I got a request to mention this, and how can I not? A young boy is battling leukemia, and his family is struggling with the costs. They've had to put up an online donation box in the hope of some relief.
If you've got a little to spare (I know, this is not a good time in the history of our economy to expect that), think about giving a little to a family in need…or at the very least, donate to the Children's Cancer Research Fund. And also think about this if our representatives ever get moving on health care reform.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
First of all, in response to reader suggestion, I've changed the names of the categories. People rightly felt "domestic economy" and "household economy" were too confusing, and reader Apple Jack Creek suggested we change "domestic economy" to "domestic infrastructure." Claire also suggested that…
This essay is a little different than most of my stuff. It is the result of a collaborative discussion on a foster parenting list I'm a part of by a group of foster parents. I've paraphrased and borrowed and added some things of my own, but this is truly collaborative piece, and meant to be shared…
It figures.
Whenever there's a holiday or a break where I'm not paying as much attention to the blog as usual, something always seems to happen regarding a story I'm interested and have been blogging about. Remember Sarah Hershberger? She's 11 year old Amish girl who developed lymphoblastic…
The other day, I came across an update on the Daniel Hauser saga. Specifically, I commented about how he is not only undergoing the chemotherapy ordered by his doctors. As you may recall, Hauser is a 13-year-old boy who, after being diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and undergoing one round of…
Oh, what the heck. I'll add my two cents when I get home tonight.
- CJ
http://www.helium.com/users/165611/show_articles
I just donated $100 to the family. Anyone else want to match that?
(I just recently became the father of a baby girl and as we happily left the hospital, the first thing we saw going to our car was a young cancer patient with his mom in a hospital room...)
You mean you want me to give actual money!? Aw c'mon seriously can't I just pray for him or something?
@#3: Or you could go the libertarian route: Pray for the invisible hand of the the market to help children without health insurance.
@2
Done.
Wim
Are you double dog daring me?
I spent $80 for my wife and I to see PZ speak in Columbus. What kind of shit would I be if I couldn't help here.
I have to wait for Monday so I can move some money around, but I'll see that hundred.
This is a really tough time for a lot of people, but I'm sure that those of you who can will.
If you can't afford it, I would suggest not going to the blog. I'm trying very hard not to cry because my wife is in the room and I'm trying to hold on to that macho thing.
bootsy, the libertarians blow Smith's analogy out of all proportion. Then again, that seems to be the fashion when referring to his work to bolster one's slavering over 'free' markets. He maintained that such markets would only work when based on equality and justice for all: two concepts that today's economic ideologues (read: beneficiaries) and their government puppets seem to have largely abandoned. As Chomsky said, they pay homage to Smith and his pre-capitalist co-thinkers "while [constantly] kicking them in the face".
Done.
only US$20, but it what I can do right now.
-DU-
Okay, I got a hundred I can spare to match wim and ggab.
Interesting. A house of worship in my neighborhood recenly raised $505,000 to help fund research to find a cure for a child who was suffering from a rare disease.
rofl@america
This is what I mean by taking morality back. This is a vast improvement over the useless praying the religious will do for this boy.
Good for them, Schuster. I hope they succeed in time.
Been spending too much on myself lately, and I couldn't log into the bank earlier to chech how close I am to my arranged overdraft.
But of course you've pretty much pulled a Julianne on me, so now I'll feel bad if I don't chip in. (Still can't believe that I let Sean Carroll tempt me into funding US schools when I'm on the dole. He'd better damn well make good on that offer of dinner!)
I am very cynical about fund raising. I was educated in a catholic primary school and we were constantly bombarded with stuff like this (google sunshine coaches). The charity organisers seemed to be much better off than my own family.
Can't match your $100, but consider my egg money gone. :)
Although I do give to some of the large charities, it's more satisfying to give directly to someone in need. I'm contributing $100.
Are they looking for a bone marrow donor for a transplant? Maybe now is a good time to sign up on the registry. You never know if you're a match.
One of my friends has been battling Leukemia for a few years now. I've grown to have a personal hatred of that disease. I'll do what I can.
I'll be happy to donate something, but I'm feeling a little creeped out because nobody has said who these people are yet. Does PZ know them? Or did this just show up in the inbox.
This is the internet after all.
There's a link on the blog to a "giving hope through faith" charity which says "Giving Hope Through Faith Foundation exists to spread the love that comes from knowing Jesus Christ."
Not to say that I wouldn't help christians, I just have no idea who these people are. There is nothing on the blog that I can see which identifies the people writing it.
Like I said, this is the internet.
Does anyone know who these people are?
@dmsmccoy,
I thought the same thing. I'm relying on PZ to have done the vetting.
@carl,
I know, but I wish PZ had put just a tiny bit more information in the original post. I don't need a name and phone number, just a little reassurance that this is known to be on the up and up.
I'm good for $100 if I just see a comment from PZ saying something along the lines of "it's a professor at a small college in Florida" or anything to indicate he knows who this is. There is absolutely no identifying information on the blog that I can find.
All PZ said is "I got a request to mention this".
Well done Wim. I've just added my $100 now.
@#3: Or you could go the libertarian route: Pray for the invisible hand of the the market to help children without health insurance.
Straw man. If you read anything about libertarian philosophy you'd know that a great deal of emphasis is based on voluntary private charity donation, the objection is to government forced donation.
rlz: this probably isn't the forum for this, but of all the crap i've heard today yours is probably the most foul.
After everything we've seen it's funny that libertarians still are trying to convince everyone that the average person is "good".
Evolution tends to disagree about voluntary "giving away" of funds. yes, charities work now, but what percentage of people give because they can and don't expect anything - vs those that give because if they don't they'll owe too much in taxes? And of that last group, what percentage would "give freely" if the threat of taxation wasn't there?
It reminds me an awful lot of the churchgoer's argument that: "Atheists are immoral because if i were an atheist i wouldn't have any reason to act 'good' "
all in all i've donated my time to various projects. I rarely can afford to throw money someone's way. And given a choice between helping one person X amount and helping an organization (like city of hope or CHOC), i'll generally help the organization.
what sort of person does that make me, then?
@#10
Done, to the best of my ability. People shouldn't feel like they can only help out if they have big bucks to blow. I'm poor as dirt myself, but a large number of people giving even what they'd spend on a beer or two at a bar could really help out.
DrBager:
No, they gave it to the organization that is doing research on finding a cure for the disease. Didn't you read what I wrote?
I was being a little facetious (it doesn't come out well in writing). Your comment didn't exactly say they donated the money to a scientific organization.
FWIW, I couldn't find anything on snopes on this and the doctor & medical center are legit.
You mention this story as if it were exceptional. *Everybody* who has any sort of serious health problems is struggling to pay their bills. I notice that the blog says they have insurance, and still they have to beg for donations. What is the point of having health insurance if you still have to act like a charity case to pay your expenses? How is this system better than paying taxes?
I'm distraught. It kills me to see any child have to go through this. If I thought praying would do something I would pray like a bastard.
The issue is I dont have much but I'm willing to help.As much as I would love to give money to this family,and every other family, religious or not, who has a child with cancer, I want to be sure that my money gets put to the best advantage possible. While my measly money would help this family some small amount, I think my measly money would be better spent helping all families out in the long term.
