Nanny State is here to save the day! (Actually, that scares me even more!)
Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed Universal Health Care. Assemblymember Sally Lieber has proposed an anti-spanking bill. No fewer than five California legislators are attempting to ban trans fats.
Republicans, as usual, are crying foul and claiming that Big Brother is going to mess things up. As a general rule, I agree with the idea that the Government should allow the private sector to fix problems and allow maximum personal liberty. In my mind, the government is only responsible to protect the rights and property of the people and entities it serves.
But I disagree with the mainstream Republican line on these issues. I have recently posted on Healthcare, so I will focus primarily on transfats and spanking today.
TRANS FAT
Following the lead of New York City and the advice of nutritionists everywhere, California may decide to ban or limit the use of trans fat in prepared foods in the near future. Despite the tasty goodness that trans fats can lend to many delicious fried foods, I couldn't be happier!
Imagine a world without trans fats. Despite exaggerated claims from some industry folks, your favorite foods and restaurants will continue to exist with nearly identical tastes at similar prices. The biggest difference will be that your cholesterol level will be lower and all Americans will have a greater chance of being a little healthier.
It was only a few short decades ago that trans fats became an important part of the American diet. We were all informed that trans fats are significantly better than the dreaded saturated fat and might actually be good for us like polyunsaturated fats. Quickly, our society adapted recipes and our way of life to promote this new miracle substance only to learn that transfats are FAR worse for our cholesterol levels than evil saturated fats could be in their wildest dreams.
Fortunately, members of the public (like Oprah and that guy from Supersize Me) have started to realize the danger of eating poisons like partially hydrogenated corn oil and have called for it to be removed from our diets. Even more fortunately, the private sector has responded! After NYC started talking about banning the substance, many corporate foodservice providers like Starbucks and Kentucky Fried Chicken started removing trans fat from their recipes without any noticeable change in the taste of their products. In fact, if these corporations hadn't been on a massive advertising blitz to tell you that their food is healthier now, there wouldn't have been any noticeable change at all!
Yet many still complain that the government shouldn't require the private sector to remove partially hydrogenated oils from their foods. I would be inclined to agree if the average person out understood how human nutrition works, that trans fats are essentially a poison, and that most of us are eating toxic levels of it regularly. As such, we should limit the use of trans fats in foods just as we limit the use of arsenic, lead, and other dangerous substances in our foods.
SPANKING
A friend of mine recently argued with me that Americans have a right to raise children in the way that we want. I asked him to show me where that right is listed in the Constitution.
The truth is that the right to privacy that the Supreme Court has read into the Bill of Rights does not grant us the right to cause harm to others. If it did, all laws preventing people from causing harm to others would be unconstitutional!
The spanking bill that Lieber unveiled would prevent adults from spanking children under the age of three. While I would suggest that the age limit might be more fitting at two years of age, it is important to note that children do not ever have the mental capacity to comprehend the reason they are being physically punished at extremely young ages.
While Republicans argue that the Nanny State government is over-reaching its boundaries in telling parents how they can and can't raise their children, it is a fact that any time an adult strikes an infant with the intent to cause pain it should be considered child abuse. Likewise, children too young to understand the reason they are being physically punished should be struck by an adult as punishment. Those who oppose the ban on spanking are focusing on the privileges of parents but are neglecting the rights children.
Certainly, I agree that responsible adults should be able to parent in whatever way they see fit, however they should be prevented from causing harm to their children. The government has the indisputed authority to punish parents that attempt to kill, poison, or otherwise abuse their children. However, social customs have allowed parents to strike their children even though psychologists have proven that the extremely young are only harmed by the practice.
CONCLUSION
As a general rule, I think that the Nanny State still sucks and Big Brother watches us too closely. Still, I think it is worse that Americans are abusing their children and poisoning themselves because almost worth eating contains trans fats. Sure, spanking isn't as bad as locking a child into a cage nor are trans fats quite as deadly as cyanide. Still, both should be legislated against as soon as possible. Most of us won't even know the difference!
Showing posts with label Universal Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Universal Healthcare. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
State of the Party
With the California Republican Party Convention in Sacramento just over 3 weeks away, I want to start examining the future of the California GOP.
Clearly, California has some definite Republican strongholds. Large swaths of the less urban areas of Southern California, Central California, and rural Northern California are conservative bastions and are unlikely to change voting patterns. Urban areas including SF and LA are strongly liberal areas that are unlikely to ever support GOP candidates. Though California has voted Blue in several past elections, I have already explained that I consider it to be a Purple state that could vote Republican under the right circumstances. Remember that our Governor is the infamous Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.
Governor Schwarzenegger has come to the same realization that I have: most Californians are not in favor of government regulation in their personal lives nor are they socially conservative. Also, people in this state tend to favor certain "liberal" policies including developing infrastructure and protecting the environment, especially if both can be done with a minimum impact on their own lives and business.
Unfortunately, the GOP has not yet come to this same realization. Founder and Editor of the FlashReport, Jon Fleishman penned a post on his views on the GOP's shortcomings recently. In it he pointed specifically GOP members of Congress becoming addicted to spending as a reason for their loss. While I agree that it certainly made them worse members of Congress and did contribute to their loss, I contend that a bigger factor was the inability of GOP members to keep themselves from meddling in the everyday lives of Americans and keep themselves out of scandal.
In California, the Republican minority in the state legislature has grown increasingly irrelevant. The only Republican sponsored bills that are passed are either totally innocuous or are parts of deals to get budget bills (and other bills that require a 2/3 supermajority) to pass. The rest of the year, it really doesn't matter what most Republicans say (unless, of course, that Republican is the Governator). Most GOP members of the Legislature hem and haw so loudly and obnoxiously that it is hard to take them seriously. Indeed, sometimes the Assembly floor has slightly resembled the British Parliament questioning the Prime Minister, with the minority party becoming insulting to the majority.
However, it need not be this way. Not long ago, Republicans were able to enjoy a majority in the Legislature. We were once relevant in California outside the Governor's Horseshoe.
What was different then was that the GOP molded itself to fit into the mainstream of political thought among voters. Without a doubt, the GOP still fell a little to the right of public opinion. However, the party continually attempted to capture the median voter both statewide and in many local districts. In those days, such people as Governor Pete Wilson, a moderate pro-choice Republican, not only was elected but maintained the support of the party and many swing voters.
Today, a moderate pro-choice Republican by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger has managed to capture the support of 63% of the state but has been practically abandoned by the party. One would expect that a popular Republican governor in a Democratic state that proposes moderate, proactive solutions would receive support from his party when he proposes landmark legislation like healthcare. Apparently, not so.
What the California Republican Party needs are leaders who are willing to step away from socially conservative notions that are out of touch with California voters. These leaders should work with the Governor and champion traditionally liberal causes in a uniquely Republican way that promotes personal liberty, small government, and free market principles.
Soon, I look forward to reviewing some of the candidates that are running for offices within the California GOP. Nominations have not yet closed and I only know of a handful of people running for party offices. If any of you are running or know of a candidate I would be interested in (either positively or negatively) please let me know!
Clearly, California has some definite Republican strongholds. Large swaths of the less urban areas of Southern California, Central California, and rural Northern California are conservative bastions and are unlikely to change voting patterns. Urban areas including SF and LA are strongly liberal areas that are unlikely to ever support GOP candidates. Though California has voted Blue in several past elections, I have already explained that I consider it to be a Purple state that could vote Republican under the right circumstances. Remember that our Governor is the infamous Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.
Governor Schwarzenegger has come to the same realization that I have: most Californians are not in favor of government regulation in their personal lives nor are they socially conservative. Also, people in this state tend to favor certain "liberal" policies including developing infrastructure and protecting the environment, especially if both can be done with a minimum impact on their own lives and business.
Unfortunately, the GOP has not yet come to this same realization. Founder and Editor of the FlashReport, Jon Fleishman penned a post on his views on the GOP's shortcomings recently. In it he pointed specifically GOP members of Congress becoming addicted to spending as a reason for their loss. While I agree that it certainly made them worse members of Congress and did contribute to their loss, I contend that a bigger factor was the inability of GOP members to keep themselves from meddling in the everyday lives of Americans and keep themselves out of scandal.
In California, the Republican minority in the state legislature has grown increasingly irrelevant. The only Republican sponsored bills that are passed are either totally innocuous or are parts of deals to get budget bills (and other bills that require a 2/3 supermajority) to pass. The rest of the year, it really doesn't matter what most Republicans say (unless, of course, that Republican is the Governator). Most GOP members of the Legislature hem and haw so loudly and obnoxiously that it is hard to take them seriously. Indeed, sometimes the Assembly floor has slightly resembled the British Parliament questioning the Prime Minister, with the minority party becoming insulting to the majority.
However, it need not be this way. Not long ago, Republicans were able to enjoy a majority in the Legislature. We were once relevant in California outside the Governor's Horseshoe.
What was different then was that the GOP molded itself to fit into the mainstream of political thought among voters. Without a doubt, the GOP still fell a little to the right of public opinion. However, the party continually attempted to capture the median voter both statewide and in many local districts. In those days, such people as Governor Pete Wilson, a moderate pro-choice Republican, not only was elected but maintained the support of the party and many swing voters.
Today, a moderate pro-choice Republican by the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger has managed to capture the support of 63% of the state but has been practically abandoned by the party. One would expect that a popular Republican governor in a Democratic state that proposes moderate, proactive solutions would receive support from his party when he proposes landmark legislation like healthcare. Apparently, not so.
What the California Republican Party needs are leaders who are willing to step away from socially conservative notions that are out of touch with California voters. These leaders should work with the Governor and champion traditionally liberal causes in a uniquely Republican way that promotes personal liberty, small government, and free market principles.
Soon, I look forward to reviewing some of the candidates that are running for offices within the California GOP. Nominations have not yet closed and I only know of a handful of people running for party offices. If any of you are running or know of a candidate I would be interested in (either positively or negatively) please let me know!
Monday, January 08, 2007
Universal Healthcare in California
After spending some time in a Idaho hospital after a holiday ski accident, the Governor has unveiled his new healthcare plan for all Californians.
Eat your heart out, Hillary! This plan actually as a chance of becoming reality!
According to the plan, all Californians will be required to maintain health insurance. This would serve to reduce emergency care costs for the uninsured that hospitals currently must “eat” and eventually pass along to insured and paying patients. The governor has likened this to a hidden tax. This would also improve the public health by encouraging early treatment and maintenance care of ailments-typically much cheaper and effective than late treatment and emergency care.
More controversially, the plan will require all business with 10 or more employees to offer insurance or pay at least 4% of their payroll to help pay for their employees’ health coverage. Additionally, this plan would require insurance companies to guarantee individuals coverage in the individual market and spend 85% of every premium dollar on patient care.
There is certainly a need for healthcare coverage in California and too small of a percentage of our population currently are able to maintain coverage. Market forces have kept adequate coverage out of the hands of many who need it and want it. Because insurance companies frequently no longer offer individual plans in California, insurance is impossible for many people to obtain.
Further, because California emergency rooms must provide services to individuals without regard of their ability to pay, all Californians must carry the burden. Those that are unable to pay are also unable to obtain preventative care or treatment for most ailments until they find themselves in emergency rooms. The costs at that point are much higher and the chances of successfully treating the ailment are significantly lower. Given that we are already paying a high cost for medical care for those that cannot pay for themselves, I would much rather my dollars be used more efficiently and effectively.
All of this analysis comes without a dollar sign attached to it, so far. As far as I can tell, the Governor has not announced how much his plan is going to cost taxpayers or where the money will come from. All Californians will be required to carry insurance now and this could cause some difficult questions of enforcement and, in an unlikely worst-case scenario, could potentially lead to chronic overcrowding in hospitals. While the Governor has enjoyed a remarkable record with the economy, requiring all companies to offer health benefits could be detrimental to many small businesses. Not to mention, we have no idea what this would do to preexisting health benefits and insurance premiums.
We know what the ends are (and the ends are good!), but we don’t yet know the means by which the Governor wants to implement these plans. Will the ends justify the means?
Eat your heart out, Hillary! This plan actually as a chance of becoming reality!
According to the plan, all Californians will be required to maintain health insurance. This would serve to reduce emergency care costs for the uninsured that hospitals currently must “eat” and eventually pass along to insured and paying patients. The governor has likened this to a hidden tax. This would also improve the public health by encouraging early treatment and maintenance care of ailments-typically much cheaper and effective than late treatment and emergency care.
More controversially, the plan will require all business with 10 or more employees to offer insurance or pay at least 4% of their payroll to help pay for their employees’ health coverage. Additionally, this plan would require insurance companies to guarantee individuals coverage in the individual market and spend 85% of every premium dollar on patient care.
There is certainly a need for healthcare coverage in California and too small of a percentage of our population currently are able to maintain coverage. Market forces have kept adequate coverage out of the hands of many who need it and want it. Because insurance companies frequently no longer offer individual plans in California, insurance is impossible for many people to obtain.
Further, because California emergency rooms must provide services to individuals without regard of their ability to pay, all Californians must carry the burden. Those that are unable to pay are also unable to obtain preventative care or treatment for most ailments until they find themselves in emergency rooms. The costs at that point are much higher and the chances of successfully treating the ailment are significantly lower. Given that we are already paying a high cost for medical care for those that cannot pay for themselves, I would much rather my dollars be used more efficiently and effectively.
All of this analysis comes without a dollar sign attached to it, so far. As far as I can tell, the Governor has not announced how much his plan is going to cost taxpayers or where the money will come from. All Californians will be required to carry insurance now and this could cause some difficult questions of enforcement and, in an unlikely worst-case scenario, could potentially lead to chronic overcrowding in hospitals. While the Governor has enjoyed a remarkable record with the economy, requiring all companies to offer health benefits could be detrimental to many small businesses. Not to mention, we have no idea what this would do to preexisting health benefits and insurance premiums.
We know what the ends are (and the ends are good!), but we don’t yet know the means by which the Governor wants to implement these plans. Will the ends justify the means?
Friday, January 05, 2007
California Secedes From Union, Declares War on USA
Governor Schwarzenegger was sworn in today amidst much fanfare. By now, anybody who reads about politics would have already heard about the Governor’s speech applauding centrism in bringing the state forward. But what you might not have heard is that the Governor renounced parties and declared war on the United States after California’s secession from the Union. Well, maybe not quite.
But the Governor did declare that California is a nation-state. Indeed, we have a very diverse population but well defined cultural identity. Additionally, we are an important world economy and power in our own right. We are even trying to fashion ourselves a world leader in environmental progress. Stated by the Governor in his inaugural speech while surrounded by members of the California National Guard (which he commands), this could very well be considered an act of secession. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger found a way around the constitutional provisions preventing his election to the presidency—he declared himself the chief executive of his own nation! GO GOVERNATOR!
The Governor also promoted “Post-Partisanism” a new term he coined to reflect what he hopes to achieve in this new nation—an end to parties, once and for all. No longer does he intend to act in a bipartisan manner; he wishes to run a California where a partisan label on issues doesn’t drive or kill a measure. That is, the Governor wants to promote issues that Californians want, need, and elected him to secure (namely: prison reform, healthcare, and environmental reform) without the Republicans or Democrats pulling party lines because the issue has been historically Democrat or Republican led (in these cases, Democrat led). As the Gov said, “We don’t need Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.”
Not that any of this should really be news. Governor Schwarzenegger is hardly a partisan and has long stated his disdain for partisan politics. His views on the environment and healthcare are well-documented. Nobody should be surprised by his views today. Today’s speech, was however, a refreshingly inspiring look into the mind of the popular Governor. I may post the transcript of the speech in its entirety later. Or maybe not.
In other news: Maria Shriver looked too thin. Patrick Schwarzenegger needs a haircut, badly. Eunice Shriver looked fabulous. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who as usual, was impeccably dressed in a well-tailored suit with a lavender tie needed more stylish crutches. The set he was using were plain, grey, aluminum crutches that appeared to be issued by the hospital. Perhaps he should find a more stylish set with modern appearance or an ergonomic design. That would be cool.
But the Governor did declare that California is a nation-state. Indeed, we have a very diverse population but well defined cultural identity. Additionally, we are an important world economy and power in our own right. We are even trying to fashion ourselves a world leader in environmental progress. Stated by the Governor in his inaugural speech while surrounded by members of the California National Guard (which he commands), this could very well be considered an act of secession. Perhaps Arnold Schwarzenegger found a way around the constitutional provisions preventing his election to the presidency—he declared himself the chief executive of his own nation! GO GOVERNATOR!
The Governor also promoted “Post-Partisanism” a new term he coined to reflect what he hopes to achieve in this new nation—an end to parties, once and for all. No longer does he intend to act in a bipartisan manner; he wishes to run a California where a partisan label on issues doesn’t drive or kill a measure. That is, the Governor wants to promote issues that Californians want, need, and elected him to secure (namely: prison reform, healthcare, and environmental reform) without the Republicans or Democrats pulling party lines because the issue has been historically Democrat or Republican led (in these cases, Democrat led). As the Gov said, “We don’t need Republican clean air or Democratic clean air. We all breathe the same air.”
Not that any of this should really be news. Governor Schwarzenegger is hardly a partisan and has long stated his disdain for partisan politics. His views on the environment and healthcare are well-documented. Nobody should be surprised by his views today. Today’s speech, was however, a refreshingly inspiring look into the mind of the popular Governor. I may post the transcript of the speech in its entirety later. Or maybe not.
In other news: Maria Shriver looked too thin. Patrick Schwarzenegger needs a haircut, badly. Eunice Shriver looked fabulous. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who as usual, was impeccably dressed in a well-tailored suit with a lavender tie needed more stylish crutches. The set he was using were plain, grey, aluminum crutches that appeared to be issued by the hospital. Perhaps he should find a more stylish set with modern appearance or an ergonomic design. That would be cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
