Obama won. Now what?

Now that I have had a couple of days to let the words “Obama is the President-elect” sink in, my feelings of elation have given way to those of concern and worry.

Yes, Obama is the first African-American President of the US. I do not mean to detract from the significance of that. What worries me is the high expectation that America, and the world, now have of him. His predecessor has done an absurdly effective job destroying America. The damage incurred is of such colossal magnitude that the road to recovery will likely be painstakingly long. Obama inherits an America that has lost a fair share of its friends and most of its respect internationally.

It is imperative that we remember Obama is also human. He cannot work miracles, which is what people seem to expect of him. Mistakes will undoubtedly be made. One can be certain that these mistakes will be magnified to ridiculous proportion by the opposition (and Fox News) – you only need to look back at McCain’s election campaign to see that.

In fact, the radical conservative revolt has already begun. They are composing “Obama Administration Survival Guides". They are advising people to transfer money offshore for fear of being robbed by the government. They are calling for the impeachment of Obama, and this man has not even been sworn into office, yet! One statement in particular affronted any sensible political awareness:

“There are a lot of Americans out there that do not fully understand the concept of Socialism or Communism which is why they’ve elected Obama as president.”

Obviously the authors of the ignorant statement do not fully understand the concept themselves. (If you follow my blog, you know how much the misuse of the “S” and “C” words infuriates me.) They continue to call for Obama’s impeachment because of his support for “various unconstitutional programs such as the assault weapons ban, universal healthcare, and various schemes for wealth distribution”. Obama wants to elevate American society and Americans’ social responsibility to the 21st century! Oh no! Run for your lives! Candidly speaking, we are no longer in the Wild Wild West, where everyone needs guns to protect themselves from the unpredictable, potentially around the corner, savages.

I am veering off point. In this post I am trying caution Americans of the danger in raising their hopes too high. The groundbreaking, history-making outcome of this year’s US elections must not overshadow the reality-based possibilities in policy-making. It is easy to become exuberant and maintain exuberance about someone’s accomplishments when there were low expectations. Disillusionment can set in very quickly, and unjustly, when expectations are as high as they are of President-elect Obama.

OCW a.k.a. POCC

This is a public health announcement. There is currently a condition quickly spreading through America: OCW - Obama Campaign Withdrawal, also known as POCC - Post Obama Campaign Confusion.

The Onion has released the following report identifying the symptoms. If you know anyone experiencing them, please bring them to the doctor yourself. They will not go of their own accord as they believe they still need to campaign!

Making money by not having any sex/babies

No Sex

In Georgia there is currently a marriage contest in progress. An engaged couple can win $10,000 provided they open their wedding ceremony to the public, live separately before getting married and undergo premarital counselling. Oh, and they have to abstain - as in no premarital sex. Supposedly the goal of the contest is to promote marriages which will "really last a lifetime". That some people actually think preventing premarital sex is preventing divorce is beyond reason.

The contest is run by a non-profit organisation called MATURE - Marriage Appreciation Training Uplifting Relationship Education. (I wonder how long it took someone to come up with that?) Since 2006 they received yearly federal grants of $455,510, which will continue until 2011. What a preposterous way to spend tax revenue. Given a choice of having their tax dollars spent on health care or teaching abstinence, I believe most Americans would choose health care.

So how many couples have signed up for the opportunity to replace premarital sex with premarital counselling?

Zero. Shocker.

No Babies

A Louisiana legislator has suggested paying $1000 to women on welfare and food stamps if they have themselves sterilised. This is just WRONG. Never mind the fact that this is a lawsuit of discrimination against the poor waiting to happen. Dangling money in front of the poverty-stricken is not the way to go. They will make the decision based on the fact that they need the money, not thinking of possible future consequences.

Again, this is potentially a waste of tax revenue. $1000 is not going to take the destitute off of welfare or eradicate the less fortunate. This money is better spent on education.

Mariecel vs. A flamingpoodle - Round 2

I'm happy to say that flamingpoodle, a.k.a. Garg the Unzola, has continued the interesting exchange of standpoints. For his original rebuttal, click here and scroll down to comments. Here we go!