I'd rather put it towards cancer research than towards a single particular family. If I were that family, I would fully understand that my view would be frustrating.. "How does that help them now?"
Aren't there hospitals that will treat children regardless of ability to pay? Hopefully obama will be able to get children healthcare working.
Until then, my deepest regrets for the family, but I think I am going to donate to the cancer center PZ mentioned.
My godless heart got the best of me. I have children. I hate cancer. I gave 20.
I feel a bit wretched about this - yes, I could just about give $50 but...why this kid, PZ? It makes me feel guilty if I don't but then - well, I don't anything about the family. I mean are they all Christians? It shouldn't matter, of course, except that maybe their church should look after them - after all they have so much money. This sort of thing just doesn't happen to individuals here in the UK - best available cancer treatment, best facilities, and all free.
I don't know. Why him? Why me?
TechSkeptic,
Why don't you try praying as you say you would. It was prayer to the Lord God that healed my own son of a diffuse pontine glioma. He was given a 1-2 months to live at the time of his Dx by our wonderfully informed "medical professionals". That was 5 years ago.
Unless you have infinite knowledge it is kind of silly to take on the title of atheist, which literally means, "there is no God", not "I don't believe there is a God." To say "there is no God" requires that one have infinite knowledge. But if you have infinite knowledge, then you'd probably not say "there is no God", because you would be He. At least be fair and take the title of agnostic, "to not know".
In any case, I have my son by the grace of God. Where our wonderfully enlightened medical community had no answer but to go home with hospice, I found another answer which allows me to go give my son a hug right now.
I don't expect this sentiment will touch anyone coming to this site. I'd say good luck to you all in finding what you're looking for, but I can't because I wouldn't mean it. I wish you luck in finding precisely Him whom you do not think is there. It brought this former agnostic to his knees, and does so everyday.
Thanks be to God.
BTW - PZ - May God forgive the sacrilege you have decided would be beneficial to our society. Perhaps if scientists like you worried more about their science and less about other people's religion we'd actually have some advancements being made in western medicine.
$75.00. I hope he can be helped.
I am 30 and currently undergoing chemo treatment for cancer. I'm a big strong guy and I have a hard time coping with the treatment. But, there is one thing that keeps me going everyday. Knowing there are brave children out there going through the same thing. Yet, they can still keep a smile on their face. I will give my share.
Athanasius:
Word salad.
I'm in for $50.
"Perhaps if scientists like you worried more about their science and less about other people's religion we'd actually have some advancements being made in western medicine."
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read on this blog in over a year and a half. That's saying something, considering the drivel that's been posted here. No real advancements? I guess more than doubling life expectancy since the medieval ages and minor things like that attributable to science don't matter much to you.
Ignore science then. Dump the dead rat in your water supply. Don't bother to get vaccinations. Eat lard 5 times a day. Go on. It's just science that tells us these things matter. Western medicine has kept my dad alive for the last 30+ years. I guess They gave him less than 5 years to live when he had his first heart attack. Because of the continuing research being done, he's still here. I would have been dead myself at age 19 if it weren't for steroids.
You leave me in awe. Really. Almost two years. Nothing dumber ever written as far as I'm concerned.
"Perhaps if scientists like you worried more about their science and less about other people's religion we'd actually have some advancements being made in western medicine."
This officially makes you a scumbag.
@ #2- Done.
Athanasius:
You do realize that cancer frequently has a way of curing itself sometimes, right? This is due to the human immune system. Which evolved. Not God.
Of course we can't know if your son's immune system cured him of his "diffuse pontine glioma", or the treatment of his doctors did, but I can assure you that prayers had absolutely nothing to do with it.
I really hope that once your son is well and healthy he grows up to be an atheist. Chances are he will. And if he does, he will think you are a fool.
Unless you have infinite knowledge it is kind of silly to take on the title of atheist...
Gawd, not this shit again! Hey, you must have infinite knowledge if you believe in God, right? Because how else can you be 100% ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that God exists?!
Next time you're thanking your invisible friend for saving your son, maybe you ought to ask him why he couldn't be bothered to do the same for everyone else. Or why it is that he only talks to arrogant idiots like yourself.
I am supposed to be a Libertarian? I thought I am a godless liberal. I am so confused. But I am not confused about god, I am certain it does not exist except in nightmares. I hate that infinite knowledge crap, it is such a stupid argument.
Paypal'd $20 bucks to them... it's kind of like flooding a poll.
I know this is hopelessly sinful but as an Evil Godless Libertarian I just donated $20 of my meager income to the cause even though I'm only worth roughly $19876139876319817613987613 BILLION dollars as an EVIL LIBERTARIAN!!! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Mainly because anyone who agrees with even the slightest hint of libertarian philosophy clearly == SATAN. I mean seriously...it's self-evident isn't it??? Right? RIGHT???
I know, I know, I'm going to go to Ayn Rand Hell, and I will be forever cursed and tortured/burned for all eternity by the Pharyngulian hordes now...but it was worth it!!!
The kid's wearing a Lightning sweater; as soon as I get the green-light from the wife I'm at least giving what I had planned on spending on gas and tickets to a game this season.
Done. Because nothing fails like prayer.
This sort of thing just doesn't happen to individuals here in the UK - best available cancer treatment, best facilities, and all free.
Erm, except for the fact that our survival rates for some cancers (prostate etc.) are significantly lower than those in the US; waiting lists are long; some of the newest drugs are not approved by NICE because they're too expensive; and many hospitals have serious problems with hygiene and maintenance.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Whether healthcare funding is provided by the state or by private insurance, you get what you pay for.
Sadly I don't have any money (invested a little too much on upgrading my computer) to spare, however I will as soon as I can. I hope he will recover from this horrible ordeal.
I'm glad I live in Sweden.
I would give my left nut to have access to Britain's NHS. I haven't been able to go to the doctor in nearly a decade. I just can't afford it, and I can't get health insurance to cover my "preexisting condition." I have a heritable autoimmune disease. The complications can be quite painful and will only get worse, as I'm only in my twenties. I honestly do not know what I'm going to do, and I've been stuck in this same uncertainty for years now.
It is personally insulting to me to see people like Walton complaining when they don't know how good they have it. It's like a rich kid complaining about how his parents only bought him a used Lexis when he turned 16.
#50
That's one thing I don't understand with people who say the American system with mostly private health insurances is superior to our public health insurance. In their system, not everyone can afford to get a good insurance, and even if they can, maybe they wont be accepted because they're sick. Of course, it's when you're sick that you need it the most, isn't it? A system that fails before you even had the chance to try it isn't very good, and certainly it's no better than ours, where every single citizen is covered, no matter if they are upper middle class or unemployed single parents. Do our system have flaws? Yes. Do people here want to replace it with a privatised system? Not really.
Obviously I meant to say "Does our system have flaws..."
I'm broke, haven't had a paycheque in a month (that didn't bounce) and I have $35.00 left in the bank.
I simply can't help financially.
Can anyone think of anything I can do to help that doesn't involve money?
Tell them to come to Belgium . As it is life threatening they get medical care for free. Requirement : stay here.
Indeed, Athanasius. Thanks for giving this child cancer, thanks for his parents living in the most advanced country in the world but still having to pay every last penny to cure their child of leukaemia, and above all thanks for sending you here to put us all right on his goodness and our blasphemous error.
