Cheyenne Reports on his LiveJournal:
Hello my most surprising internet friendsIf you want to contribute to help Cheyenne avoid bankruptcy when the medical bills come, you can donate through Paypal at arcanetimes at gmail.com.
As many of you may know, On Tues, February 23rd I became so ill that I was hospitalized. My feet legs and midsection were swelling with water. A nagging cough that had been hanging on for a month turned into a relentless dry hacking and I lost the ability to travel even short distances without needing to sit down to calm my breathing
after 3 days of observation I have been sent home with an Easter basket of medications. Looking over them all It's hard to say what they think I got. No doctor ever came forward and said "THIS one thing" was the culprit. We know my heart is big and floppy, possibly from years of stress deadlines and High Blood pressure, or just as likely for a guy my age - it's a virus. They don't know.
Now at home the swelling is down, but is still being controlled with "water pills" that are supposed to make me pee like a race horse. The Dry hacking cough has turned "flemmy" which I prefer -- get the stuff out of me I say -- but it's also more painful. I have a basket of Meds for Blood pressure, Cholesterol, Borderline Diabetes, and Antibotics, flu shots, N1H1. I got it all. Maybe one will do the trick -- if not back to the hospital I go. I guess.
<SOAP BOX>There is no union for a guy like me, A freelance artist. There is no easy 401K, no dental, no health care. All Eli and I have is our diligent scrimping and saving of every dime to plan for a future.
This one stumble could undo all of our hard work. Why? Because how the American system has chosen to take care of each other in this country is so fundamentally broken, it's like a Greek tragedy. Call/Write to your Senator or Congress Person and tell them that we can not continue to live this way. What is the United States of America if not the largest trade union on the planet? WE the people need that bargaining power. -- Universal Health Care - for all.</SOAP BOX>
NOW THAT'S OUT OF THE WAY....
What I wanted to talk about was you guys. Oh my god. the outpouring of love and support I have received in the past three days has me on the verge of tears. You are all such beautiful awesome people, and I can not thank you enough. Money has been coming in from the Donation Link that the Foglios set up. Which will go a long way to prevent my total financial collapse. I truly feel like George Baily at the end of "It's a Wonderful Life" surrounded by so many friends. It's a lonsome life as a freelance artist. And you seldom get a chance to see what kind of an effect you have on other peoples lives. Thank you all so much
Cheyenne
17 comments:
Speaking as an Australian, enjoying a sensible public health system augmented by not-unreasonable private health insurance, I have to say: the number one way to help people like this is to hunt down every Republican politican and slap them until they turn blue in the face, and then demand that they stop bending over for the insurance companies and just do what they were elected to do, which is to represent the people of your country. The intelligent people, not the ones who think universal health care is a kind of socialism, because those people deserve the health system they've got. But the rest. Support Obama because he's the only one who has a plan. Even if the plan isn't all that good, it's better than the GOP's non-plan.
That is all. I return you to your regularly scheduled pugblogging...
I feel for Cheyenne, I really do, but why does the answer have to be universal health care?
Wouldn't it be better to start with, "Why can't Cheyenne afford health insurance on his own?" Shouldn't we start there?
What if health insurance were as affordable as auto insurance? Which I am assuming he has if he drives. Before we saddle everyone with a system where it will limit choices, why don't we look for answers on why insurance is so expensive? (i.e. insurance mandates in every state).
Wouldn't it make more sense for someone that doesn't want insurance (say the 20 year-old) to be able to buy coverage that just covers catastrophic care? Basically it is like life insurance. The longer you wait to get it the more expensive it is. This is what responsible adults would do if they had a choice in buying relatively inexpensive insurance. This would also make sure you get in on the coverage early and then pre-existing conditions wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't be a preexisting condition because you had coverage this whole time.
If I were a 20 year-old male, why should I have insurance coverage for pregnancy, or any other womenly related illness. Doesn't it make sense for the insurance company to be able to tailor a plan to exactly my needs and my risk threshold?
Before we give something many don't want to everyone, why don't we try an actual solution to the problem.
Because even if we go to universal health-care it will cost too much anyway. That is how things are that are too good to be true. Just look at the budgets in Europe. They are being continually saddled with enormous costs because of their universal coverage. Now instead of bankrupting individuals with spiraling costs, it is bankrupting entire nations.
