I’ve asked this before, but no one has ever answered it. It’s a question for the millions of progressives in this country who support the ACA.
Right now, progressives could all form a giant collective. You could call it the Democratic Party Health Insurance Coop. Everyone would join by contract….
Because we live in a Democracy, and that’s not how things work in a democracy. Sure we could form a collective with some kind of single payer or other similar healthcare system. We could also form a collective that, say, bans birth control, but that wouldn’t have an impact outside the collective which would (I think obviously) somewhat defeat the purpose.
In either case, using a voluntary system misses the point, because we live in a world where many elements interact. If I pay taxes that pay for public hospitals which treat patients, regardless of their insurance status, then I want a system that requires everyone to have (or preferably provides everyone with) insurance, so that the tax dollars can be put to their best use. If I’m a part of the collective but someone else is not, I still (via tax dollars) have to pay for their coverage when they fall sick and are cared for (as they should be) without insurance to cover it.
We all pay for policies we don’t agree with or that we feel are misuses of our money, and we are all forced to obey laws we don’t agree with. That’s the beauty of a Democracy.
Let me offer a brief moment of fellow feeling for two people who are not high on people’s “friend” lists right now, and for another group that is enjoying a great deal of sympathy but is also facing a great deal of pressure right now.
The people/groups in question are Trayvon Martin’s family,…
You know, where a yearbook advisor (who was my 20th Century History teacher, actually, and has a texan flag and an american flag on opposite sides of her classroom facing each other,) forbids the students in her class from including one picture of two girls holding hands in the yearbook.
Let me tell you, there were many, many things more racy than that in my yearbook (which she also sponsored.)
“Now, one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.”—Bill Clinton (via politicalprof)
“You know, liberals, ladies and gentlemen, are still in a state of shock and disbelief over the notion that ‘social issues’ don’t hurt Republicans. You see the reason for the manufactured, false, it-doesn’t-really-exist attempt to convince people Republicans have a war on women. Which, again, as mayor of Realville: Republicans date women, they marry women, they have children with women.”—Rush Limbaugh, yesterday
Since at least one stream of the anti-gay marriage argument(s) is that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married because marriage is about having and raising children, and gay people can’t do that (forget for now whether this is true, since it isn’t), a modest proposal:
Shaker Aamer has been detained in Guantanamo for the past ten years without committing a single offence. “Fears are growing for the welfare of Mr Aamer, from south London, who is now 45 and has a wife and four children. He has never met his youngest son. His lawyers are particularly concerned by the deterioration of his mental and physical state, which Mr Aamer describes vividly in his letters. He has lost 40 per cent of his body weight and is suffering from health problems, aggravated by long periods in solitary confinement.” In one of his letters, Shaker writes to his loved one:
You are the soul of my life. You are the best of my heart. You are the light of my eyes. You are the oxygen in my lungs, you are the sun on my back, the sweetest taste of my mouth you are everything you are everything I need to live, to love, to be… Do you know how much you are important for my life. If you break I will break, if you become weak I will become weak and if you go I will go. You are my soul twin. I need you to be strong.
Ten agonizing, brutal years without justice conveniently labelled as “interrogation” and “safety measures” by the government of USA. I’m speechless.
On a somewhat serious note today because of a conversation the other day:
I am sure every girl can recall, at least once as a child, coming home and telling their parents, uncle, aunt or grandparent about a boy who had pulled her hair, hit her, teased her, pushed her or committed some other playground crime. I will bet money that most of those, if not all, will tell you that they were told “Oh, that just means he likes you”. I never really thought much about it before having a daughter of my own. I find it appalling that this line of bullshit is still being fed to young children. Look, if you want to tell your child that being verbally and/or physically abused is an acceptable sign of affection, i urge you to rethink your parenting strategy. If you try and feed MY daughter that crap, you better bring protective gear because I am going to shower you with the brand of “affection” you are endorsing.
When the fuck was it decided that we should start teaching our daughters to accept being belittled, disrespected and abused as endearing treatment? And we have the audacity to wonder why women stay in abusive relationships? How did society become so oblivious to the fact that we were conditioning our daughters to endure abusive treatment, much less view it as romantic overtures? Is this where the phrase “hitting on girls” comes from? Well, here is a tip: Save the “it’s so cute when he gets hateful/physical with her because it means he loves her” asshattery for your own kids, not mine. While you’re at it, keep them away from my kids until you decide to teach them respect and boundaries.
