I suppose Kathleen would call me a Nazi or something for even bringing this up, but …
What do you regard as an appropriately cruel and unusual punishment for somebody who saturates a non-smoking hotel room with cigarette residue?
I checked into this room with the standard international nicht rauchen sign on the door, and when I opened the door, the room hit me with a reek that made me think I might be better off going down to sleep in the bar.
Mind you, this is not an esthetic thing to me. I’m very allergic to the stuff, and in fact am at this moment in the middle of a second course of prednisone to treat sinus inflammation that’s been killing me for the past couple of months.
The lady at the desk was very nice, but there wasn’t another room available tonight that met our needs. They promise to switch us ASAP tomorrow. Meanwhile, I went down to the car to get my breathing machine so I wouldn’t have to fetch it at 3 a.m., just in case. Meanwhile, I’m thinking positive thoughts.
Never mind about me, though. I’ll be fine, I think. But don’t you think whoever last occupied this room should at least have his credit card billed double or something?
Thoughts?
Related Posts
Brad, where on earth are you? Sounds like Italy or something, and if so, you haven’t got a hope. No smoking signs don’t mean anything in some places.
Might have been a guerilla smoker committing sabotage in retaliation for the ridiculously excessive persecution of smokers. Or maybe he/she had reserved a smoking room and was PO’d to discover that all smoking rooms were occupied when he/she arrived.
No, I don’t smoke, but I do think that the anti-smoking crowd long ago overstepped the bounds of what’s reasonable.
Still waiting on an answer from you about the budget numbers.
Brad, come back to Columbia!!! We miss your viewpoint on life!!!
Brad,
You’re a real tough guy. My family doesn’t have health insurance, yet you whine about your allergies. Plenty of our soldiers in Iraq would love to spend a night or two in a smoke-filled bar back in the US. You would never make it as a millwright in a steel mill in the 120 degree heat with noxious fumes and danger lurking around every corner (for ten bucks an hour). Maybe you should get out the rarefied air of The State more often to see how the workers who support your indolent existence really live from day to day. Oh yeah, that’s right-you’re too good for that.
P.S. My nephew joined the military, yet he managed to get a waiver for his asthma. I never told the military about my asthma, and I did just fine.
Mark,
LOL. Thank you for putting things in a little perspective for Mr. Milquetoast.
Makes you wonder how the West would have ever been won with today’s crybabies, doesn’t it?
If Mark served with asthma, which I have, more power to him. I think it does give us all some perspective. BUT, having to use a breathing machine is not small matter.
Lex, share with us some of your tough guy experiences. Explain how people like you tamed the west. And spare us the “well what you have you done Randy?!!” because I’m not the one belittling others as “crybabies.” Typical playground bully post from you.
Clarification Mark, I have asthma but did not serve.
tough guy experiences
Not sure if it meets your standards, my dear Randy, but I did serve a number of years in the military. Did you?
Oops, never mind. I see you never served in the military. So tell us what your “tough guy experiences” were!
Now, to be quite honest, looking back at what our forefathers had to endure, I doubt that most of us would be up to their “tough guy experiences”. IMO most of them would have been overjoyed if a hotel room smelling of a little smoke was all they had to endure. But hey, what do I know?
I never claimed to have tough guy experiences and pay due respect to military personnel.
I also don’t stoop to calling people “cry babies” when they have to use a breathing machine either. Of course, you have asthma so you know all about that too? Or did you cough once and use that as your perspective on the whole issue?
“But hey, what do I know?”…”Who knows?”
Where do you get that “breathing machine” stuff? Did I miss something or was Brad simply talking about a drug he was talking? What’s with the machine?
“I went down to the car to get my breathing machine so I wouldn’t have to fetch it at 3 a.m., just in case.” – Brad
Brad’s in Shippensburg, PA and the hotel has internet high speed access. We should have put an ankle bracelet on him so we could track his travels real-time. Maybe we can start a Where’s Bradwaldo? contest.
Mark, If you noticed Brad said don’t worry about me I will be fine. He is simply posting a random discussion blog post and you attack the guy with a vengeance. Are you usually that bitter all the time? Kind of scary I think. If you are without Health Ins. are you unemployed now? That may explain it.
Dave, how do you know he’s in Penn? That’s scary…or did he tell you?
Warthaldo?
Randy, yes, I am trailing him.. hahahahahahah Remember that scene in Cape Fear where DeNiro went under their vehicle and hung on till they made it to their vacation spot? Brad, look under your vehicle right now… Actually, I just clicked on the Lady At The Desk in his post above.. Truth in reporting and all that..
Yeah, I was sort of looking for a discussion on civility and responsibility toward each other. I said I’d be OK, and I am, more or less. Mostly, I couldn’t sleep because of the steroids I’m on.
I had to get a CT scan of my sinuses Friday morning before I left town; doctors are still trying to get to the bottom of the severe pain , which is probably allergy-related, but the ENT doc doubts that’s the full explanation. Allergies just make the underlying problem worse.
I had no choice in this matter; I was stuck here last night. The jerk who ruined the room DID have a choice — he could have not smoked. I mean, I’m addicted to coffee. But if my drinking coffee could cause instantaneous ill effects to people around me — or who will follow me into a place — and I am in a place that bans coffee for that very reason, how on God’s green Earth do you justify my saying the hell with it and slamming down cup after cup of java?
I could exercise a little discipline — you know, be a tough guy — and wait until I’m in an appropriate place.
Don’t you think?
I do think that the civility crowd long ago overstepped the bounds of what’s reasonable.
Next you’ll want us to move from the right lane on the interstate when a car is entering from an acceleration lane. Before you know it, we’ll be expected to turn off our cell phones at the movies.
Brad, there are Sudanese who would love to have people be rude to them. Civility is for cry-babies.
DeNiro was a scary freakin dude in that movie. You see how he stuck it to that anti-smoking crowd!
LexWolf writes:
“I do think that the anti-smoking crowd long ago overstepped the bounds of what’s reasonable.”
I strongly disagree. One of the great liberal success stories of the last 40 years has been the incremental removal of tobacco smoke from public places. Let’s finish the job and outlaw smoking in all restaraunts and strictly enforce smoking bans in non-smoking hotel rooms and other places.
Randy, all I want to do is frickin’ breathe. All I ask of those around me is that they not take specific actions to prevent me from doing so. Kind of like, if you have an open wound, asking folks to kindly not pour salt on it. It’s not a hell of a lot to ask.