All I am asking for is a discussion, an honest discussion, on the merits of universal coverage. Everyone thinks just because it passes everyone will be covered. Too an extent it is true, but at what cost?
We already know that universal coverage is expensive. If we do it we need to get rid of something else. Are we ready to give up Social Security? Schools?
Something has got to give. There isn't enough money for all this, and I think people are finally realizing this.
Just because it is universal health care does not mean it is free.
Every other civilized country has universal health care. And you know why? Because it's a moral obligation to provide the most basic services to all of society.
The health care costs in this country are insane because the insurance companies are making a HUGE profit off of letting people die. They make profits by refusing coverage. Health insurance should NEVER be a profit-driven industry.
If I were a 20 year-old male, why should I have insurance coverage for pregnancy, or any other womenly related illness.
Because you are civilized? Otherwise, you are just a brute who thinks that it's every person for themselves, let the poor die. *whine* "why should I have to pay for icky women? they have cooties!" *whine*
Because even if we go to universal health-care it will cost too much anyway.
Only if you are morally bankrupt and think that keeping people alive is too expensive, which is the conclusion I'm coming to reading your rant. You seem to sincerely believe that people don't deserve to be covered.
Besides, universal health care would be WAY cheaper per capita than our current wasteful system, unless you believe all the lying right-wing propaganda. Strangely, the truth tends to lean left in this country.
Just look at the budgets in Europe.
Yes, just look at Europe. I'll give you a clue, it isn't health care that's sinking their budgets.
We already know that universal coverage is expensive.
Actually, no. It's considerably cheaper than the system we have now. Only people who haven't really looked at the numbers claim otherwise. The American health care system is the most expensive per capita in the whole frigging WORLD and it doesn't even cover every citizen.
So, yeah, I'm for universal health care. I'm actually 100% for single payer and I'm LIVID that it was taken off the table. I think that for-profit health care is immoral and the way it's been run the last few years is in fact actively evil. I think all for-profit health insurance corporations should be held responsible for the deaths they've caused, with their CEOs and leadership spending a few years in prison for every preventable death.
And I think *something* has to change now. Otherwise, thousands more will die and their blood will be on our hands.
Actually, no. It's considerably cheaper than the system we have now. Only people who haven't really looked at the numbers claim otherwise. The American health care system is the most expensive per capita in the whole frigging WORLD and it doesn't even cover every citizen.
That's why I am saying that we should look at why we can't lower costs of the current system.
The US currently subsidized health innovations around the world. That is one of the reasons why our medications are so expensive. Because most of Europe has price controls on medication we have to pay more. Case in point. My wife recently had to go for tests related to the pregnancy. The bill came and they physician wants to bill $700, the insurance company says the "allowed" amount is $135. What does this mean?
It means that when the physician performs this service it costs them $700. Maybe not that single procedure, but those without insurance have to pay the difference in order for the physician to make money, because those of us that are insured are paying too little. That is price control in action.
All I'm advocating is let's try and bring costs under control first. Indonesia uses a health system that is entirely private, and they understand that competition works and keeps cost low.
Health insurance should NEVER be a profit-driven industry.I don't buy that argument one bit. People don't develop new drugs and new procedure out of entirely altruistic methods. They need to be rewarded for their work.
Insurance is a profit driven business and there is no reason why you cannot make this work for providing health care.
Yes, just look at Europe. I'll give you a clue, it isn't health care that's sinking their budgets.
It isn't just health care, but health care is consuming and will consume more and more of their budgets. At some point we need to determine what is most important. And I hear you when you say health insurance. I would argue that the top 3 initiatives of the federal government should be
Defense
Economy
Infrastructure
Because without these three nothing else matters. If you cannot defend yourself, then you won't be free for long. If your economy is in the tank, you can't afford anything anyway. And infrastructure just contributes to making sure that number 2 keeps on working.
I'll leave with this and really this is the only statement I would really want to hear how you respond as it frames how you view the world.
Do you believe there will always be poor people and rich people, or do you believe that that is fundamentally unfair?
I believe how one answers this question is a good window into their view of the world.
I don't buy that argument one bit. People don't develop new drugs and new procedure out of entirely altruistic methods. They need to be rewarded for their work.
