Posted on 12/18/2006 8:53:12 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
CORRECTION: She can move to SAN FRANCISCO, just north in state for the type of "humanitas" she wishes to incorporate into her, and by result, all our lives. Oh, groovy?
This woman also fits inside your script about "what appeals" to voters. Who do you think will be paying the costs for her possible bankruptcy?
IMO, this is exactly the the kind of "argument" that that subverts "conservative" political effort.
Voter support of programs to provide insurance to cover this sort of "elective" plastic surgery for the involuntarily uninsured is virtually nonexistent - as, BTW, is private insurance coverage to do the same.
Now ask the same voters about reconstructive surgery after mastectomy - at this point you will start to encounter real difference of opinion.
Now ask the same voters about their support of programs to supply medically indicated treatment for breast cancer to someone who has worked steadily for decades and now finds themselves uninsured - you will find that a majority of voters are in favor of such programs.
At that point, instead of taking about "people who want to feel good about themselves" IMO conservatives would do better to start thinking about how to structure such politically inevitable programs so as to do minimum damage to personal motivation and general economic productivity.
But Self-Esteem surgery borders on lunacy, requiring more than a Risk Assessment to the Surgeon. With what you propose, you neatly invite another layer of bureacracy and LAWYERS upon this nation.
There's common sense, and then flat-out stupidity.
California's Earthquake Household/Commercial Insurance policies are basically along the lines of what you are proposing.
A woman I know, years back, had her breasts done. Using 401K monies to do so (of course she had to pay it back); nonetheless, she told everyone she did it to improve her business -- SALES. That should she have breast enlargements she would make more sales.
I could only gak out, in response: More sales at what, for who, and will you report this to the IRS as a business expenditure?
Now ask the same voters about their support of programs to supply medically indicated treatment for breast cancer to someone who has worked steadily for decades and now finds themselves uninsured - you will find that a majority of voters are in favor of such programs
No. I don't think so. You might as well ask this nation how many are willing to dig into their own pockets because Person A wishes to have a larger penis. It would please his wife, make his pants fit better, etc.
At that point, instead of taking about "people who want to feel good about themselves" IMO conservatives would do better to start thinking about how to structure such politically inevitable programs so as to do minimum damage to personal motivation and general economic productivity.
For Pete's sake, Mr/Miss M. Dodge Thomas -- even insurance policies give you a price break if you practice sound health: exercise, diet, etc.
The woman you have in mind for your Exhibit A of what conservatives should allegedly be marketing is the Democrat Platform. -- All healthcare, anytime, anywhere, Universally, and someone else pays for it: Victim payor to be announced pending other legislations...
I do very much understand what you propose. And, as I did write in other post -- There are programs to assist financially. From private enterprise to corporate charity, to medical research experimentation gratis, to government programs.
You wish to find some way to sell an idea that no one ever need suffer or incur dealing with hardship.
Do I have that right? Is that the thrust of your marketing concept for conservatism? How far do you wish to go with this concept?
And what is your litmus test? Would a criminal born in dire poverty and rotten homelife qualify for a lifetime reconstructive welfarian funding? It wasn't his fault he was born to rotten circumstances.
Elect a Democrat -- they keep exonerating hardened criminals using exactly that logic. Now, you are speaking of the hardworking faithful, law-abiding person who finds themselves in dire circumstances beyond their control and somehow think the slippery slope would never apply.
You will find, as already this culture has, that accusations of false rape get far more attention than real rape. Many claiming hardship live better than the working stiffs.
Who would devise the litmus test for your (and mine) generosity? And to what degree might private investigators go snooping in order to fulfill the requirements of your litmus test?
It's what I've done. Why should you do no less, but somehow declare "it's everyone's" responsibility. It's not. And by your sentiment that Conservatives would win big if they focused on using prime-time coverage to announce to the world that if you are uninsured "call this number" is selling point, you are truly mistaken. People will just find another reason to have never "heard the message", and blame Bush anyway and because "he doesn't care about the uninsured".
The President gave the US, each and every citizen CHOICE with every tax cut passed and each person paying taxes got more of their OWN money back into their pockets.
And he doesn't care about the uninsured, eh?
You always come through with the goods! Thanks for your post. Very thought provoking!
==Inflation, big time, is just around the corner eh?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061219/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_18
Societies construct such "litmus tests" all the time.
The fact that it's sometimes hard to do so "at the margins" does not prevent them from doing so; in fact "politics" is largely about defining such margins.
Sometimes such judgments reflect altruistic reasoning, sometimes utilitarian motives, and often for some combination of the two.
Few voters would support "lifetime reconstructive welfarian funding" for adult criminals, most voters support at least some attempts to reduce the "dire poverty and rotten homelife qualify" of similar individuals as children - though one could argue that birth into a life surrounded by poverty, disorder and criminality is just one more example of the fact that "life is not fair".
They do so on the basis of "subjective" judgments about the differing nature of childhood and adult responsibility, "objective" judgments about the costs of social externalities associated with such conditions, and also for "altruistic" reasons - all "litmus tests", all difficult at the margins, but all also typical of the sorts of judgments that are universally made by human societies irrespective of how they are organized or governed.
And he doesn't care about the uninsured, eh?
Well, if "care about" = "actually do something about", IMO voter skepticism is justified.
A tax cut is of little assistance to someone whose problem is that they are faced with a choice between bankrucpy because they being billed $3000 week for radiation treatments when they are unemployed and thus uninsured, and forgoing the treatment and hoping that surgery alone was successful.
Now, I can see a wide range of public polices to deal with their problem.
a) At one end of the "personal responsibility / public responsibility" scale is "Life is unfair. Thanks for playing".
b) Next over is something like a program of low-interst Federal Loans to such individuals, to be deducted from current income and/or from their estate, if any.
c) Next over is a national insurance scheme providing insurance against catastrophic acute health care costs for the unemployed, funded by mandatory tax contributions.
c) Next over...and so on.
And IMO, if someone's position is a) and a) only...well, the politcal system is eventually going to tell you "Life is unfair. Thanks for voting."
You've merely reinvented AFDC, Welfare, and just repackaged it under a different chimera.
You want universal health care. And that's about all you see, and you predicate your activism in post upon one single "exhibit" as representative of the "many of voters".
Your exhibit A is not any type of representative sampling of population in the US.
Further, you ignore many other instances of reality.
The homeless person who arrives at the ER room in critical stages of Cancer. Does he get booted? NO. Does the taxpayer pick up his fees? Yes.
Illegal Immigrants? Do they get a bill? No.
I think your hypothetical is precisely that -- a hypothetical.
But sounds quite caring.
It's not that hard to find out, you know. You might, for example, ask a lawyer who does bankrucpys - or if you think they are likely bleeding heart liberals, one who does collections work.
You're welcome. :-)
BTTT
I have. And I've gone to the bankruptcy courts with pals for the hearings and judgements - I wanted to learn. Now, of course, I was in CA -- and what I got to sit through for hours was people who should not have been filing for bankruptcy. In nearly all the cases, it was due frivolous spending. Or, people whose jobs died in CA, and the people kept thinking another job would come to them.
The Bankruptcy laws did need amending, IME. There were repeat "bankruptees" in court: 2nd and 3rd-time filing for bankruptcies.
Perhaps this is different in other parts of the country.
And yes, I continue to hear from acquaintances of their copings with Collections.
I don't deny that hardship exists in the world, and it cuts across all demographic strata. Hardship is called hardship for a reason. Been there. Been through it. But mixing up Hardship with self-inflicted suffering are two different matters; and should be.
Nonetheless, Merry Christmas, M. Dodge Thomas, to you and yours.
And to you and yours!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.