


    Comment by
    sam
    August 23rd, 2007
    at 12:51 pm

    I’m sorry you felt attacked, JP. I certainly felt as if it were more jab at Huckabee. I stand by what I said in that I feel most republicans are more interested in what they feel are their rights as opposed to concern for what is best for the most people.

    I too believe that our constitution gives us the right to own guns. However, when I see the phrase “affordable health care” it’s a sign to me that the person is happy with for profit health care so long as most people should be able to purchase it. As long as health care is for profit there will be people who can not afford it, and there will be people working to please the share holders more than to help make people well.

    So, based on what I read and see about republicans, it does in fact seem that most of what I call typical republicans are more concerned with whether or not they can purchase a gun than whether their neighbors are able to see a doctor when they need to.


    Comment by
    Spunky
    August 23rd, 2007
    at 1:10 pm

    I live near the Canadian border and it makes me more than a little irritable when people think that government health care means accessible health care for the poor. Not so. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The poor wait for their health care and the “wealthy” come to America. Nothing is solved by government run health-care any more than government run schools solved the problem of educating the poor. The problem with the cost of healthcare will not be solved by government intervention, but by citizens owning up to the fact that if they want healthcare they may have to give up something else to pay for it.

    I speak from experience, we have six children and my husband is self-employed. We pay our own medical expenses and we’re FAR from wealthy.

    We view that as good parenting and wouldn’t expect our neighbor to pay our health bills anymore than we would expect them to buy our school books. We think long and hard before we go to the doctor. And please don’t assume that we are all in general good health, that would not be accurate. From my experience with government run health care in Canada, the wait is long because people go to the doctor for EVERYTHING because it’s free not because it’s necesssary. That’s why waits are so long and the rich come to Michigan for their care. I”ve even met a few that have come from England for the same reason. They can get in to see a doctor a lot soon and are willing to pay the extra costs to do so. Even things that we would consider emergent like bypass surgery are told they have to wait.

    So republicans against health care are not doing so because they don’t want affordable and accessible health care for their neighbor, but because they don’t believe the government-run solution is the best solution.

    As far as Huck’s popularity, I agree that he’s attempting to shore up the base.


    Comment by
    sam
    August 23rd, 2007
    at 8:51 pm

    Is health care a right or a privilege?


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    August 24th, 2007
    at 8:13 am

    Good catch. I actually debated using the term “progressive” instead of “unschooler,” and I probably made the wrong choice of word.
    ****************

    Ah, go ahead. Say “liberal.” It’s not a curse word anymore.

    Nance


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    August 24th, 2007
    at 8:15 am

    Is health care a right or a privilege?
    ***********

    What would Jesus say?

    Nance


    Comment by
    sam
    August 24th, 2007
    at 12:13 pm

    I think we can easily learn what Jesus said, that however we treat others is how we have treated him. Looking for that particular verse one day I came across some other interesting tidbits about what Jesus demands. Farmers weren’t supposed to pick fruit that had fallen and were supposed to leave it for the poor when they harvested. Then there was the guy that Jesus told should give away everything he owned to help the poor. There’s the story of the good Samaritan as well.

    I wonder the percentage of people who claim to be both republican and christian, because to me, it seems like an awfully high percentage of people claiming both but apparently not to well versed on the distinct and obvious commands of their self claimed sacred text. Of course, I don’t remember a lot of mentions in the Bible about personal property or personal rights.


    Comment by
    Spunky
    August 24th, 2007
    at 1:14 pm

    “I don’t remember a lot of mentions in the Bible about personal property or personal rights.”

    Scripture records that Paul teaching in the New Testmanent church, “if a man doesn’t work he doesn’t eat.” (17:18) and that a man who doesn’t provide for his own family he has denied the faith.

    The reason the farmers were told to leave the food out in the field was so that the needy could work for their food and retain their dignity within the family and in the community. The food could have easily have been picked and distributed, but the value and dignity to the individual was important. Nor was the food taken by stealing or compulsion, if the farmer did not leave the gleanings for the needy to take.

    When the government takes the “gleanings” it is because they assume the people will not do so on their own accord. So by compulsion they take the “excess” and give it to the needy. That eliminates the work for the needy and the compassion of the giver from the equation and in my opinion diminishes society as a whole.