And that explanation on my part will generate multiple comment about my “whining.” I’m not. As I said, I’ll be fine. I just thought, after having just read Kathleen Parker’s piece, that this would be an interesting conversation to have regarding what sort of obligations we have to each other in a civilization.
Just forget it. I’m not communicating. Let’s all go to the next subject. Sheesh.
No, I can’t ever give up. I believe too strongly in the power of dialogue.
Let me try to express what the original post said, in a slightly different way:
I contracted with the hotel for a smoke-free room. My choice in the free market. That’s what I’m paying for.
I didn’t get a smoke-free room. So the hotel owes me for not delivering on the contract.
But that’s not the hotel’s fault. THEY didn’t cheat me of fresh air, the customer who violated their policy did. So if the hotel owes me, he owes them.
Do you get it now?
Brad – miscommunication.
I was mocking the crowd that attacked you. I have had to make trips to Kroger at 3am to get a puffer until I got Advair, which I take daily. Yours is 10 times which is why the insensitive faction deserved mocking.
To all – I would vote for trying to keep these non-political blog subjects civil, even friendly. As much as I enjoy political blog warfare about politics, can’t we give it a rest on a simple subject like this, where a smoker smoked in a non-smoking room at a hotel? I enjoy a good cigar but in a non smoking room I would at least get out on the balcony. Never in the room. Let’s also cut out the stuff about who served in the military, etc.
Randy – that movie smoking scene really tickled my funnybone the second time I saw the movie. I have been in a movie where people were loud and boisterous and I thought now that would get everyone’s attention, plus the fire marshal. DeNiro is a great actor but I still can’t believe he did Rocky and Bullwinkle, the sequel to Meet the Parents, and several other duds.
Off topic somewhat but about health care. Herb should read this from AP, effects of the socialist health care system being felt in Germany.
**********************************8
At the University Hospital in Duesseldorf, dozens of doctors have left for better jobs abroad, said Favoccia. The situation is particularly dramatic at the anesthesia department where 17 out of 80 doctors have quit their jobs within the last year.
Low salaries are one of the main reasons. Favoccia is making $2,900 a month after taxes in Duesseldorf, but at the University Hospital in Amsterdam he will earn $8,150 after deductions — and work fewer hours.
Young clinic doctors never made a lot of money in Germany but knew that later in their career their tough beginnings at the hospital would pay off, said Favoccia. That was before changes to the government health insurance program aimed at limiting health costs — and restricting what doctors can charge.
There are very few private clinics in Germany, so most young doctors start their careers at university hospitals, state-run or municipal clinics.
“Today, it is not worth it anymore to struggle for years because after all the changes in the German health system you will never become rich, not even as a senior doctor or if you own a private practice,” he said.
I hope you’re feeling better, Brad. Your headache might be caused by the stress and strain of having to work both at the newspaper and deal with us knuckleheads on your blog…
I’d be curious to know if the hotel charges you for that night– they shouldn’t. I’d refuse to pay– at least the full price.
I’m a miltary veteran, and not someone you’d want to mess with. And yet I always prefer nonsmoking rooms and smoke-free restaurants. It doesn’t mean I’m anti-smoking, have a lack of empathy for those who are worse off, or lack toughness.
What’s so illuminating about this thread is how people form their opinions– how a simple matter of smoke in a nonsmoking room can bring out such disagreement based not on the simple facts, but on personal anxieties about unemployment, evils of liberalism, etc.
Good point, Mark G. Evidently it depends a lot on whether you agree politically with a person as to whether you give that person any slack.
Read your post, Dave. Certainly the German health system has its difficulties. I don’t think I ever said that it didn’t. Apparently you and others don’t think the American one has any difficulties, which is where I beg to disagree.
And I would add that news services can never replace what it means to actually live somewhere and see what it is like in reality. True, one person’s experience is limited, which is why I don’t claim omniscience, unlike some people on this blog. But I think I know a great deal more about Germany than people who just read news tidbits about it.
I don’t know the age of most people on this blog, but I can only suggest that before you accuse Brad of being soft, you start getting old yourself. It ain’t no fun, believe me.
By the way, Dave, I still appreciate your posting the bit about the German health service. It’s a good balance to see both sides. Angelika Merckel (chancellor) will have to try and adjust things some, if she can get it done in the big coalition. Not easy.
Herb, good to hear from you. I found that AP article very curious about German doctors leaving the country to make more elsewhere. The global economy is here for sure. One of my daughters has just concluded a summer study in Europe and is now (having bought a Eurail pass) touring Europe with a couple of girlfriends. I am going to be real interested in her perceptions of good ole EU. I know they go from England to France to Spain to Italy to Switzerland, but not sure if she is going to enter Germany. Actually, my biggest hope for Europe is that they wake up before the Muslims conquer them peacefully. To me, Poland offers a ray of hope. Religious people, anti-Communist Christians, yes, there is hope in Poland.
Herb, Paul DeMarco is a better person to comment on the medical situation in the US. But from my own experience, why do doctors need to make from 250k to 500k in the US? Not all do, and I dont believe in wage restrictions. However, the medical community holds down the number of doctors artificially to keep supply down. That is what is happening in the USA.
Interesting thoughts, Dave. Yet I fear the opposite might also be true. Not long before I moved away from Germany, two mothers came to talk about their sons who had joined the neo-Nazis. There wasn’t much that could be done until they decided themselves to get out, which would not be so easy. I never have heard what happened. What I do know is that Turkish kids and other minority groups in our area were in danger. I guess I wonder whether deep down in the German psyche there is this insecurity about what could happen, and, as a result, the fervent desire to push tolerance at all costs. But it is not a subject that can be easily talked about. I just e-mailed one friend that I know will give me a straight answer, but there aren’t many such.
In other words, a backlash of hate against Muslims and Jews is also possible.
Hope your daughter has a great trip! Living in Europe is a great experience with so many cultures and languages so close together. In a way, the provincial and the global exist side by side.
Much of the neo-Nazi stuff in Germany is self-inflicted, thanks to the absolute prohibition on anything Nazi-related. Not hard to understand, given Germany’s history, but ultimately misguided because, kids being kids, they are attracted to the forbidden. Similarly I would bet that if we outlawed the KKK rather than just informally ostracized it, you might have a vast increase in new KKK recruits.
