Jump to content
Downhillracer, Carlos Deluna has NOT been exonerated. Doubt has been raised about his conviction but that doesn't prove your claim that many innocent people have been executed. You demand facts and sources but don't provide them yourself.
My mother and aunts grew up in a home with parents who spoke little English and had exactly zero years of schooling between them. My father's father left school at 13 to work. Only my maternal grandmother started high school, but didn't finish. Yet both of my parents, with only high school educations, could write better than the average college graduate today, because they went to schools with high standards despite little funding.
We don't need more years of school, we need better years of school.
Thanks for the diagnosis. And for free, too! At least one thing you're doing to keep health care costs down.
And yet, somehow you made it to the last paragraph where I first mentioned unions.
So you seriously believe the average Medicaid patient is going to extensively "shop" for his/her services based on cost and outcome measures published on the Internet? Or is it going to be government agencies who use that data to tell us what procedures we can and can't have?
Yes, you're right. I don't want that for myself. I also don't want it for my siblings, their children, my neighbors, my friends, and millions of others for whom I think it would be a bad deal. Of course, those are real people, and not abstract pawns to be moved around on an ideological chess board or sheep to be efficiently herded - the "broader view" that you favor.
It happens I have cared about runaway costs for a long time, which is why I opposed each effort by our State's Democratic Insurance Commissioners to expand the mandated inclusions into private health plans of services from everyone whose lobbyists paid off enough Democrats (chiropractors, acupuncturists, etc.) Somehow, Democrats could never make the connection: More mandates = higher costs. So they keep piling them on.
Of course, the likelihood that the government could actually run "a more efficient healthcare system" even if we were all content to be sheep is preposterous in and of itself. Unless by "efficient" you mean successful in monopolizing the power and resources involved, regardless of the care provided to the livestock.
How exactly would being uncivilized and barbaric disqualify me from being a lawyer?
You might research "The Innocence Project" yourself. It cites 18 people who were sentenced to death and then exonerated. The Death Penalty Information Center cites even more (using a much looser definition of "exonerated"). BUT NOT ONE WAS EXECUTED. If you have any data that, in the 35 years since the re-introduction of the death penalty, there has been a single innocent person executed, much less many, let those organizations know and they will shout it from the rooftops.
The statute requires that the governor grant reprieves "for good cause." As Mr. Moran points out, Inslee's stated cause of "disproportionality" has already been ruled on by our Supreme Court in the case of Gentry and found to be baseless.
Sadly, the only remedy for Inslee's abuse of the statute may be to amend it to limit the governor's authority. Someday, that theoretically might result in the execution of someone who DOES deserve a reprieve. That person will have no one but Jay Inslee to blame.
"Doesn't that sentence pretty much summarize everything that's wrong with our state and federal governments?"
Not by a very long shot. The sentence that summarized it for me was:
"By 2019, the [state's Health Care Innovation] plan calls for 80 percent of state-financed health care and 50 percent of the commercial market to switch from fee-for-service to outcomes-based payment."
Farmers would recognize "outcomes-based" health care as good livestock management. And indeed it is great for sheep. While we may be a shrinking minority, though, some of us humans are not as enamored of being treated like sheep. It's hideously wrong that our government, that is supposed to be our servant, should make a Plan to force 50% of us into a herd management program whether we want that or not.
I recently rushed to get a bunch of health stuff done before Obamacare forced me to kiss goodbye to what remained of my good health insurance plan (after 36 happy years with it). It is quite true that I couldn't look up the cost of my procedures on the internet. But I had no problem calling my doctors' offices and asking for the expected costs and the related codes, then calling my insurance company and finding out what they would pay for those codes and what would be my responsibility based on my remaining deductible and co-insurance amounts.
What struck me was how novel it seemed to both my doctors and my insurance company that anyone would bother to do that. Anyway, the notion that Medicaid patients and government employees, who bear little to no personal responsibility for their own costs, will make choices based on costs, is ridiculous.
This whole exercise isn't about transparency. If transparency were on the agenda, the Health Care Exchange would not be as impenetrably opaque as it is. (I'll bet 95% of the people who have signed up through it have no clue what it will really cost them.) It's about preparing us all for the single-payer aka socialized system that has been the end-goal all along. And THAT's what's wrong with our government.
Although - I'll give you this: The reason that is happening is indeed lobbying and corruption, although the principal actors behind the scene are not Premera, but government-employee and other unions.
You may consider it a benefit that people will not KNOW they are despised. I consider that a cost. I WANT to know who despises me. From a practical standpoint, if someone despises me for who I am, I want to be able to judge whether their bigotry will impair their ability to serve me well. I may not care if my grocer is a misogynist, but I sure would like to know if my auto mechanic, doctor or lawyer is. If they are required by law to conceal their beliefs, as opposed to choosing to conceal them, I would be concerned they’re likely to take it out on me some other way. Most people can live more easily with their own choices than with coercion.
And again, from a societal perspective, if I don’t know someone is a bigot, I can’t try to convince them otherwise. You allude to the civil rights movement. I was there for part of that, and most of the women’s movement, and a major part of their effectiveness was not, as you think, the passage of laws, but the moral appeal to people’s better selves.
Finally, you overstate the “respect and dignity” benefit. A gay person who finds out Betty doesn’t want to do his flower arranging because he’s gay hasn’t been deprived of any dignity. He’s just learned Betty is homophobic and he needs to find a different florist. Both are trivial costs. There are plenty of people who won’t like us for any number of reasons, and there are plenty of florists.
So I'm not ignoring the interests of society, I view them differently.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. Our differences seem to arise from the inclusion in my cost-benefit analysis of some costs and benefits that you omit, and some different weights.
For instance, you place a very low weight on the cost to Betty, suggesting she is “free to pursue some other line of work.” But in fact, if no business is allowed to tolerate her bigotry and she is unable to open her own business, she may well become effectively unable to earn a living. This would be OK with me if it were simply because no one chooses to patronize a bigot, but when it is enforced by law, I think that punishment is too severe.
You also place a low weight on the emotional cost to Betty, characterizing it as “only” a “venal desire to be a bigot.” But most people go into business to do business, not to turn away customers, so the motive to do so can be assumed to be important to the businessperson. And just because you and I consider that desire repugnant doesn’t mean that Betty considers it trivial, or that we are in any position to judge accurately what it means to her. (You didn’t respond to my question about a Betty who finds it repugnant to serve whites for strong emotional reasons, for instance, but it serves as an example of the powerful grounds, however irrational, that people may have for their feelings.)
Some people who used to say that a prostitute couldn’t be raped (or a wife raped by her husband) because the act was one they routinely engaged in. The difference, of course, is between consent and coercion. Even on such trivialities as flower arranging, coercion should always give us pause. It is always a cost to society when we must use it, not just because of the infringement on liberty or the direct enforcement costs, but when it’s based on group membership, because it increases the “us vs. them” tribalist tendencies of all human societies.
It is also a cost to Betty and to society if she is forced by law to conceal her bigotry in order to earn a living. (You recognize it as a severe cost to gays that they were forced to conceal their true selves, live a lie, engage in constant hypocrisy, in order to survive. I would consider it a cost to Betty too, even though I have no sympathy for her “true self.”) It is also a cost to her and to society because it does not give her as many opportunities to confront the true meaning of her bigotry and perhaps grow out of it, but allows it to fester in secret, which I think is more dangerous to her and to society.
IMO, you also place too much weight on the putative benefits to society. You say that “its members will not be deprived of respect and dignity.” But that’s not true. Betty’s feelings will not be any different, whether they are overt or hidden.
(Part two below)
Last login: Sunday, February 23, 2014
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.