GeorgiaDon

If you were drowning, and I was in a position to throw you a life preserver, I'd do that. I wouldn't just turn my back and say "I don't know if it's best for you that you don't drown". If you ask me to pay for your kids toys, I'd tell you to get stuffed. I'm capable of nuance like that. I like to think most people are. I suspect you are too, in fact I'd bet money on it. Does the word "society" have any meaning, or are we just "islands" of selfishness with no interests in common? Doesn't your own profession extort money from me? I've been married for 26 years, I have no plans to change that, so why should I pay for courthouses/judges/clerks etc so other people can end their marriages? I help pay for those things, despite hoping that I will never need them myself, because the efficient operation of a system of laws, contracts, etc is necessary to maintain an orderly and efficiently operating society. I benefit on some level from those services because I benefit from living in a somewhat orderly society, so I pay my share without complaint (well, almost without complaint). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Fair enough. As I said I've been mistaken/changed my mind on issues. You make a good point about people receiving benefits paid for by others. However, while we can probably all agree that we shouldn't have to pay for someone else's nose job, I think it's a different situation (or at least more complicated) when it comes to life-saving emergency or trauma care, which is highly "socialized". I started another thread on that, and I'm really curious about your opinion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Several current and recent posts regarding health care have made me wonder what people what people think about the current American policy towards emergency health care. (Obviously this poll is directed towards Americans, but others are welcome to add their comments of course). At present, if someone shows up at or is brought to an emergency or trauma center, they must be treated to save their lives. Some proportion of these patients cannot or do not pay for this treatment. As a result, others are forced to pay more, either in taxes or through higher insurance premiums (as insurance plans are billed more than they otherwise would have to be to make up the loss the hospital takes on the non-payers). Poll option (1) is to continue this policy as is. Poll option (2) is to require proof of ability to pay before treatment, and patients unable to prove this would not be treated, even if that means that they die. This would of necessity also include patients who are incapacitated and for one reason or another don't have their wallet/insurance cards on them when they are brought in. Perhaps prudent people would have their policy information tattooed on conspicuous locations on their body; several tattoos would be advisable as some locations would be subject to road rash or other obscuring injuries. Option (3) would be to treat everybody, but make it harder to get out of paying, or perhaps allow taking of a kidney or cornea or something (presumably not a heart) in exchange. It seems to me that the current approach isn't working very well. Some people are being tapped to pay for care for others, who in some cases can get away without paying anything. That creates an incentive for people to not buy insurance. Emergency wards and trauma centers are stretched thin, and many are closing. Here in Georgia the state legislature just passed a law imposing "superspeeder" fines to raise money for trauma centers; if you're stopped for doing over 85 mph on an interstate or 75 mph on a 2-lane state highway, you get an additional $200 fine. This is supposed to bring in $25-30 million/yr, but it seems to me if people do slow down a bit the revenue could be less, and not very predictable or dependable. Anyway I think the issue is important, and even more so for skydivers, as we can all think of situations where it would suck to have no trauma centers to go to, or to have to be transported an excessively long distance to get life-saving care. So how do we put life-saving care on a sound financial footing? One way would be to deny care to those who can't pay, but personally I don't like that option. Some people who could pay will arrive unconcious and without a wallet, and then would be left to die (hence my facious comment about tattooing). Also I don't think medical professionals would be happy about having dead/dying people piling up outside the hospital doors. However I suspect some SC posters wouldn' have a problem with exactly that. If you vote for option (1) or even (3), I'm curious if anyone has a constructive suggestion about what could be done. My suggestion, which I know is not without problems, would be to fund the centers on a state-by-state basis with a sales tax on all goods/services. The tax would likely be small (

