#at minimum national healthcare and no prohibition for sure | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

maswartz · 5 years

Link

IN THE PROGRESSIVE COLLEGE TOWN where I live, one sees a lot of “Bernie” bumper stickers on a lot of Subarus. Probably these are remnants of 2016, when the Independent from Vermont masqueraded as a Democrat, dividing the party and hobbling Hillary Clinton’s campaign just enough to fuck up the final tally. Although I held with HRC then as now, I don’t begrudge anyone who supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries four years ago, when we first became acquainted with the ugly font and awful shade of blue on his campaign merch. But to support him today, after Trump, after Mueller, is akin to insisting, on Christmas 2019, that despite ample evidence to the contrary, Michael Jackson is innocent, because you really dig Off the Wall.

“Don’t they know?” I scream when I see these Bernie stickers. “Don’t they realize who he really is?” Apparently not. But then, to them, and to most on what Sean Hannity might call the “radical left,” Bernie is not a person as much as an ideal: A sort of liberal Santa Claus who will come down our collective chimney to deliver free healthcare and free college, and, with the aid of his ineffable North Pole magic, break up the banks, slay the patriarchy, eliminate racism, end income inequality, and tax corporations into insolvency—all while raising the minimum wage for his workshop elves. How he plans to actually accomplish any of this he only hints at—Bernie rarely deigns to answer process questions and usually gets grouchy when pressed for details—but it all sounds so wonderful we want to believe, just as we every year insist that yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

Unfortunately, the flesh-and-blood Bernie Sanders, if elected, would not have the requisite power to fulfill his lofty promises—any more than the tipsy Macy’s Santa will leave the mall on a sleigh driven by flying reindeer. Bernie is a real person, and he is deeply, perhaps fatally, flawed. He would be a horrible candidate in the general election—like, McGovern-in-’72-level bad—and, more urgently, his nomination would ensure that, whoever won, the White House remained in Russian hands.

The Bernie extolled by the bros is a myth, just like the Trump that MAGA adores—just like Neverland, and just like Santa Claus. We need to face some cold, hard truths, before Sanders scolds and finger-wags his way to a second term for Donald Trump. We cannot permit this egomaniacal fraud to spoil yet another election.

Bernie is a socialist—but of the Union of Soviet Socialists variety.

Hey, there’s a reason Santa Claus wears red!

Bernie is a self-styled “socialist” who has bought, hook line and sinker, the Stalinist propaganda about Marxism and the glories of the Soviet Union. This was understandable if you were Dalton Trumbo in 1947. After all, the governing philosophy of communism is “let’s share everything so there is no want,” which is kind of appealing, especially next to the “fuck you, pay me” mantra of unvarnished Trump-variety capitalism. Seven-plus decades later, alas, the naïveté borders on delusional.

From the Young Peoples Socialist League to his membership in the Liberty Union Party, which sought to nationalize (and not just “break up”) the banks, to his time at the Kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’amakim, which extolled Stalin—who slaughtered more people than Hitler—as “Sun of the Nations,” to his hanging a Soviet flag in his Burlington mayoral office, Soviet boosterism is the thruline of Bernie's career.

Bernie took his wife to the Soviet Union for their honeymoon, as one does. For years, he extolled the virtues of the USSR. Rather than grok that it’s all KGB-fed propaganda and lies, he’s been a staunch Bolshevik apologist for his entire adult life.

I mean, the guy has a dacha, ffs.

Look, our healthcare system is flawed. I’d love some sort of universal coverage like they have in every other developed country. But the best person to promote the de facto nationalization of the healthcare system is not a Soviet apologist who once wanted to nationalize the banks, too.

Bernie is unpopular with Black voters.

To be fair, Sanders (likely) really does want equality and all those nice things he talks about. Good for him. The problem is that his vision of “socialist” utopia is absolutist and focuses too much on the (white, male) working class that he, like his beloved Marx, idolizes and idealizes.

Despite some high-profile Black supporters, Bernie remains unpopular with Black voters, particularly Black women. This, and not “the rigged DNC,” is why HRC kicked his ass in the primaries. Could it be that Black voters have made Bernie as a BS artist? Those are his initials, after all.

The failure of the United States to properly examine and make amends for slavery contributes mightily to the country’s enduring racism, on which MAGA feeds. Not to even discuss reparations is madness. Unsurprisingly, Bernie does not understand this:

Marcus H. Johnson@marcushjohnson

Bernie Sanders thinks reparations is "just writing a check" instead of a redress for state sanctioned terrorism, violence, and being shut out of the economic, political, and legal systems for 250+ years. How is reparations "just writing a check," and free college not?

Aaron Rupar@atrupar

Bernie Sanders on reparations on The View: "I think that right now our job is to address the crises facing the American people in our communities, and I think there are better ways to do that than just writing out a check." https://t.co/FXso34iSbs

March 1st 2019

470 Retweets1,065 Likes

To win the resounding victory necessary to defeat Trump and the Russian hackers threatening to sabotage yet another election, overwhelming African-American voter turnout is essential. Black voters are more likely to turn out in big numbers for Joe Biden—especially if he runs with Kamala Harris, as we K-Hivers hope—than yet another elderly New Yorker who makes pie-in-the-sky promises he can’t possibly keep.

Bernie is lazy.

Sanders spent the early part of his career flitting between low-paying odd jobs:

He bounced around for a few years, working stints in New York as an aide at a psychiatric hospital and teaching preschoolers for Head Start, and in Vermont researching property taxation for the Vermont Department of Taxes and registering people for food stamps for a nonprofit called the Bread and Law Task Force.

Then as now, he was more given to talking the talk than walking the walk. In 1970, the 30-year-old Liberty Union Party socialist was kicked out of a Vermont commune for not doing his share of the work. His days there were instead spent in “endless political discussion.”

Sanders’ idle chatter did not endear him with some of the commune’s residents, who did the backbreaking labor of running the place. [Kate] Daloz writes [in her history of the commune] that one resident, Craig, “resented feeling like he had to pull others out of Bernie’s orbit if any work was going to get accomplished that day.” Sanders was eventually asked to leave.

Eventually, Bernie found a career that would allow him to talk a big game but accomplish precious little: politics. For the decades he’s been in Congress, his record is pretty scant. Seven bills in 28 years, including two that name post offices, is nothing to write home about (unless you’re writing home to one of those post offices)—although Sanders has been a quiet champion of gun rights for most of his Congressional career, as well as a dependable “nay” vote on Russian sanctions, so I guess there’s that.

But hey, I’m sure a guy who has avoided labor as assiduously as possible for 78 years will magically turn into a workaholic as an octogenarian. That heart attack no doubt jump-started his engines. Speaking of which…

Bernie is old, and he just had a heart attack.

Okay, maybe it wasn’t actually a heart attack. Maybe it was just a life-threatening cardiac issue that required emergency surgery. We don’t know, because Sanders has not yet released his medical report. But he has promised to do so, just as he promised to release his taxes and then waited a million years to make good. Will he bring the receipts before next week, as he said he would?

The Speaker's Basilisk⚖️@PelosiLegatus

Why hasn’t @BernieSanders released his medical records yet? He just has a heart attack three months ago, which he lied about. What is he hiding from the American people? Why is the press so afraid to dig into his dishonesty?

December 23rd 2019

173 Retweets444 Likes

Even if his medical report checks out, I mean…there’s ageism, and then there are actuarial tables. A President Sanders would turn eighty in 2021, his first year in office. That would make him the oldest first-term president by a significant margin. He can’t live forever; in that way, he’s not like Santa Claus.

Bernie is a misogynist.

That Bernie Sanders is some sort of radical feminist, a paradigm for how men should be in the post-Third-Wave world, is almost as ridiculous as his stubborn refusal to comb his hair.

Before he launched his political career, he was a deadbeat dad. Remember, Bernie was a graduate of the prestigious University of Chicago, in an era when college degrees were relatively rare. Instead of putting food on the table, he was running quixotic political campaigns as the standard-bearer of a barely functional party. As Spandan Chakrabarti writes:

In 1971, Vermont was debating a tenant’s rights bill. One of the testimonials to Vermont’s State Senate Judiciary Committee came from one Susan Mott of Burlington, who said the legislation did not go far enough in prohibiting discrimination against single mothers and recipients of welfare benefits. Mott had one child and was on welfare. That one child…was Levi Sanders, Bernie Sanders’ son. Which begs the question, why did Bernie Sanders’ (former?) girlfriend and his son have to be on welfare? Where was the University of Chicago graduate’s considerable marketable skills? What was 5-year-old Levi’s father doing that he couldn't afford to support his own child? It turns out he was too busy coming in third with single digit votes.

To be fair, Bernie did bring home a little bit of bacon writing stuff like this:

A man goes home and masturbates [to] his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

A woman enjoys intercourse with her man—as she fantasizes [about] being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

Even if those lines were intended as a provocative rhetorical flourish to be shot down later in the essay, I mean…what feminist ally would write something like that?

And then there’s the more recent sexual harassment issues that seem to be pervasive in his campaign offices. He missed one of the Russian sanction votes because he was busy dealing with it:

The only one to miss the vote was Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. He was meeting with women who had accused his 2016 presidential campaign of sexual misconduct, his spokesman, Josh Miller-Lewis, told CNBC.

As if to confirm his misogynist bona fides, Sanders this month endorsed the candidacy of Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur, no feminist ally—before the bad optics forced him to reverse course:

“As I said yesterday, Cenk has been a longtime fighter against the corrupt forces in our politics and he’s inspired people all across the country,” the Vermont senator said. “However, our movement is bigger than any one person. I hear my grassroots supporters who were frustrated and understand their concerns. Cenk today said he is rejecting all endorsements for his campaign, and I retract my endorsement.”

That Cenk is running for the California seat vacated by rising star Katie Hill, a victim of criminal revenge porn who was shamed into stepping down, makes the gaffe even worse.

Bernie is not a Democrat.

Of all the idiotic narratives spewed by the “Bernie bros” about 2016, the most asinine was that the process had to be rigged because the DNC clearly preferred Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. Um…why would it not? Just as a New York Yankees fan club would want its leader to be a ride-or-die Yankee fan rather than a waffler who rooted for either the Bronx Bombers or the Red Sox depending on which was doing better that year, so the Democratic National Committee wants an actual Democrat to be its nominee. Duh.

And this was not any nominee. HRC was practically funding the operation herself, to help with the down-ballot races Bernie could give a shit about. Anyone can scold the country about big banks and wage inequality, but to actually, you know, govern requires working well with other people, a skill that seems to have eluded Sanders for the last 30 years.