    Personal property was definitely a part of the New Testament church,

    Acts 2: 44-45 “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.”

    In order to SELL it they had to have OWNERSHIP of it. After they believed they SOLD it and gave it to those who had need. No one TOOK it from them from for the needs of others.

    In a free society one should not compell a citizen to educate anyone else’s child, or feed them. I would agree that a citizen SHOULD do those things, but that is based on a belief that I should help my fellow man not government mandate or compulsion. It is not the role of government to compell me to be generous. Then it is no longer generosity on my part, but stealing on the part of another person who beieves that they should take my money and distribute it for me. That sort of thinking is anathema to a free society. That’s the same assumption for the beginnings of publically educating the poor and we see where that got us. So it would be as well with other compulsory programs.

    One could argue that Christians are not obeying the commands to give as they should and you might be able to do so quite convincingly. But a free society allows an indvidual to be selfish with his belongings, whether he is a Christian or not. It would be the role of the church not the state to seek a remedy for his “sin.”

    However, the state has no remedy for selfishness, for a selfish man is not a criminal. A free country should never take something from a man simply because he refuses to give it up. The man who takes what does not belong to him to give it help another is stealing whether it be a private individual or a government official. representing the state. The man who refuses to give it up is being selfish, but the man who steals it to “help” another is a criminal.


    Comment by
    Spunky
    August 24th, 2007
    at 1:39 pm

    Lastly, it is irrelevant to this discussion whether the Bible allowed property rights. Our Constitution allows for the right of personal property.

    The Fifth Amendment states:

    Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    The Fourteenth Amendment states:

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    So property ownership is allowed in this country and unlawful taking of property is called stealing no matter how “altruistIc” the motivation. I am forbidden to take food from your garden if I am hungry, nor should you be allowed to take food from your neighbor to feed me. But somehow when a person gets elected, those rules no longer apply them, and they are permited to take from my garden to feedm educate, or provide health care to someone else. So much for personal property rights. It should worry all of us if stealing is criminal for us, but not for our elected officials.


    Comment by
    Spunky
    August 24th, 2007
    at 2:30 pm

    Health care is neither a right or a priviledge, it is an obligation. As a child of an elderly parent, or the parent of a minor child, I am obligated by my relationship to them to care for them. In a free society, my failure to meet my obligation does not permit that obligation to be transferred to my neighbor. For then, I would be imposing my responsibility on my neighbor. My neighbor has the liberty to help me meet my obligation we call that charity, but I cannot require them to do so. Charity is permitted and considered compassionate and noble, forcing my nieghbor to meet my obligation is neither compassionate nor noble.


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    August 24th, 2007
    at 9:23 pm

    Is that the Huckabee line? No taxes and every man for himself?

    Nance


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 24th, 2007
    at 10:03 pm

    Can’t be every man for himself, or else Congressfolk would be pulling their own weight and paying their own freight. 😉


    Comment by
    Spunky
    August 25th, 2007
    at 6:55 am

    I am not supporting Huckabee. Nance, please remember not a Christian homeschoolers carry the water of the HSLDA!

    Nor am I advocating no taxes. Our Consitution allowed for Congress to levy taxes for the general welfare, but not particular welfare. I am speaking about the Federal government imposing taxes in order to transfer the obligations of one citizen to another citizen who does not share that same obligation. That is not general welfare but specific.

    My comments were directed at a universal federal system of health care which I am against. Just as I am against a universal federal system of education. It would be contradictory to be for health care, but not the education. For both are obligations of the family, not the federal government.

    Interstingly, JJ in Canda the state officials I am told are not a part of the universal coverage they so generously sold on their citizens. They participate in a totally different system. And ironically, they are considering a move toward privatization in Canda because of all the problems. In fact, doctors are now just blatantly disobeying the law against private hospitals and new hopsitals which treat patients quickly are spring up all over Canada. Officials are loathe to stop them because people are for the first time in a long getting the treatment they need on a timely basis.


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    August 25th, 2007
    at 7:05 am

    My comments were directed at a universal federal system of health care which I am against.
    ***

    Got it.

    Let the insurance companies know about your plan, will ya?

    Nance


    Comment by
    Spunky
    August 25th, 2007
    at 9:53 am

    “Let the insurance companies know about your plan, will ya?”

