Joe Lieberman from the state of Connecticut has announced to his base (the health insurers and their lobbyists) that he will filibuster any bill presented in the Senate that contains the words "public option". Unfortunately for Holy Joe, his constituents heard that as well. In fact, the whole country did. And we are pissed.
A recent poll found that 72% of the population in the US is in favour of the public option. Why? Because when they get sick they want to be able to go to a doctor and without any insurance that simply isn't an option, public or otherwise. But if the government creates a public option, all of a sudden, upwards of 25 million people will, for the first time, be able to go to the doctor or the hospital without first having to check their bank balance or wonder which of their maxed-out credit cards they might be able to melt just a little bit more.
For some reason this scares the ever-loving shit out of the right-wing. For some inexplicable reason, a healthy population, one that has access to preventative medical care, vaccines and routine check-ups scares the lily-white rich folk more than an IRS audit. I have no idea why.
I know why the lily-white rich politicians hate the public option, because they've been told to feel that way by the people that own them, you know, the drug companies and the insurance industry, but deep down inside, you would hope that at least a few of them get a twinge when they realise the depth of their hypocrisy. After all, they themselves are the beneficiaries of a very nice public option in their health coverage. They just don't seem to want to share. And that makes them all a bunch of selfish bastards. It's not a new concept, the old "I'm alright Jack" mentality has always been front and centre for the well-off, but it becomes very problematic when that mentality is applied to the national healthcare debate. Simply telling people to suck it up and buy insurance, or get a job that offers health insurance is all well and good, but when the national unemployment rate is 10.2% that's easier said than done. Plus, at the end of the day it doesn't actually solve the root of the problem, sky-high premiums.
Of course, if I were a cynic I'd say that there was a bit of collusion going on between the insurance companies and the drug companies. Each agreeing to continue to hike the cost of their products to the vast unwitting population whilst claiming at the same time that a public option would force the premiums even higher. Now, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I know that sounds like a load of bollocks. When you introduce competition prices go down, not up. At least they do in the world I live in, but apparently that is not the case in the world that republicans inhabit. In that twisted plane of existence, when competition comes in to the marketplace, the old guard has to raise it's prices in order to stay competitive, rather than lowering them to, you know, compete with the new upstart. I know what you're thinking and you're right, that is definitely a load of bollocks.
I have a potential solution. Instead of accepting what Holy Joe is saying to the poor, the sick and the uninsured (that would be a hearty "Go fuck yourselves" in case you hadn't figured it out yourself), how about if we get the government to approach healthcare reform from a different angle, like, oh, I don't know, immediately banning insurance companies from sponsoring golf tournaments? Or prohibiting drug companies from advertising on the telly all-day, every-day? I bet that would save the odd billion or two over the years. That would mean that the drug companies wouldn't gouge up the price of the dick-stiffening medication everyone in the US is apparently desperate for, the insurance companies would be able to lower their premiums, and we'd all get a bit of piece and quiet all at the same time.
Sounds like win-win-win to me....plus it would mean that the saggy-faced douchebag from Connecticut could go back to doing what he does best, kissing the asses of the hosts on Fux Noize in a desperate attempt to still appear relevant...
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
For some the Death Penalty is too good...
As a long-time left-leaning, tree-hugging, save-the-whales/wolves/polar bears etc screaming pinko liberal I sometimes find myself conflicted when the topic turns to the Death Penalty. It seems strange for the State to say that murder is wrong, and then, murder someone that is found guilty of committing murder. There's the whole "we're supposed to be more advanced and civilized than animals" argument, which has a point I suppose, after all we can, as a species, wipe our own bottoms, and buy our food already killed and conveniently packaged. We know about hygiene and disease-avoidance, and have wonderfully useful opposing thumbs, and we can eradicate pretty much any other species on the planet should the mood so take us. But that still doesn't make the subject of the ultimate penalty a straight-forward one. I know several folks of a highly right-wing disposition that vehemently oppose the death penalty, and also a smattering of liberals that would be more than happy to string the guilty up from the nearest tree.
I tend to fall somewhere in the middle. Mostly. Sometimes.
In the US, a country that executes more of it's own citizens than any other country on the planet save China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, an inauspicious club if ever there was one, there are simply too many ways to break the law and wind up getting the death penalty for it to be a) an efficient deterrent or b) a "just" punishment. Come to think of it, that's something else they all have in common too. But the one big difference between them is that only the US is a "democracy". That actually makes it worse though, when you consider that the rest of the top four are all a bunch of authoritarian loonies meting out the DP hither and yon whenever it suits their political purpose.