Health research and health insurance are two entirely different things. Conflating the two is creating a strawman you can knock down. Health research should be rewarded. Health insurance should NOT. No one should ever be allowed to profit obscenely by denying basic health coverage to people.
Insurance is a profit driven business and there is no reason why you cannot make this work for providing health care.
Because you can encourage safer driving, but you cannot "encourage" someone to not get sick. And in health insurance in particular, regular checkups are vital, but fewer and fewer insurance companies are willing to pay for them.
And while you can encourage better lifestyles, there will always be cancer and other diseases, some of which strike perfectly healthy people who take extremely good care of themselves. And yet, insurance companies will dump those "good drivers" like a hot potato as soon as they have to pay out, so that their CEOs can continue to get billions of dollars in bonuses.
Do you believe there will always be poor people and rich people, or do you believe that that is fundamentally unfair?
Of course there will always be rich and poor, and of course it is fundamentally unfair. But just because that's the way the world is doesn't mean we should let other people die because we want to keep all our money to ourselves. There are some basic things we ought to share, as decent human beings. Not everything, but some. It's in our best interests as humans to keep our fellow humans healthy.
If the private insurance companies weren't so focused on the bottom line and making sure the big bosses can shower in champagne every morning if they want, then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. But it seems to be a characteristic of American corporations that they don't think past how much money they can squeeze from their customers/clients/victims.
Of course there will always be rich and poor, and of course it is fundamentally unfair. But just because that's the way the world is doesn't mean we should let other people die because we want to keep all our money to ourselves. There are some basic things we ought to share, as decent human beings. Not everything, but some. It's in our best interests as humans to keep our fellow humans healthy.
I guess that is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe it is in our interest to be healthy but I don't believe I should bear the overwhelming burden of supporting the rest of the population. If I want to donate money for it that is one thing, but to have it "taken" from me is another matter entirely. Another interesting thing, and it is probably nitpicking your choice of words, but I don't believe it is "fundamentally" unfair, it's just a fact of life.
If the private insurance companies weren't so focused on the bottom line and making sure the big bosses can shower in champagne every morning if they want, then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. But it seems to be a characteristic of American corporations that they don't think past how much money they can squeeze from their customers/clients/victims.
This is another fallacy. Insurance companies don't make insane profits. The profit margin for health insurance companies last year was only 3.5%. Their problem isn't jacking up prices to make insane profits, but to cover increasing costs. If we are talking insane profits, the beverage industry has a 25% profit margin. Should they be punished?
Why not start with why it costs so much? Why are these costs out of control? Most of it is because of endless regulation which drives up the cost. Putting in a single-payer system won't stop that. Price controls just hide the cost problem and create other problems.
I believe it is in our interest to be healthy but I don't believe I should bear the overwhelming burden of supporting the rest of the population.
Then instead you will bear the burden of an unhealthy society that relies on emergency room visits, which will jack up your own costs. Because you have decided that you have a right to be greedy upfront, you will end up paying much MUCH more later on.
In addition, you will be seen by people like me as a selfish Scrooge. "Are there no poorhouses?"
As for insurance company profits, you really need to look at their books and not at what they release to Fox News:
The 2009 financial reports from the nation’s five largest insurance companies reveal that:
* The firms made $12.2 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, from 2008.
o Four out of the five companies saw earnings increases, with CIGNA’s profits jumping 346 percent.
* The companies provided private insurance coverage to 2.7 million fewer people than the year before.
o Four out of the five companies insured fewer people through private coverage. UnitedHealth alone insured 1.7 million fewer people through employer-based or individual coverage.
o All but one of the five companies increased the number of people they covered through public insurance programs (Medicaid, CHIP and Medicare). UnitedHealth added 680,000 people in public plans.
* The proportion of premium dollars spent on health care expenses went down for three of the five firms, with higher proportions going to administrative expenses and profits.
In short, they are making more profits every year, and they are making those profits directly by hurting people.
the beverage industry has a 25% profit margin. Should they be punished?
Does the beverage industry make its profits by hurting people? By denying them basic health coverage? By pulling the plug on Grandma?
Why not start with why it costs so much?