Alas, the incorrigible Senator has learned nothing from 2016. He’s still playing the hackneyed “rabble-rousing outsider” card:

The Hill@thehill

Sen. @BernieSanders: "We are going to take on the Democratic establishment."

December 22nd 2019

426 Retweets1,930 Likes

The election of 2020 is, or should be, a referendum on Trump. It’s not about taking on the Democrats. That sort of internecine divisiveness is exactly what Putin wants. Which makes perfect sense when we consider that…

Bernie is (at a minimum) a Useful Idiot for Putin.

The bots go on the offensive whenever I tweet that Bernie is a Useful Idiot for Russia. But he is Useful, in that he operates as a divisive force in the Democratic Party, which aids Putin. And he’s certainly an Idiot, in that he doesn't realize the damage he’s done. But does he really not know?

The Mueller Report makes it clear that Russian IC was helping the Sanders campaign. Either Bernie didn’t realize this, and is an idiot, or he did realize it and played along, and is a traitor. Either way, the guy who hired former Paul Manafort chum Tad Devine to run his campaign cannot be trusted with standing up to Putin and the powerful forces of transnational organized crime, no matter how passionate his anti-Wall Street screeds.

(Sidenote: Tad Devine is now peddling his Kremlin-y wares for Andrew Yang, which perhaps explains Yang’s recent remark that he is open to granting Donald Trump a pardon. This, needless to say, is disqualifying).

Put it this way: Are we sure that a Nominee Sanders—an almost-eighty-year-old who just had a heart attack—would not pick the Russophile cult member Tulsi Gabbard as his running mate? The “anti-anti-Trump Left,” as Jonathan Chait calls it, is alive and well, sharing, “in addition to enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders, [a] deep skepticism of the Democratic Party’s mobilization against the president.” So: traitors, basically. Would not Sanders, if given the chance, throw meat to this rabid fan base, if only to generate more adulation? Do we really trust the judgment of the guy who can’t ensure that his own campaign headquarters is not a hostile work environment?

Bernie still, years after the fact, cannot understand that he contributed to HRC’s defeat—just as he can’t see that his ideas about the Soviet Union and communism have been debunked. He doesn’t have it in him to realize, much less admit, he was wrong. And why should he? As long as well-meaning people—especially young people; especially young women; especially pretty young women—keep “feeling the Bern,” he will continue to happily soak up the attention, like the insufferable narcissist he is. Why Millennials support the guy instead of OK-Boomering him to oblivion is a head-scratcher. Maybe it’s because he was born two months before Pearl Harbor and is therefore older than the Boomers?

Bernie Sanders is the Trump of the Left. Repeat: Bernie Sanders is the Trump of the Left. He’s an egomaniac who believes his own hype, like Trump. And like Trump, Bernie is selling snake oil; we just happen to like his brand of snake oil. He’s a bad mall Santa, promising everyone a pony, when all he can deliver is a lump of coal. And make no mistake: far from assuring a worker’s paradise, his nomination would bring about the end of the republic.

It’s not a “revolution.” It’s a con job. And it’s got the full support of the Russians.

#bernie sanders

7 notes · View notes

middleagedangst · 5 years

Text

Marching to the Beat of a Handmaid’s Drum

A pro-choice manifesto... by a dude

_________________________________________________________________

Freedom of choice. It’s as American as apple pie, baseball, and watered-down beer. As Americans, we get to choose what we buy, where we eat, who we love, whether or not we like someone based on their opinion of The Office… You get where I’m going. Exercising your choice is a great display of your patriotism and love for this nation.

Sometimes our freedom of choice gets ripped away from us. It can happen when the grocery store you frequent decides to stop carrying your favorite brand of powdered mashed potatoes (I’ll never forgive you, Kroger!). But sometimes, it gets ripped away by the very people who took an oath to serve you and protect all of your freedoms, even the ones that live in a gray area.

Avoiding human interaction and wasting time on my phone has never been more obnoxious. Between all the President’s shit-tweeting, to our planet being on fire, to all of the other depressing shit going on, just even trying to read the news sends my pulse into a near-fatal death spiral. It’s hard to find a good pick me up and dog videos and other real-life blooper reels can only get you so far.

But speaking of death spirals…

Let’s discuss the latest thing to fall into one, the freedom to make a different kind of choice, a woman’s right to body autonomy and abortion.

(Okay liberals, before you get all bent out of shape, I know I’m just another privileged cisgendered white man who deserves to be burnt at the stake and for that reason, you may ignore everything I write and instead sit and yell at your screen so others know you have a black belt in woke-jitsu. Trust me, same team. Kumbaya and shit.)

This whole abortion debate has me pretty fucking confused. First, wasn’t this shit settled back in ‘73? And second, I thought this was America, where we have freedoms so great terrorists hate us and the government was supposed to keep their noses out of our business? Whatever happened to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” The American dream? What the fuck America? Is Lady Liberty too strung out on God, guns, and OxyContin to remember the hood she came from?

Making laws that hinder a woman’s individual liberty is some shit that isn’t exclusive to state governments. The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, fucking ISIS, all have laws intended to keep women subservient and powerless over their own life. At least they’re honest about their theocratic motivations. What say you, Georgia, Ohio, Alabama, Tennessee, Utah, Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas? The dumpster fire of Ohio is even trying to take it one step further with a bill that, in a way, caters to the religious right’s push for abstinence by equating any contraceptive that prevents fertilization to abortion. Fortunately for me, the bill makes no mention of a situation sock.

I have to ask, do the politicians that are supporting these laws actually think that they’re going to really stop anything? The people that think its wrong or don’t want one are already not getting abortions. Sure, it might put a dent in overall numbers and make law-abiding citizens think twice before getting the procedure, but no law will ever stop it completely. History has shown time and time again that trying to legislate morality is futile. Prohibition, the drug war, bestiality- all failed attempts at controlling the morality of the sovereign by the political class. Abortion is no different. Women got them before Roe v. Wade, and I’ll bet that they’ll get them after these laws take effect. It might help some of these pro-lifers sleep at night knowing that they have done something to protect the life of an innocent child, but is restricting human rights worth saving the potential life of an unborn fetus?

First off, that child you’re hell-bent on protecting might just end up to be a real asshole. We all know a few. It might become a drain on society, or be a mass murderer, a drug addict, war criminal, or even worse, a Democrat. Will it be worth all your zealotry then? Will it be worth saving that life that then becomes all the other things you despise? What if the child needs your help getting by, or being fed, or getting a good public education? Are you going to be pro-life then? Or are you going to complain they aren’t a desirable example of a human being and a bad American? It seems easy to want to protect that life while still in the womb, but it’s apparently much harder to want to help that same life flourish.

That’s my main problem with pro-lifers. They say they’re all about life being born and we should do everything we can to protect the ones that can’t speak for themselves, yet when it comes to actually helping a life outside of the womb, then all attempts are deemed socialist and unamerican. Universal healthcare. Fuck that. Raising the minimum wage to a living wage, communist. Programs that would help the less fortunate and end a cycle of poverty, nope. What about the life that already exists? Shouldn’t it be important to help protect the mother from having to potentially raising a child alone or when they’re already struggling to make it? Dare I even mention that in cases of rape, the woman would always have a constant reminder of that incident, or that the rapist still has parental rights?

I’ll take a pro-lifer seriously when they openly condemn war, capital punishment, factory farming, eating meat, pollution, racism, sexism, police violence, poverty, hunger. Until then, I don’t think you can truly label yourself pro-life. All you can label yourself is pro-childbirth. Or pro-government control. Statistically speaking, most women who get abortions are already poor or misfortunate. Many of these children forced into this world will be brought up poor (Poverty affects health. Look it up.), or raised in an abusive home, have parents that neglect them or are addicted to drugs. How is that a good thing? What is so great about having to live that way?

It’s nice to want everyone to have the same values as you when you live in a nice suburb with decent schools and a healthy tax base, but when every day is a struggle and surviving isn’t that easy, your decision making and sense of what’s right changes. It shouldn’t be anybody else’s prerogative to dictate how others live their lives.

We should be moving society in a direction where abortions aren't really desired. There are ways we can do that but many of the same people that want to ban abortion don’t want to pony up some more money on their tax bill to do so but are willing to make sure they pay for extra law enforcement and jail for those that violate their will. Instead, it seems we’re totally fine with moving back to a time where women had less control over their own lives. Barefoot and pregnant seems to be the baseline for how these politicians view women.

So maybe instead of being assholes and restricting a woman’s freedom, find other ways to minimize the number of abortions in this country. How about allowing for easier access to birth control, especially in poorer neighborhoods? How about funding comprehensive sex education? Genital mutilation-free male birth control. That one’s easy, mix it straight into Viagra. Boom. Done. You’re welcome science. Invest in better public schools and higher education, more homeless shelters, addiction treatment facilities, psychiatric hospitals, and jobs programs. Expand taxpayer-funded healthcare for all. Give handjobs a better PR team. Literally, anything is better than resorting to stripping rights away. Show a little humanity.

Even though you might not agree with the practice, there are benefits to turning the other cheek. Studies have shown that access to abortion helps lower poverty and crime. Fewer people will be brought into the world at a disadvantage which means society as a whole gets better. Fewer children in foster care (which is expensive, by the way). Less money needed for social programs. Less crime, so fewer spent on prisons. This is a bottom-up problem and it is deserving of bottom-up solutions. Instead of acting like the morality police, take some time, know why these things happen, understand and act with some compassion.

I know that as a man, I don’t really have a say in what women do with their own bodies. It’s none of my fucking business, and it’s none of yours too. I'm not making an argument as to what constitutes a human life and whether or not it should be considered murder. That’s a whole other discussion. I’m making the case that as a sovereign adult citizen of the self-proclaimed “free-est country on the planet” a woman should have the actual freedom to make a decision that will serve their own best interest and do it safely.

Showing resistance to this display of power and control is needed, perhaps now more than ever. If you agree with a woman’s right to choose, if you believe in self-governance and freedom, then take to the streets, be obnoxious, vote the fuckers responsible out of office, make your voices heard in the most annoying ways possible. Act like the gun nuts. Because you never know what the dicks in Washington will try to take away next.

Having an informed and motivated populace is what the government fears. You have power. You have a voice. Use them.

#abortion #pro choice #womens rights #philosophy

2 notes · View notes

beinglibertarian · 6 years

Text

An Overview of the 2018 Brazilian Elections

Igor V. Teixeira

An overview of Brazilian Elections

As most of you know, Brazilian Elections are upon us.