    Not sure what that is supposed to mean but whatever.


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    August 25th, 2007
    at 11:17 am

    It’s supposed to mean that your idea is pie-in-the-sky every-man-for-himself survival-of-the-fittest anti-tax baloney.

    It’s thinking that has been around forever, of course. But that doesn’t make it moral or practical.

    It is a worldview that is very sad, imo. And I am sad that life has been so hard on you that you have adopted this point of view. That religion and just plain old living have not led you to a more generous place.

    But, as you say, whatever.

    Nance


    Comment by
    speedwell
    August 25th, 2007
    at 11:44 am

    What would Jesus say? Probably that sickness is given to you by God as a way for you to draw closer to Him, the sick will always be with us, and that the important thing for the non-sick is to be compassionate to the sick, not for people to be healthy, for that would be to focus on life “in this world”. Phooey on that garbage.


    Comment by
    Spunky
    August 25th, 2007
    at 11:50 am

    How does rejecting federal welfare translate into a lack of generosity on my part? Perhaps you misread my comment, as a Christian I am compelled to help my fellow man, but government mandated giving is not generous nor compassionate. In fact it is the exact opposite. I just choose to be generous with MY money and not yours or anybody else’s. I believe you know best how to be generous with your money not me or any govenrment official ever could. How you extract from my comment that life has been hard on me and led me to such an ungenerous position is beyond my scope of understanding and an unprovable statement for you to make, thus not worth discussing here. You could no more know that about me than the color of the shirt I am wearing as I type.

    If you believe it is okay to take from your neighbor to fulfill your obligations to your fellow man and call that being generousity then so be it. We are working from different definitions. But please do not make assumptions about my generosity, which I define as giving out of MY resources to help another. Taking my neighbors resources to help my neighbor is not my definition of being generous, I call it stealing.


    Comment by
    sam
    August 25th, 2007
    at 12:04 pm

    If health care is a personal obligation, then why do we even need doctors? Set the broken bones yourself. Prescribe the anti psychotic drugs yourself. Figure out for yourself how to treat the infection that is causing mucus to ooze out of every hole in your baby’s face.

    We have doctors that can treat people when they get sick or can help a person deal with a disease or other ailment or even a disability. These doctors should be able to earn a living based on their service. Should they also turn people away who may not be able to afford the affliction from which they suffer? Should health care be a profit/market driven business?


    Comment by
    Spunky
    August 25th, 2007
    at 12:39 pm

    Sam asked, “Should they also turn people away who may not be able to afford the affliction from which they suffer? Should health care be a profit/market driven business?”

    I have yet to be turned away by any doctor for not being able to afford any treatment. In fact, I have found just the opposite, when they realize we are payiing for our own health care and not the government they are actually quite negotiable in their fees. I have seen similar cases from others.

    Health care will always be profit driven. It is ridiculous to think it won’t be. It’s just a matter of whether making that profit will be legal or illegal. In Candada, doctors are starting practices and accepting payment outside of hte Canadian system. Why? Because there is a demand for their services and people are willing to pay extra to get their care illlegally. The government turnss a blind eye because the people need the care and they know the system cannot help them adequately, Government hospital emergency room s are over run with “routine” patients because they can’t get in to see a doctor in a timely way. So they opt for the emergency room or if they can afford it, go to an “illlegal” physical or come to American. Further, doctors are going into fields of medicine not covered by the universal system that are considered “elective” areas such as cosmetic surgery. Should we force a man to study cardiology which might only make $75,000 a year or is he free to go into cosmetic surgery which is “elective” and not under government controls and make $300,000 a year. Some will choose the cardiology for altruistic reasons but the majority will take the job with less stress and better pay. Who wants to fix hearts when they can fix a nose and get paid a whole lot more.

    So it is a false reality one believes in, if they think that federalizing our health care system will eliminate people being turned away for their afflictions. Tell that to the people in the waiting rooms at the Canadian emergency rooms seeking help but can’t get in to see a doctor, but if they want a nose job they can get seen in record time!!