My daughter is `10 years old and has come home on more than one occasion recounting an incident at school in which she was teased or harassed by a male classmate. There has been several times when someone that she was retelling the story to responded with the old, “that just means he likes you” line. Wrong. I want my daughter to know that being disrespected is NEVER acceptable. I want my daughter to know that if someone likes her and respects her, much less LOVES her, they don’t hurt her and they don’t put her down. I want my daughter to know that the boy called her ugly or pushed her or pulled her hair didn’t do it because he admires her, it is because he is a little asshole and assholes are an occurrence of society that will have to be dealt with for the rest of her life. I want my daughter to know how to deal with assholes she will encounter throughout her life. For now, I want my daughter to know that if someone is verbally harassing her, she should tell the teacher and if the teacher does nothing, she should tell me. If someone physically touches her, tell the teacher then, if it continues, to yell, “STOP TOUCHING/PUNCHING/PUSHING ME” in the middle of class or the hallway, then tell me. Last year, one little boy stole her silly bandz from her. He just grabbed her and yanked a handful of them off of her wrist. When I went to the school to address the incident, the teacher smiled and explained it away to her, in front of me, “he probably has a crush on you”. Okay, the boy walked up to my daughter, grabbed and held her by the arm and forcibly removed her bracelets from her as she struggled and you want to convince her that she should be flattered? Fuck off. I am going to punch you in the face but I hope you realize it is just my way of thanking you for the great advice you gave my daughter. If these same advice givers’ sons came home crying because another male classmate was pushing them, pulling their hair, hitting them or calling them names, I would bet dollars to donuts they would tell him to defend themselves and kick the kid’s ass, if necessary. They sure as shit wouldn’t say, “he probably just wants a play date”.
I will teach my daughter to accept nothing less than respect. Anyone who hurts her physically or emotionally doesn’t deserve her respect, friendship or love. I will teach my boys the same thing as well as the fact that hitting on girls doesn’t involve hitting girls. I can’t teach my daughter to respect herself if I am teaching her that no one else has to respect her. I can’t raise sons that respect women, if I teach them that bullying is a valid expression of affection.
The next time that someone offers up that little “secret” to my daughter, I am going to slap the person across the face and yell, “I LOVE YOU”.
NY Times columnist David Brooks has been on a fairly annoying kick recently of offering pieces filled with what he thinks are big ideas about the shape of contemporary society and then addressing their “meaning” … all within the word limit constraints of the NY Times editorial page.
CJ:The guy across the street is beating up a pregnant woman. You don't go over and try and stop it?
Toby:Guy across the street is beating up anybody, I like to think I go over and try to stop it. But we're not talking about the President going to Asia or the President going to Rwanda or the President going to Qumar. We're talking about the President sending other people's kids to do that.
CJ:That's always what we're talking about, and in addition to being somebody's kids, they're soldiers and sailors. And if we're about freedom from tyranny, then we're about freedom from tyranny, and if we're not, we should shut up.
Toby:Back at the office, you were telling Will -
CJ:He said that to Will cause that's what we say.
Toby:You were't even there.
CJ:It's what we always say.
Toby:On Sunday, he's taking an oath to ensure domestic tranquilty.
CJ:And to establish justice and promote the general welfare. Stand by while atrocities are taking place, and you're an accomplice.
Toby:I'm not indifferent to that, but knuckleheaded self-destruction is never going to burn itself out? You really want to send your kids across the street into the fire?
CJ:Want to? No. Should I? Yes.
Toby:Why? And don't give me a lefty answer.
CJ:A lefty answer is all I've got.
Toby:Why are you sending your kids across the street?
It’s been another busy week for the male guardians of women’s bodies. We had the multimarried Rush Limbaugh attacking Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who had testified to House Democrats on behalf of women in need of contraceptive coverage. While she did not speak at the actual congressional hearing about the health-insurance debate, Limbaugh still […]
Lordy, Dana Loesch might be one of the dumbest people ever put in front of a teevee camera to have the noises they make recorded for posterity. The short version of her succession of bleats and grunts today amounts to this: “Once a woman welcomes ONE foreign object in her body, she is clearly signalling consent for all other that might want to follow.” Again, I can’t stress this enough: my cat is making some gurgling and snuffling sounds that make more sense, as a worldview, than Dana Loesch. What a world!
Because all women who want abortions want them because they wanted it in the first place and will naturally want something stuck inside them again. They should *thank* her for it!