What is the point of your witless post? Proseltyzing? Taking advantage of a family tragedy to chastize atheists because they don't acceot your silly fairy tales? Pride? A desire for more heaven points for you? Simple stupidity?
I'll be charitiable and go for the last - it's usually the best explanation for otherwise inexplicable behaviour.
If you do want to argue the toss (and "toss" is a good definition of your argument) please post on some other topic on this site where your position can be more easily considered, but not where we atheist are trying to help a sick child - as, by your thinking, we shouldn't.
Oh, and don't try bible verses, just argue your point. If you do have a good argument for the existence of your personal god - but, of course, no others - make it. Then I, and the other commentators here will eviscerate it. With style, panache, and wit.
But please, fuck off from this thread (you could, however, give money before departing)
See you soon - if you can handle it.
Whether healthcare funding is provided by the state or by private insurance, you get what you pay for. - Walton
Crap, Walton. In a private system, you pay the shareholders' dividends and the directors' huge salaries. You also have large numbers of unnecessary procedures done because they're profitable. The USA spends far more on health care per capita than any other large country, but ends up with lower life expectancies and higher infant mortality than most - hell, they're hardly better than Cuba's. But what the fuck, it's only the poor dying unnecessarily, and they're not really human, are they Walton? After all, you're ready to see them starved to death to maintain the sacred rights of property, as you yourself boasted.
Jimminy Christmas@45,
Well done, you just demonstrated the crass stupidity of "libertarianism" better than any of its opponents could have done. The point, fuckwit, is that private charity, however admirable, has never, anywhere, anytime, come near filling the role UHC plays in countries that have it.
There's a very interesting article on reforming the US healthcare system by one of my heroes, Dr Atul Gawanda, a surgeon who's written two great books.
Here's the ref:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande
I'll leave you the pleasure of discovering his other writings for yourslelves.
34*
'I'd say good luck to you all in finding what you're looking for, but I can't because I wouldn't mean it.'
Are not Christians wonderfully loving well rounded and balanced folk full of jeebus and willing to share?
Pity being jeebus is a gut turning stench reaching to high heaven...and his pappy is nowhere to be seen!
Kate:
"Can anyone think of anything I can do to help that doesn't involve money?"
You can sign up with the bone marrow donors registry. Its free. You give a blood sample. If they find a match, you give some bone marrow.
I'm going to be a stick-in-the-mud here. No, you should not donate to this family.
According to their site, they expect to be stuck with $30,000 in medical bills. The worst-case scenario, if they don't get any money, is that one child will die of cancer. The same $30,000, if given to Population Services International, can save the lives of at least thirty children who would have died of malaria.
Obviously, if you are given a choice between saving one life and saving thirty lives, you should save thirty lives. Anyone who donates to a charity that takes more than $1,000 to save a life has doomed someone to die that would otherwise have lived. Shut up and multiply. Donate to where it will make the most difference, not to whomever arouses your sympathy.
Oh, and by the way, I just donated $500 today.
Knockgoats @56:
A comprehensive Cato Institute paper that responds to your criticisms much better than I can:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf
I know you'll probably declare it evil corporate libertarian propaganda, and refuse to read it. But I'd be much more impressed if you were to actually read it and systemically, in detail, rebut the points it makes.
Yes, but not here, please.
N.Schuster:
I will contact my local Red Cross tomorrow morning. Thanks for the suggestion. I just hope that not being able to give blood doesn't prevent me from registering as a marrow donor.
Good for you, Doug. Now send what you just posted here to the family we're donating to. Please. Send it as a nice letter, on pretty paper, in a scented envelope.
Then, you ought to take your holier-than-thou attitude outside and play hide-and-go-fuck-yourself for a few hours.
I don't know how often you visit a hospital, Walton, but I've had Chronic pancreatitis for the last two years. I've had seven major attacks in that time and spent roughly a week in hospital each time. I've also had to visit another dozen times, roughly, for scans and out-patient appointments.
The hospital closest to where I live at the moment is considered one of the worst in the area, but I can only praise it. The care that I've had has been fantastic, and the appointments take less than week.
When I lived with my parents we had private health insurance (as well as paying in to the NHS), and I can honestly say that, despite the nice buildings, the service was no better, and in many cases much worse.
Excessive criticism is a British obsession, but if you talk to people who actually need long term health care, the overwhelming majority have nothing but praise for the NHS. Of course, if you believe the journalists who haven't stepped in an NHS hospital in their lives, more fool you.
Correcting myself at #62: "systemically" should of course read "systematically".
Why is this a "plea to the godless community" anyway? (Is there even such a thing as "the godless community"?) Is this about helping someone, or proving that atheists are charitable?
If you could convince the powers that be to create a national health service, you would be saving thousands of families instead of just one. Although I'm starting to think it can't be done.
It's true. Criticism of the NHS in Britain tends to be concentrated amongst those who haven't had to use the system as Damian has. And if he lived in the US he'd have had to sell his home and probably go bankrupt to finance his right to live.
Read the above link I provided to see how the NHS came about in Britain after the war, and with so little fuss. Unfortunately, it isn't really a model the US could follow (though that's not to say there isn't one :)
Kate:
I'll do that, if you'll send the same letter to the parents of the thirty children in Africa. And refund my postage.
If you want to do the right thing, shut up and multiply. (Note: that's a different link than before.)
Gosh, Athanasius. God really loves you, doesn't he? I mean, here's this omniscient omnipotent god, he lets thousands of children in Africa starve every day, he lets lots of other kids with cancer die, he let 9/11 and the Shoah and the Black Death happen. But he saved your son from cancer. Wow. That's some impressive standing you've got with the big guy.
Well, I guess this kid will be ok. You must be praying for him, since you didn't say anything about putting any money in the kitty. But then, why should you? He'll live or die according to god's will anyway. Anything we do (aside from praying) is futile.
Right?
post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Oh and i'm glad for you that your son is ok. One has to wonder, as Tualha mentions, why he doesn't save all kids who's parents pray for them?
Walton@62,
Well, I've read the Cato Institute crap you link to, and I'm unimpressed. It contains precisely one reference, and a few cherry-picked alleged facts, but it does not deal effectively with the central fact: the USA spends much more per capita than any other rich country, yet has worse life expectancy and infant mortality.
The excuse given by John Goodman, the author, is:
In the United States, life expectancy at birth for
African American men is 68 years, while for
Asian American men it’s 81 years. We find
wide differences in life expectancy among
women, too. Nobody thinks that those differences
are due to the health care system.
I most certainly do think those differences are in part due to the health care system: the richer you are, the better health care you will be able to pay for, and there are big differences in wealth between ethnic groups.
The propaganda screed does claim that deaths from breast and prostate cancer among those diagnosed are much lower in the USA than in other countries. Of course, this assumes the diagnoses are accurate: in the USA, there is considerable incentive to misdiagnose positively - because the treatment is profitable whether or not the patient actually has cancer. In the case of prostate cancer, many diagnoses are completely pointless: most prostate cancers are so slow-growing that the patient will die of something else long before they become troublesome, the investigations required for diagnosis are unpleasant, and the treatment risks impotence and incontinence. But, of course, it's profitable. One also needs to consider that the US population is considerably younger than that of western Europe - and survival of cancer is closely linked to age. Whether these factors can account for the whole of the differences, I don't know - there may well be areas in which the USA, with its vastly greater spending, does indeed do better - but the fact remains, lives are on average shorter, and more infants die.