Perhaps you'd prefer a return to the days when all policy deliberations were done in secret, with no chance to respond until the policy is set in stone? The way you guys fly off the handle every time an idea you don't like is just brought up for discussion, instead of rationally stating why you think it's a bad idea (or better yet, suggesting a better alternative), it makes me think maybe Dick Cheney had the right idea holding secret discussions with energy company executives and then cramming his energy policy down our throats. No, I'd still prefer to have these things discussed in public, at least then there may be a chance for constructive comment in venues that may influence the final decision (Speakers Corner doesn't count in that regard unfortunately). (Random thought: maybe more politicians should be skydivers? We'd probably all be better off if that was the case.) The policy under discussion says nothing of the sort. It does say that some portion of the employer's share of the insurance premiums would be treated as income, and be subject to taxes. No-one has suggested that the benefits paid under the insurance (i.e. the value of the medical bills paid) would be subject to taxation. Lawrocket, you're a really smart guy and usually bring interesting discussion to the table, you've changed my mind on some topics on occasion. So I wonder why you'd misinterpret this one so badly. Could it be that you are so opposed to "socialized healthcare" that you're seeing the bogeymen that you want to see? For my part, I don't like the proposal, although it does have a certain logic. I am very concerned that it will erode the little incentive that remains for employers to offer health insurance benefits. That could result in even more people without insurance. I am also concerned that the same reasoning would lead to employer contributions to retirement plans and other benefits also being counted as taxable income. Last year one of my city commisioners tried to get the city to drop health insurance for all employees, on the grounds that some employees have family coverage (which costs the city more) and some have coverage only for themselves (which costs less of course), so in effect some employees are paid more than others for the same job. He argued that everyone in the same job should be paid the same, and they could go and buy private insurance for themselves or their families if they wish. Of course that would strip people of the opportunity to participate in a group plan, which is usually more affordable than individual policies, and as many city employees already work 2 or even 3 jobs to make ends meet as the city pays so little (if that's your only job, most people qualify for food stamps), private insurance would be out of reach for many. Still there is a certain Scrooge-like logic, and if employer-supplemented benefits were to be treated as income that logic would be reinforced. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree with you. As I wrote some posts ago, this long after the fact race- and gender-based handouts are actually corrosive (in my opinion). No-one benefits when the genuine achievements of hard-working women and minorities can be dismissed on the (mistaken) grounds that they had their success unfairly handed to them. It's even more destructive when people can excuse (to themselves and to others) their own lack of success by claiming they weren't allowed a chance to succeed because women and minorities are handed first place in line, instead of placing the blame where it really belongs, which is often their own lack of effort or ability. Also I'm just disgusted by the Jackson/Sharpton race-baiting always-the-victim "the Man is keeping us down" crap. It's sad, really, as they were such leaders during the civil rights struggle, but they've become a drag on American society by refusing to acknowledge the progress that has been made. I think Bill Cosby has a much healthier take on things. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

We haven't had a terrorist attack on the US since 9/11/2001. Should we disband Homeland "Security" and send them all off to get real jobs? What could possibly go wrong with that plan? Maybe not the greatest example, but you should get the point. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Back when I started looking for a permanent job, I discovered that I was essentialy unemployable in my native Canada because of affirmative action. At the time I was 34 years old, with a Master's degree, PhD, two years of postdoctoral experience, and 12 published research papers, which in ordinary times would have at least made me competitive for a teaching/research position at a university. However, both Ontario and British Columbia (the two biggest potential job sources) had elected NDP governments that brought in very strong affirmantive action programs. At one point Ontario universities and colleges were not allowed to even accept applications from white male candidates if any qualified women/visible minorities had applied for the position, until 50% of their faculty were non-white-male. In addition, the Canadian federal government started a program that gave universities a 5-year grant to cover salary and a research expenses for new female faculty, so understandably universities were only interested in hiring women. Female faculty could be a freebee for the university for the first 5 years whereas they would have to eat the cost of new male faculty. What did I do? I spent 4 more years in post-doc land, published a lot of papers, moved into a new research area, and eventually got a faculty job in the States. It took more time than I had anticipated, but I've got a great job (most of the time) working with people I really like, while living in a place with a better climate than 98% of Canada (including year-round skydiving). It turned out OK for me, I just had to work harder for it. Friends (male) from my grad school days either did the same (and some have since gone back to Canada to take positions at universities), or they turned to industry or government jobs, but none are starving. Despite that, I still think there is a place for affirmative action, in certain very limited situations. Some inequities are so culturally entrenched they need a kick to get them reset. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just so there's no confusion on this point, I'm talking about the situation in 1965, not today. I don't think affirmative action is appropriate today, indeed it's likely to be destructive in some ways, including some you've noted. That we have gotten to this point is, I think, due in part to past efforts to reverse some of the damage that had been done by our shameful history. However two generations ago, more needed to be done to break down the institutionalized barriers to non-whites than just whitewash history and pretend that everybody suddenly had equal opportunity. The fact that one group of people still had 95% of the wealth, owned 95% of the businesses, etc shouldn't have been dismissed with "This world was never a perfect place, and I'm afraid it will never be." The fact that human enterprises can not be perfect is no excuse to not even try. I think a better analogy to the ones you presented would be the police tracking down some kidnappers, arresting them and hauling them off to jail, and leaving the kidnapping victim behind duct-taped to a chair and with a hood over his head. After all the job of the police is to arrest bad guys, and they did that. Surely the victim will work himself loose and find his way home in time on his own. If not, well too bad. Life's not fair, and it never will be. If the police have to rescue every kidnapping victim where's the end, next you'll be wanting them to pull stuck kittens out of trees! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'd also agree that I'd prefer that society could be color/gender blind and operate as a strict meritocracy. However the problem I have with "I don't think I'd ever support racial discrimination as a tool or remedy for past injustices of any sort" is that it leaves the victims of that discrimination so far behind it'll take many many generations to catch up. Where's the fairness in saying, "well now that one side has all the marbles maybe now we'll start to play fair? Oops, look, you still lose!" There isn't any totally "fair" way to address the situation, but I think just saying "sucks to be you, maybe one day we'll let a few of your kind into the good jobs/schools doesn't cut it either. As I said in and earlier post, though, I think set-asides/affirmative action should have been only a temporary measure, and I think that by now they may do more harm than good. I personally do think they were needed at one time, though. What sort of remedy would you support as a remedy for past injustices? Again, just curious. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I know a bit about the water situation in California, and I certainly don't have any magic solution to that particular issue. I do have to say though that these issues don't come out of the blue, everybody can see them coming even decades in advance but they become a crisis because no-one does anything until it is a crisis. Here in Georgia water is also a limited resource, believe it or not, and Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have been battling in court for decades over water from the Chatahoochee River. In the meantime Atlanta has been allowed to grow without any consideration whatsoever about where the water will come from, and for decades the city has taken a larger and larger share of the river to meet its needs. Then we get a drought, as we have had for the past 3 years, and suddenly downstream communities are left high and dry. Florida and Alabama go to court to try to get Georgia to stop hogging all the water, and Georgia politicians start bleating about water being taken from good God-fearing Georgians to "save some endangered clams" down in the Gulf. Well, the "endangered clams" (mussels, actually), are just indicator species that the entire esturine ecosystem is shutting down because of the lack of fresh water inflow. So what, you may ask? Well, that ecosystem is critical to the oyster fishery, the shrimp fishery, and also many commercial fish species that use the estuary for breeding. So Georgia politicians don't want to sacrifice future tax revenues, not to mention aggravating voters and donors, by restricting building permits, and Georgia taxpayers think they have a God-given right to water their lawns five time a week, and as a result coastal fisheries collapse and thousands of fishermen (fisherpersons?) see their livelihood disappear. Then to top it off people complain that they can't buy honest-to-goodness Gulf shrimp anymore, all they can find in the stores is imported from Chile or wherever. Guess what, it's all "human needs". The crisis comes about because no-one is willing to face facts, that resources are limited, their availability may change over time, and we really need to plan for the future. In the initial issue under discussion, no-one in the article that the OP posted said that solar facilities should not be built. All that was stated (that I read anyway) was that maybe we shouldn't destroy especially critical habitat, that was paid for in part by conservation groups because of its unique resources. Why not take a reasonable amount of care to put such facilities in places where they don't unintentionally, because of lack of foresight and planning, have a more negative impact than they need to? As far as your insect laying waste to the citrus crop example is concerned, such an insect does exist already, the Mediterranian fruit fly (commonly called the Med fly). The USDA has a program to develop effective, low-non-target impact methods to control the flies, which includes collaborating with European