Coupled with that is the fact that Germany simply has no real opposition parties. Sure they posture at election time but ultimately, except for one small party and frequent coalition partner, all of them are for bigger government, for higher taxes, for more regulation, and against more freedom for the citizens. You know Germans have no real choice when even the “conservative” party (CDU/CSU) campaigns on raising taxes and even worse, actually implements those higher taxes after they barely win. Here in the US even the Demos no longer admit that they will raise taxes if elected but in Germany it’s not enough that the government already spends close to 50% of the GDP. The national sales tax will still go from 16% to 19% in January. Oh, and besides the national sales tax, they also have an income tax, of course, and a property tax, and a pension tax, and a gas tax, and a tobacco tax, and a coffee tax, and various fees out the wazoo.
I spent a number of years in Germany. For an American, living in Germany (and most of the rest of “Old Europe”) is a miserable experience if you are not insulated from the depredations of its voracious government in some way (working for the US government or tax-indemnified by your employer). If experienced as a visitor at a huge “theme park” it’s great but I wouldn’t want to live there for anything.
A longer range problem for Germany and much of western Europe is under-population. Especially with a high pension burden in place for the retired elderly, the young will be taxed to the hilt to fund the government. That scenario cannot last for long. The US is facing the same issues on a smaller scale due to the Social Security and Medicare burden, but the US economy is at least growing.
Back to smoking, Forbes magazine claims there are 350 million smokers in China, where the Marlboro man is moving into that market. I bet there aren’t many non-smoking rooms in China. How do you say, “Smoke ’em if you got ’em” in Chinese?
It all depends on attitude. I lived in Germany for 28 years. We raised four kids there. I determined from the very beginning to bond with the people, and I think we did. In the initial year, I allowed myself the one luxury of listening to the Armed Forces radio once in awhile to get the news in English (after that, we moved too far south to pick up AFN), but otherwise it was all German–German schools for our kids, German reading, talking with Germans, being friends with Germans. Our kids grew up speaking two languages fluently, and learning at least three more at school. By learning I mean more than learning a few words enough to order something to eat at a French restaurant. I mean learning to communicate, and read literature.
Don’t tell me living in Germany is miserable. What makes life miserable for anybody is generally their own attitude towards it.
And despite the problems Germany is having economically, some of it , I will grant because of excessive entitlements and corresponding taxation, Americans would do well to learn from their sense of social responsibility. Brad’s piece in the paper this morning was right on target.
Sorry, I was so mad when I read what LexWolf wrote this morning that I overstepped the truth a bit. Our kids had German, English, and French all through school. It was only our son who took Spanish and Latin as well.
Brad, on your next trip take a sleeping bag, stay outdoors. The idea that the accommodations weren’t as stated fall back on the establishment.
The smoking issue is a great example of how liberal policies can bring about positive change in the lives of Americans. Despite the whinning and griping of the right-wing there has not been any negative effect from limiting smoking in public places, none. Fewer Americans smoke. Those with asthma and other respiratory ailments don’t have to hide in there homes in constant fear of the outrageous behavior of a few inconsiderate smokers. For those of us who simply want a smoke-free environment to enjoy the movies or a restaraunt meal the anti-smoking movement is a wonderful development. This success can serve as an example of how liberals can fight the counter-productive policies of those ultra right-wingers who want to impose their lifestyle and beliefs on the rest of us.
Bud, teenage smoking is on the upswing. Does that mean we are breeding more right-wing teeagers?
What do you regard as an appropriately cruel and unusual punishment for somebody who saturates a non-smoking hotel room with cigarette residue?
Stoning.
If we could get more restaurants smoke-free in Columbia, it means I could take my wife out once in awhile. She gets a headache even smelling the old stuff, let alone second-hand smoke.
I’m pretty sure I would have been out and around looking for another room if I were in your shoes, Brad.
Dave, if the teen smoking rate is, in fact up over the past 5 years, wouldn’t that be yet another failure by our Republican leaders! Maybe the Republicans can adopt a new motto: “So many liberal success stories to undo, so little time”
Perhaps if we impose a $2/pack tax on cigarettes maybe we could reduce the teen smoking rate.
Dave sez:
[..]the medical community holds down the number of doctors artificially to keep supply down. […]
This has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time.
So, Dave, how would a “free market” cure this AND the concentration of docs in urban areas with the corresponding shortage rural areas?
Should we eliminate all medical licensing by the government?
“If we could get more restaurants smoke-free in Columbia, it means I could take my wife out once in awhile. She gets a headache even smelling the old stuff, let alone second-hand smoke.
Makes one wonder how she survived 28 years in Germany where until recently you would have been hardpressed to find any smokefree restaurants, Gasthäuser or Wirtschaften.
Right, which is one reason we didn’t go out to eat much. Oh, but I did get a smoke free room a few times in a Gasthaus, even many years ago; you just have to ask; sometimes they can accomodate. Otherwise we aimed for places that were well ventilated.
Didn’t not going out much cut down on your quality of life a bit? Or did you just overcome these vexatious trials and tribulations with your superior attitude?
If I may ask, what did you do in Germany for those 28 years? Not trying to be nosy and no need to answer if you don’t want to.
RTH – There is not enough ink to convince an anti-business socialist like yourself that the free market could effectively monitor the medical community. Before the government intruded into medicine and democrat trial lawyers (insert John Breckboy Edwards here) began litigating doctors into bankruptcy, medical care in the US worked just fine. Doctors even went to the homes of sick people, remember that? I live in a more rural area, there is no doctor shortage here. Where do you see a doctor shortage?
C’mon, Dave. You can do better than that.
Before the government intruded into medicine and democrat trial lawyers (insert John Breckboy Edwards here) began litigating doctors into bankruptcy
It’s tragic, isn’t it? All these poor doctors, forced to live in shambling trailer homes, driving beat-up old junkers, unable to put food on their families . . .
RTH – A surprisingly weak response from you. Are you sick?
Dave, I’m not at all sure that doctors visiting homes has anything to do with government intervention. In the seventies, it wasn’t unusual for German doctors to do that, but not anymore. Even under “socialized medicine,” there are similar developments as you are describing. I’m guessing that it has to do with the general struggle with apathy that affluenza tends to cause, but one would have to investigate in thoroughly to really know.
KC, doctors should make a very good income, especially those who put in long hours and are dedicated. Given that dependent on the specialization 10 to 30% of medical costs are now for malpractice insurance, do you think that is a healthy situation?
Herb, in Germany are the trial lawyers acting like parasites on the medical profession with never ending class action lawsuits? If not, then we should import that practice from Germany. The same goes for the drug industry.
Well, Dave, true to form, you hit all the talking points of reactionary, regressive Republicans.
I was just hoping that you might have some solution that other than eliminating people’s rights and successful gubmint programs.
