The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Good reason not to vote for him. Thanks for the research, Alex.

[innerSpaceman]

Ya know, now that I see it passed as an actual law, I gotta admit it smacks of facism to me.

Maybe it's just the way it's framed. If perhaps the state took your taxes and enrolled you in a government healthcare plan, I might find it slightly less creepy.

After all, the federal government is essentially telling me I have to pay to kill Iraqi civilians, but I am saved the step of ordering that off the menu at the war cafe and taking the money out of my wallet for it. So much easier when my employer does not even give me my money, and instead sends it directly to George Bush to kill Iraqi civilians on my behalf.


Still, the Massachusetts law strikes me as vaguely unAmerican.

[Alex]

If you are interested in more detail, here's a pretty good rundown of the law. According to it, Romney not only signed it into law but proposed it in the first place. I haven't been paying enough attention yet to know what he's been saying about universal programs in his president-seeking activities.

But essentially it says, we've subsidized health insurance enough through various programs that "affordability" isn't an excuse for anybody not to have coverage (price goes down to fully subsidized for certain people) so it is their responsibility to go get it at certain minimal levels.

One thing I don't like about it is that catastrophic coverage would not be sufficient. That's the kind of coverage I prefer since it makes economic sense for a pretty healthy, well off, family of two. I go years without seeing a doctor and when I do I can afford to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket if necessary and in a mini emergency many thousands would not be too strenuous on us. But if one of us gets cancer or hit by a car I would want coverage for medical expenses over, say, $40,000 or something. That I want insurance for, but I don't want insurance to pay for the $150 office visit if I get the flu or want a weird rash looked at.

So I find it a bit of a stretch to say to Bill Gates, "look you have to have insurance because if you don't and you get sick you'll be a financial burden on society."

[Gemini Cricket]

So Iran doesn't have any gays. Well, there's another reason not to go vacationing in Iran.

[scaeagles]

On a more serious note, I am disturbed about the whole visit of the Iranian President. They are a state sponsor of terror. Yet Columbia University welcomes him with open arms.

I will admit that I was completely against this, yet I will also admit that from what I've read he was not given an open forum to speak only of what he wanted and was confronted on his human rights abuses, though I would have liked there to have been more of it.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

On a more serious note, I am disturbed about the whole visit of the Iranian President. They are a state sponsor of terror. Yet Columbia University welcomes him with open arms.

I will admit that I was completely against this, yet I will also admit that from what I've read he was not given an open forum to speak only of what he wanted and was confronted on his human rights abuses, though I would have liked there to have been more of it.

Did you see how he was introduced by the University President? Not exactly what I'd call welcoming him with open arms.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm with Mo Rocca on this one. Free Speech is still an ideal in this country, no?

[Prudence]

I say let him speak. How much evil goes unchallenged in the world because it's easy to ignore? Because it's happening somewhere else, to people different than us, all filtered through a media lens that may or may not reflect an accurate picture. After all, we're fairly accustomed to alleging that preposterous remarks were taken out of context, blown out of proportion, spoken by a mere figurehead.

I say invite him to speak and shine a bright light on what he says so that all can see clearly what rubbish it is.

[wendybeth]

Right on, Pru. He is an evil little man, and his lies were exposed and addressed. Wasn't he one of the bastards that took over the Embassy and held hostages for so long? Was anything said about that?

[scaeagles]

I don't believe his past as one of the hostage takers was brought up.

I suppose the one aspect of this that angers me, while what JW said is completely true, is that it becomes a propaganda piece for him. He can pick and choose which parts he wants to use in his own country and in the middle east. Just look at how it was portrayed in the IRanian press. Something tells me his comments about gays and the introductionhe received aren't going to be widely played there, but the parts where the students were clapping for him will be.

Do we not know evil from what he has already said and done, though? What I don't understand is why this man was allowed to speak, but Larry Summers, former president of Harvard who dared suggest that genetic differences between men and women may come in to play regarding the higher number of men successful in the fields of math and science (rather than the politically correct educational bias angle), had a speaking engagement cancelled at UC Davis when the female faculty went nuts about it.

Freedom of speech does not in any way mean freedom to be heard or the right to be provided a forum in which to speak. So I do not see it in any way as a freedom of speech issue.