By “you,” I mean the incredibly divided population of Brazil which currently engages in a fight that greatly resembles the recent US election.

This is not the only parallel this article will attempt to point out between both elections. There are also plenty of differences between both situations and a close background analysis is needed in order to understand how things came to be the way they are.

One of the main differences is in the system itself.

TV stations are forced to show an ad for each candidate, for a set amount of time, and the bigger the coalition the more time they have, which tends to result in parties creating huge alliances.

There is also a party fund, provided by the state, with tax money, which every party receives, numbering in the millions of dollars to campaign. You read it correctly – millions of dollars!

To give you an idea, the highest sum a party receives is 58 million dollars, with the total amounting to almost 430 million dollars; this not only favors corruption, but also strengthen parties already in power since they receive the biggest share. It’s almost as if the system was rigged from the start.

Another difference is that we have 13 official candidates to presidency.

The last one is that we have a 2-phase election system, with the 2 most voted candidates (after a direct vote) facing each other on another date to settle who becomes the next president.

I have no idea why Brazil is not put forward more often as an example of how bad socialism or statist politics are.

Brazil has one of the largest most expensive and ineffective universal healthcare systems in the world and has a very strict gun control in place, banning most citizens from carrying even handguns on them or having one home. It has strict minimum wage laws controlled by the federal government, monopoly over oil extraction, and labor laws partially imported directly from Fascist Italy.

It offers “free” public universities, which are the biggest in the country and it has all sorts of affirmative action policies in place, having social, gender and racial quotas for spots not only in those universities but also in the public sector. The public sector is where Brazil concentrates the best-paid jobs of the entire country and since public agents of all sorts cannot be fired under almost any circumstance, have high salaries, and almost no responsibility over consequences of their jobs and actions.

All of that works for the worst, with no public service being effective and corruption cases popping so frequently that it made the population numb to its dire consequences.

In 2015, and Dilma Rousseff, Lula’s successor from the Worker’s Party, became the target of a corruption scandal that would culminate with her impeachment the following year.

Operation Car Wash (“Lava Jato” as it was called by the ever so creative Brazilian Federal Police) was already following and catching big names in pretty much every Brazilian party; tracing connections between politicians, especially those who were candidates during the 2014 election and their campaign lobbyists, who injected tons of money in order to get advantages and huge contract deals from the State.

It was then that Petrobras, Brazil’s State owned oil company, became the target of the operation, and Rousseff was part of the board of directors of that company during Lula’s administration. It was also revealed that SBM Offshore had paid a hundreds of millions of dollars during Rousseff’s first presidential run, whilst she chaired the oil company. All of that peaked with Brazil’s second impeachment.

When Vice-President Temer (MDB) assumed the presidency for the following years, Brazil’s economic situation was already dreadful, and that only increased, which is amazing because you would think a ship could only sink so far, but you would be wrong.

2018 has come, and here are some of the main names worth noting, since Brazil has 13 running for the presidency, currently.

The Social-Liberal Party

Jair Bolsonaro (Social-Liberal Party), is an ex-military captain, and has been a federal congressman for 4 consecutive terms, being the most voted congressman of Rio de Janeiro during the 2014 election. Here is where comparisons with Trump begin.

Bolsonaro is not Trump, that’s for sure. He is not an entrepreneur, or even a civilian with no political background. He gained notoriety for being conservative and making homophobic remarks on public television. That appealed to a younger audience, and to the traditional Brazilian family, which he swears to defend against communism.

Every appearance he’s made has caused outrage and has been met with intense resistance, putting him on top of the polls for both vote intention and rejection rates at once. A “Women’s March” against Bolsonaro was organized two weeks before election and an #Elenão (“not him”) hashtag was trending on Brazilian social networks over the last month.

Nonetheless, his overall “No BS” attitude has awarded him plenty of comparisons with the current American president, and his campaign specifically addresses him as a breath of fresh air into an old and corrupted institution.

While no concrete evidence of corruption has been put forward to incriminate him, he is definitely far from a fresh change. That has not stopped his run from being impressive however. While he has very little support outside of his own party (and a small alliance), compared to his counterparts, his main points as a candidate are defending the end of gun control and a resistance to what he calls a “communist wave” that contaminates life in Brazil. Bolsonaro defends free market, and his Economic advisor is Paulo Guedes, an economist who graduated from the University of Chicago.

Despite that, the candidate has a bad stance on individual liberties. He is against marijuana legalization and publicly defended a known military torturer active under the dictatorship period, during Rousseff’s impeachment voting session, for the entire country to see.

For that and other reasons, he has constantly been called a fascist, compared to Hitler, was spat on by another congressman and was even stabbed last month by a man who opposed his views during an election rally in Minas Gerais.

Despite all of this, he has gained plenty of momentum and is the most likely to win the election’s 1st phase. He currently has 32% of vote intention.

The Workers Party

Bolsonaro’s biggest threat on his way to the election is Fernando Haddad (Worker’s Party), who gained notoriety as the Minister of Education during Lula’s and part of Rousseff’s administrations.

He was the elected mayor of São Paulo until 2017, when he lost his reelection to João Dória on the 1st phase of the run.

Haddad was a big name of MEC, the Ministry of Education and Culture, which controls every level of education in Brazil and the contents of what is taught there, even inside private institutions.

Haddad’s run has been riddled with controversy, since the Worker’s Party’s original plan was to have Lula as the candidate, but he is currently unable to do so, due to his arrest for numerous corruption charges.

Nonetheless, Lula has been present and cited even in the party’s jingle, and the effect of that can be seen in the election numbers, which show Haddad in close second to Bolsonaro.

Funnily enough, the biggest support and ally in this run is MDB, the party who orchestrated Rousseff’s impeachment so that Temer could take her place as president.

Haddad supports taxes on the rich, gun control, more presence of the state in the private life, bigger government and an overall structure that results in increasing spending and bureaucracy by the state. He currently holds 23% of vote intention.

Did I mention that he plans to rewrite the Constitution? Cause he does.

The Worker’s Democratic Party

Close third comes Ciro Gomes (Worker’s Democratic Party), who just recently lost the second spot on all surveys to Haddad. He is no newcomer to politics, since the Gomes family has been in power in the poorest region of Brazil for almost 100 years. He was Mayor of Fortaleza, Governor of Ceará, Minister of Finance under Itamar Franco’s term, a federal congressman, and the Minister of National Integration during Lula’s administration.

Ciro’s most recent presidential run has been one where he’s positioned himself as an eloquent option for both the left and the right. He has promised to take millions of people out of debt with a system where some people would pay for lack of payment for loans other people took, a kind of a trust circle, where every 10 people afford mistakes made by others, in a Keynesian nightmare.

Ciro has somehow attracted tons of youngsters to his side, he was very close to going into the 2nd phase of the election against Bolsonaro, according to surveys. That chance has been stained by the candidate’s overall macho posture, constantly filmed fighting protesters during his rallies and even assaulting journalists on two occasions, demanding that one of them be arrested for asking him something he surely did not like.

He has gained millions of dollars for his campaigns during the last 30 years, and most of the companies that financed him became extremely wealthy throughout his mandates.

He believes that the State should control most of the economy and went as far as to say that Uber would be prohibited in the country once he was president.

He once stated that would receive justice officers with lead if they came to arrest any of his party members, and that even though socialism’s implementation killed millions of people, he was willing to take that risk. Last survey showed Ciro Gomes grabbing 10% of vote intention.

The Others

Other candidates have struggled to grab more than 5 % of votes according to recent surveys, with Geraldo Alckmin being the top of those.

The physician is a member of the biggest opposition party in Brasil, PSDB, a Social-Democratic party (funnily enough considered right-wing for Brazilian standards), and not far behind him is Marina Silva (Rede), Former Senator and Minister of the Environment under Lula’s term as president.

Lower in the ranks are Henrique Meirelles (Former Central Bank chairman under Lula’s government), Guilherme Boulos (Socialist and Liberty Party), whose main proposition is to support Venezuela’s government and free Lula from prison, and Alvaro Dias (Social Christian Party), a former Senator.

All of them can be connected to Lula one way or another.

I wouldn’t be a proper Libertarian if I didn’t mention the first time runner João Almoêdo, from Novo (New in Portuguese). His run has been noticeable, as it was his party’s first time ever on the ballot. He managed to grab quite the attention considering that, hitting close to 6% of intentions, and making a name despite not having any TV time to showcase his propositions as a president candidate. Using the internet as his main platform, he supports free market and a voucher system slowly replacing the current universal health and education systems; giving the population more freedom to decide where to spend the money they pay in taxes, and to drastically reduce government costs with staff and bureaucracy, allowing the private sector to compete for that instead.

Even though he will most likely not be featured in the second phase of the election, where the top 2 most voted candidates will face each other, Almoêdo has shown a country that long ago forgot about freedom, if it ever knew about it at all, how responsibility can be more gratifying and rewarding than having a Big Brother to take care of you.

His party is the only one which refused to receive State Party Funding. Not only that, but plenty of candidates from his party are using his notoriety to try to grab seats in every level of the election, from Congress all the way to Governors, and hopefully they will do a good job once they get those spots for themselves.

That is not to say that he is a libertarian all the way. He refuses to talk about marijuana legalization, abortion and other sensitive topics, and has made a few conservative remarks, despite those believes not appearing in his policies so far.

Brazilians elections are ones to be looked upon closely by the rest of the world, because they are another case of how right-wing candidates have gained momentum in response to years of left-wing governments.

This doesn’t mean this is good, from the Libertarian point of view, since conservatives tend to interfere in the private life of citizens and love protectionism; something which might be construed as “true Capitalism” and, once it fails, leave a spot on free market when really there was none to begin with.

That has happened before; especially in South America, and it would be a shame for it to be repeated so soon in history.

Bolsonaro appeared close to losing in every projection during the 2nd phase of the election, but I personally would not count him out yet.

During Trump’s election, people were chastised for voting Republican, and in Brazil it is no different. Voting for Bolsonaro automatically puts you in the group of “deplorables,” and being called fascist, homophobic, and all types of “isms” is the basic MO in that situation which makes people resentful and silent. That turns into something else once you are alone to vote though, and people tend to express themselves more freely then.

All that resentment and disillusion might bite the left in the ass big time in this election, and as much as I love watching them lose, I cannot say that it looks any brighter for democracy in Brazil.