It was your chance to let Adam Smith’s voodoo magic shine.
Sadly, you disappoint me, again, but at least you’re consistent.
Apparently some academics disagree with you about that rural health care thingy. Silly academics. They probably even studied the issue. Who know? Who cares?
FEWER HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS ARE AVAILABLE IN RURAL AREAS
Less than 11 percent of physicians in the U.S. practice in rural areas, yet about 20 percent of the population resides in rural areas. Provider recruitment and retention problems in rural areas are related to several factors including lower salaries, geographic isolation from peers and educational opportunities, and fewer amenities such as schools and recreation. The Department of Health and Human Services recommends a provider-to-patient ratio of one primary care physician to every 2,000 individuals. Over 20 million rural Americans live in areas that have a provider-to-patient ratio of 1 to 3,500 or less and are federally designated as health professional shortage areas (HPSAs). More than 2,200 physicians are needed to remove the HPSA designation from all rural areas, but more than twice that number is needed to achieve the recommended ratio of 1 to 2,000 in these areas.4 The shortage of mental health professionals in rural areas is even more severe. More than three-quarters of the counties designated as federal mental HPSAs are rural.5
The rural population is less likely to receive dental care
Receipt of dental care differs between the urban and rural populations. Among adults ages 18 to 64, for example, some 66 percent of urban adults have been to the dentist in the past year, compared to 59 percent of rural adults. This disparity is likely related to the low supply of dentists in rural areas. There are 29 dentists per 100,000 residents in most rural areas, compared to 61 per 100,000 in urban areas.
Then clearly we should deport 9% of doctors to the countryside, along with a bunch of dentists, just like the Khmer Rouge did. Obviously we can’t depend on doctors and dentists to respond to market incentives so we better start rounding them up and marching them out to the boondocks. How dare those evil miscreants decide for themselves where they want to live and practice instead of going where you want them!!
At the same time we should also get on the cases of those boondock-dwellers. After all, they continue living there even though they know that they are underserved by doctors, dentists, TV stations, radio, newspapers, cellphones and many other modcons. Yet they prefer to live in the middle of nowhere instead of moving to the big city so they obviously have made a trade-off. Who are you to secondguess their choices?
Yet, given that there at least 2 sets of choices made by very different people, you in your big-government delusions want to throw the government into this.
Do you at all see the problem with this? One, not all people agree with your choices, priorities, and preferences and second, why is it any of the government’s business? Do we really want to force people to live and work somewhere they don’t want to work and live?
Lexwolf, RTH envisions a government solution to every perceived ill within society. The nanny state complex. Midnight basketball is a good example of that thinking. Leftists cannot bring themselves to trust the marketplace of business to accomodate the society. The same goes for education or any other discipline.
Dave writes:
“Given that dependent on the specialization 10 to 30% of medical costs are now for malpractice insurance, do you think that is a healthy situation?”
Provide the source for this claim. It sounds like some Rush “Viagra Boy” baloney. Even if true, there is a benefit. With the additional market-based incentive of malpractice costs, doctors are likely to police their profession better and patients benefit.
Conservatives, who normally champion the free market, run away from market-based solutions whenever one of their oxes gets gored.
“Conservatives, who normally champion the free market, run away from market-based solutions whenever one of their oxes gets gored.”
Not true at all. In fact, the market is working just fine even in this area. In response to the crushing malpractice premiums in many states, many doctors are simply moving to more hospitable areas or getting out of the business altogether. That leaves some areas with no OB/GYN or neurosurgery specialists at all, in some cases forcing women to go out of state to have their babies. Insurance companies have also fled some states entirely, forcing some physicians to go “naked”, i.e. with no insurance at all – a lawsuit could wipe them out. All those lawsuit lottery awards have to be paid for somehow, and it’s usually inoocent bystanders who ultimately bear the costs.
Here’s an interesting piece.
The high cost of medical care has also started a trend towards medical tourism in which patients go to countries like India for medical treatment. Even after travel costs, the total cost can be a small fraction of what they would have to pay in the US.
All in all, you can clearly see that the free market always adjusts to changed incentives or disincentives. If only we could say the same for government. (FYI, we are just now abolishing the “temporary” telephone tax passed to pay for the Spanish-American War in 1898.)
LexWolf, you’re spinning. A pure free market approach would be a disaster in the delivery of health care. Only the very rich would have decent care. That’s why it was rejected by the U.S. and virtually every other modern nation decades ago. The problem we have here is that we pretend to have free market health care but in fact it is highly subsidized by the public. This gives us the worst of both worlds, the poor distribution of health care that a free market would provide, along with the confusion and high cost delivered by a government system. Given the choice of 2 imperfect systems I say let’s go with a system 95% financed by the government with the remaining 5% paid by the recipients of the care that would serve as a bit of market incentive.
You don’t understand, Bud. Everything is a free market. You can pile on regulation after regulation, cost after cost, until you’re blue in the face. Short of reinstituting slavery the people providing the service/product will always make appropriate adjustments, and those adjustments are happening even in the medical field. If a doctor can’t operate profitably under the prevailing conditions, that doctor will move or enter another field. If insurance premiums soar, medical costs will either soar along with them or the providers will go out of business. Simple as that.
Even if you provide a 100% government subsidy and make medical care “free” the beneficiaries will still pay in some way. Usually through very long waiting times or through indifferent or substandard care. There is no free luch no matter how much the “reality-based community” wishes there were.
Bud, you are an advocate of privacy correct. So the liberal media blasts Rush’s prescription all over the news and you find that comical. Rush found it comical too. He said he got it at the Clinton Presidential library where they told him they were just Blue M&Ms.
LexWolf, I’m not advocating a free lunch. Of course health care has to be paid for. It’s the conservatives that always want something for free. (example, War in Iraq but no taxes to pay for it). My point is simply that we do not have, nor have we had for many years, a free-market system of health care delivery in this country. But many on the right pretend that we do. The sooner we accept reality the sooner we can deal with this issue effectively. As long as people PRETEND that we have an unfettered free-market health care delivery system the longer we suffer with this giganic mess we’ve created. But a PURE, free-market system would be a disaster for most Americans.
One more thing. Lexwolf are you arguing that we should somehow eliminate malpractice lawsuits? If so, the cost of malpractice would be born by the patients whenever a malpractice incident occurs. I don’t believe the number of trully frivilous lawsuits in this country is very high. If you think there are a large number, perhaps that’s where we differ.