In fact, taking the Hippocratic Oath is no longer a requirement to become a doctor.
The oath is no longer a necessity in the US? Interesting. This speaks of a sad change in the culture of the US medical community, but is also very telling. In a quick search I was not able to find support for your statement. Would you mind providing it?

Give it a try. Claiming that there are logical fallacies in my statement and actually indentifying them and pointing them out to me are two different things entirely.
Perhaps you did not notice that I indeed address and rebut every position of your statement. But far more interesting is that you ignored a good portion of my points. Perhaps, somewhere deep down, you agree?

You are assuming that someone who suffers from cancer would necessarily be reliant on a social health care system and won't be able to afford private health care.
Either you are ignoring selective phrases or I recommend for you to take a class in logic. I do NOT assume that the patient would not be able to afford private health care - this is indicated with the use of the word 'should' in conjunction with 'on the basis of financial ability'.

By your logic, it is entirely acceptable for me to get a yacht by virtue of the fact that I can't afford it. Or for me to have someone do my accounting for me free of charge, by virtue of the fact that I can't afford an accountant. Where do you draw the line between a fundamental human right and a privilege?
I draw the line where the issue at hand no longer directly affects my physiological and mental well-being. As I said previously, long hair will not kill you, but a cancerous tumour will. Not having a yacht will not kill you, but untreated diabetes will. Not having an accountant will not kill you, but untreated heart disease will.

Are the fundamental rights of those who can't afford health care not the same as those who are qualified to provide health services? If they are, then you can't say the doctor has to provide his services to someone who can't afford them any more tha you can deny me a haircut because I can't afford it.
Yes, I believe they have the same right to health care. That does not mean, by any standard of logic, that I can therefore force my hairdresser to cut my hair. You cannot equate the right to life with a wish for comfort.

Even though I think everyone has the same right to health care, I do not think everyone has the right to the comfort of private hospital rooms or medical practices that are not necessary to the physiological and mental well-being of the patient, such as medically unprompted cosmetic surgery. In most of continental Europe, general health care does not pay for your random nose job, unless it has become medically necessary, i.e. due to an accident.

If they aren't, then all are equal, but some are more equal.
We should all be equal with respect to basic, universal access to health care that treats medical ailments in full according to best practice.

It is a matter of basic equality that anybody, regardless of their financial background, who is in need of a specific medical treatment ordered by a doctor (be that dialysis or a simple break away from stress factors), should have access to said prescribed remedy. If you are lucky enough to be affluent, you can add comfort factors, such as private rooms and exclusive attention from the head doctor of the department, at your own cost.

That's all for now. =)

(images from i-hostels.com, bluebuddies.com, and cartoonstock.com respectively)

My Night with Obama and McCain...

...wasn't as explosive as I hoped. I even popped some popcorn, ready to throw once McCain got into his condescending groove. It's almost 2am - yes, I missed the rerun of the rerun. Thankfully I could watch the whole debate on cnn.com. Here are a few, sometimes trivial, points of piqued interest:

• No pin on McCain! I suppose Palin's pin was big enough for both of them.
• There was Obama looking all presidential with his nice tie and pin, and then there was McCain looking like... a director of a funeral parlour about to give a eulogy.
• Too many mentions of Joe the Plumber - by my count (by name) 15 from McCain and 5 from Obama. Oh, and it wasn't just Joe for McCain, it was "My old buddy Joe the Plumber". If Obama mentions my name 15 times, can I be his old buddy?
• McCain didn't mention "middle class" at all. But then again, that really shouldn't come as a surprise, eh? After all, they are the most important consumption factor in the US today, and are generally neglected by the GOP.
• Obama was a little flat at the beginning, but picked up later. If you weren't sure this was the case, McCain emphasised it with his visibly increasing irritation, negative and angry body language, constantly interrupting Obama, increased stuttering and change of topic when he ran out of things to say.
  
• Glad to see that Obama was no longer reduced to "that one" who "doesn't understand".
• "I'm not Bush" was a brilliant rebuttal, but leaves me wondering who he is. He's changed his position several times on some issues, which made this statement lose a little punch for me.
• McCain referred to his campaign as "truthful". WHAT?!?!?
• It's Obama's fault that the Republicans went extremely negative on advertising, as he refused to do more town hall debates. Boo-hoo!
• Obama spent an unprecedented amount on attack ads. He stole the GOP's modus operandi and beat them at it. Boo-hoo!
• It seemed that every time Obama started to paint a vision, McCain interrupted. Maybe because he lacked his own vision?
• McCain on health care: "If you like that [Obama's plan], then you'll like Canada and England." So? Is he implying that's a bad thing? Canada and the UK (albeit their systems not being perfect) are both ranked higher than the US on WHO's ranking of health care systems, so I'm inclined to believe that's a good thing.