* Igor V. Teixeira is a member of the Being Libertarian social media team.

The post An Overview of the 2018 Brazilian Elections appeared first on Being Libertarian.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2ysurX3 via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress #libertarian #beinglibertarian #being libertarian #freedom #free market

4 notes · View notes

leftistcrap · 6 years

Text

What is a living wage, and who earns less than it?

In 2004, Dr. Amy K. Glasmeier at MIT developed a model for determining a region's "living wage", the amount of money one would need to simply live in the region. The model outlines methods of determining the lowest cost of basic needs in a given area of the United States, based on assumptions regarding average food needs, which types of food tend to be the cheapest, household and family goods, average healthcare needs (including health insurance), transportation costs (public transportation is cheaper than a car, but not all areas have adequate public transportation services), average housing needs, and tax costs. The model does not factor in savings, unexpected expenses (such as a death in the family, car accident, sudden illness, etc.), entertainment, vacations, holidays, etc. It is a bare-bones, "if you meet this number you could live paycheck-to-paycheck indefinitely provided your employer doesn't cut your pay" wage.

Under this model, it has been determined that in every city and state in America, the living wage is higher than both the minimum wage and the poverty line in that area. In fact, 28% of American households earn less than $25k a year, and 51% are making less than $50k. In Kentucky, a state with some of the lowest living costs in the country, a living wage for a family of 1 adult and 1 child is $47k a year. If you add in one non-working parent to cut down on childcare costs, that only brings it down to $43k. Millions of American families are living at levels where they're not only living paycheck-to-paycheck, they're actively unable to pay for basic needs. 15.6 million households experience food insecurity in 2016, with 6.1 million households experiencing "very low food security", characterized by at least one member of the household having reduced food intake below levels considered adequate for human health due to financial problems.

Imagine a world where everyone working for less than a living wage suddenly did what the "smart" folk out there recommended. They all left their jobs and went to college or trade school or got a small business loan or simply waited until there was an opening for a higher-paying position. Since paying them more is clearly out of the question according to this line of thinking (why pay "unskilled" laborers a living wage?), what happens then? (Warning: long lists and numbers ahead, lists not exhaustive)

(data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: May 2017 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, numbers rounded)

Almost nobody is going to be cooking or serving fresh food for you, except at high-end gourmet restaurants. Fast food's gone. Fast food and counter workers earn on average $21.3k a year, below the national average living wage of $24.3k a year for one adult living alone (calculated by averaging the state-level average living wages listed by the MIT Living Wage Calculator, excluding D.C.). Only the top 10% earn a measly average of $26k, while the bottom 10% are earning an average of $16k. Cooks (excluding head chefs) earn on average $25.4k a year, slightly above the national average living wage for one adult living alone, but fast food cooks earn on average only $21.6k (bottom 10% earning $17k, top 10% earning $27k). Food preparation workers (who perform duties other than cooking) earn on average $23.9k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $32k). These occupations combined employ around 5.4 million workers (food preparation and serving overall employs 13.1 million workers, and the average wage there is only $24.7k a year). These jobs could be automated, sure, but the price would go up. If they could be automated in a profitable manner, or even one that kept costs the same, it would have been done already. Only a small few restaurants have even tried replacing waiters and cashiers with machines. It simply hasn't taken off yet. Factor in not only the inherent costs of maintaining these machines that currently hinder mass adoption, plus the sudden surge in demand after the mass exodus of human labor, plus the fact that many of these people are employed in areas that are generally prohibitive to automation in the first place, and automation ends up not being a miracle fix to our hypothetical situation. 4.6 million jobs are going to go undone for a while.

Cashiers in general are gone. They earn an average of $22.1k a year (bottom 10% earning $17k, top 10% earning $29k, and a very small number of cashiers working at casinos earning $36k), still below the national average living wage for one adult living alone. Many places have begun to at least partially automate their cashier needs, but it's still very rare to see a physical, brick-and-mortar business replace all their cashiers with machines. 3.6 million workers are employed as cashiers.

Dishwashers are gone, earning an average of $22.2k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $27k). Despite the machine known as the dishwasher arriving on the scene over 100 years ago, human dishwashers are still very much in demand, as the machine can't do it all alone. 500,000 dishwashers worth of dishes are going to go uncleaned.

Nobody's going to be bussing tables, either, so those dishes are going to be piling up on the tables. Dining room and cafetaria attendants earn on average $23k a year (bottom 10% earning $17.5k, top 10% earning $31k). 437,000 busboys worth of tables are going to go uncleared.

Hosts and hostesses are gone, earning an average of $22.2k a year (bottom 10% earning $17k, top 10% earning $29k). This occupation employs 410,000 workers.

Nobody's going to take your ticket or show you to your seat at the stadium, theater, or amusement park. Ushers, lobby attendants, and ticket-takers earn an average of $22.6k a year (bottom 10% earning $17k, top 10% earning $30k). This occupation employs 120,000 workers.

No more lifeguards to protect you at the beach or the pool. They earn on average $23.6k a year (bottom 10% earning $17k, top 10% earning $33k). 146,000 lifeguards worth of summertime fun spoiled.

You're going to have to do your own laundry. Laundry and dry-cleaning workers earn an average of $23.8k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $32k). This occupation employs 209,000 workers.

If you have children, you're going to have to take care of them yourself now, like many parents who don't earn enough to hire a nanny. Childcare workers earn an average of $23.8k a year (bottom 10% earning $17.5k, top 10% earning $33k). This occupation employs 562,000 workers.

You're going to have to take care of your elderly, infirm, and disabled family members yourself, as well. Personal care aides earn an average of $24.1k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $30k). Perhaps a sign of our aging nation, this occupation employs 2 million workers.

If you or a loved one are suffering from a chronic illness or other illness that requires the services of a home health aide, tough luck. Home health aides earn an average of just below $24.3k a year, just barely missing the mark for the national average living wage for one adult living alone (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $31k). This occupation employs 821,000 workers.

You're not going to be able to get any rooms or reservations. The first workers to meet the national average living wage for one adult living alone are hotel, motel, and resort desk clerks, earning an average of $24.3k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $33k). This occupation employs 254,000 workers.

We finally break the national average living wage for one adult living alone with maids and housekeeping cleaners, earning an average of $24.6k a year (bottom 10% earning $17k, top 10% earning $35k). This occupation employs 923,000 workers. This doesn't mean those of you who enjoy the luxury of maids or housekeepers will continue to enjoy their services. No, not only do most Americans (73%) not live alone, but the "smart" thing to do is to earn enough to save, of course. You can't afford unexpected expenses on the "living wage", and besides, if these people are heading for better-paying jobs, might make it one that can buy them some small luxuries as well, right?

Florida's cost of living is close to the national average (the living wage for a single adult living alone in Florida is $24.4k a year), so we'll use Florida as our reference point moving forward. The living wage for two adults (one working) with one child in Florida is $47.8k a year. Remember, this is one working adult supporting a spouse and a young child (the model places the child at around 4 years old). The living wage is actually less than that of a single parent, since the non-working spouse can provide childcare for free.

Nobody's going to be screening movies anymore. Motion picture projectionists earn an average of $24.8k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $36k). This occupation employs 5,700 workers.

You're going to have to do your own mani-pedis. Manicurists and pedicurists earn an average of $25k a year (bottom 10% earning $19.5k, top 10% earning $33k). This occupation employs 104,000 workers.

No more waiters and waitresses. They earn an average of $25.3k a year (bottom 10% earning $17k, top 10% earning $40k). This occupation employs 2.6 million workers.

Nobody's going to be packing any boxes professionally. Packers and packagers earn an average of $25.4k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $36.5k). This occupation employs 701,000 workers.

You're going to have to clean your car yourself. Vehicle, machinery, and equipment cleaners earn an average of $25.8k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $37k). This occupation employs 373,000 workers.

Maybe you'll take the plane instead of driving. You're going to have to handle your own baggage. Baggage porters and bellhops earn an average of $26.1k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $38k). This occupation employs 42,600 workers.

If the plane crashes, you're going to have to drive your own ambulance. Ambulance drivers and attendants (excluding EMTs) earn an average of $26.7k a year (bottom 10% earning $19k, top 10% earning $39k). This occupation employs 15,300 workers.

If you don't make it, you're going to have to attend to your own funeral. Funeral attendants earn an average of $27.1k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $39k). This occupation employs 35,000 workers.

The shops won't have anything in stock. Stock clerks and order fillers earn an average of $27.4k a year (bottom 10% earning $19k, top 10% earning $40k). This occupation employs 2 million workers.

Not like there will be anyone to sell anything to you once you get there. Retail salespersons earn an average of $27.5k a year (bottom 10% earning $18k, top 10% earning $41k). This occupation employs 4.4 million workers.

(you can skip to the end here if you want, i wouldn’t blame you)

Listed from lowest pay ($27.5k a year) to highest pay (all following occupations earn on average less than $47.8k a year):

No more taxis or chaffeurs, no more veterinary assistants, no more telemarketers (fortunately), no more janitors or cleaners (unfortunately), no more teacher assistants, no more recreation workers, no more clerical library assistants, no more tire repairers and changers.

No more nursing assistants, no more residential advisors (in charge of managing dormitories and other group homes), no more tellers, no more driver/sales workers or delivery truck drivers, no more receptionists or information clerks, no more landscapers or groundskeepers, no more counter and rental clerks, no more couriers and messengers, no more crossing guards, no more installation, maintenance, and repair assistants, no more barbers, hairdressers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists, no more security guards to guard the nothing on the shelves and in the warehouses, no more window trimmers to advertise the nothing being sold, no more fishers, no more forest and conservation workers.