Bud,
I’m by no means pretending that we have an “unfettered free-market health care delivery system”. What I am saying is that we still have a free market system, WITH NUMEROUS FETTERS placed on it. That underlying free market system still exists and it still does respond to incentives and disincentives. That’s why you see certain locations which have placed too much of a burden on the health care system, winding up with reduced healt care or no health care at all.
I certainly would abolish medical malpractice suits. Instead we should establish a no-fault system that would provide a preset amount for any conceivable injury. There is no reason why this compensation should be set by a hit-or-miss lawsuit industry where some people end up with nothing while others get astronomical windfalls, even for comparable injuries.
Lex, your plan actually sounds reasonable if the compensation amounts are sufficient. If you have the wrong leg cut off in surgery those responsible really should be penalized. But wouldn’t this involve a great deal of government intervention?
Not at all. The only government intervention needed would be to set the amounts by some predetermined formula. Along with that, we could explicitly allow any physician to refuse treatment to any patient (or parent, if the patient is a minor) who doesn’t agree to this system in writing.
Lexwolf, the biggest battle for that kind of solution would be from the greedy trial lawyers, most democrat leeches who do almost nothing to rake in huge settlement sums. The problem is the SC legislature is loaded with these snakes.
Oh, absolutely. It’s hard to say which needs to be reformed more urgently – the legal bloodsuckers or the educrats?
Lex, we’re not too far apart on this issue. My take is that the Republicans in charge of everything have created a gigantic expensive mess that favors the extremely wealthy and makes life miserable for the rest of us. For all the ranting and raving the right does trying to vilify socialist medicine concepts the system they’ve crafted is truly socialist in every respect with few market incentives. It is simply another example of the right wing using scare tactics to steal money from hard working Americans.
Bud,
the GOP may be nominally in charge now but all 3 of these systems (medical, legal and public schools) grew to their current condition while the Left was in charge. In fact, the legal and educrat lobbies are clearly major pillars of the Democrat Party, and all GOP attempts at reforming these festering sores have been beaten back so far by the Demos.
You’re right that we may not be far apart on the issue but I strongly disagree with your attempt to blame these messes on the GOP or the Right. In all 3 areas it’s the excessive government involvement normally associated with the Demos that got us to this sad state of affairs. The GOP came to the party very late and to their credit they have at least tried to fix the mess.
Bud, the hard working Americans are the Republicans. They became GOPers and conservatives as they watched the Dems vote on freeby after freeby for the laziest and most ungrateful elements of our society, although I know that some welfare recipients need and deserve temporary help. But can you explain how 3 and 4 generations of certain families exist without ever getting a job and working. Today Hugh Leatherman, Florence Cty State Senator, proudly announced that HE got $7 million dollars in state tax money allocated for a public arts building in Florence. Here these idiots are fighting over how to reduce tax burdens while funding an arts building. Unreal but true. Now let’s name it the Leatherman center to complete the cycle. Disgusting.
The sad part is that this greedy piggie is supposed to be a Republican. We can only wish that the CIA or SCRG had run a strong primary challenge against this disgusting RINO.
Lexie and Dave whip that strawman senseless while RTH chuckles mirthlessly.
Lexie: Then clearly we should deport 9% of doctors to the countryside, along with a bunch of dentists, just like the Khmer Rouge did.
Dave: RTH envisions a government solution to every perceived ill within society. The nanny state complex.
You’re both obtuse and so full of crap!
All I asked was for Dave to explain how the “free market” would address a societal problem. As usual, he extrapolates his individual experience to the society as a whole. In this case, he denies that such a problem even exists because, once upon a time, he lived in the country and found a doc.
It took me about five minutes to google this study but Dave doesn’t care about facts or reality. Who knows? who cares? It’s Dave’s approach to problems and solutions.
Dave’s approach to any problem is to consult the Republican playbook (which, like the Cheney energy policy) was crafted by special interests (such as huge medical corporations looking to eliminate liability for malpractice).
Somehow, either Dave or Lexie, think that eliminating a person’s right to sue for injuries resulting from malpractice would add more docs to rural areas.
Why? Well, my guess is that’s the only remedy advocated by the rightwing– just like tax cuts is a magic cure-all, too.
Polly wanna cracker? Kinda pathetic in an intellectually bankrupt way, really.
Dave: Leftists cannot bring themselves to trust the marketplace of business to accomodate the society.
The really ironic part of this statement is that trial lawyers are just capitalists functioning as a check on malpractice.
As bud noted, when the wrong ox gets gored then the rightwing runs screaming like little girls from “free markets” at work.
Nice try, RTH, but what exactly would be your plan to get more doctors and dentists to rural areas?
In any case trial lawyers don’t seem to be functioning as much of a “check on malpractice” as they seem to find more and more cases of malpractice requiring ever larger lottery awards. How many more “messages” need to be sent, messages which invariably require huge chunks of money being placed in the trial lawyer’s pocket? This is one giant racket and surely there’s a better, more predictable, way to compensate real victims of malpractice.
When you have some communities in which every single doctor has been sued for malpractice at least once you know the system is broken. What we have right now is a situation where doctors are held to impossible standards of perfection. Let’s not forget that doctors are just fallible humans. Let’s also not forget that there are many cases where a bad outcome would happen no matter what the doctor does. As Forrest Gump would say, “S*** Happens” – not everything happening is malpractice.
RTH – Capitalists arent allowed to have monopolies. Trial lawyers have one. Or do you think you can go before a court and file a class action without a trial lawyer. Get real…..
Hey, Lexie, I asked Dave to explain how “free markets” would remedy the problem (if at all). You’re the guys with the Adam Smith voodoo answer to everything.
Dave sprays all kinds of BS about midnight basketball and you bring the Khmer Rouge in for extra-large, heaping, helping of stupidity.
Neither of you can answer the question, apparently. I feel like Randy– just answer the question!
Wait! I’ve got Dave’s answer right here: “Who knows? Who cares?” That ole Adam Smith voodoo will fix any social/economic problem. Dave just can’t predict how, when or why.
Oh, and Dave, why aren’t capitalists “allowed” to have monopolies? Is this a lost commandment by St. Adam Smith?
The only thing discouraging such an event would be gubmint regulations. But, oh my, we wouldn’t gubmint bureaucrats interfering with the sacred “free market!”
I’ll take my chances with Adam Smith and the free market any old day instead of joining your preferred fascist Khmer Rouge solutions.