    Health care is a personal obligation. How I choose to meet that obligation is up to me. I could become my own doctor or I could do something else that allows me to earn the money necessary to purchase that care from someone else. One doesn’t have to go to the extreme case of doing everything myself to meet a personal obligation. And a persons refusal to meet their obligation is not sufficient to require me to meet it for them. I could choose to and do so based on my faith and beliefs, but a free society should not compell me to do so. That’s all I’m saying.


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 28th, 2007
    at 5:52 pm

    Nor should a free society compel anyone to bear and subsequently support and parent a child, or not to, or to live in pain despite the choice to die — are we still understanding each other?


    Comment by
    Spunky
    August 28th, 2007
    at 10:24 pm

    No.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 29th, 2007
    at 8:05 am

    So it is a false reality one believes in, if they think that federalizing our health care system will eliminate people being turned away for their afflictions. Tell that to the people in the waiting rooms at the Canadian emergency rooms seeking help but can’t get in to see a doctor, but if they want a nose job they can get seen in record time!!

    You think we don’t have waiting times in the US? Just try scheduling a routine checkup or, even worse, a dental visit.

    We don’t hear about OUR waiting lines because we don’t measure them. And what you don’t measure, you can’t fix.

    There are all sorts of ways that we could have single payer health care without destroying our (crappy) health care system. Yes, crappy. The US stands at or near the bottom on all sorts of measurements among industrialized nations. Just this week we learned that we’re tied for second to last for infant mortality. In a nation that spends more on health care than any other. I’m pretty sure that Jesus had many suggestions on how people should take care of the poor, widows, and orphans. Too bad conservatives have forgotten his message.

    Administrative costs (i.e., overhead) eat up more than 25% of our health care costs. Medicare, which is a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM, has overhead costs of 1-2%. With that 23% freed up, we could cover every single American with about 6% left over. Yeah, we could actually spend LESS on health care than we do now, and get more of it.

    As a fringe benefit, our businesses, freed of the burden of providing health care coverage to their employees, would be more competitive globally.

    I just don’t see any humane argument against universal coverage.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 29th, 2007
    at 8:26 am

    Speak of the devil.

    From today’s NYT:

    The number of uninsured Americans has been rising inexorably over the past six years as soaring health care costs have driven up premiums, employers have scaled back or eliminated health benefits and hard-pressed families have found themselves unable to purchase insurance at a reasonable price. Last year, the number of uninsured Americans increased by a daunting 2.2 million, from 44.8 million in 2005 to 47.0 million in 2006. That scotched any hope that the faltering economic recovery would help alleviate the problem.

    The main reason for the upsurge in uninsured Americans is that employment-based coverage continued to deteriorate. Indeed, the number of full-time workers without health insurance rose from 20.8 million in 2005 to 22.0 million in 2006, presumably because either the employers or the workers or both found it too costly.

    Sadly, the one area where the nation had made progress — reducing the number of uninsured children — took a turn for the worse. The number of uninsured children under 18 dropped steadily and significantly from 1999 to 2004, thanks largely to an expansion in coverage of low-income children under two programs operated jointly by the states and the federal government, Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Then last year the number of uninsured children jumped more than 600,000 to reach 8.6 million. The main reason, advocacy groups say, is that access and funding for the low-income programs became tighter while employer coverage for dependents eroded.


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    August 29th, 2007
    at 9:19 am

    I just don’t see any humane argument against universal coverage.

    ***************
    Oh, you want humane.

    Didn’t you know it was every man for himself?

    Or that you should be haggling with the pediatrician the next time you have a sick child?

    Nance


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 29th, 2007
    at 10:36 am

    NPR interviewed a 63-year-old uninsured carpenter on NPR, planning a trip to Cuba for shoulder surgery (flying through Canada to illegally dodge the embargo.)
    The surgery’s only $6,000 there, he says — plus the airfare, which isn’t cheap and could be a health risk itself, these days.

    He doesn’t pay for health insurance in our “free society” and that’s his right, but he will defy his responsibility to the “general welfare and common good” under which our society was constitutionally ordained and established, to put himself in the hands of a Communist hospital as a consumer and try to save some money. He risks significant fines and federal imprisonment here if he’s caught and prosecuted.

    He’s not taking these risks against our society’s interest to seek some experimental medical procedure out of lifesaving desperation.

    It’s his shoulder (mine hurts too but my knee is worse) and he could simply have it done here for about twice the cost. And it’s not morally compelling, not politically principled. It’s just personal business, trying to put more dollars and sense in his own pocket in return for increased risks, like casinos and the stock market (charter schools, Martha Stewart, insurance companies?)

    And the only calculation that matters is his personal balance sheet, which is all he feels responsible for — not free society or national security, much less millions of sick and suffering kids.

    Would a Libertarian-Objectivist respond that our foreign policy to contain the communist regime off our own coast is wrong, rather than this cost-conscious carpenter and our profit-conscious, corporate-controlled health care system?

    Talk about a false reality! If we define the American Dream as ignoring all social interdependence in favor of some unreal, unhealthy form of ideological individual every-man-for-himself independence, would that reflect what the other carpenter (Jesus) would have us do? Sounds more like the Titanic to me.


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 29th, 2007
    at 11:00 am

    Trransportation issues (see top of thread) involve the same broad interdependence as public health issues. Our national air traffic control system is antiquated and dangerous, so the U.S. needs a very pricey new one. We private individuals will buy it as “the public” even if I choose never to personally fly, and corporate “individuals” will benefit with evermore “private” business flights (actually way more public than mine!) while less regulated, less taxed and while paying less of the system’s cost i direct use fees. Just like health care.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 29th, 2007
    at 12:14 pm

    Would a Libertarian-Objectivist respond that our foreign policy to contain the communist regime off our own coast is wrong…?

    I don’t think Skip hangs out here to give the definitive word, but my guess would be “yes.”

    My own personal answer is also “yes.” The economic boycott is evil and should have been dropped decades ago. Were it not for the swing-state status of FL in presidential politics, I have no doubt it would have been, too.


    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    August 29th, 2007
    at 12:19 pm

    My comments were directed at a universal federal system of health care which I am against. Just as I am against a universal federal system of education [emphasis added]. It would be contradictory to be for health care, but not the education. For both are obligations of the family, not the federal government.

    Just caught this one.

    Spunky, are you opposed to public schools controlled at the state or local level? Are you fighting to eliminate them with the same enthusiasm you’ve shown fighting against national health care? If not, would you be opposed to MI instituting a single payer health care system at the state level?


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 29th, 2007
    at 1:16 pm

    I meant to ask if the Cuban boycott was THE wrong, or are there also wrongs in leaving everybody flying by the seat of their pants to do their own individual thing regardless of common good concerns?

    Seems to me on the big policy issues, people wind up in a sort of merry-go-round of moralizing so that each person rides each horse at some point, taking turns shifting from private choice to common good, moral conscience to hard science, privacy to public interest and back again, so none of us ever sees the whole ride at once to figure out whether we’re getting anywhere or just going ROUND and ROUND to the corny music . . .

    Economist homeschooling dad Paul Danaher sent us a link to WaPo’s poverty policy perspective today. It’s somebody considering the social policy merry-go-round itself, rather than buying a ticket and ponying up for the horse race. 🙂

    “On Poverty, Maybe We’re All Wrong”


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 29th, 2007
    at 1:24 pm

    Sorry, too much open on the desktop, time for a nap! The link is:
    “On Poverty, Maybe We’re All Wrong”


    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    August 29th, 2007
    at 4:09 pm

    Seems to me on the big policy issues, people wind up in a sort of merry-go-round of moralizing so that each person rides each horse at some point, taking turns shifting from private choice to common good, moral conscience to hard science, privacy to public interest and back again, so none of us ever sees the whole ride at once to figure
    *******
    Even if we personally think we have a pretty firm grasp on what’s what (ha! 🙂 ) the irrationality of the healthcare system may send some of us running to Cuba or some other overwrought choice.

    Nance


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 29th, 2007
    at 7:19 pm

    Yeah, I take that mainly as a symptom that the system needs treatment!. In what system should that seem to make sense, even to folks not thinking too clearly?? 🙂


    Comment by
    JJ Ross
    August 31st, 2007
    at 8:13 am

    “I believe, if we don’t fix the health care system, that lack of access will be a bigger cancer killer than tobacco. The ultimate control of cancer is as much a public policy issue as it is a medical and scientific issue.”
    JOHN R. SEFFRIN, of the American Cancer Society, which plans to devote its entire advertising budget this year to the consequences of inadequate health coverage.