A choice quote about UHC countries:
And there is no market
mechanism in these countries to get
care first to people who need it first.
Exactly how does a market do this? It gets care first to those willing to pay the most - but I guess to a "libertarian", need just is the amount you are willing and able to pay.
The sole reference given is to:
THE ELDERLY’S EXPERIENCES WITH HEALTH CARE
IN FIVE NATIONS
FINDINGS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH FUND
1999 INTERNATIONAL HEALTH POLICY SURVEY
Cathy Schoen, Erin Strumpf, Karen Davis, Robin Osborn,
Karen Donelan, and Robert J. Blendon
May 2000.
Goodman uses partial versions of four tables from the paper to argue that US elderly are more satisfied with their care than those elsewhere. The paper is
available at: http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/schoen_5nat_387.pdf.
Oddly enough, Goodman does not give the URL. Actually reading the paper, we discover a possible reason why. Here is the start of its "key findings":
Through Medicare, the United States provides nearly universal health insurance coverage for its 65-and-over population. Consequently, the U.S. elderly’s health
care experiences are generally comparable to those of the elderly in the other four countries.
Across an array of measures, the 1999 survey finds that the U.S. elderly’s reports of access
to and quality of care fall in the middle of the range for the five countries. In contrast, a
1998 survey of both the elderly and nonelderly populations in these same five nations
found much higher rates of access difficulties and costs concerns in the United States,
which generally trailed the universal-coverage nations.
In other words, John Goodman is a dishonest cherry-picking scumbag. What a surprise - who'd have thought it of a "libertarian"?
Tsk, tsk Rev. It's whose
Thanks, Knockgoats. I read the Cato paper myself and wrote a response. My response was considerably more vitriolic, so yours certainly shed more light than mine would have. Also I did not think to look at Schoen et al's paper and so missed how Goodman "ignored" the paper's conclusions.
@Walton #62
"A comprehensive Cato Institute paper that responds to your criticisms much better than I can"
I don't want to get into a big debate here, but the Cato paper is the usual true-believer spin the data in the direction you ideologically believe to be true. To debunk what they call the "myths" of public health care, they even start talking about Inuits and Maoris, as if anybody at the Cato cares about Inuits or Maoris.
They totally ignore any data in the other direction, like the fact that the US spends about twice as much per capita on health care as most countries. Look at the graphs on this page:
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php
The good news is that rent, insurance and pension has be taken from my account. The bad is that I have about €520 left for the rest of the month. Unless the kid's going into chemo toot-sweet, I think I'll wait a bit before forking over.
They totally ignore any data in the other direction, like the fact that the US spends about twice as much per capita on health care as most countries.
True - but surely the other side of the coin is that the US, due to the high consumer spending, ultimately funds a lot of the private sector R&D and the development of new drugs? Drug companies, ultimately, won't fund development unless they can recoup their costs by charging consumers. The US consumer essentially picks up the bill for the medical innovation that benefits all of us.
And I suspect that the life expectancy/mortality stats are somewhat misleading. Surely there are any number of factors other than the healthcare system which can affect those statistics? The US has more violent crime and more widespread use of dangerous drugs than many other countries, neither of which is anything to do with healthcare. The average American diet is also notoriously unhealthy, and obesity rates are very high; that's to do with how people take care of themselves (which is influenced by all sorts of cultural, climate and economic factors), not the availability of healthcare. It's rather silly, IMO, to simply compare US mortality rates with those of a number of other wealthy countries (including the tiny microstate of San Marino, which appears in the table you cite) and claim that the disparity is evidence that Americans get poorer health outcomes for their money.
Tsk, tsk Rev. It's whose
bah shit.
me fail english? that's unpossible
The Cato Institute? I remember Penn and Teller had them on their aptly named TV show "Bullshit!" to show how stupid the idea of climate change due to our interference is. Oh yes I'm going to listen to them alright.
Knockgoats:
Thanks for reading and responding to the report.
However, you ignore a couple of things the author of the report points out. For instance, he raises the point that the US hospital system is much more efficient at getting patients in and out quickly than the UK hospital system, where many beds are often filled with elderly patients waiting to be transferred to nursing care.
He also cites a study (though it would be helpful if he provided a footnote/reference, admittedly) showing that Kaiser Health in California spends about the same per capita on its enrollees as Britain spends on its population, but provides more care, more access to specialists and more services.
And he makes the claim that although Medicare and Medicaid only spend about 2% of their budget on administration, this is simply because the costs are shifted onto doctors and hospitals, and that, if these costs are taken into account, the federal schemes are highly inefficient. (Again, I don't know whether this is true, since he hasn't provided a reference. However, are you claiming that this is wrong? If so, can you show me statistics to the contrary?)
I agree with you that it would be nice if he'd bothered to provide proper citations for his claims. But you haven't actually shown me that his various comparisons are demonstrably wrong.
It does not appear to be free. http://www.marrow.org/HELP/Join_the_Donor_Registry/FAQs_about_Joining_t… says it costs $52 to become a donor.
Walton, are you on medication? You seem to be half OK sometimes, and then you go right back to being a smug asshole again.
You have no idea how American health care works. So let me tell you how it's unfolding for me. My husband got laid off his job last month. Friday we each received a letter warning us to find some way to pay over $800.00 per month for the coverage or we'll be dropped. See where this is headed. Who's gonna pay it Walton? You? Do you know what it costs to maintain a household per month? I doubt it.
When god starts picking up the tab I'll let you know.
(Sorry for the pissed off scolding to the rest of you.)
Patricia, I'm sorry, but I can't comment on your personal financial circumstances, since I don't know you. I don't think personalising the debate is going to help; I was trying to keep it on a dispassionate, academic level. I apologise if I came over as smug; it wasn't my intention.
I would admit that I have never lived in the US; nor do I have much experience of healthcare in general, being young, fit and healthy and not particularly accident-prone (I've never even broken a bone). So clearly I can't speak from personal experience, and I wasn't purporting to do so.
OT slightly, but I was slightly depressed by the quote that appeared in the sidebar a minute ago when I accessed this page:
Libertarians are just radical Right-wingers who have not one care for anything or anyone other than themselves. They are mostly asocial computer nerds who have spent the major portion of their lives sitting in their bedrooms wishing someone liked them. - Rack Jite
The first part of the quote is complete crap. However, I can't say the same of the second part, seeing as I admit to being an asocial computer nerd, and I'm sitting in my bedroom right now, alone, as usual. :-(
And in answer to your question, no, I'm not on medication. Just slightly unstable and naturally prone to mood swings.
Yes, the US hospital system is notorious for failing to treat patients. There is a profit incentive to give people as little treatment as possible for as much money as possible. This is a bug, not a feature, unless you are in the insurance industry.
Cute how that works. Walton already agrees with the Cato's biases, so their assertions are assumed correct until proven otherwise. And yet Walton is sure he is not biased.
fd:
When I signed up, I didn't have to pay anything. Of course that was years ago. Maybe the policy changed.
And yet Walton is sure he is not biased.
When did I ever say I wasn't biased?
I believe in freedom, from a deontological standpoint. I believe in the sanctity of private property, self-ownership, and the importance of keeping coercive interference in people's lives to a minimum. I believe that voluntary transactions, to mutual advantage, are inherently superior to forced obedience to the commands of government.