You still haven’t answered my question as to how you would get more doctors to move to the countryside. Here, I’ll even spot you 3 fascist/socialist-approved options:
(1) throw lots of money at the problem and bribe the doctors to move to the boondocks; (2) just round them up and frogmarch them out there if they don’t want to comply with your demands;
(3) require doctors get the government’s permission to practice in the city and just deny permission until you have your desired number in the countryside.
Got any other ideas?
I never bought into the right-wing blather that suggests republicans are trying to get the government off the backs of the American people. It was baloney in the 80s and it’s baloney now. Republicans are more, not less, active in getting into peoples business. With the republicans in the 80s and now government grew at an astonishing rate. It was during the Clinton years (yes the republicans were in charge of congress) that some fiscal responsibility was achieved.
My real pet peeve is that conservatives never count military spending as spending. It’s probably the single most wasteful branch of government there is.
But I digress. The problem with our current medical delivery system is that it tries to be both capitalist and socialist at the same time. The result is the worst of both worlds. Costs too high, delivery too awkward and inequitable. We will never go back to a purely capitalist delivery system for health care. That simply will not ever happen. Why? The main problem is that spillover costs are extremely high in this industry. Many people would go without health care. As a nation we’ve rejected that course. Yet we still cling to the notion that health care is a capitalist enterprise. It just isn’t.
So we must accept the fact that government will be involved and deal with it. My idea is to move toward more controlled government intervention. Would there be problems? Yes. But in the end we would all be better off.
Lexie, heh, this is really fun.
To recap:
(1) I present a problem with health care distribution and innoncently ask our Adam Smith disciples how “free markets” would cure the problem.
(2) You and Dave refuse to explain but instead present ridiculous straw answers as to my purported solution.
(3) Now, it’s all my fault because I’m unwilling to propose a gubmint solution for you to rail against!
LOL. I thought you guys wanted to get away from gubmint solutions. Yet, when you get the chance, you refuse to give the “free markets” a chance. You refuse to even speculate on a way that the “free markets” could solve the problem.
Is that because the “free markets” don’t offer a solution? Could it be because Adam Smith and the “free markets” don’t give a rat’s ass as to whether poor rural folk live miserably or die young?
They shoulda been smart enough to be born to rich, white Republicans, eh?
“Is that because the “free markets” don’t offer a solution? Could it be because Adam Smith and the “free markets” don’t give a rat’s ass as to whether poor rural folk live miserably or die young?”
But of course free markets have a solution. Nobody is forced to live in the boondocks so rural folk could easily move to the city as many millions of them have done in the past. If enough of them do so, the per capita doctor ratio would easily go up to your preferred level.
But we’re still waiting for your answer. What would you do to get more doctors and dentists out to rural areas? Any fool can point to some problem – proposing solutions is a whole ‘nuther thing!!
Actually Lex, many people are forced by circumstance to live in the boondocks. That’s exactly the point RTH and I are trying to make. The UNFETERED free market cannot handle the modern health care needs of many Americans. A better transportation network would probably take care of most of the rural health care issues. Nobody in SC is really far from a significant urban area.
What exactly might these circumstances be that force boondock-dwellers to live there?
Lexie sez:Any fool can point to some problem – proposing solutions is a whole ‘nuther thing!!
As you and Lee are proving by dodging providing the “free market” delivery-system of adequate medical care for rural folk.
If I wanted to sink to your level I could start spouting non-sense about how you want to ship people from the countryside to the urban areas just like the Khmer Rouge sent the city dweller to work in the killing fields.
So your only answer, your only guess at how “free markets” might take care of rural dwellers’ health care, is for them to “just” pick up and move. Easy as pie.
Hoooeee, that’ll be a smashing success! Makes you wonder why they haven’t thought of that already, eh? Or, maybe the ones who could move, did.
Say, how do you move your family farm to the city, anyway, Lexie?
That’s not a solution. That’s a brain fart.
I’ve got some ideas. I’m just waiting for you free marketeers to take off the tinfoil hats and put on your thinking caps.
So your “solution” is what again? So far all I’m hearing is excuses!!
Lex, many rural residents are older and can’t move due to infirmity issues. Farmers and small business owners have far too much invested in their particular circumstances to just up and move. But you know that. So just accept the fact that we don’t have now, nor will we ever have a purely market system for delivering health care services that is workable.
My solution to this rural issues is really quite simple, the government could help fund a rural transportation system that could transport older citizens to the larger towns that have quality health care. I doubt anyone is more than 30 miles from a good doctor.
This rural issue is not really that big of an issue RTH and Lex. The really important issue is affordability for all citizens of modest means. Even middle class folks are feeling the pinch as the monopolistic pharmacutical companies, mega-hospitals and huge insurance companies, all primarily interested in making money, siphon off hundreds of billions of dollars from hard-working Americans for profit. Much, if not most, of this profit is unearned, monopoly excess. Anyone that has ever taken a basic economic class understands that a market system only works for the consumer when competition forces them to. What we have in medical care delivery is a monopolistic beast of conservative-republican creation.
Lex you are giving liberals far more power than they have. This is a republican mess. Why? Because they are in power.
I’m not sure why you guys continually discuss things with LexWolf and Lee, because their presuppositions aren’t going to allow for intelligent discussion. Among them are:
1) All (or almost all) taxation is inherently evil.
2) All (or almost all) government is inherently evil.
3) The one who fights his way to the top should always win (e.g., free market).
4) All data must fit in with the first three pre-suppositions.
I propose intelligent discussion on this blog between those who are willing to examine data and let it determine their positions, rather than bringing their positions to the data. That is not going to keep LexWolf and Lee out, but if we continually ignore their contributions as though they don’t exist, perhaps they, like the neighborhood bully, will just go away.
There is little wrong in our medical system that couldn’t be solved by getting the government out of it.
We keep throwing more and more gov’t “solutions” at the problem, most of which are to fix previous gov’t solutions, and most of which only exacerbate the problem even more. After over 50 years of such gov’t “solutions” and “fixes” the system is so distorted and convoluted it’s a miracle anything still gets done.
One of the basic causes for this mess is that people want top-shelf medical care but don’t want to pay even bottom-shelf prices. That’s why we have been doing this cost-shifting dance for decades, trying to figure out a way to stick someone else with the bill for our medical care. Even as we find plenty of money to pay for all sorts of frivolous crap. Unfortunately that someone else always finds a way to stick us right back with the bill we refuse to pay.
Don’t blame the private industry actors in this game. They are only reacting to shifting incentives and doing what we all do: try to make money. The real blame undoubtedly goes with the government which has been building this Rube Goldberg apparatus for decades and to the citizens who have been demanding something for nothing.
