Abdulrahman El-Sayed Mark--thanks again for your thoughts. *History* hasn't shown anything regarding the ACA because the fate of the ACA is in the future. History has simply shown that other healthcare plans have been more expensive than they were intended to be. Private healthcare simply doesn't work, Mark. I'm sorry to tell you this. But it doesn't work--it provides substandard care for only the richest people--it's not a "health" program at all. We can make the choice to provide quality healthcare for our population and pony up the costs, or we can decide that that's not a value for us. It's that simple. You've decided that you don't care about providing healthcare to the American population, and that's fine. I disagree--and I hope my President does, too.
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Thanks for your thoughts, Andrew. We jump to highlighting differences in ideals because your premise that government health programs are "poorly managed and overly expensive programs" is false. Two examples--private healthcare in the US runs a 15% administration overhead cost. Healthcare in Canada and the UK--both government programs in similarly high income countries--run a 4% overhead by comparison. And for an internal comparison: Medicare Advantage, a program similar to what Paul Ryan would turn all of Medicare into, is actually MORE expensive than plain old government-run Medicare (with similar outcomes)--and that's pretty well agreed upon.
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Mark--thanks for reading and I appreciate your comment. I do want to point out that my article was entitled: "What a Romney Presidency could have in store for Public Health," not "What a Romney Presidency means for our Deficit". And your comment says nothing about my analysis with respect to public health. If you think it's okay to solve deficit issues on the back of the poor--that's your prerogative. But don't you think there are better targets to slash, like, say, our overinflated military (which accounts 46% of the WORLD'S military spending)? Thanks again for your thoughts.
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Well, Christine. Ghettos aren't "obsolete" they're a reality. You think puny anti-discrimination laws in place for 50 years will have undone 300 years of slavery and its residual impact? It's all of our problem, Christine. Like it or not, this is our collective society. We all owe it to everyone to have an equal shot. And frankly, that doesn't exist in America...
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Wow Christine--do you really believe that? Have you ever stopped to think about 1) why young Black men may be committing crimes, and 2) if the justice system treats young Black men and young White men similarly? There are structural determinants to crime--people commit crimes because they're poor, they're undereducated, and because there are certain barriers to entry for people who look/talk a certain way or come from a certain background. Moreover, there is ample data to suggest that Blacks are more likely to be jailed for the same crimes as their White counterparts--why? Biased juries, inadequate access to legal council, biased drug laws... The world isn't as simple as your argument suggests it is...
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Thanks for your thoughts, Basil. I think you're spot on. I tried to make the same point in my piece with Point 2y: "Second, there’s this problem of imbalanced information. When you get sick and you go to a doctor, how do you know that the doctor really has your best interest at heart? After all, she spent 12 years training for her job and has likely forgotten more about medicine than you’ll ever know. Can you be sure she’s not running you for a loop?"
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Richard, you cherry-picked LASIK because its elective--meaning you don't HAVE TO have it. It completely side-steps the equitability question because equitability is really only a problem when we're talking about life/death/long-term wellbeing questions. And frankly, markets don't work when these questions hang in the balance because markets aren't equitable. For example, do you mean to tell me you think it's justified to force a poor man on the street to pay for his $25,000 gallbladder surgery when there's no other lifesaving choice?
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Sal, thanks for your thoughts. I don't believe unlimited access for all is the way to go either. But a complete "free market", with no oversight or regulation--especially given the issues I discussed regarding doctors choices and problems with the insurance market--can't be right either. Wouldn't you agree?
Abdulrahman El-Sayed But it can't be that much of a dichotomy, can it Steve? Richard's "Free Market" implies NO government intervention--that's clearly not what you want "The moral obligation is only for basic preventative, early detection, and emergency"--what you've cited is government at work. I agree that markets can play some role, but the vicious, heartless free market Richard describes surely isn't it...
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Thank you for your thoughts, Curt. Of all the comments on my article, I don't think I've read one as simplistic as this one. A couple of thoughts in response: 1) I'm not a judge or a jury--so my opinions on what happened have no bearing in court. 2) My focus is not on individuals, but rather institutions who I believe are implicated in the climate of hate that I believe contributed to the murders of these two innocent people. Thank you once again for taking the time to read and comment on my article.
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Thanks for your comment, Shelley. But it's annoying that implicit in your critique is the assumption that I'm somehow "condemning and scolding" the US as an outsider. You're likely profiling my name. Let me assure you, I'm as American as apple pie--I was born and raised in Detroit. If we were such a "multi-racial" society, as you suggest, you wouldn't assume me to be foreign. Rather, when you see the name "Abdulrahman El-Sayed", that indicates to you that I'm probably foreign. Thanks for illustrating precisely why my point needs to be made. Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment.
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Ethan, thank you for your comment. You may have missed the substance--I don't blame you: When you read a commentary looking to have your own opinions validated, that can happen. The substance is certainly there, you just disagree with it. All of the points you raise are lamentable. That said, given you admittedly missed the point, let me reiterate it. There is not the same messaging through common media outlets and government action suggesting that Whites are dangerous, or that Jews are out to destroy Americans. This, is, however, true of Blacks and Muslims who are implicitly targeted everyday. Like the point of this article, you may choose to ignore that, too. But it's there. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Abdulrahman El-Sayed Fair point, John. It's plausible that a climate of fear isn't want pulled the trigger. That said, it's clear that race-based profiling is certainly what created the circumstance wherein Trayvon was shot--Zimmerman's singling him out and following him.
Abdulrahman El-Sayed This essay is mentally restricted. The high school social studies level analysis is about as shallow as the author's perspective, which are actually (and improbably) deeper than his experiences. In the future, rather than capitalizing on the correlation between a Muslim population and the lack of democracy to rationalize his xenophobic ideological stand, perhaps the author might consider the lurking third variable--poverty. Poor countries don't usually have functioning democracies. And then the author could consider where that poverty comes from--colonial rule. A very different story emerges. A word to the wise: One shouldn't write publicly about issues he doesn't understand.