The Honorable George Radanovich
2410 Rayburn House Office Building
United Sates House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0519
Dear Representative:
I am one of your constituents, and am writing to urge your support for national health care reform.
The United States is the only industrialized country in the world without a universal health insurance system. 45 million Americans, about 15% of our population have no health care insurance. 9 million of these are children. Approximately half of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses. Despite the fact that we spend far more on health care than any other country (approximately $6,700 per person), we are 42nd in life expectancy and 45th in infant mortality. Clearly there is a problem.
I’m aware that there are concerns about the cost of undertaking universal health care. We must find a way to realize savings by not using urgent care as our primary caregiver. We must compensate the medical industry for successes achieved not procedures performed. And we must address the tremendously high cost of care during the last six months of life. However, even after we wring all the possible savings out of the system, it is still an expensive proposition. I support higher income taxes to pay for universal health care, provided that the wealthy, who can most afford it, are required to pay more.
The health care system that is enacted must have the following components:
It must be universal.
Everyone, including the young and healthy, must pay the premiums.
There must be income-based subsidies to provide help for low income individuals.
I suspect that you receive letters asking you to oppose health care reform legislation. I further suspect that most of those opposed already have health insurance. I know that a lot of people expect legislation by self-interest. However, I believe that the job of a leader such as you is to do what is right for everyone. Our great country must take care of its weakest citizens. This is one of the primary responsibilities of our government. Please help.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Search for Truth
I enjoy hearing viewpoints on social issues that differ from my own. However, there are a few exceptions. I want the goal, on both sides, to be a search for truth. There will be times when reasonable people will fail to agree on what the truth is. But as long as all sides have the same goal in mind, we ought to be able to have a good discussion.
The first unfair tactic that is sometimes taken is the reliance on faith-based evidence. A topic cannot be fairly debated if one side claims to know God’s opinion on the subject. The Bible, the Koran, the Talmud or any other holy book cannot be cited as evidence in support of an opinion. Belief in any religion relies on faith, not evidence; therefore the tenets of any religion are not acceptable as evidence in the debate of social issues.
Bullying tactics are unacceptable in a search for truth. These are a staple of right wing talk radio. They include such pearls as “What part of illegal don’t you understand”, and “God didn’t create Adam and Steve”. The second one might be thought to fall under the first unfair tactic, but I believe more correctly belongs here. To have a fair discussion of an issue, you must give due respect to the loyal opposition. As long as they are basing their arguments on evidence and logic, their opinions have merit and deserve consideration.
Another unfair tactic is a reliance on dogma. This is similar to the reliance on faith-based evidence, except the faulty evidence being introduced is political rather than spiritual. This includes things like quoting Ronald Reagan, or saying “history shows that socialism does not work”. A premise in support of an argument must itself be supportable by facts. The legal objection to such a maneuver is “assumes facts not in evidence”.
And then there is the misstatement of evidence. This includes the flat-out incorrect statement of fact like “one third of the worlds scientists do not believe in global warming”. Care must be taken when a website is cited as evidence. Just because someone says something or it can be found in writing doesn’t make it true. The second kind of misstatement of evidence is intellectual dishonesty. An example of this is citing a poll that says that 80% of Americans are in favor of health care reform. If a pollster phones a sampling of Americans and asks simply “Do you support or oppose health care reform?” such a result may occur. But it is meaningless if those being polled are not presented with the ramifications of their beliefs. If instead the poll question was “Given that your taxes may have to go up to pay for it, do you favor or oppose health care reform?” an entirely different result is likely. The people who word the polls know the difference and are attempting not to discover evidence, but to manufacture it.
Look for these tactics as you read the opinion page, listen to the talking heads on the news, or listen to talk radio. Exercise critical thinking, and remember that the goal must be a search for the truth.
The first unfair tactic that is sometimes taken is the reliance on faith-based evidence. A topic cannot be fairly debated if one side claims to know God’s opinion on the subject. The Bible, the Koran, the Talmud or any other holy book cannot be cited as evidence in support of an opinion. Belief in any religion relies on faith, not evidence; therefore the tenets of any religion are not acceptable as evidence in the debate of social issues.
Bullying tactics are unacceptable in a search for truth. These are a staple of right wing talk radio. They include such pearls as “What part of illegal don’t you understand”, and “God didn’t create Adam and Steve”. The second one might be thought to fall under the first unfair tactic, but I believe more correctly belongs here. To have a fair discussion of an issue, you must give due respect to the loyal opposition. As long as they are basing their arguments on evidence and logic, their opinions have merit and deserve consideration.
Another unfair tactic is a reliance on dogma. This is similar to the reliance on faith-based evidence, except the faulty evidence being introduced is political rather than spiritual. This includes things like quoting Ronald Reagan, or saying “history shows that socialism does not work”. A premise in support of an argument must itself be supportable by facts. The legal objection to such a maneuver is “assumes facts not in evidence”.