I therefore will always oppose any expansion in the size and power of government, unless those who advocate it can conclusively prove that there is no other possible way to avoid significant human suffering. The onus of proof is, therefore, always on those who call for more coercive government programmes, to prove that there are no non-coercive means by which problems can be solved. So yes, I presume that freedom is superior to coercion, until it is proved to me, in any one instance, that coercion is superior to freedom.
That's the thing about being smug. It's never anyone's intention. It happens because you don't think about other people, you don't think about how your words can hurt others, and you don't realize that you sound like, as one put it, "a rich kid complaining about how his parents only bought him a used Lexis when he turned 16."
Smugness is further compounded when you try to take the moral high ground by saying that you (who are privileged enough to have not been harmed by shitty health care) are trying to keep the discussion academic and dispassionate, while those who have been harmed are ruining everything by discussing their emotions and their actual effects of your preferred policies upon their lives. How dare they.
Was it the same organization? That was just the first thing I found on google with 'bone marrow donor'.
Walton,
I've shown the author is a dishonest scumbag. Why the fuck would I want to spend time crawling through the rest of the shit he produces?
For instance, he raises the point that the US hospital system is much more efficient at getting patients in and out quickly than the UK hospital system, where many beds are often filled with elderly patients waiting to be transferred to nursing care.
Getting patients out quickly does not equal efficiency: if you discharge them too soon, the risk of them having to return - or dying - is greater. Nor, incidentally, is it a good idea to have every bed occupied; that means that if you have - say - a flu epidemic, you don't have enough beds If you weren't so ignorant, you'd know that a lot of the elderly are in hospital in the UK because of the end of free nursing care outside hospital. The solution is to reinstate the latter.
He also cites a study (though it would be helpful if he provided a footnote/reference, admittedly) showing that Kaiser Health in California spends about the same per capita on its enrollees as Britain spends on its population, but provides more care, more access to specialists and more services.
He does not cite this "study" - that means giving a reference. I recall seeing a demolition of it - it was IIRC carried out by private health shills - but I'm not going to look for it right now. Your tactic here is obvious - raise as many hares as you can and tell me to chase them down. Look, you provided a link, I proved that the author is a dishonest shit - you might at least have the decency to admit that when I provide clear evidence of it. I know you too well to think that any quantity or quality of evidence is going to change your mind - you are an impenetrably stupid and utterly callous ideologue.
Well, at least I'm not smug.
Walton@87,
Thanks for so neatly proving my assertion that you are an impenetrably stupid and utterly callous ideologue.
It happens because you don't think about other people, you don't think about how your words can hurt others, and you don't realize that you sound like, as one put it, "a rich kid complaining about how his parents only bought him a used Lexis when he turned 16."
Yes, I'll confess to that charge. I apologise. I'm not the best person when it comes to empathy or social skills, and have a tendency to be insensitive (hence why I spend most of my time on the Internet rather than in the real world). So I apologise to everyone who was hurt or annoyed by my tone.
This, however...
I know you too well to think that any quantity or quality of evidence is going to change your mind - you are an impenetrably stupid and utterly callous ideologue.
...I find objectionable. The more longstanding commenters here will tell you that I've changed even in the last year; a year ago I was a fairly orthodox right-wing conservative, and a believing Christian. Now I'm a hardcore libertarian and a non-religious deist. So I do change my mind over time - as do most people - when presented wiht compelling arguments and evidence. I don't doubt that my conclusions do suffer from a certain amount of subconscious confirmation bias; but so do most people's. All of us have preconceived ideas.
And btw, how did everyone manage to make this a discussion about me, rather than about the issues? (No doubt someone will now latch onto it and call me a narcissist, as has happened before. However, for the record, I'd much rather be talking about healthcare.)
Except in the case where reducing the power of government reduces women's suffering.
Friday we each received a letter warning us to find some way to pay over $800.00 per month for the coverage or we'll be dropped.
And somehow we're supposed to believe that this is better than paying taxes. We can't have a national health service because it would mean "higher taxes". No one ever says how much higher. People who think it's un-American to pay a few extra dollars in taxes apparently have no problem expecting someone without a job to pay $800 a month to a health insurance company. That's more than my friggin' mortgage.
Actually you already answered your own question:
Your libertarianism derives from your self-centeredness. Discussion of the ideology needs to show where it comes from and what purpose it serves (in this case, making you feel dispassionate and above the plebs).
Often a distinction without a difference. What specific policies have you shifted on?
Not personalise it?! Are you kidding. Do you not know this is happening to people by the hundreds of thousands here in the USA? My neighbors are being evicted because the house they rent is being foreclosed. Should I just ignore the them crying?
Wake up Walton. Perhaps you should examine the possibility that you are alone so much because people can tell you're without compassion for anyone but yourself.
Your libertarianism derives from your self-centeredness. Discussion of the ideology needs to show where it comes from and what purpose it serves (in this case, making you feel dispassionate and above the plebs).
Ah, more amateur psychoanalysis (about on a par with "conservatives are all sexually frustrated fat men", another foolish nostrum I've seen on this site before). I'm fed up of going on the defensive when faced with baseless comments like this.
If I span this around and started ranting about how left-wing beliefs were founded on emotion rather than reason, and an irrational desire to punish those who create wealth and benefit from their own success, promoting statist policies that make everyone poorer in the long run, you would, rightly, excoriate me. (And you'd be right, since, like most generalisations, what I just said is substantially a load of bullshit, though it contains kernels of truth. The exact same is true of your little psychoanalytic exercise.)
I don't endorse that equation of body weight with ideology, but you were hardly a counterexample.
This. Better said than I could.
Often a distinction without a difference. What specific policies have you shifted on?
I'm now totally in favour of same-sex marriage; I support the legalisation of marijuana; I'm pretty much pro-open borders on immigration; I support a strong separation of church and state; and I'm opposed to governmental intervention in people's personal lives and choices generally, as well as the economy. I've also become more pro-choice (I certainly support elective abortion in the first trimester, at any rate). And I'm less populist, and now favour entrenchment of basic (albeit purely negative) rights and liberties even against the will of the majority, since I would now argue that the most important thing is to constrain governmental interference in people's lives.
There's one thing I can be sure of, and be thankful for. I'll never be locked up in the same nursing home with Sir Walton the Clueless.
Should the federal government pass a law making same-sex marriage legal in every state and territory, overriding the state ballot initiatives which have placed "marriage is between a man and a woman" into state constitutions? What if the Supreme Court ruled these state constitutions to be in violation of the federal constitution, and threw them all out in one judicial ruling?
What if the federal drug enforcement agency was dissolved, but a state like Texas wanted to continue to bust and prosecute marijuana users? Would that be okay? Would it be okay if the federal Supreme Court ruled that Texas did not have that authority?
Should workers across national borders be allowed to form international unions, and coordinate general strikes in multiple countries, for the purposes of dissolving the WTO or overturning free trade agreements?
That's not saying much, but can you prove that this wasn't already your stance?
Fd @104: Hmm, interesting questions.
Should the federal government pass a law making same-sex marriage legal in every state and territory, overriding the state ballot initiatives which have placed "marriage is between a man and a woman" into state constitutions?