scientists to study the biology of the fly in its native habitat, where it isn't a problem because it is controlled by native predators and diseases. It was specifically this program that Palin mocked as an example of wasteful government spending. The problem with aerial spraying is that it often also destroys the beneficial insect populations too, such as honeybees and predators that control yet other potentially harmful insects like (for example) citrus scale or stinkbugs. Again, a little foresight, in this case being prepared with intelligent, effective control measures for a pest that we can be sure will become a big issue, (as it is already a big pest elsewhere and it disperses very effectively), could save us big problems down the road. But, as in all too many cases, foresight is sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. Then, when the shit does hit the fan, it becomes "won't someone think of the children" (or farmworkers, or whoever). Out of curiosity, what plans had been made for the day when there was no more water left to take from the San Joaquin River? Was it assumed that there would never at any time in the future be a drought, or was there a "buffer" left so that even in a drought, with less water flow, farms would still be assured of an adequate water supply? Or did people do like they have done here, look at a small sample of years with unusually high rainfall (or water flow), make plans based only on that, build until every available drop was sucked out of the river, and then be suprised when water availability changes (due to drought or conflicting demands for the water)? I'm asking just because if they planned prudently and then were sandbagged by political events I'd be inclined to be more sympathetic (which is worth squat I know). And to make it clear, I am sympathetic; most of the people being affected were probably not yet even born when the relevent decisions were being made. It does suck to have to eat someone else's shit sandwich. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for posting this thoughtful and thought-provoking article. I know that some proponents of African aid, such as Jeffry Sacks, have long strongly favored direct investment in local communities, for example in the form of small seed loans directly to would-be entrepeneurs and in public health infrastructure such as clean water sources, in place of large handouts to government officials. My own work is somewhat directed towards developing strategies to mitigate disease transmission, which would be especially useful in Africa because they are disproportionately afflicted with disease. For example, over 90% of the >200 million cases of malaria every year occur in Africa. It's difficult to compete with developed market economies if you're also carrying that kind of burden. On the other hand, I'm convinced that the long-term solution to the disease issue is economic development. The southern US used to have a huge problem with malaria, really into the 1930's. According to Andrew Spielman, former Harvard mosquito guru writing in his popular science book "Mosquito!", the biggest factor in ridding the US of malaria was the rural electrification program. Bringing electricity to rural areas changed people's behavior by making radio and later television available, and also air conditioning. As a result, people stayed indoors in the evening instead of sitting out on the porch where mosquitoes could bite them, and the air conditioning made it necessary to put glass in windows (as a side effect keeping mosquitoes out) whereas previously people would open the windows to catch any available breeze in the stiflingly hot and humid summer nights. Similarly, people in the south used to be heavily infested with hookworms, which could stifle physical and mental development because they cause anemia. The worms infect people largely by burrowing in through the feet, and the main reason they all but disappeared in people is because people started wearing shoes, including children going to school. However shoes cost money, and can be seen as a dispensible luxury by the very poor. In both cases economic development (government subsidized in the case of the rural electrification program) indirectly, but in hindsight inevitably, lead to dramatic improvements in public health. The same, I am sure, will hold true in Africa and elsewhere. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of curiosity, do you deny that non-whites in the southern US were disadvantaged in education and employment under Jim Crow laws? Once those laws were abolished, what if anything do you think would have been appropriate to do to address the impact of Jim Crow laws on non-whites? Oh, and please don't barf on me when you answer. I'm just curious how far your "discrimination is always wrong" values go. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The agenda makes no sense to people who are unable to see beyond their own selfish needs. No-one is saying that solar facilities shouldn't be built, it's just a matter of taking the time to place them where their impact will be minimized, rather than just responding to one factor, in this case "we have this land now, fuck everything else including the people who helped us buy it". The participation, logistically and financially, of nature conservation groups indicates that this land in particular harbors an especially rich diversity of species, and/or substantial populations of endangered species. Plants and animals are actually remarkably diverse in the Mojave (unlike the Gobi or Sahara), but they aren't evenly distributed, there are "hot spots" of diversity where development could dramatically damage total numbers and genetic diversity, and there are large areas that are much less sensitive. Imagine a meteorite landing in New York City vs the middle of Kansas, if you need a human impact analogy. Why not take a bit of time to place these facilities intelligently? The article does make sense, which would be clear if people could actually read it without their anti-environmental glasses on: See, no conflict. Unless, of course, you insist on imposing an ethic that only allows for immediate human economic needs, and does not permit consideration of “esthetic values” such as appreciation for wild places and biological diversity. Some people's vision of an ideal future, nothing but oil rigs, transmission lines, highways, and strip malls from sea to shining sea, is other people's vision of a nightmare. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Could very well be the case. Talking to my father is an interesting experience, the words are English but the meaning is sometimes whatever reality he's living in at the moment. Thanks for the clarification. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think another difference is the way mortgages are structured in Canada. I gather from family there that interest rates are adjusted frequently (annually, or even semi-annually), but what changes for the homeowner is the amount that goes towards the principle vs interest, and therefore the term of the mortgage, but not the total monthly payment. So if the interest rate rises, a larger share of each month's payment goes towards interest, and it'll take longer to pay down the principle so the term adjusts. That way, people don't find their payments doubling overnight, and the foreclosure rate stays low. On the other hand, banks are freer to either increase or decrease interest rates, as market conditions change, so they aren't risking being locked in for 30 years at a low interest rate. As a result, and also considering that if they kept rates too high customers would just refinance with someone else, interest rates do adjust down. I think my father is paying about 3% on his mortgage right now. On the other hand, you never really know how long it'll take to pay off the mortgage, it could be 30 years, it could be 25, or maybe 45, but at least you'll never be surprised with an increase you can't handle. American mortgages are fixed term, so if the interest rate adjusts (as in an ARM) the monthly payment has to change, and it almost never goes down. If you can't handle the increase it's foreclosure city, and everybody loses. At first the Canadian version seemed strange to me, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree about the meritocracy argument. Also I have a bit of a problem with the "met the required standards" part of the above quotation. In my field (University professor), and I suspect this applies to almost every job opening anywhere, when we are looking to hire we write an advertisement that includes the minimum acceptable qualifications. Usually the ad is written to attract as broad an array of applicants as possible. Then we go through the applications and select the best 4-5 to bring in for an interview. Everyone who applies "meets the required standard" (at least minimally), but some are obviously much more "qualified" than others, based on previous research productivity, success at getting their research funded, teaching experience, etc. We hire the best we can get, not someone who just barely meets the minimum qualifications. In the rare (but it does happen) event that two candidates are essentially indistinguishable on other grounds, then gender or race might be considered. We serve a diverse student body, and it probably does unintentionally send a message to the students when 23 out of 25 faculty in our department are white males. The situation is also relevant to police departments, where community relations have a huge influence on their ability to combat crime. An all-white police force in a predominantly non-white community is going to viewed with distrust, rightly or wrongly. If your pool of the best applicants are consistently from one narrow group (say, white male), then something is going on, but that may not involve racism, or it may reflect social problems at a much earlier stage in the process, such as differing attitudes towards the value of education. Also unfortunately some jobs are seen as "uncool" in some circles, for example in the 10 years my spouse has worked for the local county animal control, they have never had a single qualified African-American male apply for a position as a road officer, despite the fact that this county is almost 50% African-American. You can't force people to apply for jobs they don't want, or to go to school and study subjects they don't find interesting. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

After the various civil rights laws were passed in the 1960's I think it was needed. Relatively few non-whites had advanced educational skills, as they had been barred from many universities. Also few minority-owned businesses were in a position to compete directly with white-owned businesses, as they had been unable to bid on most contracts so they never had access to the revenue streams needed to acquire the equipment or trained people needed to be competitive. However it is now 40+ years on, pretty much two generations. I'm not sure what legitimate need still exists for affirmative action. In some cases I suspect it works against people who have legitimately worked hard for their success, as other people will attribute that success to an "unfair advantage" and not to the successful persons ability or hard work. Affirmative action, it seems to me, contributes to the culture of victimization that encourages people to blame their failures on others, rather than admit that they didn't try hard enough or simply weren't as good at the job as others who did succeed. Of course, there is still a real need for anti-discrimination laws, but that's quite different from affirmative action. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just jerking your chain. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So if being civil and honest makes you a socialist, does that mean all capitalists are criminals by nature? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

An armed society is a polite society. Just look at Somalia! The cultural difference between the Swiss and the US is huge. Crime is reviled, and criminals are generally ostracized, not embraced as role models or heroes as too frequently occurs in portions of American society. Actually, in general social conformity is valued, standing out too much is a no-no. Military service is mandatory and the training is rigorous, so people have respect for what guns are capable of. So I'd say the difference in crime rate has nothing to do with being a well-armed society, it's just a polite society with guns. Guns don't make people criminals, and there isn't much evidence that they make people honest either, they're just inanimate tools. It's what is in the hearts of the people that matters. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's fair. But, private insurance companies never try to tell you what they think is cost effective, or what they think their customers are entitled to? Aside from the relativly small clientelle who can afford out of pocket any treatment you may feel is best, isn't "cost effectiveness"always going to be an issue? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So professional careers that require a degree beyond the batchelors should be restricted to people who are wealthy enough to not have to work their way through grad school. As a general rule part-time jobs don't come with benefits. Also, at least in the sciences, grad school is (or should be, if the student actually hopes to finish and have a career subsequently), at least a full-time job in itself. Grad school and part-time job adds up to a 60-70 hr work week. It doesn't get much slacker than that! Anyway, in your opinion "come from a low-income family"="learn your place, don't bother to try for that career, McDonalds is good enough for your sort". Got it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agree absolutely. It's infuriating to be put in the situation where you're expected to help provide what others should do for themselves, I agree. However, you might consider that not everyone who finds themselves needing help are slackers. When I was at the University of Arizona my wife's best friend was putting herself through grad school, and supporting herself working half-time (without benefits) as a sales clerk. She was working hard, without taxpayer support, to better her education so she could become a "responsible member of society". Unfortunately she began having severe stomach pain, but lacking health insurance (as her "luxury" money was spent on tuition), she put off seeing a doctor until the situation became intolerable. She was diagnosed with severe Crohn's disease, which by that time had done so much damage that surgery was required. As she couldn't pay for that, she was required (by the hospital, so they could get paid) to apply for the Arizona medicaid program, but that specifically excluded students from coverage so she was forced to quit grad school. She then had the surgery, but by that time so much damage had occurred that most of her intestine had to be removed, in a series of very expensive taxpayer-funded surgeries, and she ended up on a feeding tube and colostomy bag. Despite all that, she developed septicemia and died. All of that could have been avoided, had she had access to medical care when she first became ill. Was she a "slacker"? Did she deserve to die because she had to choose between getting an education or health insurance? Should education beyond high school be available only to those who can afford both? By what standard do we decide who's a slacker and who's working to improve their situation and is only temporarily unable to afford insurance? Another point, what about the homeless person who has tuberculosis (or any other communicable disease)? We (as a society) are put in the position of treating them, at our expense, or allowing them to roam the streets, potentially infecting everyone they encounter. I guess we could incarcerate them, put them in solitary so they can't infect anyone, and wait for them to die. Have you ever known a skydiver who doesn't have health insurance, and also doesn't have the financial resources to even pay for an ambulance ride? A helicopter flight to the trauma center can cost $10,000 easy. I have known such people, the kind that pack to make enough money for a few jumps because they love the sport. I have even heard a skydiver say that they don't need to pay for insurance, because if they're hurt the hospital has to treat them, and they're too poor to be worth suing afterwards. If they have an accident, would you suggest they be left to die by the side of the runway? Would you support a drop zone requiring proof of insurance or means to pay a big hospital bill before allowing people to jump? I'm sure neither alternative is attractive, but if you don't want to "shoulder the load for slackers", isn't it kind of one or the other? One last point, I think there are "costs" to a society beyond money. A society that has made peace with refusing medical care to people based on their inability to pay (or prove in advance that they can pay) has paid a price, albeit an intangible one, in the loss of the value we supposedly place on human life. If we agree it's OK to leave someone on the street to die because we decide they're a "slacker", I suspect that would be a truly dog-eat-dog anything goes to get ahead society. And that, I think, would violate our basic human nature and not be acceptable to anyone (well maybe with a few exceptions). We are a social species, successful in large measure because we do live/work cooperatively. Individuals who can't empathize with anyone else, who will do anything, without any sense of right or wrong, to benefit themselves, are diagnosed as psychopaths, and I suspect most people don't want to live in a psychopathic society. What's the answer? I don't know, actually, it's obviously not an easy problem. Maybe a basic level of care, patch-'em-up and send them on their way (as we actually do have now, and that people complain is "shouldering the load for slackers"), paid for by sales taxes? Even the poor have to buy stuff, so they pay sales tax if not income tax. In principle, since private health insurance would not have to cover certain costs (such as trauma care), premiums could go down. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So I take it that you don't believe in mental illness? Or, you don't believe that someone has to be able to form the intent to commit an act they know is wrong, to be found criminally liable for a crime? There are people out there who are so delusional they really have no idea what they are doing. It sucks that their are such people around, but it's an inevitable side product of 1) our refusal, as a society, to provide the resources to get them treatment before they cause harm, and 2) our (I think proper) reluctance to involuntarily commit people to mental institutions, until it is certain that they pose a danger to themselves or others. What would you have done with them, as an alternative to locking them up in a mental hospital? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well in a spirit of fairness (a scarce commodity in Speaker's Corner I know), let's look at the actual infraction. Then-Mayor Kirk gave 16 speeches at his alma mater, Austin College, for which he was entitled to $37,750 in honoraria. Rather than collect the money, he told the school to give it to their scholarship fund instead. His tax accountant apparently agreed that, since he never accepted the money, he didn't have to report it as income. The Senate Finance Committee, looking at it from their perspective which includes avoiding any possible appearance of impropriety, concluded that he should have accepted the money, then donated it back to the school, in which case it would have been taxable income. I can see it either way, but in any event it is not a case where he was paid, took the cash, then tried to hide the income from the IRS. I think some of these tax situations occur because the kind of people who get tapped for senior positions in government (regardless of party affiliations) are confronted with situations where the "right thing to do" is actually not obvious. Then they may do as you or I would, follow the interpretation that is simplest or most favorable to their tax situation. Later, when they are being vetted for public office, the standard changes, it becomes what is the interpretation that best avoids any appearance that you were trying to avoid paying taxes. Here's a simple analogy. Say you're a tandem master, you pick up a few bucks on the weekend taking paying "students". Your good friend wants to do a tandem, so you agree to take him and waive your fee. Of course he still has to pay something, to cover the lift tickets, DZ's costs, etc, but it's discounted by whatever you normally get paid for taking a tandem. He has a great time, decided to sign up for AFF, and goes on to become a skygod. You do your taxes and, as a good citizen, report every dime you earned at the DZ that year. Of course, you didn't report your income from that jump, because there wasn't any, right? Wrong, you're a tax cheat, a criminal, and an all-around contemptible bum. Why? Because you should have charged your friend your standard rate as tandem master, counted that as income, then given the money back to him and claimed a charitable contribution (assuming he is a registered charity of course), at least according to the Senate Finance Committee. Alternatively, since he did pay for your seat on the plane when he paid his discounted fee, you should at least have claimed the value of that lift ticket as income, which you did not do. Either way you lose. See how the game is played? God help you if you ever decide to run for public office! Now in the real world no-one cares about the value of a tandem master's fee, but put yourself in the position of someone who has achieved public prominence and so is invited back to the college they graduated from to give a speech. You give the speech, but you say "hey, I don't want to get paid, just give the money to the scholarship fund". How is that different from the tandem master taking his buddy for a jump? As far as the NBA ticket thing in the CNN article, I've got nothing on that, one way or the other. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)