Good night and good luck.

(photo from nytimes.com)

Health Care is the Same as Hairdressing (nur auf Englisch)

Browsing the discussion forums on blogcatalog, I stumbled upon a debate on health care as a right versus privilege. One of the first responses was written by a flamingpoodle:


Health care is not a right, it is a service, just like hair dressing. You have to pay for any service, because someone had to invest their time, money and effort into acquiring the necessary skills to perform that service.

If you can't pay for a hair cut, then you should grow your hair long. If you can't pay for medical services, then you should ensure that you don't get sick.

To say that health care is a right implies that the state has the right to enslave certain health care workers in order to provide this service.


He equates health care with hairdressing! Take a moment to let the outrageousness of that statement sink in... There are so many fallacies in his logic that I don't even know where to begin!

Health care is not a right, it is a service, just like hair dressing.
In short, long hair won't kill you but a large, untreated cancerous growth certainly will. Should this patient be refused treatment, or not receive full treatment, on basis of financial ability, then this amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

You have to pay for any service, because someone had to invest their time, money and effort into acquiring the necessary skills to perform that service.
Of course health care providers must be reimbursed for services rendered. That's what we pay taxes for.

If you can't pay for a hair cut, then you should grow your hair long. If you can't pay for medical services, then you should ensure that you don't get sick.
Wow. What a way to say "F**k Off" to those with cancer, Parkinson's, severe physical and neurological paralysis, etc., as well as to those who are forced into situations that make them more prone to sickness (i.e. needing to work multiple jobs and long hours in order to make ends meet).

To say that health care is a right implies that the state has the right to enslave certain health care workers in order to provide this service.
Because something is a right does not imply that the state has the right to enslave. There are countries where health care is a right such as France, Sweden, etc., and nobody there will tell you that they are enslaved by the state. In fact, when you become a doctor, you consciously "enslave" yourself to improving health in society by way of the Hippocratic Oath. Some doctors, most notably in the US, appear to be choosing to forget it, and practice medicine for obscene amounts of profit. I'm not against profits in the health care industry. I'm against refusal of complete treatment on the grounds of your financial/insurance situation.

A society that hails health care as a privilege tells me two things: they haven't evolved since the Industrial Revolution, and they impose cruel and unusual punishment of the less fortunate for being just that.

(images from iremind.co.uk and distractible.org repectively)

My Abbreviated Take on Social Policy (nur auf englisch)

I realise I already had my “rant” about taxes on this blog, but I have just come across two articles which I believe need to be read.

Socialism and Taxes = Not Necessarily a Bad Thing
I always find an argument to be stronger when put forth by someone who has previously opposed it. Christina G., who was Republican when she moved to Germany over six years ago, explains eloquently in her blog why she now calls herself “a believer”.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives contends that betterment for society does not necessarily lie in tax cuts, but in the re-arranging of revenue distribution. And yes, with that I mean implementing policies into government that slightly lean towards the left of the political spectrum. Currently the implementations of such policies appear impossible for a country such as the US, where McCarthy, Nixon and co. have done a brilliant job fostering the irrational phobia of socialism. Decades later, many Americans are still allergic to the mere thought and theory of socially conscious policy-making.

Socialism ≠ Communism
At this point, I need to point out that the word socialism needs to be used with great caution. There are many shades of socialism. Communists frequently hailed themselves as inherently socialist. Obviously, I’m not talking about that kind of socialism. I’m talking about the “socialism” of free-market, western countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France and, of course, Germany. I sincerely hope that those individuals who falsely equate socialism with communism realise that adopting a couple left-leaning ideas into government does not turn you into a raging red Communist. It will likely improve the societal quality of life.

NB – I wonder how many Americans realise that by comparison within the G-7, the Democrats are not at all left-wing, or even centre-left, but find themselves in centre-right territory.