Looks as if the truth is pinching you, Herb. Yep, keep sticking your head in the sand and pretend that some of the major factors don’t matter. Surely I’m only meddling in your “intelligent” discussions of “the data”. Your strawman is so grotesque even you can’t be serious about it.
Herb, I discuss things with Lexie and Lee because then rational people draw the conclusion that they’re nuts.
This discussion, in particular, has been very helpful in pointing out the essential bankruptcy of Lexie’s and Lee’s concepts.
Above, for instance, Lexie implies that health care providers don’t locate in rural areas because gubmint policies economically “distort” the system. He provides no evidence as to how gubmint policies have so negatively impacted rural health care.
Lexie would tell you that greedy, Democratic, trial lawyers are to blame for poor rural health care. Exactly how malpractice insurance adversely impacts health care providers disproportionately more in St. Matthews than in, say, Columbia is left a mystery.
Another mystery is how unfettered “free markets” could cure this situation. Well, except for Lexie’s blithe suggestion that everybody move to town. Many will become unemployed. Eliminate welfare (and other gubmint “market interference”) of all sorts and we can regress to the mean quality of life found in 19th Century slums.
Lexie’s Brave New (Old) World!
Lexie, my solution involves the gubmint working with educational institutions, individuals, and, yes, using the profit motive.
There’s not any reason for me to elaborate for you, is there? You’d just condemn it as another foolish gubmint distortion of the market.
RTH, I’ve been following your thread. The problem is, nearly everyone of these topics ends up in a sword fight between either you and Lex/Lee, or Randy and Lex/Lee, or someone else and Lex/Lee. Dave is in their direction, but Dave is much more reasonable, and shows respect for people he disagrees with.
Some really good people just quit posting, since Lex/Lee are going to pick a fight with whomever disagrees with them. Gets kind of tedious.
Herb, I long ago quit trying to convince Lee, Dave and Lex of anything. They just simply do not accept facts for what they are. But others may. Many people on the right truly believe it is the liberals who have messed up health care in America. They also believe there is a war on Christmas, that liberals have created huge federal budget deficits. That the death penalty deters crime. All those issues are unsupportable by facts, but many continue to believe. It’s something of a religion to many people. Perhaps we can give it a name, the Church of Right-Wing Fantasy.
But the fantasy world of this quasi religious bunch needs to be challenged. If the only things people hear are voices from the right, they will continue to buy into the scary right-wing propaganda. But, Herb, taking your admonishen to heart I will try to stick with facts and stay away from personal inuendo.
You’re pretty reasonable, Bud. I wasn’t aiming at you. There are plenty of folks like BLSaiken, Paul DeMarco, Uncle Elmer, etc. etc. who used to post and don’t any more. It comes down to who can argue with the right-wingers the most. But I give you credit for your optimism, it would be quite something for one of them to admit they learned something, but I’m not holding my breath. Those guys, with the exception of Dave, who is all in all a pretty good fellow, are all omniscient. It is hard to argue with the gods.
Not to mention Phillip and even Capital A. Where are they?
“There are plenty of folks like BLSaiken, Paul DeMarco, Uncle Elmer, etc. etc. who used to post and don’t any more. It comes down to who can argue with the right-wingers the most.”
The first 2 weren’t posting when I started reading this blog. Uncle Elmer maybe once or twice.
But what do you suggest? A lovefest where everybody just agrees with you and smiles inanely at each other? What’s wrong with a little discussion and argument? Does your ego feel threatened because people disagree with you? Are you so insecure in your facts or opinions that you can’t handle a little challenge?
“Those guys, with the exception of Dave, who is all in all a pretty good fellow, are all omniscient.”
Nice try but no, we’re not omniscient although we do generally have facts to trump you. Face it, the guys on your side all have pretty grand opinions but when pressed for facts to support those opinions, it’s like being at a tapdancers’ convention.
Mr. LexWolf,
When someone hosts a blog, puts their time, money, and effort into it, I would think that the least rules of human politeness would be to write respectfully of that person, and to engage his posts, and those of other commentators, in a way that she/he intends them to be engaged. Calling the host an idiot, and insinuating that he purposely tends to mislead everybody, in other words, defaming and attacking a person’s character, is NOT legitimate dialogue.
I know that flies in the face of how a younger generation views dialog today, but there are exceptions, thankfully.
Being involved some in counseling at various levels, I note how people today tend to tear each other down at every level. “If you can’t take the heat, then get out of the kitchen” is what you will reply. To which I will reply, “what if the kitchen ends up burning the whole house down?”
With our high divorce rate, domestic violence, and shrill ways of getting our point across, I’m not impressed with the current styles of dialogue.
As to your arguments, it would help if you would recognize that the rest of us are just as convinced of the rightness of our positions and the truth of the facts that back them up. Telling us we are stupid because we hold to a position does not help. A PERSON IS NOT STUPID JUST BECAUSE SHE/HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH LEXWOLF!
Herb, I think Paul, Phillip, and several others are what are called lurkers. They would rather read than post, except when a subject hits their button periodically. I have been on other blogs where people on the opposite side of you will threaten and try to find out who you are to physically carry out the threat. Brad occasionally asks why we don’t all use our real names but with the mentals out there in this day and age, that can be a true risk. Unless, you are middle of the road on everything and then who can be aggravated at an Unparty centrist? But I think this is a fairly civil blog and the give and take is fun, not detrimental, and sometimes educational.
Bud, those who receive the death penalty NEVER commit another crime, while those who don’t have gone on to kill fellow inmates and prison guards among others. What is non-factual about that. By the way, I don’t like the death penalty except in extreme cases to protect society.
“Calling the host an idiot,……Telling us we are stupid
Herb, where’s your evidence for these scurrilous accusations? Post it or forever hold your peace!
I’m not a cook so I won’t reply with your kitchen analogy. I will say though that “what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger”. The ideas we believe in are not made stronger by refusing to discuss or defend them. Just sitting around and inanely chanting ‘can’t we all just get along’ is most definitely not the way to go. Vigorous, even confrontational, discussion and argument, is the way to go if you want to develop your ideas further. Of course, if you’re satisfied with your beliefs the way they are then the Kumbaya thing would probably be for you.
OK Mr. Lexwolf, you are almost right. I can’t find an instance of you calling Brad an idiot, though I could have sworn there were some. But maybe it wasn’t you that did it. But some of the statements above do approach defamation of character, including the Nazi allusion with Cindi Ross-Scopes. OK, make room for hyperbole and humor and all that. Does it really help to call people “elitist”? Does it really help to cast doubt on the character of a person and think that you know his motives? Is Brad Warthen out to destroy free enterprise?