No more substitute teachers, no more bus drivers, no more tailors or dressmakers, no more file clerks, no more weighers, measurers, checkers, or samplers, no more data entry keyers, no more concierges, no more photo processors, no more pharmacy technicians, no more office machine operators (excluding computers), no more medical assistants, no more preschool teachers (excluding special education), no more, no more occupational therapy aides, no more shipping, receiving, and traffic clerks, no more office clerks, no more protective service workers, no more ophthalmic laboratory technicians, no more veterinary technologists and technicians, no more phlebotomists, no more animal trainers, no more grounds maintenance workers, no more umpires, referees, and other sports officials, no more skincare specialists, no more coin, vending, and amusement machine servicers, no more order clerks, no more industrial truck and tractor operators, no more social and human service assistants, no more first-line supervisors of food preparation and serving workers, no more library technicians, no more customer service representatives, no more automotive glass installers and repairers, no more medical secretaries, no more rock splitters, no more motor vehicle electronic equipment installers and repairers, no more psychiatric technicians, no more medical transcriptionists, no more pest control workers, no more EMTs and paramedics, no more secretaries and administrative assistants (excluding legal, medical, and executive), no more medical equipment preparers, no more pesticide handlers, sprayers, and applicators, no more ophthalmic medical technicians, no more animal control workers, no more bill and account collectors, no more graduate teaching assistants, no more correspondence clerks, no more motorcycle mechanics, no more telephone operators, no more billing and posting clerks, no more tree trimmers and pruners, no more dental assistants, no more refuse and recyclable material collectors, no more rehabilitation counselors, no more electronic home entertainment equipment installers and repairers, no more musical instrument tuners and repairers, no more dispensing opticians, no more recreational vehicle service technicians, no more forest and conservation technicians, no more watch repairers, no more credit authorizers, checkers, and clerks, no more court, municipal, and license clerks, no more logging equipment operators, no more reservation and transportation ticket agents and travel clerks, no more roustabouts, no more computer, ATM, and office machine repairers, no more general maintenance and repair workers, no more tank car, truck, and ship loaders, no more highway maintenance workers, no more proofreaders and copy markers, no more medical appliance technicians, no more first-line supervisors of personal service workers, no more septic tank servicers and sewer pipe cleaners, no more loan interviewers, no more HR assistants (excluding payroll and timekeeping), no more home appliance repairers, no more parking enforcement workers, no more travel agents, no more transportation security screeners, no more word processors and typists, no more insurance claims and policy processing clerks, no more bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks, no more craft artists, no more motorboat mechanics and service technicians, no more mechanical door repairers, no more PA announcers, no more photographers, no more dental laboratory technicians, no more police, fire, and ambulance dispatchers, no more miscellaneous dispatchers, no more jewelers and precious stone and metal workers, no more procurement clerks, no more community health workers, no more first-line supervisors of housekeeping and janitorial workers, no more installation, maintenance, and repair workers, no more camera and photographic equipment repairers, no more coaches and scouts, no more automotive service technicians and mechanics, no more locksmiths and safe repairers, no more medical records and health information technicians, no more private household cooks, no more meter readers, no more animal breeders, no more first-line supervisors of retail sales workers, no more fitness trainers and aerobics instructors, no more radio operators, no more heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers, no more government program eligibility interviewers, no more self-enrichment education teachers, no more massage therapists, no more payroll and timekeeping clerks, no more museum technicians and conservators, no more cargo and freight agents, no more embalmers, no more desktop publishers, no more computer operators, no more automotive body and related repairers, no more licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses, no more motorboat operators, no more forest fire inspectors and prevention specialists, no more bailiffs, no more electric motor, power tool, and related repairers, no more hazardous materials removal workers, no more dredge operators, no more legislators (that sounds nice), no more surveying and mapping technicians, no more transportation equipment painters, no more substance abuse, behavioral disorder, and mental health counselors, no more sailors and marine oilers, no more broadcast technicians, no more excavating and loading machine and dragline operators, no more falllers, no more pump operators (excluding wellhead pumpers), no more tax preparers, no more security and fire alarm systems installlers, no more bridge and lock tenders, no more biological technicians, no more earth drillers (excluding oil and gas), no more teachers and instructors (excluding substitute teachers), no more derrick operators (oil and gas), no more audio and video equipment technicians, no more correctional officers and jailers (that sounds very nice), and no more radio and television announcers.

All sorts of manufacturing work will go undone. From lowest ($23k a year) to highest average pay ($47.5k a year): no more pressers, no more sewing machine operators, no more shoe machine operators, no more hand sewers , no more production work assistants, no more textile cutting machine operators, no more textile winding, twisting, and drawing out machine operators, no more textile knitting and weaving machine operators, no more textile bleaching and dyeing machine operators, no more manual laborers and freight, stock, and material movers, no more cutters and trimmers, no more woodworking machine operators (excluding sawing), no more sawing machine operators, no more machine feeders and offbearers, no more hand grinding and polishing workers, no more miscellaneous textile, apparel, and furnishing workers, no more packaging and filling machine operators, no more cleaning, washing, and metal pickling equipment operators, no more painting, coating, and decorating workers, no more furniture finishers, no more miscellaenous assemblers and fabricators, no more molding, coremaking, and casting machine operators (metal and plastic), no more molders, shapers, and casters (excluding metal and plastic), no more etchers and engravers, no more print binding and finishing workers, no more plating and coating machine operators (metal and plastic), no more conveyor operators and tenders, no more cutting and slicing machine operators, no more adhesive bonding machine operators, no more extruding and forming machine operators, no more cutting, punching, and press machine operators (metal and plastic), no more electrical, electronic, and electromechanical assemblers, no more fiberglass laminators and fabricators, no more upholsterers, no more coil winders, tapers, and finishers, no more extruding, forming, pressing, and compacting machine operators, no more grinding, lapping, polishing, and buffing machine operators, no more material moving workers, no more coating, painting, and spraying machine operators, no more cabinetmakers and bench carpenters, no more extruding and drawing machine operators, no more foundry mold and coremakers, no more multiple machine tool operators (metal and plastic), no more extraction worker assistants, no more crushing, grinding, and polishing machine operators, no more timing device assemblers and adjusters, no more printing press operators, no more log graders and scalers, no more heat treating equipment operators, no more mixing and blending machine operators, no more tool grinders, filers, and sharpeners, no more semiconductor processors, no more welding, soldering, and brazing machine operators, no more furnace, kiln, oven, drier, and kettle operators, no more paper goods machine operators, no more rolling machine operators, no more metal pourers and casters, no more lathe and turning machine operators (metal and plastic), no more forging machine operators (metal and plastic), no more structural metal fabricators and fitters, no more drilling and boring machine operators (metal and plastic), no more computer-controlled machine tool operators (metal and plastic), no more inspectors, testers, sorters, samplers, and weighers, no more metal-refining furnace operators, no more prepress technicians and workers, no more tire builders, no more separating, filtering, clarifying, precipitating, and still machine operators, no more milling and planing machine operators (metal and plastic), no more welders, cutters, solderers, and brazers, no more machinists, no more engine and other machine assemblers, no more patternmakers (metal and plastic), no more layout workers (metal and plastic), no more machinery maintenance workers, and no more glaziers.

All sorts of agricultural work will go undone. From lowest ($24.6k a year) to highest ($45k a year) average pay: no more graders and sorters, no more general farmworkers, no more farm animal attendants (including aquaculture), no more agricultural equipment operators, no more farm equipment mechanics and service technicians, and no more agricultural inspectors.

All sorts of industrial food preparation work will go undone. From lowest ($26.4k a year) to highest ($33.6k a year) average pay: no more meat, poultry, and fish cutters, no more slaughterers and meat packers, no more bakers, no more food cooking machine operators, no more food batchmakers, no more food and tobacco roasting, baking, and drying machine operators, no more butchers and meat cutters, and no more cooling and freezing equipment operators.

All sorts of construction work will go undone. From lowest ($29.7k a year) to highest ($46.4k a year) average pay: no more roofing assistants, no more painting, paperhanging, plastering, and stucco mason assistants, no more carpentry assistants, no more manufactured building and mobile home installers, no more pipelaying, pipefitting, plumbing, and steamfitting assistants, no more miscellaneous construction assistants, no more electrician assistants, no more brickmason, blockmason, stonemason, and tile and marble setter assistants, no more fence erectors, no more construction laborers, no more floor sanders and finishers, no more insulation workers (floor, ceiling, and wall), no more paperhangers, no more painters (construction and maintenance), no more miscellaneous construction and related workers, no more stonemasons, no more roofers, no more solar panel installers, no more pipelayers, no more paving, surfacing, and tamping equipment operators, no more carpet installers, no more floor layers (excluding carpet, wood, and hard tiles), no more plasterers and stucco masons, no more cement masons and concrete finishers, no more terrazzo workers and finishers, and no more tile and marble setters.

Tens of millions of workers are employed in jobs that pay on average less than $47,800 a year, listed by the MIT Living Wage Calculator as the minimum living wage for a family with two adults (one working) and one child in Florida, i.e. one of the most average families in one of the most average states. If the "sound advice" of those who claim to only be concerned with the wellbeing of the poor is to be taken, if people in low-paying occupations should not organize and demand higher wages and better benefits but instead simply "get better jobs", then society would fall apart. Every sector of the economy depends on these millions of workers in "unskilled" positions. Why should these workers not receive living wages?

#capitalism #communism #socialism #anarchism #leftism #libertarian #free market #economics #freedom #leftblr #politics #minimum wage #living wage #classism #worker's rights #human rights #feminism #my post

10 notes · View notes

polygonfighter · 7 years

Text

"If" the government is overthrown in a mass upset of the people due to its own malicious practices here are some amendments that i think should be made for the new constitution sure to come:

1: All Human beings are born, in no uncertain terms, with the inherent rights to

Freedom of speech,

Freedom to Vote,

Freedom of press,

Freedom of access to Food,

Freedom of access to lodging,

Freedom to access to healthcare,

Freedom to access to rehabilitation,

Freedom of Access to higher education

Freedom of access to communication,

and Freedom to Be able to comfortably pursue happiness in their own Lives

2: Discrimination of any kind shall be prohibited to the utmost extent of the law, this covers Discrimination on Basis of Race, Sex, Preferred Gender, Religious Beliefs, Land of Origin, and Physical or mental disability. The acception being for those who hold beliefs of inherent violence against others (read; N%zism, imperialism, so on so forth)

3: No human being shall be allowed absolute control over another by any means, whether by slavery or business. It will not be tolerated and shall be persecuted to the greatest extent of the law.

4: All Human beings shall be given a government allotted allowance once a month, in accordance to current price of living to give them access to Food, Lodging and heath care.

5: in accordance to amendment 4, Along with a minimum wage calculated in accordance to price of living, there shall be an enforced MAXIMUM WAGE that no humam being shall be allowed to earn. Nor shall any human being be allowed to store more than $100000000 in any given bank account lest their funds be dissolved and redistributed due to inability to properly utilize excessive funding.

6: All higher education shall be Free of charge for all people, and privitized educational systems shall be dispanded.

7: Should a given resource be deemed unsustainable, it shall gradually be Phased out and replaced with a better alternative. It is our duty as human beings to maintain our home.

