If healthcare were like mail, we’d all be a lot happier

HUMAN 1:
Can you rationally explain why people not having health insurance is actually bad from an economic standpoint?
Healthy people take less time off from work. This is part of why eradicating communicable diseases like polio, malaria, measles, etc., from the United States and other developed nations was so important. People who aren’t getting sick from dirty water or infection are people who are better able to consistently engage in economic activity. If you have a business where you aren’t sure when or how much of your labor force will be able to show up, that uncertainty is going to affect your bottom line.

Additionally, people who are able to take care of their sicknesses and injuries immediately or when noticed early make it much cheaper to treat overall because many conditions become more complicated and expensive to cure as they progress. If you catch cancer in the beginning stages, not only is the prognosis better, you also don’t need to spend anywhere near the amount of resources to cure it compared with a cancer that’s only caught after it’s metastasized and its symptoms are more obvious.

Because it’s less expensive to treat, many fewer people will have to declare bankruptcy when they choose to save the lives of themselves and their loved ones. As of 2009, 62 percent of all bankruptcies were medical-related. Obamacare didn’t solve that problem or perhaps go far enough, but people who have to close their business or pay off medical debt aren’t spending money to invest in their community or grow its economy. Some people do become wealthier, like breaking windows benefits the glass repair company, but overall, society does not become wealthier.

Finally, children who suffer from preventable and treatable illnesses won’t be as productive economically as they grow older, and adults who are injured or die from something treatable are wasting the investment of education and experience already put into them. Even viewing people completely cynically and without moral compassion, you’re squandering resources by allowing economic engines to break and disregarding their entire future productive capability unless they have the wealth immediately to repair themselves.

More fundamentally and in the long term, by tying health-care access to wealth, it deepens the divide between rich and poor, lowers overall economic productivity, and weakens the social contract.

If poor people believe they live in a society where they’re unable to feed, clothe, and provide lifesaving care to their children, they aren’t going to be very invested in that society or trust in its authority. So you would also expect crime, drug use, and general social turmoil to rise.

Continue reading If healthcare were like mail, we’d all be a lot happier

Anti-fascism is not mutually exclusive from homophobia

1. It’s homophobic and deserving of criticism.

2. Those calling for a boycott are doing it cynically from the right, and don’t actually care about LGBTQ rights.

3. Those sincerely critical of it are not calling for a boycott or Stephen Colbert to be fired.

4. Colbert has consistent homophobic and transphobic sensibilities and has often used gay and trans people as punchlines. The reason (sincere) criticism of this sort of humor is important is not to censor it but to make the comedians involved aware of it, question their own reasons and biases, and hopefully correct it in the future.

5. This isn’t the left ‘tearing itself apart’. This is the right upset that Trump and Putin were targets of criticism and trying to use progressive language for an incredibly narrow purpose, and, short of that, to try to use their own facetious overreactions as evidence of something the matter with people whose ideas and values they disdain. This is the equivalent of a 4chan prank where all of the prank posts and twitter accounts are retroactively taken at face value and pointed to as evidence Justin Bieber fans are stupid or feminists widely support free bleeding. Continue reading Anti-fascism is not mutually exclusive from homophobia

The changing connotations of words isn’t a small issue

MANY HUMANS SAID

‘This is ridiculous’. As well as a plethora of other boorish things.

I don’t understand what this person is doing wrong here. The question is a valid one: if you are trying not to be a jerk inadvertently, does it matter if a word that sounds offensive has an etymology that isn’t?

In the real world, racists use nigg* words regularly to express and signal their racism, from otherwise made-up terms to ones like niggardly, chosen solely because of its resemblance to the slur.

Continue reading The changing connotations of words isn’t a small issue

The sex-offender registry is mostly about making you feel safer without actually making things safer

LETTER: Sex offender registry makes no sense

I completely disagree. While maybe there are some who shouldn’t necessarily be on the registry, we as parents have a right to know if we have a child rapist living a block over.

I personally had a sex offender living one street over. And his victim was a young boy around my sons age.

This is understandable but not rational. You don’t know what convicted arsonists, murderers, robbers, or burglars live near you. You can’t see all of the people convicted of family violence offenses in the closest apartment complex.

Continue reading The sex-offender registry is mostly about making you feel safer without actually making things safer

‘Feminism is not a stick to beat men with’ — because it isn’t a stick

A MAN SAID
I saw someone post a thing, “Feminism is not a stick for women to beat other women with.”

I super like and agree.

I also wanted to comment but decided to post my own thing, so I’m not just appropriating someone’s message to women. Feminism is also not a stick to beat men with. Laughing at and demeaning (individual) men in the name of feminism is not feminism. Don’t get me wrong, I do it all the time, but it’s not feminism, it’s just mean.

To your first point: sure. To the second: Maybe? But patriarchy is a gigantic club that beats people up even when left to fall with its own weight, and in most contexts, feminism is more like a ruler.

Continue reading ‘Feminism is not a stick to beat men with’ — because it isn’t a stick

‘Anita Sarkeesian did nothing wrong’, or ‘Violence against women in media, cont.’

Part One: ‘Where does the idea that “women have impossible standards for violence” come from?’

Human 4

I didn’t really want to get into this to be honest, but quickly since there’s a real contribution here, I think what’s being understated is hyperviolence against women in edgy videogames or other media generally isn’t just an incidental product of trying to titillate, it’s a natural result of the cultural ideas the work is reproducing.

Continue reading ‘Anita Sarkeesian did nothing wrong’, or ‘Violence against women in media, cont.’

‘Where does the idea that “women have impossible standards for violence” come from?’

Human 1:

I’m watching Angel and women get brutalized exactly like men do all the time.

It’s the same with Buffy, and, going back in time a little bit, same with Battlestar Galactica, Kill Bill, Spartacus.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone claim “no violence should befall fictional women”, and yet redhats and gamergaters routinely claim that women want all the benefits and none of the disadvantages.

How did this claim come to be?

Continue reading ‘Where does the idea that “women have impossible standards for violence” come from?’