If by "law" you mean "constitutional amendment" then yes, I'd support that, though I doubt there'd be a hope of ever getting it passed. If you only mean an Act of Congress, then surely it would be constitutionally ineffective?
What if the Supreme Court ruled these state constitutions to be in violation of the federal constitution, and threw them all out in one judicial ruling?
No, for two reasons. Firstly, it would be legally dubious. I don't subscribe to the Roe v Wade-esque "living constitution" school of thought. Constitutionally entrenched rights are meant to be basic, fundamental liberties which are recognised by a broad consensus and deeply ingrained in society; they're not meant to be invented on the whims of the judges, with constructions that are a million miles from what the document's framers intended. Even where I support the recognition of a given right in principle, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of implying something into the Constitution which does not follow from the wording or context of the text itself. There's a certain truth to the cynical maxim "the Constitution is what the judges say it is".
Secondly, I think we can take the lesson from Roe that it hasn't solved anything; thirty years on, there's still deep-rooted ill-feeling, and constant conflict between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, providing more fuel to the "culture wars" which are such a destructive force in American politics. The same would happen if the SCOTUS imposed same-sex marriage by judicial fiat; thirty years on, cultural conservatives and cultural progressives would still be battling it out in the war of ideas. So no - while I'd like to see same-sex marriage legalised everywhere, I don't think the judicial route is the way to go.
What if the federal drug enforcement agency was dissolved, but a state like Texas wanted to continue to bust and prosecute marijuana users? Would that be okay? Would it be okay if the federal Supreme Court ruled that Texas did not have that authority?
Like most things, it should be left to the states.
Should workers across national borders be allowed to form international unions, and coordinate general strikes in multiple countries, for the purposes of dissolving the WTO or overturning free trade agreements?
Yes, if they want to. I'm a believer in total freedom of association; people should have the right to join whatever union, society or group they choose, national or international.
However, what I do not believe is that unions should have any special legal privileges or protection, over and above that possessed by any other group. If an employer wants to ban his or her employees from being union members, the law should not prevent this. (Conversely, like Milton Friedman, I also oppose right-to-work laws in principle; if a private employer chooses to make membership in a union a condition of employment, he or she should be entitled to.)
Ultimately, the state's role in labour market affairs, and in economic affairs more generally, should merely be that of a neutral referee, upholding the law and enforcing contracts. It should not favour either side, nor attempt to "redress the balance" between employer and employee.
I, of course, strongly support the WTO and free trade agreements, and think that protectionism of any sort is highly destructive. But, in a free society, people are perfectly entitled to hold the opposite opinion and to form groups to advance that opinion.
I have to wonder why you're quizzing me as if I were running for office?
(Addendum to q1: I would totally support the repeal of DOMA. It's pointless crap, and is also arguably unconstitutional. Indeed, it's highly embarrassing to all sane libertarians that Bob Barr drafted it and then ran for President on the Libertarian ticket - what a joke.)
Can't afford much but just dropped $10 in, hope it helps.
FSM I hate libertarian ramblings when we SHOULD be talking about a kid with cancer. However apparently a sick kid is less important than their ideology. Have you ever really thought just how much you're like communists? Utopianism is utopianism regardless of the philosophy behind it and it all relies on people not acting like people.
"Posted by: fd | February 8, 2009 1:04 PM
fd:
When I signed up, I didn't have to pay anything. Of course that was years ago. Maybe the policy changed.
Was it the same organization? That was just the first thing I found on google with 'bone marrow donor'."
I'm registered with Bone Marrow Donor's Registry. What might have happened was that the religious organization that was sponsoring the donor drive also paid for the testing.
#53 Kate: Volunteer your time at a children's hospital or get yourself on the bone marrow registry. Won't help this particu;ar child unless you live in his area but it'll help other kids.
Noadi @107 - Amen! I'm sick of libertarian screeds taking over almost every thread too.
Just to demonstrate what a hypocrite you are. It's politically correct to call one's self a libertarian, but it rarely means the person believes in individual freedom, rather a different sort of tyranny.
A very predictable response, under which gay people have to wait for the approval of homophobes in 3/4 of the states to grant them recognition of their own individual rights. Very typical "libertarian" tyranny of the hegemonic majority.
Then you have to oppose the ruling of Loving v. Virginia, which found the states could not outlaw interracial marriage, as marriage was a fundamental human right. By your formulation, the judges just invented the right for blacks to marry whites, since it's not in the Constitution. So under your regime, blacks and whites in Southern states would have had to wait for legislatures to grant them the right to marry (who knows if Mississippi would have done it yet).
There's your callous disregard for human life again, coupled with the idiotic notion that racial minorities have to wait for racists to approve of them before they can have their rights.
Or you can accept Loving v. Virginia, but then you allow marriage as a right that's already recognized under the Constitution, and you assent to the Supreme Court granting it to gay people by a stroke of the pen.
Again the disregard for actual women's lives as lived. Roe has solved nearly everything, because women have had access to abortion in the 30 years since Roe. See, that's what you forgot. You forgot that this wasn't an academic matter, but that there are actual women's lives in the balance, and those women have been enjoying the benefit of the Supreme Court's recognition of their medical privacy this whole time. If you would stop and think about people's actual lives for once, you couldn't have said something so stupid as "Roe hasn't solved anything."
Assholes are still complaining about the results of the Civil War, 140 years on. People like you are still complaining that unions have legally protected bargaining power, 70 year later, and that was passed by a normal act of congress, with no court intervention, so the "legislature good, judiciary bad" meme is irrelevant to societal acceptance and you know it. The Society of St. Pius X are still fighting a culture war because the Jews killed Jesus, nearly 2000 years after the alleged fact. Struggles never end, dude. Scores are never settled. Grudges never die. What matters in the meantime is how the rest of us manage to scrape by in our meager lives. You would make women wait for the approval of misogynists, and make gays wait for the approval of homophobes. That approval is never going to come, or if it does, it will come centuries too late.
You would in fact insist that real people live their whole lives under the oppression of people who hate them, rather than bringing in the hand of justice to make things right. Typical libertarian tyranny.
Which means that you don't support the legalization of marijuana at all. You don't care if a government imprisons individuals and steals their property for personal use of an herb, as long as that government is one step down from the federal level. You aren't a libertarian, dude. I don't think you even understand what the word means. You are just an anti-federalist. It's a very different thing.
But you do recognize the existence of an imbalance; the haves can withhold from the have-nots, and thereby enforce starvation upon the weaker, but not vice versa. No problem, property precedes life to you and your kind.
By the way, Walton, how about you just once have the courage of your convictions, and write a letter to your MP saying that you support full marriage recognition for gay couples. Would you do that?
Athanasius #34
You're wrong, it did touch me. But only the part about your child being ill.
The wonderfully informed "medical professionals" can't perform hokey-pokey and make everything better but they can, and do, look into what can be done. You don't know that they didn't help any more than you know that god did. And don't forget your son's body has resources of its own to fight diseases. I'm very, very glad your son is healthy.
Incidently, I do call myself an atheist because the existance of god simply doesn't make any sense to me.
Good grief! Could you be any more idiotic than that statement? How does one exclude the other? You can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Plus, why should anyone work hard on medical research when your god will take care of it anyway?
Donated $10US - wishing him and his family all the very best.