8: Death penalty shall be disallowed, instead those charged with a crime of similar caliber shall be imprisioned for the rest of their life sentences in solitary confinement. Disallowed from any and all human contact.

9: should a human being, government, or corporation cause grevious harm to the people through direct effort or inaction it shall be pursecuted to the furthest extent of the law.

10: A system of election based on a collective group, whether it be directly or analogous to bipartisanship shall be illegal due to its cause of ineffective governing and promotion of widespread political corruption.

11: All politicains in office have a maximum term to keep the institution from stagnating.

12: malicious Political or Business practices are prohibited by law.

13: every 25 years the constitution shall be reevaluated by the people of the nation, wherein the representative people of the states, in accordance to higher federal government in order to evaluate what may be required to be added or edited in the constitution.

Tell me what you think

#politics #government #new constitution

67 notes · View notes

crstapor · 4 years

Text

Why I am so Cynical

“I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.” - Zarathustra

Part 3

Let me stop shouting - sometimes I get carried away. Because it needs be clearly stated that my perspective on the matter at hand is not based solely on 'personal' experience (of course one can never deny the importance such datum possess!) but also 'phenomenological' experience, which is, clearly, a different animal altogether. That this menagerie has informed my thought will surprise no-one who's ever tried it; thinking, I mean. How else, if one is being as honest as possible, can one arrive at any conclusions whatsoever? While the first part of this essay waxed rather subjectively poetic, allow me to offer this third as a sort of empirical respite. Facts, good reader, let me proffer facts to further found my cynicism most severe.

But let me first define the scope these facts will express. The working title for this missive to minds who want to think was 'A Polemic against American Modernity'. Allowing that my interests, here, lie not north to Canada or south of Texas, the parameters of this diatribe should be well understood by all with even meager cartographic skill.

Superficial perhaps I've structured these facts into three distinct phenomena; the surface, the self, and the symbol. I do so not to make any sweeping ontologic distinctions or assertions, rather, to help me think through them. System-building is not my purpose here - system-analysis is. The facets of modern America culture were well in place before I came along, and, unless I'm completely mistaken, I've done little to add to or enhance any of them. Apart from the clear truth of my having lived with and through them the vast majority of my mortal years. This 'truth', my citizenship and biography, allow me credence to present what follows as 'fact'; though of course it's still just one man's opinion!

Knowledge!

The Surface

Politics. Democracy. American Exceptionalism. Yeah right. So, help me out here, we have a great democracy because we vote for other people to get to vote on who actually becomes leader? Unless of course nine robes get that special privilege - based off of their admitted political preferences naturally! - like back in 2000. How the legislature is just a club for the privileged, connected, and the rich (which is almost redundant). How once 'money' became speech only those with 'money' had speech. The Founders are grave-rolling and Mussolini's having a laugh - fascism much? Let's remember Benito's definition of the term; which is when State and corporate interests converge (more or less). And we find that just about everywhere we look up in DC these days. Apparently we have the 'political will' to help banks, big oil, agribusiness, gun manufacturers, and all the other consolidated purveyors of terror, hate or control (sure, tobacco had to be sacrificed - occasionally you must throw the peasants a bone to keep the lie alive) but can't find the time to help out 'we the people': see continuing cuts to social programs; see the limp-dick governmental response to the housing/mortgage crisis of 2008 - ?; see the student loan pyramid scheme; see a 'minimum' wage that consistently fails to keep up with inflation; see a 'healthcare' plan that mandates private citizens purchase a product from non-governmental, for-profit companies - and taxes them if they don't; see how prohibition (here considered against natural, earth-born narcotics) continues to fuel a for-profit prison system and further erodes race relations; see how the gravest existential threat to the species (climate change, for realz) is perpetually laughed off and ignored; see how we lecture others on human rights while keeping Gitmo open and denying homosexuals equal protection under the law; see how NASA's (quite possibly, from a historical perspective, the greatest achievement of our modern society) budget keeps getting gutted while their priorities are schizophrenically re-ordered with each administration; see how children keep slaughtering children with weapons of war and no one can even attempt to do anything about it; see how voter ID laws are passed like Jim Crow; see how the innate sovereignty of the nation has been torn asunder now that private corporations can be 'to big to fail'; see an ever increasingly militarized police force; see the constitutional absurdity of 'free speech zones'; see democratic campaigns where one guy runs but once elected that guy's nowhere to be found and in his place is a carbon copy of the last guy who held the office ... See how our 'political parties' are two sides of the same coin ... But let's stop here and consider that last point in greater depth, as it is so vital to any understanding of 'democracy' in America ... Republicans, Democrats; Jefferson has been famously remembered, quoted, as saying once our (more properly his) democracy devolved into a two party system it would be a democracy no more. And I've certainly been a witness to that in my life. Sure, America isn't a dictatorship, but it sure as hell isn't the country Jefferson helped forge. And the main reason for that, to my eyes, seems to be the consolidation of power in the hands of politicians with more in common with each other than their constituents. R or D you can bet they're there for Wall Street or the military-information-industrial complex. Anyone else? Good luck with that citizen ... And while they're both complicit in gutting the middle class, let's take a moment to reflect, ethically, on that matter ... You can't blame the snake for its venom, but you can sure as hell blame the snake-oil salesman for shilling his bullshit wares. In case that metaphor wasn't clear enough allow me to decode it for you:

R = snake. D = snake-oil salesman.

Switching gears - though not by much! - let's shift to the state of modern American entertainment. To the uninitiated possibly a trite transition, any who've watched politics lately will surely see the connection. And just as our politics smell rotten, the main complaint with what passes as entertainment these days is how bad it tastes. Yes, it's a question of taste, as it seems most Americans have none. From 'reality TV' (which is surely anything but - though let's not forget Barnum's maxim!), to a pop-music ecosystem that's cannibalized itself to the point of parody, a movie industry that can seemingly fill ten months of releases with one script, the apotheosis of sport, the devolution of literature into a hobby for diarists, the way the performing arts are continually hoarded into smaller and smaller urban green zones, well, it's just hard to swallow most of that without gagging. Or throwing up. Yet a more concerted analysis along these lines is not called for here - we have much too much ground yet to cover.

Speaking of ground and covering it why not mention war? That old playground of glory now some video game where you might win many things; though honor's not among them. The full transition here is yet to occur, but we're definitely in the middle of it. Drones, air strikes, GPS targeting and bombs dropped from orbit (sure, not yet - wait for it!). The complete impersonalization of the other; that total objectification of the enemy (you better believe the pornographers have drone-envy). Let's not equivocate; it's one thing to look someone in the eye and take their life - quite another to push a button sixteen time-zones away and watch an image of indiscriminate carnage. How long will it be before we don't even let a homo sapien sapien push that button? How long before the machines are killing us on their own .?. Nothing to be cynical about here!

And if killing our 'enemies' has/is becoming so much more impersonal healing our 'own' has a fortiori. I'm not even going to start bandying about statistics but it's well known that of the 'first-world', 'post-industrialized' countries we're the only one that still considers healthcare a cash-grab instead of a human-right. And to what wonderful affect! Go ahead and try to ignore all the horror stories of your fellow Americans who lost it all because they couldn't pay their medical bills, or because they did. Pay no attention to record profit margins at insurance companies while the poor forgo all but emergency treatment and the wealth of the middle class is bled out and transferred to HMO executives. Sure, Uncle Tom tried to change all that - by passing a Republican plan even though the Ds had two branches of the federal government! - but when I tried to sign up for 'Obamacare' I still couldn't afford it even though I had $200 in the bank, no assets, and had been unemployed for over two years. If I lived in any other country where English is the primary language I'd be covered without paying a dime. My solution? To use the actual Republican plan - don't get sick!

But that should be easy since we all know of the three pillars of good health (diet, exercise, genetics) eating right is the easiest of all ... Hell. No, sorry, I was about to go all sarcastic and make it seem America knows nothing about sugar overload, HFCS, preservatives, the increasingly and horrifying inability of urbanites to access fresh foods (specifically the poor ones!), pesticides, pink slime, corn or corn or more corn or when will there ever be enough corn already, price gouging on foods that were produced the way they've been produced for centuries (read: organic, grass-fed, free-range), trans-fats, GMO proliferation in our breadbasket without an honest debate on the merits or looking at the science past what some corporation's panel has assured us is true, sodas, the food-gap, throwing away enough food daily to feed the world's hungry cuz it wouldn't make a dime, slaughterhouses like Auschwitz or Dachau ... That Quite Barbarism ... But that would be foolish - America knows all about that ... Why shouldn't it? America invented most of it …

And we invented the largest consumer-driven transportation system the world has ever seen to move all that food around. Sure, China will catch up with us eventually (if not already), but for the better part of three generations the US led the world in road-building and car-buying. Quite apart from the environmental effects this produced there was a profound psychological positive feed-back loop involved as well: one justifying the pre-dominate narrative of our consumer culture. Choice is sacred; you are special and unique and can reflect that through choice; so choose this product or this other one and express your uniqueness through possessing any one of these infinitely similar products; the choice is yours. Perhaps nowhere else in the market was this ‘story’ sold as diligently and aggressively than in the automobile industry. While it is true the US is, spatially speaking, a very large country, it is not true that every adult American needed or needs their own set of wheels to connect it. There are other options, other technologies that could’ve been employed to bring the masses together with more energy efficiency and communal cohesion. I admit it’s no Copernican Revolution, but the thought that Americans are so stubbornly self-interested and quick to discriminate opposed many of their European or native counterparts can not be divorced from the fact we all love to be in the driver’s seat. That commodified ‘freedom’ we are told awaits us on an open road with our very own internal combustion engine humming along in front of our feet; a freedom trains, buses, or carpooling can never provide. Again, notwithstanding the ecological impact of all this, the psychological dimension is impossible to ignore: even if we all owned Tesla’s that were powered by clean fusion charging stations it would still be me, me, me … which is quite naturally a completely uncynical disposition from which to hold a society together …

American’s fascination with their own value and freedom has of course been a dominate theme in the grand narrative of the country for some time; and while cars and roads were the major technological expression of that for much of the twentieth century, we have turned the corner here, in this regard, finding ourselves lost amid tiny little shiny screens that put the whole world inches from our eyes. With the advent of mobile computing the freedom so many seek isn’t conceived any longer by MPG rather MPBS. The new speed of information, and the promise of perpetual access, have enchanted the newer generations in much the same way vehicles did their antecedents. The technology is different while the story remains the same. It is still a self-centered freedom underlying the need, desire, to own the newest, quickest, coolest gadget. A freedom of information surely, yet one closely connected with the freedom cars brought their older relatives; it is as much economic as it is self-satisfying. The internet changed the game, naturally - and hail and well met etc. etc.! - but a claustrophobic observation remains … for a technology that has brought so many people together - and it has - it sure as hell does an awful good job sundering them as well … for you can’t find a public space anymore where a near-majority of your fellow citizens aren’t more interested in their precious little screens than those flesh and blood humans nearby. Perhaps this is just the necessary evolution of the social fabric - perhaps resistance is futile - though a social contract that has more to do with Facebook’s TOS opposed a Bill of Rights just (and forgive me for being so cynical) doesn’t seem like much of a society worth bothering with to this writer. Certainly not one worth the name.

