I'm a little bitchy this morning

[crysthewolf]

It may be because I started the morning off talking politics. ;)  Sorry, but I just can't jump on the "I Hate Hillary" bandwagon.  Granted, I don't really want her to be my president (although that's not to say I wouldn't have voted for her if she HAD gotten the nomination, just that I prefer Obama between the two of them.)  And no, that's not because she's self-centered, or full of shit, or puts herself ahead of the country.  Sorry, but in my opinion?  That's pretty much every politician... and, frankly, just about anybody in a paid leadership position.  And everyone in a paid position at all.   

*shrugs*  And does that make it wrong?  For any of us?  For the most part, other people AREN'T going to take care of us.  Even for those of us who DO try to take care of other people... if we fall all over ourselves worrying about everyone else to the detriment of our own needs... then eventually, we can't help them either.

So yes, Hil is "me first".  But my personal opinion is, so is Obama.  

So does that mean I'm pro-McCain?  No, not a bit.  While I like the IDEA and the PRINCIPLE of "small government",  I have two problems with it.  One, small government doesn't mean less government power, and we've seen that with Bush.  Generally it means that the government has a lot of power but doesn't have very much responsibility, and it certainly doesn't give the country much BACK for it.  Two, dammit, someone needs to do something about healthcare... and no one seems willing to, so I'm getting to the point where I feel like we ALL should.  Meaning that yes, my tax dollars, should go to my friend's face surgery and teeth replacement.  If I could put her on my insurance I would, but I can't.  *shrugs*  Next best thing.  And even if I COULD, not everyone has someone who would put them no their insurance to fix their health problems if they could.  

And healthcare, is too. Damned.  Expensive.

Period.

I'm sorry, but people shouldn't have to forfeit their ability to live under a roof for the ability to LIVE.

So I don't think that McCain would do anything about that.  Furthermore, yes, in fact, I DO think that four years of McCain equates, in the most prominent senses, to four more years of Bush.  That's just my opinion, but from what I've seen of him, yes, he disagrees with some of Bush's policies... but not enough of them.  He's voiced no opinions on Iraq other than that he plans on leaving us there until... when, exactly?  The problem with that is, while I don't think that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would be a good thing (yes it might save us some lives NOW, but how many people will die because we pulled the rug out from under them and didn't replace it with anything, and how many people will die when they decide that they want retribution?)  I don't think that we should have gone to Iraq in the FIRST place...  but once we were there, once we pulled the rug out from under them... we can't just blow out.  We need to get out, but we need to do SOMETHING first.  And I can't say exactly WHAT, but something HAS to be done.

Now setting a timeline?  THAT I think would be productive.

Problem is that McCain's not even willing to do that.  The majority of the country WANTS it, but he's not willing to do it.

If that's the case.. then how can we REALLY say that we're a government run FOR the people, BY the people?

Because as it stands, all "the people" really do is weigh in on the popularity contest that we currently call a presidential election.  It seems to me that, after that, we're pretty much screwed.

So, smaller government?  As soon as someone shows me a reasonable plan as to how that could actually WORK without causing even MORE corruption, I'll show some interest.  In the meantime, though, my friend needs teeth.  Who's going to give them to her?  Someone needs to make a decision in Iraq based on what the people want.  McCain isn't going to do that. 

My only beef with Obama is that I don't think he has a lot of nerve.  I think he lacks balls.  But I'm hoping, just slimly, that he might grow some in office.  No, that doesn't mean that I don't think that he supports some things that I can't stand behind.  No, that doesn't mean that I think he doesn't owe anyone and won't go ahead and pay up with policy.

It means that yes, I find him to be the lesser of three evils.  

And that those evils, are most likely less evil than they are politicians and, in the end, humans.

In the end I guess I don't think that they're really all that different from one another, so I still can't march in the "I Hate Hillary" parade.  

The funny thing is... I don't know that I think they're really that different from any of the rest of us, either.  I mean, are they?  Or is it just that we give them more attention, and more power?

Love,
Crystal

Comments

[echoweaver.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much every politician

Hear hear!

I personally think that every presidential candidate has to be a megalomaniac almost by definition. Running for president sucks. BEING president sucks. You don't even get paid all that much compared to what you could do in a high-powered business. The only reason to run for president is because you get off on power.

So it's not about finding an altruistic president. Those kinds of people don't run. It's about finding the megalomaniac you think, or hope, you can live with.

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. ;) :)

[friendstephen.livejournal.com]

I'm probably voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian. I haven't fully researched his positions yet, but my general tendency is to vote for people who are for small, effective government and really believe it. (Bush 43 claimed to be for small government, but his government hasn't been small or getting smaller, and it hasn't even been effective at the things he believes are important, like fighting wars.) I like how Barack Obama does things, but not the things he does. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, which is a real turn-off to me. I wish I could get excited about him because he's the first mainstream political candidate to really be different and exciting in quite a while, but if he gets elected the things that will happen will be things I specifically don't want to happen.

