I dunno, I think that happens naturally. I think it works out to levels of cushioning... er maybe circles of cushioning with federal being the widest, but perhaps shallowest cushion. Like a bed at a cheap motel -- it's better than sleeping on the street, but it ain't exactly comfy.
Don't get too nostalgic, though. In the Good Old Days they sent pregnant teenagers away (like out of state with "relatives" or to boarding school) rather than dealing with problems in a responsible manner. This happened to my Aunt Patti. My Dad didn't like that and my parents were very supportive in dealing with the situation (getting married, preparing for delivery, trying to finish high school, etc.). But there are lots of parents who don't and then either the teenagers run away or have to get help elsewhere, whether it's church or Planned Parenthood, school or other relatives.
Of course, affluence is the best contraceptive... but it'll be awhile before we all get there. A Nature study I read said the population will top out between 10-15 bil around 2100 before declining due to the contraceptive effects of affluence. Pretty interesting read.
Not all parents are by nature responsible nor can be "made responsible". My ex-wife for one... (sure, roll your eyes, but drop me an email sometime and I'll fill you in)... crack mom's, etc. Expectation does not necessitate action in another...
I'm just pointing out that only telling teens "do not have sex" is short-sighted, unrealistic, dangerous, and expensive.
Keep in mind, I'm an individual who made an abstinence pledge and later got his girlfriend pregnant having unprotected sex... his very first time. So, let's just say I'm not exactly sympathetic to the abstinence-only viewpoint. I can tell you exactly why I did it, though:
I wanted the first time to be "au natural", like my Southern Baptist God intended.
I had no idea where one got condoms. Really. No clue.
I thought the statistical likelihood of getting pregnant the first time was pretty small.
So, being an insanely devout Baptist didn't help. Taking an abstinence pledge didn't help. Hearing all the time about couples having trouble getting pregnant didn't help. And lastly, a health class that was Abstinence YES (oh yeah, but there exist these other things called condoms, diaphragms, etc. if you slip from the golden path... but we won't give you any idea how to get them) didn't help either.
So, that's where I'm coming from.:)
-l
p.s., I'm intentionally ignoring parental obligations because we are of course assuming that schools have to act in loco parentis for all sorts of kids on all sorts of topics, like it or not.
Pictures tend to be a short-term deterrent. How many people stop speeding after watching defensive driving videos with mangled corpses and whatnot? a month after? six months after? a year after? If you watch them over and over you get desensitized to it and probably rationalize it to some extent (oh, that's just the worst of it -- they have drugs for gonnorhea, syphillis, etc. now). Not to mention that it's very unhelpful for teens in committed relationships who decide to have sex but have little knowledge of how to not get pregnant or where you can go for emergency contraception if he accidentally spews the manjuice up inside of you.
Telling teens "oh, just don't have sex" is like telling depressed people "oh, just don't be depressed". Sure, it'll work some of the time but the problem isn't when it works but how poorly it fails when it doesn't work (stealing a bit from Bruce Schneier).
My point is that since Kerry is going to lose here, regardless, I can vote for whichever Presidential candidate I want. I'm not talking about local candidates which are not subject to the fucked up EC system. (Living in west Austin, what I have in common with northwest Houston I have no frickin' clue... yes, redistricting SUCKS). I don't want to send the GOP the message that the Democrats are making a comeback in Texas. I want to send the Democratic Party the message that they don't sufficiently align with what I believe in and since I can vote my first choice for President, I will.
As I've told friend after friend: Until the Democrats lose, and lose, and lose some more, they're not gonna get the reform message.
One person, one vote too hard a concept for you? Why should a minority's vote count more than a majority's?
Furthermore, in elections dominated by "swing states" which typically have lots of votes, why do you think small states count now???
Why is it that because I happen to not vote Republican very much, my vote is completely and utterly pointless here in Texas??? If we had a national, popular election, my vote might actually count for something! Wow, what a frickin' concept!
It only matters if you're in a swing state. As a Texan, I can vote for anyone I want since the rurales and SUV moms are going to outvote everyone else anyway.
-l
Re:Don't let the TV execs get their hand in...
on
Star Wars TV Show
·
· Score: 1
Oh shit, I'm laughing my ass off with Darth Vader touting his "no spin zone" and choking all the liberal interviewees. -l
Nevermind that it is natural for homosexuals and bisexuals. Furthermore, which homosexual acts? Ones between natural heterosexuals? Pederasty or idolatry only? It's left as an exercise for the reader since Paul is clearly more concerned about arguing for the position that God is for everyone, not quibbling about this or that theoretical sin.
Um... can't find a doctor who will prescribe you Marinol? Of course, the problem is that isolated, synthetic THC is not nearly as good as having all the cannabinoids working together. I don't understand why they can't make a more balanced pill whose chemical make-up more closely resembles that of traditional ingested marijuana... the lessened side effects might make it more attractive to insurance companies.
Also, if you try to have government ensure monetary access to medical care through insurance, it is just as important to ensure physical access to medical care. The absurdity of the latter sheds light on the foolishness of the former.
It is certainly true that our 2.4 doctors per 1000 people is far short of what we need. We should have at least 3 per. Making it cheaper to be a doctor by eliminating the ridiculous overhead incurred by having 1500 insurance companies will aid the goal of increasing accessibility. Unfortunately, in the United States today, the primary problem with access to a doctor is simply cost, followed by schedule availability. In the age of 911, helicopters, etc., walking distance access to a doctor just isn't necessary.
Since the primary problem with medical access is cost, not distance, I argue that a sane, well-implemented national insurance program will reduce cost, while increasing access, and thereby increase Liberty.
Only if you require that every single aspect of maintaining Life is included, which was obviously not the intention. Sickness, disease, grotesque accidents, etc. are direct threats to Liberty, whereas lack of food is not a problem (in the US anyway). Were there a national hunger disaster, sure, it could be included (and it is already, insofar as food banks receive government support and FEMA, of course). However, there is an existing health insurance disaster. I just had this crazy idea that national insurance was constitutional and within even libertarian bounds of reasonable, even if it appears to conflict with libertarian values, prima facie.
On the food side of things, as the problem is the poor choice of food rather than the difficulty of acquiring it, education seems to be the appropriate response. Here in the southwest, a huge problem is non-English speakers, some illegal some not. They don't know or understand stuff like the food pyramid, that eating tortillas everyday is bad for you, etc. Worse, that's the food they feed their kids. In the end it's cheaper to provide Spanish materials and brief classes on nutrition and shopping than paying for diabetes treatment for 6 people till they die.
If seeing a doctor or getting drugs were as cheap as food is, there would be no health insurance crisis -- just a need for some basic education.
Either you have to cede control over decisions regarding your life, liberty, and property (in this case, tax money) or you determine they are best resolved by yourself.
You didn't understand my response. The point of living in a democratic republic is ceding control over certain things to gain various benefits. This is why the Founders included the "necessary and proper" clause: because they had no idea what all the People would need of their government.
Who is most qualified to make decisions affecting your life, liberty, and property?
The naive answer is "me, of course!" though we often relegate decisions to authorities to facilitate common aims. One common aim is to ensure the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are preserved. As a well-implemented national health insurance plan would enable one to go to any U.S. doctor -- versus being stuck with in-network, cheapest available, etc. -- this would ultimately increase liberty by increasing mobility to various medical providers for anyone.
Furthermore, since national insurance would have a net reduction in cost from the current system, one could say it would increase liberty-in-terms-of-cash over the current system. Nice, eh?
I do not have the right to someone elses stuff, but, in limited circumstances, I have been granted the priveledge of the bennifits of others lives, guns and property. This is based on their consent. Or so the legal theory goes.
Which is exactly what I'm proposing: through our democratic republican system, we execute the fix needed to make our system guarantee minimum standards of Life (ergo, Liberty) at the cost of everyone chipping in. As the proposal is reasonable (based on Life and Liberty) and practical (cheaper than health insurance), I don't see how any Libertarian who believes in some minimum standard of Liberty for all can be against it.
(Some other posts in this thread have more info on the "reasons" side and the "practicality" side)
Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia agrees with you but disagrees with what I learned in school which is that it was connected to the use of the phrase "know nothing". -l
but the important part is they prided themselves on being ignorant, unlike the "elites", thus the name.
-l
...and Know Nothing* Republicans were squawkin' about the U.S. being above needing international election observers. WTF Ever...
-l
* in the historical sense of the phrase.
-l
-l
I dunno, I think that happens naturally. I think it works out to levels of cushioning... er maybe circles of cushioning with federal being the widest, but perhaps shallowest cushion. Like a bed at a cheap motel -- it's better than sleeping on the street, but it ain't exactly comfy.
Don't get too nostalgic, though. In the Good Old Days they sent pregnant teenagers away (like out of state with "relatives" or to boarding school) rather than dealing with problems in a responsible manner. This happened to my Aunt Patti. My Dad didn't like that and my parents were very supportive in dealing with the situation (getting married, preparing for delivery, trying to finish high school, etc.). But there are lots of parents who don't and then either the teenagers run away or have to get help elsewhere, whether it's church or Planned Parenthood, school or other relatives.
Of course, affluence is the best contraceptive... but it'll be awhile before we all get there. A Nature study I read said the population will top out between 10-15 bil around 2100 before declining due to the contraceptive effects of affluence. Pretty interesting read.
ok, I'm REALLY rambling,
Cheers,
-l
Not all parents are by nature responsible nor can be "made responsible". My ex-wife for one... (sure, roll your eyes, but drop me an email sometime and I'll fill you in)... crack mom's, etc. Expectation does not necessitate action in another...
-l
Keep in mind, I'm an individual who made an abstinence pledge and later got his girlfriend pregnant having unprotected sex... his very first time. So, let's just say I'm not exactly sympathetic to the abstinence-only viewpoint. I can tell you exactly why I did it, though:
So, being an insanely devout Baptist didn't help. Taking an abstinence pledge didn't help. Hearing all the time about couples having trouble getting pregnant didn't help. And lastly, a health class that was Abstinence YES (oh yeah, but there exist these other things called condoms, diaphragms, etc. if you slip from the golden path... but we won't give you any idea how to get them) didn't help either.
So, that's where I'm coming from. :)
-l
p.s., I'm intentionally ignoring parental obligations because we are of course assuming that schools have to act in loco parentis for all sorts of kids on all sorts of topics, like it or not.
Pictures tend to be a short-term deterrent. How many people stop speeding after watching defensive driving videos with mangled corpses and whatnot? a month after? six months after? a year after? If you watch them over and over you get desensitized to it and probably rationalize it to some extent (oh, that's just the worst of it -- they have drugs for gonnorhea, syphillis, etc. now). Not to mention that it's very unhelpful for teens in committed relationships who decide to have sex but have little knowledge of how to not get pregnant or where you can go for emergency contraception if he accidentally spews the manjuice up inside of you.
Telling teens "oh, just don't have sex" is like telling depressed people "oh, just don't be depressed". Sure, it'll work some of the time but the problem isn't when it works but how poorly it fails when it doesn't work (stealing a bit from Bruce Schneier).
-l
My point is that since Kerry is going to lose here, regardless, I can vote for whichever Presidential candidate I want. I'm not talking about local candidates which are not subject to the fucked up EC system. (Living in west Austin, what I have in common with northwest Houston I have no frickin' clue... yes, redistricting SUCKS). I don't want to send the GOP the message that the Democrats are making a comeback in Texas. I want to send the Democratic Party the message that they don't sufficiently align with what I believe in and since I can vote my first choice for President, I will.
As I've told friend after friend: Until the Democrats lose, and lose, and lose some more, they're not gonna get the reform message.
