I've often found myself taken aback by the completely irrelevant headlines in the news.
The media in this country is always cuing into the wrong stories and often puts a dishonest sensational spin on otherwise legitimate events. I generally find myself getting news from the internet and doing plenty of research on any particular subject before I commit to an opinion.
However, the point remains, I think that the media is generally focused on less-than-important stories.
This weekend Whitney Houston passed away and naturally the stories started to flow. Similar to the passing of any major celebrity, word got around and headlines were made. She was a talented artist and an influential human being who left a mark upon the world. People like that get headlines when they pass away; I think that's actually part of being a celebrity.
Today, amidst the slew of headlines, some people started to complain (similar to when other celebrities have passed away), that we shouldn't be concerned about her death. These same people would say that there is other stuff going on in the world (i.e. soldiers getting killed overseas) and that the news should focus on that.
It's funny, I read the stories (not all, but a lot of them) whenever service members are killed overseas. They don't always make the big headlines, but they are generally reported. I also happen to think that it was a tragedy that Whitney Houston died at such a young age.
I find it possible to take interest in/ feel sorry for the soldiers that are killed in action, while still being concerned that Whitney Houston passed away and I'm sure that I am not unique in this ability.
I also find it amusing that the same people/ agencies that rally against concern for the death of Whitney Houston (similar to Michael Jackson and Amy Whinehouse) take plenty of time to report the latest sports scores and talk about the greatest Super Bowl Commercials.
Where was the outrage when the Super Bowl occupied all of the headlines and news-feeds?
Hell, theres a Super Bowl every year, but I guess that's different.
Earlier today we were driving along and Eminem was playing on the radio.
I'll be the first to admit that he is a pretty talented musician and a brilliant lyricist; however, it is very difficult to listen to his music on the radio.
I say this not out of dis-like for his songs, but more for the brutal bleeps and skips installed by the ever-caring FCC. Once it was pointed out, I couldn't help but think that some of my nearly twenty-year-old CD's sound better.
Having grown up in a relatively hands-off family, censorship was never really enforced for me as a child; as a result, Rambo: First Blood was one of the first movies I can remember seeing. Not that I'm complaining, but I am pretty sure that most would consider this an inappropriate movie for toddlers to watch.
However, life being as it was, I watched more than my fair share of ultra-violent movies, saw a good bunch of naked people and listened to plenty of profane music growing up. As a small aside, I think I've turned out to be a relatively productive member of society.
So, considering my own personal history with censorship, I am completely opposed to any and all government-enforced censorship. That includes censorship of movies, music, books, news and ideas.
I am of the opinion that telling people they aren't allowed to see or hear something will only increase their curiosity for said sight or sound.
I personally have no problem with nudity and as a sailor have an ear very desensitized to foul language. Personally, I take more issue with violence than I do with either of the other two primary censored categories, but all the same feel that it should not be something that the government controls.
If my kids want to listen to Eminem on the radio, what is the benefit of editing out every other word from the song?
Is someone under the false impression that they aren't going to look up the lyrics as soon as they find a computer?
Although the Health Care Debate in the United States has been presumably dead for several years, I recently stumbled upon a brief discussion on the subject.
Anyway, this short discussion did nothing more than remind me of my old position:
I believe that, similar to Fire and Police protection, Health Care should be provided for the public by the public. Leaving something so critical to the wellbeing of the citizens of this country in the hands of a for-profit system, would seem to be counter productive.
The point of running a for-profit business is to make money (turn a profit) and in order to do this, it only makes sense that the least possible services are offered for the maximum possible price. As someone who appreciates profitable businesses, I can't argue with this logic.
However, as a person who depends upon health care providers to continue living a comfortable life, I do not appreciate the idea that my well-being may be weighed against some company's ability to make money off my enrollment. Additionally, as a person who cares greatly about the wellbeing of more than a handful of other people (i.e. friends, family, ect), I don't appreciate the idea of their health being weighed against profits either.
I'm sure the same could be said if we were to employ Fire-Fighters in the same way. I wouldn't want the safety of anyone being held against the profitability of a Fire Department.
-Great Example of the capability of Government Health Care
Regardless, when it comes to the subject of keeping costs down, which is always a good thing, the United States spent approximately $2.5 trillion dollars on Health Care in 2010. During that same year TriCare operated on an annual budget of $48.5 million dollars. (reference) (Reference)
What is interesting about these numbers is that the United States was comprised of 308 million people in 2010 while TriCare had 9.5 million enrollees. (reference). Population considered, the average health care expenditures (per person) in the United States total approximately $8,097 and the TriCare expenditure (per enrollee) is $5,105.
With all of the above being stated, I believe that a publicly run health care system would provide the best care for the most people. I also believe that, were we to operate on the TriCare system, we would be saving almost one trillion dollars in annual health care expenditures.