Obviously I know who you're talking about, the woman who needed/needs face surgery and teeth replacement. Let's call her "Jane" as in "Jane Doe".

"Jane" needs all of these expensive procedures, but if the government ran things can we be sure that those expensive procedures would even exist, or that they would be available in a timely manner? If the government would just take yours and my taxes and pay her bills, that would work for a very short time but it would cause medical prices to inflate (more dollars chasing a limited supply of doctors, hospitals, and drugs). That would cause government payments to inflate and put politicians in the position of either forcibly controlling costs or raising taxes and getting voted out. They will probably choose to forcibly control costs. At that point, the people who were willing to risk money opening hospitals or developing new drugs or going to medical school will be less willing to do so. That's when the shortages begin. They don't get bad right away, but the rate of new hospitals opening, or new drugs going on the market, or new doctors starting to practice, all those rates start to decline. Eventually you have to wait for a hospital bed, or take an old drug that doesn't work well because nobody has released a new one that does, or wait to see a doctor because all the doctors who could treat you are booked up for months.

"Jane" is alive but broke now. I would prefer that she be both alive and not broke, but that might not be easily possible. If I had to choose one or the other for her, I would take alive. Had there been a shortage of hospitals, doctors, or drugs at the time she got sick and needed them, she might be fully solvent, but alive ... not so much.

When I saw a doctor about an inguinal hernia a few years ago, my hernia was judged to be a serious risk and got operated on in less than 30 days. I managed to get them to do it as a charity case because I was working a low-paid job and didn't have insurance. Suppose nobody wanted to do it on that basis. My choices were to be in a capitalist system where there were doctors available but I had no money to pay them or a socialist system where there were doctors available, but not for six months. I would choose the capitalist system. I would guess that I could beg or borrow the money to get the treatment and stay alive, but if the doctors aren't available, they just aren't available and I'm going to die.

I watch "Prime Minister's Question Time" on C-SPAN where members of the UK parliament can ask the Prime Minister questions on just about any topic. A constant strain of questions are about how there are long wait times to see a particular kind of doctor or to get into a hospital bed in their constituencies. I get the feeling that you can do well providing healthcare in the UK, but not get filthy rich doing it like you can here. That's bound to cut down on the number of people who want to provide healthcare.

Our current system sucks and must be fixed. Nationalized healthcare is not that fix. I don't think anybody has figured out what that fix should be yet, but government control is clearly not it.

Just my thoughts.

[friendstephen.livejournal.com]

One more thing: I've argued this kind of thing directly with "Jane" before. She is actually in favor of government-run healthcare. I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that she agrees with me.

She doesn't.

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

See and I don't really buy that. The problem is that now, if Jane were to get a life threatening disease, she has neither money nor credit... most hospitals will still make her wait six months for treatment, during which time, she'll die.

I think that your outlook on public healthcare is a little too "doom-and-gloom" for me, to be honest. Your basis for saying that costs will end up inflated is that medical prices will inflate because more people are able to pay for medical care. So the solution is to make it so expensive that less people are able to pay for medical care, so that it's available when the people who CAN pay for it, need it?

And I'm not buying that the only alternative to the current system is a socialist system and so we should stay with the current system. The idea I'm advocating is, basically, and improvement to medicaid... something that would be available to people who can't afford insurance but don't qualify for medicaid... which is the category "Jane" fits into.

And I don't think that if the government were to somehow control the price of medical care that people would resist opening hospitals and going into the medical field. SOME would, granted, but I've known a lot of people who have gone to med school and become doctors and all of those that I've known would do it for a few bazillion less dollars... hell, one of them DID (the WHO doesn't pay ungodly amounts.) The BIGGEST problem with going into the medical field is the education expense, which I think should ALSO come down. If we could pull down both at the same time, we'd still have problems, but far fewer. Medical care COSTS TOO MUCH, PERIOD. The price of it NEEDS to be controlled, otherwise the only people we're taking care of is the rich. Is that really what we want? Hell, if we're going by natural selection... perhaps the price of medical care is, frankly, the reason why our society seems to just be getting more and more stupid. After all, it's much easier for Paris Hilton to get medical treatment than you or me... but which of us is more intelligent?

We obviously need a better medical system than we have. And no, the only alternative isn't a socialist system. There have to be points in between the system we have now and a socialist system, frankly... I'm not buying that it's the only alternative, and as much as I respect your opinion, I think that saying that it IS is becoming a bit of a tired argument.

[crysthewolf.livejournal.com]

I don't think you did, dear. ;) And she doesn't with good reason. She's thousands of dollars in debt and can't get the teeth replaced that were taken out during her surgery that, without which, you wouldn't be able to see her face at this point.

[(Anonymous)]

This might be interesting:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/main.html