Granted, some are more creative with the way they actually do the deed than others, but that's a distinction without a difference, the end result is always the same, there are always fewer breathing people leaving the room than entered it. And therin lies the problem.
The death penalty is permanent. There are no 'do-overs' if you get the wrong guy, no way to bring them back from the dead if it turns out that the eye-witness got it wrong, or the defendants' lawyer was an idiot, or the prosecutor and Mr. John Q. Fuzz lied/withheld/coerced evidence and testimony. Too bad, so sad. "Dear surviving family members of the person we accidentally killed, we're really very very sorry, we'll try better next time. Signed, The State."
Not very comforting is it?
That is one of the reasons I am against the death penalty. Statistically it is an absolute certainty that in the United States, since the re-introduction of the DP, at least one innocent person was been wrongly sent to their death. This has been further evidenced in the moratorium that still exists against the DP in the state of Illinois as at least 16 people scheduled to be put to death, have been subsequently proven innocent. That's 16 innocent people that Illinois would have murdered for being unable to prove that point. God alone knows how many innocents George W. Bush gleefully sent to their deaths during his tenure as Governor of Texass (a strange position for an allegedly "pro-life christian" but I digress) , but the mind boggles at the thought...
But then along comes a crime so despicable I would gladly join the queue lining up to make sure the DP was swiftly and accurately applied. I refer to the case unfolding in North Carolina, where it appears that a mother of a beautiful five year-old girl prostituted her out, and the little girl has now been found dead. If this turns out to be the case, that woman can never be dead enough. The thought that this woman put her own daughter through who knows what sort of hell willingly, means that she immediately and permanently loses the right to breath the same air as the rest of us. Once she's found guilty, never mind the appeals, and the rest of the inevitable legal maneuvering that will take place, take that sick bitch out the backdoor of the courthouse and put a bullet in her head.
Make that two.
Just to make sure.
I tend to fall somewhere in the middle. Mostly. Sometimes.
In the US, a country that executes more of it's own citizens than any other country on the planet save China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, an inauspicious club if ever there was one, there are simply too many ways to break the law and wind up getting the death penalty for it to be a) an efficient deterrent or b) a "just" punishment. Come to think of it, that's something else they all have in common too. But the one big difference between them is that only the US is a "democracy". That actually makes it worse though, when you consider that the rest of the top four are all a bunch of authoritarian loonies meting out the DP hither and yon whenever it suits their political purpose.
Granted, some are more creative with the way they actually do the deed than others, but that's a distinction without a difference, the end result is always the same, there are always fewer breathing people leaving the room than entered it. And therin lies the problem.
The death penalty is permanent. There are no 'do-overs' if you get the wrong guy, no way to bring them back from the dead if it turns out that the eye-witness got it wrong, or the defendants' lawyer was an idiot, or the prosecutor and Mr. John Q. Fuzz lied/withheld/coerced evidence and testimony. Too bad, so sad. "Dear surviving family members of the person we accidentally killed, we're really very very sorry, we'll try better next time. Signed, The State."
Not very comforting is it?
That is one of the reasons I am against the death penalty. Statistically it is an absolute certainty that in the United States, since the re-introduction of the DP, at least one innocent person was been wrongly sent to their death. This has been further evidenced in the moratorium that still exists against the DP in the state of Illinois as at least 16 people scheduled to be put to death, have been subsequently proven innocent. That's 16 innocent people that Illinois would have murdered for being unable to prove that point. God alone knows how many innocents George W. Bush gleefully sent to their deaths during his tenure as Governor of Texass (a strange position for an allegedly "pro-life christian" but I digress) , but the mind boggles at the thought...
But then along comes a crime so despicable I would gladly join the queue lining up to make sure the DP was swiftly and accurately applied. I refer to the case unfolding in North Carolina, where it appears that a mother of a beautiful five year-old girl prostituted her out, and the little girl has now been found dead. If this turns out to be the case, that woman can never be dead enough. The thought that this woman put her own daughter through who knows what sort of hell willingly, means that she immediately and permanently loses the right to breath the same air as the rest of us. Once she's found guilty, never mind the appeals, and the rest of the inevitable legal maneuvering that will take place, take that sick bitch out the backdoor of the courthouse and put a bullet in her head.
Make that two.
Just to make sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)