-l
One person, one vote too hard a concept for you? Why should a minority's vote count more than a majority's?
Furthermore, in elections dominated by "swing states" which typically have lots of votes, why do you think small states count now???
Why is it that because I happen to not vote Republican very much, my vote is completely and utterly pointless here in Texas??? If we had a national, popular election, my vote might actually count for something! Wow, what a frickin' concept!
Annoyed at the System, (sorry if I seem rude),
-l
Not necessarily. A state could have IRV and make the electoral votes match the IRV outcome.
-l
It only matters if you're in a swing state. As a Texan, I can vote for anyone I want since the rurales and SUV moms are going to outvote everyone else anyway.
-l
Oh shit, I'm laughing my ass off with Darth Vader touting his "no spin zone" and choking all the liberal interviewees.
-l
-l
Um... can't find a doctor who will prescribe you Marinol? Of course, the problem is that isolated, synthetic THC is not nearly as good as having all the cannabinoids working together. I don't understand why they can't make a more balanced pill whose chemical make-up more closely resembles that of traditional ingested marijuana... the lessened side effects might make it more attractive to insurance companies.
-l
Is this original material or is this a repost? I love this comment...
-l
It is certainly true that our 2.4 doctors per 1000 people is far short of what we need. We should have at least 3 per. Making it cheaper to be a doctor by eliminating the ridiculous overhead incurred by having 1500 insurance companies will aid the goal of increasing accessibility. Unfortunately, in the United States today, the primary problem with access to a doctor is simply cost, followed by schedule availability. In the age of 911, helicopters, etc., walking distance access to a doctor just isn't necessary.
Since the primary problem with medical access is cost, not distance, I argue that a sane, well-implemented national insurance program will reduce cost, while increasing access, and thereby increase Liberty.
-l
Only if you require that every single aspect of maintaining Life is included, which was obviously not the intention. Sickness, disease, grotesque accidents, etc. are direct threats to Liberty, whereas lack of food is not a problem (in the US anyway). Were there a national hunger disaster, sure, it could be included (and it is already, insofar as food banks receive government support and FEMA, of course). However, there is an existing health insurance disaster. I just had this crazy idea that national insurance was constitutional and within even libertarian bounds of reasonable, even if it appears to conflict with libertarian values, prima facie.
On the food side of things, as the problem is the poor choice of food rather than the difficulty of acquiring it, education seems to be the appropriate response. Here in the southwest, a huge problem is non-English speakers, some illegal some not. They don't know or understand stuff like the food pyramid, that eating tortillas everyday is bad for you, etc. Worse, that's the food they feed their kids. In the end it's cheaper to provide Spanish materials and brief classes on nutrition and shopping than paying for diabetes treatment for 6 people till they die.
If seeing a doctor or getting drugs were as cheap as food is, there would be no health insurance crisis -- just a need for some basic education.
-l
You didn't understand my response. The point of living in a democratic republic is ceding control over certain things to gain various benefits. This is why the Founders included the "necessary and proper" clause: because they had no idea what all the People would need of their government.
The naive answer is "me, of course!" though we often relegate decisions to authorities to facilitate common aims. One common aim is to ensure the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are preserved. As a well-implemented national health insurance plan would enable one to go to any U.S. doctor -- versus being stuck with in-network, cheapest available, etc. -- this would ultimately increase liberty by increasing mobility to various medical providers for anyone.
Furthermore, since national insurance would have a net reduction in cost from the current system, one could say it would increase liberty-in-terms-of-cash over the current system. Nice, eh?
-l
-l
Which is exactly what I'm proposing: through our democratic republican system, we execute the fix needed to make our system guarantee minimum standards of Life (ergo, Liberty) at the cost of everyone chipping in. As the proposal is reasonable (based on Life and Liberty) and practical (cheaper than health insurance), I don't see how any Libertarian who believes in some minimum standard of Liberty for all can be against it.
(Some other posts in this thread have more info on the "reasons" side and the "practicality" side)
-l