We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, May 30. 2012
It often confuses me why so many in my "helping professions" are Lefties. In fact, it probably makes more sense for us all to be Libertarians at heart. Like many Maggie's people, I am sort-of Conservative-Libertarian, if that makes any sense to you.
What it means is that if people want to smoke, or to get fat and out of shape, or play with guns, or shoot animals, or watch TV or play video games all day, or do reckless or stupid things, it's fine with me as long as it doesn't cause me any personal trouble or impinge meaningfully on my family's life. Does tax-funded medical care alter that balance?
Adults make their own decisions. I don't care a whit what other people do. The main thing that bothers me, socio-politically, are those who have somehow concluded that they are my betters and believe that they have a better plan for my - and for your - life. Such people often gravitate to government careers where there is some power to be wielded. We used to term such people "cranks," but cranks have gone mainstream.
Desire for power over others is almost a sickness, or is a sort of sickness (except for parenthood). The desire for freedom for others is, I believe, a virtue. (In case you wonder, I am against the criminalization of drug use despite believing that it is a poor life plan.)
That's a fairly-consistent Maggie's Farm theme, isn't it? Experts tend to lack common sense.
How about a little government coercion to deal with intrusive, annoying, nanny state busybodies who would claim to have either a) my best interest or b) the Greater Good, in mind? The world is run by crazy people.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I thought the Constitution was supposed to take care of the latter. I guess not.
"(In case you wonder, I am against the criminalization of drug use despite believing that it is a poor life plan.)
That's a fairly-consistent Maggie's Farm theme, isn't it?"
Yes, no argument here. What I find the most interesting after following your link to several others is the amount of anger expressed by commenters. It's like a vitual bar fight.
We oughtta lock up them busybodies! OK, that's too harsh, and wrong, even if that's pretty much what they have in mind for us.
I agree. I fall immediately out of the libertarian camp when it comes to letting you do their own thing, vis a vis, swelling your body up to pre-diabetes dimensions, or reckless engagement in risky behaviors. So, I'm a busybody (Probably qualifies me for Sam L.'s lock-up, but then I work part t-ime in one!) when engaged at work, and also in the judgement biz, too. (Definitely disqualifies me from being a progressive, huh?) Dr. Joy raises an interesting question about tax-funded interventions for poor life-style decisions. If I'm paying for the care, does that mean I need to be a judgemental busybody when I'm off-duty? Yup, but I'm having a difficult time making the adjustment!
There's the rub, isn't it? You end up paying for everybody else's misfortune or bad judgement if your insurance is not rated for you and your family.
It's an insidious process, but, in the end, everybody gets sick and dies. As they say, one person - one death.
It does seem rather clear that prior to the criminalization of drugs in this country the problem of drug addiction and the whole empire of drug gangs was minimal. So, while I tend toward the conservative/libertarian viewpoint myself and I agree with the sentiment of your comment; I would only add that I have no problem with communities having standards of accepted behavior. Within the strictures of the national and state Constitutions of course. I agree that federal power needs to be dramatically curbed. But, states and localities can and should establish parameters. If you don't like a certain community, you can always move. There will always be a Reno Nevada, someplace. Or, Dodge City. Or Salt Lake City. Or.....
I don't care a whit what other people do = I don't care what happens to other people. Not a good life plan either.
And no, the empire of drugs was not minimal prior to the minimalization of drugs, the culture of alcohol was widespread and very destructive.
Why is it that people always consider that all obese people or people with diabetes or whatever malady someone might have, doesn't pay health insurance too.
I've been paying health insurance for as long as I have been working, except when I was in the military back in the early 80's. I've never gone to the hospital for much of anything over the past 21 years and if I end up being a little overweight (luckily i'm not) and getting diabetes, who are you to tell me how I should live at that time.
So you can never tell me that your paying for me or anyone else. How do you know.
Well, like I said, I'm not a libertarian . . .
Most clients that appear in our service do not have private insurance, and represent the majority of expenditures for public-assisted health care in the U.S.
They've made their lifestyle choices, as far as nutrition, smoking, "recreational" drug use, alcohol consumption, irresponsible sexual behavior, ignoring acute health problems, etc.
Now that they have retired, or are on disability, due to these progressive, chronic medical conditions, their care most likely falls under Medicare, Medicaid, or variations of publicly-assisted care, which the taxpayers fund. Many chronic conditions can't be reversed, but what is most frustrating is that so many patients don't stop smoking, continue to eat food that makes things worse, they don't take their medicine, or show up for lab tests and medical appointments. So, we, the taxpayers, get to pay even more.
I realize that you're taking a principaled stand, and rightly so. However, you are paying for insurance, not a savings plan, and by abiding by common wisdom that should tip the scale in favor of a long, healthy life, you and the insurance company are betting that you won't need much more than usual medical care. My point is that once someone has lived a life bereft of the common sense we all should understand as representing a healthy lifestyle, that person expects unending, free medical care, which I object to. It shouldn't be totally free . . .
If someone has quit smoking, for example, and is trying to improve their lot, I'm in the front of their cheerleading section, and I fight like hell to get them what they need, and that's where I feel my energy should be expended, not arguing with a diabetic, double-amputee with four other major diagnoses, that he needs to fund a $1.10/month co-pay for a blood pressure medicine out of his tobacco and Lotto stash.
Please keep doing what your're doing, JS4Strings. I have far more important matters than telling someone what to do!
Steve in CT,
My inner circle (but not me) works in the health care field, including some significant experience with pharmacies and they frequently describe a parade of diabetes sufferers who's medical expenses, which often include many hundreds of dollars of prescriptions, are paid by medicaid or medicare.
Not every case of diabetes is the result of poor choices in life but it is very high on the list of personally preventable afflictions.
Another very expensive public medical expense is "happy pills" which Dr. Joy undoubtedly knows about. There are legions of people taking enormous amounts of those drugs and many are a public expense.
Ah yes, alcohol. Sure enough, that nearly ubiquitous substance has been around for a good long time and the folks who abuse it create trouble for themselves and others. I would only add that the alcohol prohibition (reference back to the point of this post) did nothing to stem it's abuses and actually increased the size and power of the criminal gangs who controlled it's distribution. Not to mention the increased official corruption which we also see with this contemporary drug prohibition. So, you are correct. But, booze doesn't force itself into a persons mouth, people do. Controlling people is problematic and we see that prohibition is counterproductive. Where lies the best balance between liberty and control? I don't have the answer.
Let me add this little tidbit If I may. While I generally disapprove of prohibiting substances, I have no problem with laws penalizing the criminal actions of substance abusers. If people are to exercise their liberties, they must assume the reciprocal duty to behave responsibly. Or pay the piper.
What about this?
For Some, Exercise May Increase Heart Risk