And then there is the misstatement of evidence. This includes the flat-out incorrect statement of fact like “one third of the worlds scientists do not believe in global warming”. Care must be taken when a website is cited as evidence. Just because someone says something or it can be found in writing doesn’t make it true. The second kind of misstatement of evidence is intellectual dishonesty. An example of this is citing a poll that says that 80% of Americans are in favor of health care reform. If a pollster phones a sampling of Americans and asks simply “Do you support or oppose health care reform?” such a result may occur. But it is meaningless if those being polled are not presented with the ramifications of their beliefs. If instead the poll question was “Given that your taxes may have to go up to pay for it, do you favor or oppose health care reform?” an entirely different result is likely. The people who word the polls know the difference and are attempting not to discover evidence, but to manufacture it.
Look for these tactics as you read the opinion page, listen to the talking heads on the news, or listen to talk radio. Exercise critical thinking, and remember that the goal must be a search for the truth.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Liberalism 101
I hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created unequal. Unequal in ability. Unequal in strength. Unequal in intelligence. Unequal in opportunity. Unequal in drive and determination. Vastly unequal.
Most people want to believe that they earned and deserve the things which they have. Circumstances may be to blame for the things they don’t have or that they’ve lost; but whatever they have, they damn well earned. But the truth of the matter is that we are all born with unequal opportunity.
America in the 21st century, perhaps more than any other place in any other time, is a place where status, class and security are achieved by success. Americans tend to see this as perhaps the greatest strength of our system. Indeed it is far superior to aristocracy or any other class-based system. But, despite what the successful among us may believe, it remains imperfect. And thus it remains our responsibility to try to improve it.
A good first step would be for people to try to recognize the gifts and good fortune that have led to their own successes, and to try to see the obstacles and obstructions that have prevented equal success in others. Then, perhaps, we will be more inclined to share our good fortunes and to work toward a system that doesn’t harshly punish people for a lack of good fortune.
One of the great things about our system is the incentive that is provided by knowing that success is possible through hard work. The wherewithal to acquire security and material possessions is available to anyone with the talent and work ethic to be successful. It’s not a divine right and it’s not something that you’re born into. This possibility of success squeezes the most out of our work force, allowing America to be a highly productive society. This isn’t a good thing, it’s a great thing. To be celebrated and preserved.
But we must not be smug about our own success and callous about the struggles of others. Even those without the gifts to be wildly successful deserve a minimum level of security and dignity. This will require those that achieve success to share with everyone else. Furthermore, you can’t decide with whom you will share and whom you will allow to suffer. A just society will not make these decisions based upon race, color, or creed, or any of the other things that divide us.
The only way that I know to fairly provide a minimum level of security for all is to have the government administer it. And yes, it must be funded by taxes. We have to tax the successful on a graduating scale to insure that all have access to food, clothing, housing, education, and medical attention.
This is necessary for a civilized society.
Most people want to believe that they earned and deserve the things which they have. Circumstances may be to blame for the things they don’t have or that they’ve lost; but whatever they have, they damn well earned. But the truth of the matter is that we are all born with unequal opportunity.
America in the 21st century, perhaps more than any other place in any other time, is a place where status, class and security are achieved by success. Americans tend to see this as perhaps the greatest strength of our system. Indeed it is far superior to aristocracy or any other class-based system. But, despite what the successful among us may believe, it remains imperfect. And thus it remains our responsibility to try to improve it.
A good first step would be for people to try to recognize the gifts and good fortune that have led to their own successes, and to try to see the obstacles and obstructions that have prevented equal success in others. Then, perhaps, we will be more inclined to share our good fortunes and to work toward a system that doesn’t harshly punish people for a lack of good fortune.
One of the great things about our system is the incentive that is provided by knowing that success is possible through hard work. The wherewithal to acquire security and material possessions is available to anyone with the talent and work ethic to be successful. It’s not a divine right and it’s not something that you’re born into. This possibility of success squeezes the most out of our work force, allowing America to be a highly productive society. This isn’t a good thing, it’s a great thing. To be celebrated and preserved.
But we must not be smug about our own success and callous about the struggles of others. Even those without the gifts to be wildly successful deserve a minimum level of security and dignity. This will require those that achieve success to share with everyone else. Furthermore, you can’t decide with whom you will share and whom you will allow to suffer. A just society will not make these decisions based upon race, color, or creed, or any of the other things that divide us.
The only way that I know to fairly provide a minimum level of security for all is to have the government administer it. And yes, it must be funded by taxes. We have to tax the successful on a graduating scale to insure that all have access to food, clothing, housing, education, and medical attention.
This is necessary for a civilized society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)