Shiobhan
Pardon the cynic in me but I’ve seen these requets for money from parents of a dying child float around the internet before. They are usually scams. Besides, if this child has leukemia, god will provide.
Oh, FUCK OFF, Walton. You constantly speak as if you know what the fuck you are talking about, then you turn around and say, SURPIRSE! You have no fucking clue. You are an idiot. Stop talking about US healthcare. You have no idea what you are talking about, you priviliged asshole.
'Til it comes to a woman's right to choose, of course.
Again, until it comes to a woman's right to choose.
You're not a libertarian. You're just a self-centered ass who only cares about things that effect him.
I kicked in $50. I'm always happy to support a hockey family!
These kids need platelet donations too - check with your local Red Cross donation center and make an appointment for apheresis, you won't regret it.
Sorry, PZ, for mentioning libertarianism. I was just trying to draw a parallel between that and other useless religions, especially when lives are on the line. I was not trying to create troll-bait.
For the living constitution folks, why did the states bother to ratify the 19th amendment?
Because the Supreme Court wasn't doing its activist job at the time. There's more than one way to skin a patriarch.
No amendment would have been necessary if five of the nine justices would have recognized that voting is, for all people, an inalienable right under natural law.
Are you familiar with the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? I'd hope your lecturer or tutor in Constitutional Law might have mentioned it. In case you haven't got around it it yet, here it is:
In The Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton argued against a Bill of Rights, worrying that if rights were listed, people like you would think it was an inclusive list, no other rights to be allowed. So the Ninth Amendment was specifically put into the Bill of Rights to deal with Hamilton's objection.
Your argument was considered over two hundred years ago and a Constitutional remedy was provided.
Fd @112: I can understand your points; but you did ask me a series of very US-specific questions. Bear in mind that I'm not actually American; I live in the UK, where we do not have a federal system of government or a written constitution, so the politico-legal situation is dramatically different.
If I were drafting a constitution from scratch - or, indeed, writing one for the UK, since we don't have an entrenched codified constitutional document in the manner other countries do - I would certainly include a provision for freedom of personal relationships, and equal treatment thereof before the law (protecting, therefore, both interracial and gay marriage). I absolutely believe in full equal recognition of all types of formal consensual relationship between consenting adults, and I think this principle should be constitutionally protected and enforced by the courts even against the will of the democratic majority.
However, you asked me a much more specific question regarding US federal law. In the end, the role of the US federal courts - like the court system of any jurisdiction, unless its constitution expressly otherwise provides - is not to enforce fundamental human rights, principles of morality and justice, or anything of that nature. It is to enforce the United States Constitution, and all law created subject to the authority of that constitution. It exists to enforce constitutional rights, not moral rights. And so the fact that you and I, qua political activists, are in favour of marriage equality does not mean that you or I, qua judges or legal scholars, would be legally justified in deciding that the US Constitution contains provision for marriage equality. I am trying to emphasise the fact that there is a difference between one's political opinions and one's legal opinions; between what we think the law is, and what we would like it to be.
Lest you accuse me of being a hypocrite, or picking-and-choosing; yes, I would take this to its logical conclusion. Until the Thirteenth Amendment, slavery was a perfectly constitutional practice in the United States - and so, despicable as this may sound, I would actually assert that the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v Sandford was probably correct in law to uphold the constitutionality of slavery. The fact that I personally find slavery abhorrent has no bearing on the fact that, until the 13th and 14th Amendments, it was not unconstitutional under US law. This is a matter of legal fact, not of moral principle; the job of the court is to declare what the law is, not what it ought to be.
Likewise, I personally hate the public policy implications of Kelo v City of New London, in which the Supreme Court ruled that public authorities were entitled to use eminent domain powers to confiscate property from one person and give it to another for economic development purposes. Yet I would concede that, on a legal level, the reasoning in Kelo was perfectly sound; and so I accept the correctness of the decision in law. Would I like to see a constitutional amendment banning eminent domain completely? Yes, I would. But the fact is that US law, at present, allows the exercise of eminent domain - just as it allows the states to prohibit same-sex marriage. And so the SCOTUS in Kelo was absolutely right to uphold the legality of eminent domain.
I may, of course, be talking absolute crap: and there are other arguments which one must consider. One can argue, for instance, that the Anglo-American common law protects certain fundamental rights and liberties, independent of any enumeration in any constitutional document; the Ninth Amendment would seem to support this conclusion. However, I think it's worth noting that in Roe itself the Supreme Court rejected this argument, the majority opinion holding that "[t]he Ninth Amendment does not create federally enforceable rights." And even if we do accept the notion of fundamental common law rights, I doubt the right to abortion or to same-sex marriage can sensibly be viewed as a "traditional liberty" without taking a severely ahistorical approach to the English law tradition.
Another argument - with which I have great sympathy - is that there are certain normative limits which ought always to be placed on governmental power, in any country and any society; and that the courts ought to enforce these limits, regardless of what the existing law is. At the extreme, some philosophers of law will argue that there are certain non-contestable fundamental rights, which draw their origin not from any constitutional document but from basic moral principles, and that the courts, through the adjudicative process, are best fitted to identify and enforce these principles (this is a very simplified version of the argument made by, inter alia, Ronald Dworkin). But I consider this to be rather unconvincing. What are these "fundamental human rights" which exist independently of any constitution? Lots of people assert, in the abstract, that such rights exist; but no one can agree on what exactly they are, nor is it easy to justify, deontologically, how we know that these "fundamental rights" exist and that they form principles by which we should guide our conduct.
I'm sorry for this waffling answer (I'm starting to feel like I'm writing a jurisprudence essay!), but you seem rather keen to talk about law, so I'm obliging. For those of us who believe in limited government and individual liberties, there is, quite simply, no perfect solution. Individual liberties can, and must, be enshrined in constitutional law and protected by the courts, even against the will of an overwhelming majority; that's one area where libertarians and liberals of all stripes tend to agree. But where people tend to diverge is over what, exactly, the content of these constitutionally protected rights should be. Should the right to abortion be protected? How far should civil liberties extend? Should the law protect 'positive rights' such as a right to healthcare or education (I, of course, think not; but many people disagree, and they have their reasons)? The problem with the Roe v Wade-esque approach is that, taken to its logical conclusion, it effectively gives the courts the sole authority to make these kinds of politically-charged decisions. I'm wary of throwing around the phrase "judicial activism", because the courts can, and should, make the correct legal decisions, and uphold constitutional rights, even where this has controversial political implications; I wouldn't claim in the slightest that "judges should stay out of politics". But we get into more dangerous territory when judges start manufacturing rights, IMO. They shouldn't be asking "is this morally right?"; rather, they should be asking "is this permitted by the US Constitution?", because it is from the Constitution that they derive their authority.
I realise some of this completely contradicts things I've said on other threads, so don't be surprised if I end up calling bullshit on myself and coming up with a completely different answer next week. I'm very fickle. :-)
Tis Himself: IIRC, Justice Douglas in Roe v Wade itself specifically said "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights," rejecting the lower court's finding that the right to an abortion was an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
In any case, see my (rather long-winded response) to fd above.
fd: if five of the nine justices would have recognized that voting is, for all people, an inalienable right under natural law.