I think I know where you learned to write this way, and I lay it at the doorstep of people like Rush Limbaugh. His disrespect for all who disagree with him; his caustic remarks and insinuations that everyone who is not of his persuastion is somehow out to destroy the country — is well known. I’ve listened to it myself. It doesn’t help. Casting doubts on the character of somebody that you do not know is not even honest. Criticizing their positions is one thing, but defaming character is another.
There are ways to disagree, even with irony, and of course with humor.
By the way, my “superior attitude” comes from Philippians 2:5ff. It’s in the Bible, read it. It is the attitude of Christ. Christians are supposed to imitate it. Not that I’ve been good at doing it, but He does help. If we approach life as a servant, instead of always only a consumer, it makes a whale of a lot of difference.
And I forgot to answer your question. I am a minister, and served mostly within Lutheran, but also Baptist, Methodists, and other groups, working with young people, for the most part (catechism classes, that sort of thing). I also taught at one of two Bible colleges during most of those 28 years.
All I am trying to do is to plead for the right kind of discourse with each other, which is part of what has made this nation one worth living in. Without decency, who wants to live here?
And I might add that we moderates do know what we believe. Telling us we don’t is tantamount to calling us stupid. Personally, I think it takes a little bit of courage to subject oneself to flak from both sides.
Aah, Mr. Herb, not only am I half right because you couldn’t support your ‘idiot’ allegation, but in fact I’m fully right because you couldn’t prove your ‘stupid’ allegation either. Can we now expect a full retraction from you?
What’s wrong with calling people ‘elitists’ when that’s exactly the attitude they project? Brad is probably a nice guy in private life but in his writings (his columns especially) that elitist attitude comes through loud and clear. He will invariably come down on the side of big government types who think they know what’s best for the people even if the people are obviously rejecting their views. Take the lottery, for example. Even 6 years after the people voted for it, Brad is still harping on about it.
Or take school choice. More and more people demand it and yet Brad and The State vociferously oppose it and in fact call those pro-choice people jerks for having different ideas. Even while one of the State’s head honchos sends his own kid to the same private school attended by my daughter – guess he must be a jerk, too.
Trust me, I knew how to write and think for myself long before anyone even knew who Rush Limbaugh was. In fact, your comment is again elitism in action. You’re insinuating that surely I didn’t know how to write until that evil Limbaugh came along and showed me what to think. What hubris! Isn’t there something in the Bible admonishing you against that?
I don’t think that you’ll ever convince me that moderates know what they think or believe. By definition they don’t have any strong beliefs one way or the other and pride themselves on the conceit that they can be swayed one way or the other depending on which side makes the better pitch. Certainly not the type of person I would want in a battle. Who knows, the enemy might sway them against me, too. Moderates are neither fish nor fowl, just some sort of mystery meat.
Well Mr. LexWolf, I think I could make a case for your position being elitist, since it is the only correct one possible, and any other position, by your definition, is not only totally wrong, but evidence of cowardice and even traitorous.
Evidently calling someone (almost) a Goebbels is OK in your book. Which is basically calling them a thug. I don’t think Cindi Ross-Scopes deserves that.
I apologize if my reference to Rush put down your intelligence. It was not meant to do so. It was meant to plead for a different style of public discourse. One that shows respect for the character and motives of others, rather than making them the object of ridicule, even while disagreeing with their positions.
But I’m shutting up now. Not because I am convinced that your positions, which by and large are, in my understanding, intended to benefit the strong, and put down the weak, are correct. Far from it. But I’m not interested in verbal clashings, fights, or even destructive arguments. Paul DeMarco is right. And yes, Scripture does apply: “avoid useless arguments”.
I think I could make a case for your position being elitist, since it is the only correct one possible, and any other position, by your definition, is not only totally wrong, but evidence of cowardice and even traitorous.”
Aah Mr. Herb, here’s where you’re so wrong once again.
I may consider your position or opinion totally wrong and all the other stuff you’re trying to put in my mouth. I may even use strong arguments to say so and I may even personally think that my position is the only correct one possible – at least for me and at least at any one particular time. But do you know what makes you an elitist but not me? You see nothing wrong with imposing your views on others even when you’re in the minority. You see nothing wrong with denying others’ school choice. I will agree that I am probably at least as much for school choice as you are against but my solution is to give people a choice – if they prefer PubEd then by all means they can leave their kids there. I would never even dream of forcing parents to send their kids to any school they don’t consider best for their kids. You, on the other hand, would deny parents that choice, unless of course they pay for PubEd plus the private schools.
Ditto probably on most other issues, or at least the ones we’ve touched on so far. You want to impose your views on others – I want to let them make their own choice. That undoubtedly makes you the elitist.
Scratch the last post, must have missed an HTML tag somewhere. Here’s what it should have looked like:
“I think I could make a case for your position being elitist, since it is the only correct one possible, and any other position, by your definition, is not only totally wrong, but evidence of cowardice and even traitorous.”
Aah Mr. Herb, here’s where you’re so wrong once again.
I may consider your position or opinion totally wrong and all the other stuff you’re trying to put in my mouth. I may even use strong arguments to say so and I may even personally think that my position is the only correct one possible – at least for me and at least at any one particular time. But do you know what makes you an elitist but not me? You see nothing wrong with imposing your views on others even when you’re in the minority. You see nothing wrong with denying others’ school choice. I will agree that I am probably at least as much for school choice as you are against but my solution is to give people a choice – if they prefer PubEd then by all means they can leave their kids there. I would never even dream of forcing parents to send their kids to any school they don’t consider best for their kids. You, on the other hand, would deny parents that choice, unless of course they pay for PubEd plus the private schools.
Ditto probably on most other issues, or at least the ones we’ve touched on so far. You want to impose your views on others – I want to let them make their own choice. That undoubtedly makes you the elitist.
I’ve basically been doing nothing to speak of. Pretty much nothing exciting happening. I haven’t been up to anything lately. My life’s been really bland these days, but it’s not important. Not much on my mind today.
LÒinteret du forum est precisement de susciter un debat parmi les citoyens pour que le budget et les choix quÒil sous-tend soient places au c?ur du debat public. Un budget, ce sont des choix. Des choix supposent des priorites.
We are killing the rainforest
Today was a complete loss. I’ve just been hanging out doing nothing. I’ve more or less been doing nothing. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. I guess it doesn’t bother me.