Because health insurance companies make a huge profit, employ a large middle management of workers whose only job it is to make people die, and waste tons of money on advertising and lobbyists instead of spending that money on the people who paid for health care through them.
Why are these costs out of control?
See above. The Health Insurance industry pumped over $422 million into lobbying Congress in the first nine months of 2009 alone. How much health care would that pay for? An awful lot.
Most of it is because of endless regulation which drives up the cost.
Actually, it's the utter LACK of regulation on how much health insurance companies can spend buying politicians and advertising their worthless "product" to their victims.
I wouldn't shed a tear if every health insurance company in this nation went bankrupt. I wouldn't cry at all if their CEOs spent out the rest of their worthless murdering lives living underneath bridges. Their greed has killed MILLIONS of people, and you are defending them with the same tired old lies and talking points that they've paid millions of dollars to stick into your brainwashed head.
After the dust has settled and America finally has a health system, liars and fools who said the things that Greg Young is saying will be looked upon like the people who insisted that the United States could never survive without the indentured servitude of the black man.
Greg Young -
If the money for health care were actually going into the pockets of health care providers, it'd be one thing. But just notice all the frontline doctors and nurses who are on board for some sort of universal health care.
I think of the 20-y.o. healthy male argument as a straw man. If catastrophic care is all that's required, then one will end up with a less healthy population, going to the doctor - heck, probably the hospital - when things are finally so bad that no other option will do.
I have no idea about how soon Cheyenne Wright, e.g., went to the doctor's. But based on my own experience when I as uninsured, it was probably later than I would have if I had HAD insurance. That line between healthy and catastrophically ill may have gradations where getting very sick can be prevented.
I'm sorry but I can't agree with you. I have a responsibility to my family first.
I am a firm believer that it is not the governments responsibility to take care of us. Other than provide a military for our defense, I would rather private enterprise find a way to solve the problem via either for profit companies or not for profit entities.
That is the fundamental argument presented here and it will come down to a majority of the country making this decision.
I do believe that if we do go to a single payer system, I would prefer that the politicians have no part in it.
If you want to make sure that the "best" medical decisions are being made, put the doctors in charge.
I'm sorry but I can't agree with you. I have a responsibility to my family first.
Who is arguing that you shouldn't be able to pay for your family? I don't understand this line of defense. No one, NOT ONE PERSON, is arguing that you shouldn't be able to take care of your family.
You keep creating these strawmen that you can knock down that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Can't you argue honestly?
I am a firm believer that it is not the governments responsibility to take care of us. Other than provide a military for our defense
Excuse me? You just said, "I don't think the government should take care of us, except to take care of us." Did you even read over what you posted before hitting send?
I do believe that if we do go to a single payer system, I would prefer that the politicians have no part in it.
Yeah, well, once they set it up it'll be the business of a middle management that, instead of being required to kill people to maximize profits, will be required to provide care while minimizing loss. The difference is that one is actively trying to hurt us while the other will be trying to help but frustrated by the nonsense.
If you want to make sure that the "best" medical decisions are being made, put the doctors in charge.
A majority of doctors want a single payer system so they don't have to deal with the tangle of health insurance stupidity they currently spend too much time on. When your doctor has to first check to see that you are covered before recommending a procedure, that takes away a lot of his/her time. Under a single payer system, they will know what is covered by basic insurance.
Roger,
From the reports, it sounds like Cheyenne waited as long as he dared. Without insurance, going to the doctor has the distinct possibility of ruining your life.
If he'd been covered he could've gone in at the first serious symptoms and possibly would recover quicker. It certainly would have been better for him, and probably better for the bottom line of health care as a whole as well.
A couple of things. First, I have been following Laura's site for a long time and respect her opinions. As for "Eric TF Bat", I am not going to acknowledge your comments as they resort to name calling. Comments like yours are not constructive to an actual grown up discussion; nor is it conducive to trying to convince someone to your side of the argument and is one of the primary reasons people like Evan Bayh get leave politics.
I am actually interested in why you support a single payer system and I believe that I am a logical enough thinker that I can be persuaded, I just haven't had anyone persuade me yet. Unfortunately the morality argument doesn't work for me because I still believe you can have private insurance perform the function.
Now keep in mind, in a private insurance world, I would also think that we could lower costs by making check-ups cheaper. I don't think insurance should be paying for annual check-ups. I have no problem thinking someone going to the doctor for an exam should not be charged $500 for the visit. If you take insurance out of the picture and it would be cash-based, the doctor's would be willing to charge much less because their collection rates would be much higher and more timely.
That being said...
In addition, you will be seen by people like me as a selfish Scrooge. "Are there no poorhouses?"
I am a bit of a selfish scrooge when it comes to money. Not because I don't want to help people, but because I don't believe the government does a good job with other peoples money.
I think of the 20-y.o. healthy male argument as a straw man. If catastrophic care is all that's required, then one will end up with a less healthy population, going to the doctor - heck, probably the hospital - when things are finally so bad that no other option will do.
I don't think you are following my argument here; or it is my fault for not making it clear. The 20 year-old doesn't need insurance for a lot of things. Catastrophic coverage will take care him and make sure he is in the pool at an early age where insurance cannot drop him for pre-existing conditions. I think there is room for agreement regarding what Laura brought up regarding insurers dropping you. I do believe that if you have been paying your premiums and are up-to-date, the insurer shouldn't be allowed to drop you. It goes both ways, you shouldn't be able to buy insurance right before you need it, but they shouldn't be able to drop you because you are using it.
Who is arguing that you shouldn't be able to pay for your family? I don't understand this line of defense. No one, NOT ONE PERSON, is arguing that you shouldn't be able to take care of your family.
Again I think you are missing my point, and that is probably my fault. What I am trying to say, is that by taking more and more of my money away, it means that I have less of my money to take care of my family in whatever manner I deem necessary.
Excuse me? You just said, "I don't think the government should take care of us, except to take care of us." Did you even read over what you posted before hitting send?
I did not say that. I wrote exactly what I wrote. "I am a firm believer that it is not the governments responsibility to take care of us. Other than provide a military for our defense." Now if you want to argue that the military is taking care of us, then that is a discussion we can have, but they are too very distinct things, the military and healthcare.
A majority of doctors want a single payer system so they don't have to deal with the tangle of health insurance stupidity they currently spend too much time on.
Where do you see this? And don't site the AMA as a source for the majority of doctors. One site I found listed that the AMA themselves claim that they represent 29% of physicians. Other sites I have found estimate it is only around 15-20%.
I also believe I have a bit of insight into this as I am married to a physician and have many friends that are physicians. Many of the physicians that I know are worried that their are no cost control elements in the current proposal. They aren't even trying to contain costs.
I firmly believe that they aren't addressing the real issue of making coverage available to people. Much like Cheyenne, I understand that if you are self-employed it is very difficult and expensive to get coverage let alone good coverage. The biggest obstacle is tying coverage to employment which is a WWII legacy. That needs to be fixed.
Okay last point. How do you propose to handle the problem that will be introduced when free unlimited health care is available? This is certain to happen. Many more people will be visiting the doctor for minor problems because health care is now "free". This will cause delays. There already is a shortage of primary care physicians (there are many reasons for this). How would you address that?
is one of the primary reasons people like Evan Bayh get leave politics.
Huh? What does this mean?
Unfortunately the morality argument doesn't work for me because I still believe you can have private insurance perform the function.
Then why hasn't it? It's had a great many years to prove itself, and has failed consistently. How can you believe what is obviously, from years and years of actual experience, false?
I don't think insurance should be paying for annual check-ups.
Then people will skip those check-ups, get sicker, and put a heavier burden on the health care system. It would be better if every health policy *required* annual check-ups for women, and check-ups every three years or so for men. That would catch most of the big problems before they could develop into huge problems and promote the general welfare, reducing the burden on the rest of society.
doctor's would be willing to charge much less because their collection rates would be much higher and more timely.
You're joking, right?
You've clearly never dealt with the general public.
I am a bit of a selfish scrooge when it comes to money. Not because I don't want to help people, but because I don't believe the government does a good job with other peoples money.
Then you damn well better not ask for police assistance, drive on public roads, use public utilities, or anything else that taxes pay for, because they are CLEARLY inferior to anything the private sector can produce. Don't go over any bridges!!! The government built them, they are no good! If your house is on fire, it's better to get a private company to put it out! They will do a much better job than that horrid no-good piece of crap government-run fire department! I could go on, but then, unless you are Glenn Beck you probably already get the point. Oh yeah, no libraries either. I was reminded of that because I saw a clip of Beck claiming that he was self-educated without any government assistance... he went to the library. *facepalm*
I do believe that if you have been paying your premiums and are up-to-date, the insurer shouldn't be allowed to drop you.
Something we agree on.
It goes both ways, you shouldn't be able to buy insurance right before you need it, but they shouldn't be able to drop you because you are using it.
But then you turn around and say that 20 year olds shouldn't have to buy insurance? I don't understand this part of the argument. At what age should people then be required to buy insurance?
For the record, I am utterly opposed to forcing anyone to buy insurance from a private insurance company. No mandate without a public option.
What I am trying to say, is that by taking more and more of my money away, it means that I have less of my money to take care of my family in whatever manner I deem necessary.
And I'm saying that we're talking about money that would buy you an extra latte, not the money that would give you the choice of what private school to send your kid to.
"The World Health Organization several years ago ranked the United States 37th in health outcomes, yet the country spends twice as much on health care than any other industrialized nation."
Just about any plan we come up with will lower health care costs all around. Why are you so completely opposed to it?
I did not say that. I wrote exactly what I wrote. "I am a firm believer that it is not the governments responsibility to take care of us. Other than provide a military for our defense." Now if you want to argue that the military is taking care of us, then that is a discussion we can have, but they are too very distinct things, the military and healthcare.
From the Preamble of the Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note that military and health care (common defence and general Welfare) are right next to each other. The military is NOT the only use for government, and anyone who argues that it's the only thing it should be doing is not welcome here.
In addition, if defense isn't taking care of us, what the heck is it? You either believe the government should be allowed to take care of the citizens, by protecting them from enemies both human and disease, or you don't. You can't have just half the pie. Your statement is utter nonsense. You contradict yourself immediately, thus invalidating the first half of it.
Where do you see this?
Are you really going to make me look up every survey in the past 20 years that has said exactly the same thing? That doctors don't want to spend all their time dealing with health insurance companies and would rather be helping people? Really? Are you so petty that you can't look it up yourself?
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790&query=home
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/index.html
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2009/09/17/mad-hell-doctors-eliminate-health-insurance-and-everyone-wins
"Many said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there's too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies."
"private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar."
"Forty-five thousand Americans died last year from lack of health insurance. The average physician devotes $85,000 a year on processing paperwork for a multitude of companies handling their patients' insurance plans."
And don't site the AMA as a source for the majority of doctors.
The word is "cite" and why can't I, if they are surveying a majority of doctors? Who they represent and who they survey are two different things, you know.
And then you turn around and claim you have insight into the topic because you know a handful of doctors. What percentage of doctors do YOU know? .0001%? Less? And yet your opinion, based on this handful, is more believable than the AMA? Excuse me?
And you claim you want to argue with logic. Sheesh.
The biggest obstacle is tying coverage to employment which is a WWII legacy. That needs to be fixed.
Another point on which we agree.
Okay last point. How do you propose to handle the problem that will be introduced when free unlimited health care is available? This is certain to happen. Many more people will be visiting the doctor for minor problems because health care is now "free". This will cause delays. There already is a shortage of primary care physicians (there are many reasons for this). How would you address that?
This makes utterly no sense to me. Have you actually asked Canadians about their "long lines"? For most of the population, there isn't any significant delay for any medically necessary procedure. So clearly having "free" health care hasn't caused that problem in Canada. Again, you are setting up a strawman so you can knock it down.
As for the shortage of primary care doctors, surveys indicate that much of that is due to the extreme amout of paperwork they have to deal with. Paperwork that is 99% BS from insurance companies. Eliminate that and you will get people more willing to work as doctors.
This horse is beaten, dead. If you feel like continuing it, e-mail me. I don't think we're going to come to any complete agreement, because we fundamentally disagree on how much the welfare of society affects us as individuals. You seem to believe that you can live in a world where all your neighbors are dying of preventable diseases and as long as you are healthy, everything is cool. I firmly disagree.
But enough. Since this is my blog and my comments, I declare this comment thread closed.
Post a Comment