That's exactly my point: how do you know what is, and isn't, "an inalienable right under natural law"? This is why I'm highly sceptical of natural law theorists in general; I've never yet seen any good empirical justification for the proposition that there is any such thing as "natural law", or any "natural rights". And the inherent problem with accepting this theory is that people disagree, in good faith, over what these alleged natural rights are, how they should be balanced against one another, and how they should be enforced. This is why written constitutions, with entrenched bills of rights, are necessary; and why, contrary to the Dworkinian approach, courts should avoid departing from the clear wording and meaning of the relevant text itself.
Most people who believe in "natural law" would agree with you that voting is a natural right for all people. But what else is a natural right? Is abortion a natural right? Is free healthcare a natural right? People disagree in good faith about these matters, and I defy you to show me, empirically, that there is one, objectively correct, uncontestable view of rights, and that all other views are categorically wrong.
The objection to Dred Scott wasn't that it upheld slavery. The problem was that Chief Justice Taney did something you should abhor. He indulged in "legislating from the bench." He ruled that all blacks were
Scott's case was tossed because he didn't have standing since he was black.
Once this decision, however odious, was made, the case should have been settled. But that wasn't good enough for Taney. Despite the conclusion that the Court lacked jurisdiction, however, it went on to hold that Scott was not a free man, even though he had resided for a time in Minnesota, because the provisions of the Missouri Compromise declaring it to be free territory were beyond Congress's power to enact. The Court rested its decision on the grounds that Congress's power to acquire territories and create governments within those territories was limited, and that the Fifth Amendment barred any law that would deprive a slaveholder of his property, such as his slaves, because he had brought them into a free territory. The Court went on to state, although the issue was not before the Court, that the territorial legislatures had no power to ban slavery.
Curtis, in dissent, attacked that part of the Court's decision as obiter dicta, on the ground that once the Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's case its only recourse was to dismiss the action, not to pass judgment on the merits of his claims.
Although Taney believed that the decision would settle the slavery question once and for all, it produced the opposite result. It strengthened the opposition to slavery in the North, divided the Democratic Party on sectional lines, encouraged secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party. The American Civil War broke out three years after Dred Scott was decided.
PZ,
Just want to take a second to say thank you for posting this. Sadly it seems that childhood cancer, even being the terrible disease it is, gets very little recognition or support. Even here, at the oncology ward, both Childhood Cancer Awareness and Leukemia and Lymphoma Awareness (both September), went by without even a mention. But of course come October there were pink boxes everywhere (and sadly this is a children's hospital).
My own child is currently fighting AML, and it has been a long 10 months. If I could please make two requests. 1) those of you turning this into a political/religious debacle, please STOP! Take your religion or lack there of to another post. 2) Those who are able, please make blood and platelet donations. Also consider signing up for the marrow registry. It is even more important than financial donations. One of the many side effects of chemo; Kids with cancer go through an unbelievable amount of blood products.
Best of luck to Scott and his family.
RJH
$20.......and I'm currently unemployed so I am sure some of you with pay checks can do better.
fd @ 124
>>>No amendment would have been necessary if five of the nine justices would have recognized that voting is, for all people, an inalienable right under natural law.
See the problem in this statement? No amendments are really necessary at all, as long as there are five justices (human, therefore mortal, biased, inconsistent, and passionate) who will consistently say what are and are not our rights.
Except they aint consistent. What is consistent is, well, writing it down. And then interpreting it as best as was meant when it was written.
Look, I dont quibble with evolving standards of norms, mores, culture and their consequences on the law. But we need to be as objective and consistent as we can be. Ceding huge responsibility to a mere five human beings to put on their decoder rings and ken rights out of the intersections and juxtapositions of legal penumbras, visible to only those who paid enough dough for the best law school education, does not strike me as a particularly good way to go about this.
I love the declaration of Independence as much as the next
American. The word, inalienable, strong as it is I find a bit misleading. We (humans) stood up and took our rights. From the big men, the kings, the monarchs, the Popes, the men who kept them from us. We retrospectively assume that such rights are inalienable, granted from God, granted because we are human, whatever. Reality is different. We carved them out after this imperfect consensus building. We are not done. Nothing wrong with documenting them as we go, mistakes and all.
When the constitution was written, the writers purposely excluded non white males. This was the first draft of rights. We edited that, when our minds changed on these things. Our debt to the founders was not that every word they wrote was unassailable, but that they gave us something at once of enduring strength yet not sclerotic in its rigidity in the U.S. Constitution.
Thank you PZ, and thank you to all Pharyngula readers who have donated to our family over the last few days. The support we have received has been incredible. $4000 was raised to help pay some of the medical costs incurred during my son’s on-going treatment for t-cell leukemia.
This is yesterday’s update from http://skittlesupdate.blogspot.com/
4 days ago I put up the PayPal link, I wrote an explanation as to why I felt that we had to ask for help. I contacted someone who I have the utmost respect for and to whom I thought might be able to get the word out.
Well, my goodness, I never thought for one moment that this plea would, within hours, turn into a sort of mini ScottAid. The support from Dr. P Z Myers and his readers at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ has been overwhelming. Not only have we received donations but also many emails of comfort and support from around the world. Most of the donations were for $5 or $10, several were substantially larger, and it just goes to show how every little bit really does help. A total of just under $4000 has been donated!! David, Derry, Scott and I are gobsmacked and have absolutely no idea how to say thank you and let you SEE just how amazed and grateful we are. I wish I could line up everyone who chipped in or sent us a message and give you all a big cuddle.
Like I said in my previous post, we have become bogged down in medical debt. For a while we managed to stay afloat but there comes a point where you have used up all your rainy-day money and all of your families too! These donations have relieved a great deal of stress and will go a long way in helping us keep the wolf from the door.
Obviously our main concern here is Scott’s health and wellbeing. He has suffered so much in the last few years, first the dog-attack, then cancer and the side effects, a stroke, shingles, the death of his Dad and Granddad, fungal pneumonia and more recently cerebral edema. Thankfully he has a twisted sense of humor and can see a funny side to all of it – well sometimes at least – other days he just feels doomed. Oh hell, I’m waffling on again and can’t quite remember where I was going with this. I think what I’m trying to say is that the bottom line is Scott being well, and Derry too obviously, and David, and me! Health is everything. Yet, believe me it sucks when your child is seriously ill AND the debt collectors won’t stop bloody calling. No-one can wave a magic wand and guarantee a cure, but what people have done is simply shown their humanity and said, “Sure, I’ll give you a helping hand”. I just hadn’t expected so many hands!
Thank you PZ and all at Pharyngula.
And to those who asked, yes I am an atheist. My beliefs are not so apparent at our blog as to not cause offense. Atheists are quite a rare breed, especially among families immersed in the world of pediatric cancer!! Hell, even our oncologist advised me to pray! Every now and then I’ll sneak something in, but for the most part I just journal about Scott and his treatment. I find great comfort at Pharyngula, whilst I don’t comment here; I simply read,learn and get comfort from knowing that I am not so alone in my atheist beliefs.
Thank you again, you have been wonderful. I will never forget your kindness.
I donated today. I made it one of my Darwin Donations.
This is such a moving thank you note. Words sent straight from the heart. I too know of many such families who are bogged down with medical debt due to having treatment in foreign countries. However, to thank those who so generously donated is wonderful. Thank goodness for such warm, wonderful citizens.
I wish Scott a speedy recovery.
A few people in the comments brought up bone marrow registries as an option. A few points: