I learned long ago that such remarks aren't about what I wrote as much as they are expressions of disagreement.
The comic isn't even much about Trump. The political behaviour is quite the same in many places. It's about irrationality in politics and policy. Trump merely increased the irrationality in a very obvious way.
Just to point that out: a lot of the top death causes are essentially self inflicted with unhealthy lifestyle and risk taking. That drastically lowers the willingness to have the collective pay to prevent it. Also, the measure as to wether expense is justified is the amount of death prevented, not the one that slips through the net, but that's obvious.
Sadly, policy proposals aimed at confrontation with tiny minorities have drastically better effect on the the willingness of about 5-35% of the population to pay than policy proposals meant to actually improve the life of people.
The big two in the graphic aren't so big because of self-infliction; they're so big because they are difficult to tackle and if you eliminate many other causes of death the people will simply live on to die from the not yet solved issues.
Mortality is normal for humans, but we should be rational in dealing with it. Foreign "brown people" are a negligible security risks as is (and the current situation is of course a product of the efforts so far) compared to air pollution, tobacco or even sugar.
Its a funny comic, but this behavior started with george bush and his misguided GWOT. As the joke goes, 9/11 americans fall for it because they can't measure risk :)
The comic and responses ignore that inconvenient fact the Federal Government in the USA, as is *not* responsible for healthcare, but *is* very much responsible for law enforcement, customs and immigration, military, etc. as articulated in the U.S. Constitution.
Check the preamble and Helvering v. Davis. I know that right wingers dismiss the welfare clause because it's ideologically inconvenient, but the standing SCOTUS ruling on it is clear. Working for general access to healthcare and environmental protection are very much a job of the U.S. federal government.
To spend on expeditionary warfare and cruise missile diplomacy capabilities on the other hand is not an obligation of the U.S. federal government. Now let's see, what does [he] want the nation to spend more on?
BTW, you wrote "military". Feel free to lookup how often that word appears in the document!
Your assertion about the U.S. Constitution is wrong.
The law: 26 U. S. C. §5000A, AKA the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” requires *individuals*, not the Government, to maintain health insurance coverage. The Federal Government provides healthcare insurance only for Federal workers and the indigent – a comparative minority of the population.
You can read Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion here (note paragraph 3 on taxation): “The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is thatit commands individuals to purchase insurance.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf. Among the gems in the opinion are: “In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder.”
You are being cute about *military* given the date of the constitution.
As for the "right wing" charge - you are guessing (badly) about me and my politics.
I didn't write about a specific law, but about the constitution. The ACA was upheld by SCOTUS while being all about regulating health insurance markets. That's the federal government exercising its constitutional authority to regulate that stuff for the welfare of the nation.
I didn't guess about you, I wrote about the subject - and my observation on constitution interpretation was factually correct.
Like I said, your politics suck.
ReplyDeleteI learned long ago that such remarks aren't about what I wrote as much as they are expressions of disagreement.
DeleteThe comic isn't even much about Trump. The political behaviour is quite the same in many places. It's about irrationality in politics and policy.
Trump merely increased the irrationality in a very obvious way.
Well said, Sven.
DeleteJust to point that out: a lot of the top death causes are essentially self inflicted with unhealthy lifestyle and risk taking. That drastically lowers the willingness to have the collective pay to prevent it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the measure as to wether expense is justified is the amount of death prevented, not the one that slips through the net, but that's obvious.
Sadly, policy proposals aimed at confrontation with tiny minorities have drastically better effect on the the willingness of about 5-35% of the population to pay than policy proposals meant to actually improve the life of people.
DeleteThe big two in the graphic aren't so big because of self-infliction; they're so big because they are difficult to tackle and if you eliminate many other causes of death the people will simply live on to die from the not yet solved issues.
Mortality is normal for humans, but we should be rational in dealing with it. Foreign "brown people" are a negligible security risks as is (and the current situation is of course a product of the efforts so far) compared to air pollution, tobacco or even sugar.
Its a funny comic, but this behavior started with george bush and his misguided GWOT. As the joke goes, 9/11 americans fall for it because they can't measure risk :)
ReplyDeleteI tell you, it's MUCH more widespread than that.
ReplyDeleteUSA: since 1897, when navy growth became serious for great powergaming purposes (support for Monroe doctrine).
Germany: since 1898, again navy.
France: since ~1872, when preparations for revanche war and reconquest began.
The comic and responses ignore that inconvenient fact the Federal Government in the USA, as is *not* responsible for healthcare, but *is* very much responsible for law enforcement, customs and immigration, military, etc. as articulated in the U.S. Constitution.
ReplyDeleteGAB
Check the preamble and Helvering v. Davis. I know that right wingers dismiss the welfare clause because it's ideologically inconvenient, but the standing SCOTUS ruling on it is clear. Working for general access to healthcare and environmental protection are very much a job of the U.S. federal government.
DeleteTo spend on expeditionary warfare and cruise missile diplomacy capabilities on the other hand is not an obligation of the U.S. federal government. Now let's see, what does [he] want the nation to spend more on?
BTW, you wrote "military". Feel free to lookup how often that word appears in the document!
Your assertion about the U.S. Constitution is wrong.
DeleteThe law: 26 U. S. C. §5000A, AKA the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” requires *individuals*, not the Government, to maintain health insurance coverage. The Federal Government provides healthcare insurance only for Federal workers and the indigent – a comparative minority of the population.
You can read Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion here (note paragraph 3 on taxation): “The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is thatit commands individuals to purchase insurance.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf. Among the gems in the opinion are: “In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder.”
You are being cute about *military* given the date of the constitution.
As for the "right wing" charge - you are guessing (badly) about me and my politics.
GAB
I didn't write about a specific law, but about the constitution. The ACA was upheld by SCOTUS while being all about regulating health insurance markets. That's the federal government exercising its constitutional authority to regulate that stuff for the welfare of the nation.
DeleteI didn't guess about you, I wrote about the subject - and my observation on constitution interpretation was factually correct.
A great graphic and also applicable to business and life in general.
ReplyDeleteFirn