Speaking of the modern technology we all now can’t live without, it seems to me a funny thing happened on the way to Google’s homepage … we now have access to all the information we can consume, on any topic, just a keystroke away, and look what we’re doing with it … I’m not just talking about social media or pornography, I mean the fundamental epistemological conundrum of an allegedly intelligent species that now has post-scarcity style access to information yet we’ve made of the web one colossal echo-chamber where the tribes huddle together in aggrieved resentment or ignorant bliss of the ‘others’ … look at it like this: in a day and age when the work of science (you know, that thing that made all this ((by which I mean ‘Modernity’ and all its toys)) possible) is more evenly, widely, and objectively disseminated than at any other time in history the public’s grasp and understanding of science and its work is at an all-time low. Basic data are disputed; empirical findings are called into question by anyone with a laptop, forget about a degree in the subject: what used to be considered non-issues, resolved subjects, are now argued over as if the Earth might actually be flat … all of which might just be good for a laugh if there weren’t actual existential threats to the species that only science can solve; yet we can’t even begin that discussion because some car salesman googled Glenn Beck and now we have legislatures that don’t think climate change is real; or they say the data doesn’t support an anthropogenic cause even though they never took a serious science course in their life; or that can’t be right because it doesn’t fit into our time-warp economy and a dollar today is obviously more important than our children’s future; or anyway shut-up idiot scientists just because you actually studied something other than law or business doesn’t mean you know any more than me because I have a high speed internet connection and I bookmarked the Drudge Report … how is it, philosophically speaking, tenable that the more information you have the stupider you become? I don’t know, but if you want a good example of the principle in action take a look at America today. Or just Google it …

Of course there is one thread that ties all these elements of ‘the surface’ together and that thread is consumerism as expressed by our current form of capitalism. The ascendancy of the dollar over all else (sorry God!). The desire to possess, acquire, consume. We are material creatures, we humans, and thus must consume to survive; fine: but do we have to do so in the manner we seem set on here and now? No, not at all, even suggesting that our’s is the only system, the only way to satiate the human hunger is absurd on its face as well as betraying an amnesiac’s conception of history. No, there are other paths, yet we have chosen this one, this ‘capitalism’ that mimics the terrors and rigors of the jungle at every turn. In the act of deifying money (more on that later) we have dehumanized ourselves. For the most part we are simple cogs in a vast machine that cares little or nothing for us; and so we care only for ourselves. The inherent egoism of the modern American psyche is spectacular to behold, certainly, in its primal vanity; at the same time giving the lie to any ethical system we still tenuously cling to as reminder of simpler days (sorry Christianity!). So we are, as a culture, no better than spoiled children grasping for another slice of pie. And while that’s certainly comical, it is also tragic, since such a system is not sustainable whatsoever (there is never enough pie). Neither history or science can provide any examples of such a system expanding into perpetuity (literature has given us a few but they are either satire or utopias ((same thing really))), and yet a sincere, concerted discussion on this issue has yet to percolate through the public sphere, or if so, only in the usual places and thus not given the sort of urgency it requires. But to have this conversation we all have to be ready to listen; it is not enough for the cynics and naysayers to keep shouting into the wild or the web: there has to be an audience, a receptive ear. Which brings us to our next section.

The Self

The problems elucidated in ‘The Surface’ are, to a great extent, symptoms of our sense of self, or, as is more often (if paradoxically) the case, our lack of one. While I am specifically referring to the modern American ‘self’, I’m going to be doing so with large brushstrokes; forming great swathes of colored splotches closer in kind to a rorscharch test than a pointilistic canvass. You may not see a reflection here so much as a sense of remembrance, or deja vu. That’s fine. I can’t be alone in thinking our lifespeeds have altered, and it’s just that alteration I want to discuss.

Lifespeed. Right. Let’s define that quickly so we can move on. By lifespeed I mean that facile quality of Being that tethers us to the ‘now’. Perceptually, our lives happen at a specific point in time, and I’ve conceived the word lifespeed to represent this point, as well as our conscious reaction to it. It’s just a word. Other than this meager definition it means nothing; has no other value. Right.

We were talking about choice earlier and there’s a clear connection between the act of choosing and the extant phenomena adjoining it. Just the relationship that lifespeed is meant to express. On its face, choice is neutral. Neither positive or negative, good or bad. The ‘designed’ choice of our consumer-driven society I find abhorrent, though not from some reactionary impulse, but a genuine longing for what it’s replaced. By making choices we define ourselves and I fear many of us are accepting a story that tells us we can only make this or that choice opposed to this that or the other. That we are told certain stories so many times we think we have no choice how they end; or wether to listen to them at all. In this way our lifespeeds have been damaged; like a bonsai pruned too severely.

Perhaps many are content defining themselves through ‘designed’ choice, or who ‘designed’ it anyway? Yes … there will always be sheep and lemmings in human form, and if that’s your angle you have my pity but nothing else. On the other hand, if you genuinely desire a leveling-up on the self-awareness front but have found this difficult to achieve thus far, you must realize two hard truths; the first that it is your business alone, none others - and the second, that it will be incredibly difficult to achieve because our society was not constructed to assist in this goal - quite the contrary! - it was designed to prevent it, at almost every turn. Here we return to the ‘designed’ component of American choice. Since the beginning the tiny tribes watching the throne have conspired to affect a marked class distinction in the land of the ‘free’. From the original agricultural workers of the new world, to the industrial workers who built a modern nation, to the current service sector workers slipping into poverty those with the firmest grip on the levers of power have continually strived to erect massive obstacles between those that labor for a living and those that live off that labor. Nor are these obstacles simply economic or aspirational in nature, no, due their pervasiveness through the generations they have percolated down into the most subterranean reaches of the mass conscious; into the very stories we use to define ourselves. Egads! a polite-hyper-modern-liberal-minded-triangulator might reply, don’t you know everyone has a TV! A refrigerator! Cheapest food ever! Why yes of course, there is an exception to every rule. While, for about thirty years in the middle of the last century, it seemed America was finally delivering on its promise, just look how long it took for us to devolve into another gilded age (the apparent default position of American society). It is foolish to define a thing based off aberrations, opposed its consistencies. In this way we clearly see the US for what it is … the second most successful marketing scheme in human history (naturally one must award Christianity top honors on that mark) … in the same way tobacco used to be good for you, that sodas were harmless, or how fast food is every bit nutritious as home-made, America cries ‘freedom’ when in so many ways the reverse is clearly the case. From ‘power’s’ perspective it’s nihilistically brilliant sure - give the people a semblance of freedom (in our case economic choice) and they’ll extrapolate that into a veritable cosmos of self-authorized-self-actualization - and you bet the monarchists, dictators, or petty politburos are jealous as hell at the level of control the political classes of America have been able to sustain generation after generation. A state of affairs that continues for no other reason than that an over-whelming majority of Americans keep believing the lies. We are forced to ask: why do they?

Let’s speculate wildly! Is it possible there exists some globe-spanning underground tributary of Lethe that constantly replenishes all the aquifers in the land? Or perhaps when we, on average a truly vain people, look into a mirror our historical consciousness is reset to zero? Or maybe we’ve all become so addicted to the stories we repeat about American Exceptionalism even the most destitute are content to sacrifice any chance they might have of another, better life, so as the stories can keep being told .?. the gyre is constricting at every turn, just like water flowing down the drain we’re becoming closer and closer to ourselves and ours; we’re losing a visceral sense of community and common cause through the ‘designed’ choices of a consumerist economy and specifically the newer technologies of self-absorption. So many of us don’t seem able to see past our own reflections, our problems, that even beginning to consider the larger problems facing our country seems as pointless as sending a manned mission to Mars.

The latent greed of the species is given free reign in America and this greed is destroying us. Making us sick. Stunted, withered, cloying little souls blighted with giga-myopia and eterno-amnesia. Greed. Most cultures have oft thought it a base emotion, one needing constant oversight - not the good ’ole US of A! We saw right through that ethical clap-trap - we saw that by harnessing the simmering greed of a people and putting them to work fulfilling that greed great things could happen … just absolutely amazing things … and we have accomplished quite a bit worth being proud over, and we sure have shown all those historical moralists just how wrong they were about the most solipsistic emotion … but this is a strange greed, our American one, one many may not even be aware of, so deep do its roots dive; a conniving greed that wraps in upon itself like a fresh burrito from Chipotle or those roller coasters you remember from Disneyland or Six-Flags … a greed that we have to learn to turn off, ignore, or quit seeing as so basic and benign in all our lives that there’s nothing you can do about it anyway - because it isn’t benign, it reacts to us and the environment as surely as we do it, and lately it’s been acting badly … yes, there are historical elements to this greed, there is also the question of personal responsibility, mutual complicity, systems of control and power as well - so many factors … I guess I’m nostalgic for another type of human being, one not fueled by avarice or beholden to the choices of others … qualities most seem to have lost somewhere on the way to Walmart … a human being that might never have existed except in a dream …

The Symbol

Human beings have long used symbols to represent value. Symbols are convenient, easy, and incredibly mutable. They can be transferred or translated almost infinitely. With a symbol ideas that might take an incredible amount of energy to explain or describe can be conveyed almost instantaneously. Logic and mathematics could likely not exist without them, nor, indeed, any language. And like any good thing, as is so often the case with any wonderfully useful thing, we humans have become dependent on them. Created for ourselves a world where we can not live without them. We are, in many ways, addicted to their utility. On its face there is nothing ethically challenging about this. Language and math are boons to humanity, practically describing our modern conception of ourselves. Symbols are naturally value neutral, like any high-level epistemological building block. And yet, we modern Americans have found ourselves in a tricky spot. We have crafted a society where one symbol is supreme. Where one symbol, and one symbol alone, holds all the power. A symbol that, if you find yourself without it, without access to it, without a stock-pile of it hiding somewhere, essentially makes you a non-entity. No longer part of the culture, the game. For it is certainly true that the only game in modern America is money. That collecting dollars has superseded all other activities; has supplanted any other endeavor as the only one with value. This state of affairs is the genesis of our cultural decline; of the death of the ideals that the Founders (who themselves were already playing the only game) attempted to instill in the New World: will in the end be understood by future historians as the single greatest crime of our time.

I say crime and I mean it. Don’t use the word for shock or awe. Nor do I want to dwell on this particular subject (not being the place for an extended analysis of this issue I will allow such a discussion its own essay, its own space, a place where it can be a bit more academic and dry, not so emotive or cynical) though we do have to mention a few more things before moving on. Crime. Yes. What was this crime? In short order here we go … it used to be the case that money was a symbol that referred to labor, actual work performed by one human that held value for another. So far as that is all money is, there is nothing ethically suspect about it. Then, at some point in the past, a few cunning paradigm-shifters saw an opportunity and changed the rules regarding what money was; they removed the labor as referent of value, replacing it with rare objects (typically gold) that few among any populace would ever see in their lives. Well, since the promise of alchemy was a lie, and the philosopher’s stone was never discovered, at least this money still referred to something real, something that couldn’t just be made up on the spot. Ah ha! the sons of the sneaky paradigm-shifters thought, that would just be the icing on the cake! Let’s remove the rare objects as value referent as well - let’s go all in on a communal mass delusion and see if anyone believes it … let’s just have money valued at whatever we say it’s valued at. Let’s create a massive shell game that only a very few will ever truly know the rules to, though the outcome, the results, will effect everyone … yes … let’s create the only game worth playing, and let’s give every live birth a turn … which leaves us with a system that, no matter how hard you work, no matter how industrious you are, if you don’t know the rules of the game (in modern America we can think of the Federal Reserve, Wall Street bankers, old money, select members of the Treasury Department etc. as the holders of the rule book) you will not win at it. You will play and play and play and keep losing and losing and losing all the while the rule keepers keep winning and winning and winning because for most players in this game the tokens of victory they collect (dollars) are bought at the hard price of actual labor, as if they never heard about how money grew up - no, they slave and slave for pennies without any chance of leveling up in this game and getting to that haughty echelon where money is no longer about work but having money make money off of someone else’s work … this little narrative I just outlined is a crime because there are clear stealers and victims (of course there are exceptions to every rule, but for every Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, there are a hundred and fifty million working at Walmart for a slave-wage). You see, the architects of the monetary symbol’s paradigm shift knew that by removing any referent to an actual act (labor) or object (gold) they were essentially hollowing out the natural relationship between the symbol and the symbolized, and in that empty space they would find their own El Dorado; their own little universe where they called the shots and none other. They essentially re-wrote the rules of symbolism, and clearly in their favor. And while symbols shift meaning all the time, especially in religious or political environments, these shifts are fundamentally harmless as neither religion or political discourse ever directly affects the physical well being of a human being as does their ability to acquire food, or energy, or health care, or shelter (I understand that by including ‘politics’ in this sense I might seem to be advocating a ‘post-history’ perspective; one where capitalistic-liberalism has won over all other political narratives, and while I hope that isn’t so, at the moment, and especially as an American author, one would be hard pressed to argue the point otherwise). To be clear, I’m not suggesting there was some shadowy cabal that gathered and planned out this great hollowing out of the monetary symbol; as is often the case it happened by fits and starts, here and there, as history would have it, propelled by the innate greed of the least amongst us. And yet they have scored a grand victory, these acolytes of avarice. Have pulled the proverbial wool over so many eyes - and in the process redefined a country that promised freedom into a vassal state completely enthralled to an ugly little strip of green denim that truly means nothing at all …

Of course this transformation did not just occur on American soil. But we sure as hell took the ball and ran it home. More than any other modern nation we are more readily defined by the empty symbology of the dollar than any others. This is not just an American problem; but we must be the first to address it …

America’s enslavement to the dollar is the singular cause of all the problems I put forth in ‘The Surface’, and, in many ways, ‘The Self’. We are a nation of suckers, rats, blind idealists, idiot sensualists, blatant thieves and the occasional dreamer … and knowing that, seeing my country in this way does nothing to alleviate my pathological cynicism … but allow me a query - do you still ask me why I am so cynical .?.

#Essay #Philosophy #c. r. stapor #cynicism #nietszche #modernity #philosophers on tumblr #writers on tumblr

0 notes

dailynewswebsite · 4 years

Text

Coronavirus: Oregon and New Mexico impose restrictions

Testing in Nevada

The US states of Oregon and New Mexico have introduced strict measures to curb the unfold of Covid-19 because the nation faces rising outbreaks of the virus.

Officers have ordered most non-essential companies to shut and urged folks to restrict their social interactions.

On Friday, California turned the second state to hit a million Covid circumstances, after Texas.

A median of over 900 folks a day at the moment are dying with the illness within the US.

Each day circumstances have topped 100,000 for the final 11 days and greater than 67,000 individuals are at the moment in hospital.

The US has seen over 10.7 million circumstances and 244,000 deaths to date, in line with Johns Hopkins College.

The Trump administration struck an optimistic tone on Friday, saying they hope to have two vaccines and two therapeutic remedies for Covid-19 permitted by the Meals and Drug Administration (FDA) within the coming weeks.

Dr Moncef Slaoui, head of the administration’s vaccine initiative, advised a information convention that he hoped to have 20 million doses able to be distributed in December, after which a minimum of 20 million doses every month after that.

Talking on the similar information convention, President Donald Trump mentioned he wouldn’t put the US into lockdown. “Lockdowns price lives they usually price a number of issues. The remedy can’t be…. worse than the issue itself and I’ve mentioned it many instances,” he mentioned.

Knowledge exhibits that almost all of the nation has rising neighborhood unfold of the virus.

In current weeks, the Midwestern US has been the centre of the outbreaks, with circumstances rising in states like Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois.

Keep-at-home directives

Oregon Governor Kate Brown introduced a two-week “freeze” limiting eating places to take-out and shuttering gyms and leisure amenities from 18 November to 2 December.

“I am not asking you, I’m telling you, to cease your social gatherings … and your home events and to restrict your social interactions to 6 and beneath, not a couple of family,” she mentioned.

Story continues

In the meantime, New Mexico Governor Lujan Grisham ordered a two-week shutdown of non-essential companies comparable to grocery shops, farms, childcare centres, banks, factories and healthcare amenities.

Variety of day by day circumstances and deaths within the US

In the meantime, California and Texas – which reached the million-case milestone on 10 November – now each have viral caseloads that surpass different international locations, together with Mexico and Germany.

The surges have prompted native officers to hit pause on reopening efforts in a number of states, and a few are re-imposing stay-at-home directives.

Eleven counties in California have been advised to reverse some reopening measures.

Southern California is the worst hit a part of the state, with substantial outbreaks. In Los Angeles, there are greater than 330,000 infections.

San Diego, Sacramento and Los Angeles counties are among the many areas now on the bottom tier of California’s reopening plan. Indoor eating and indoor non secular companies are prohibited.

Banner picture studying ‘extra about coronavirus’

Banner

Because the state’s positivity fee – the share of constructive assessments within the inhabitants – is now at 3.6%, California Governor Gavin Newsom urged folks to put on masks and distance, saying: “Your actions may actually save lives.”

President-elect Joe Biden additionally once more renewed his name for People, “no matter the place they stay or who they voted for” to “step up and do their half” with social distancing, masks carrying and hygiene.

“I perceive it isn’t simple. I do know individuals are drained. However this is not going to go on perpetually.”

On Friday, it emerged that a minimum of 30 Secret Service officers had contracted the virus in current weeks, and dozens have been advised to quarantine, the Washington Put up and New York Instances reported.

Most of the people had reportedly travelled to occasions across the US for each Mr Trump and Mr Biden.

What is the scenario elsewhere within the US?

CBS Information reviews 15 states noticed the numbers of sufferers in hospital as a result of virus double within the final month. Hospitals have warned that amenities might be overwhelmed if the developments proceed.

Colder climate has compelled folks indoors, and consultants say pandemic fatigue can be making People much less cautious.

Republican governors in Iowa, Ohio, West Virginia and Utah have issued masks mandates

Ohio’s governor has additionally threatened to close bars and gymnasiums if the outbreak worsens

In Minnesota, bars and eating places should shut by 22:00 native time

Wisconsin and Nevada residents have been requested to remain at dwelling for 2 weeks to keep away from a return to restrictions

The Democratic governors of California, Oregon and Washington state have issued a journey advisory, discouraging non-essential journey and requesting folks to quarantine post-travel

New York has ordered bars and eating places that serve alcohol to shut by 22:00 native time; gatherings are restricted to 10 folks; the town may additionally shut colleges on Monday

The town of Chicago has a stay-at-home advisory starting on Monday, and non-essential companies should shut by 23:00 native time; gatherings are restricted to 10 folks

The town of Detroit has moved all college students to distant studying as a result of virus spikes

Indiana has halted reopening and restricted social gatherings and occasions

Maryland has ordered eating places to cut back indoor capability to 50%

US infectious illness chief Dr Anthony Fauci advised CBS on Friday: “If we do the issues which are easy public well being measures, that hovering will stage and begin to come down.

“You add that to the assistance of a vaccine, we will flip this round. It isn’t futile.”

Graphic exhibiting circumstances excessive in US medwestern states

Issues as one other vacation approaches

Outbreaks within the spring and summer time adopted US colleges’ spring breaks and the nationwide Labor Day vacation weekend – and now consultants are involved that as Thanksgiving approaches on the finish of the month, the spikes will once more worsen.

That’s the scenario taking part in out throughout the border in Canada, the place folks celebrated their Thanksgiving a month in the past. The nation’s high docs say that the vacation is partly why cities and provinces at the moment are seeing record-high infections.

Indoor gatherings pose a big threat to spreading the virus, and because the vacation centres round consuming collectively, carrying masks will not be possible.

One evaluation from Georgia Institute of Know-how researchers discovered the danger of getting a Covid-positive particular person at even a 10-person sized gathering might be near 100% within the worst-hit components of the US.

Again in October, Dr Fauci cautioned that the “sacred” American custom of gathering collectively at Thanksgiving “is a threat”.

“You could have to chew the bullet and sacrifice that social gathering, until you are fairly sure that the folks that you just’re coping with should not contaminated,” Dr Fauci advised CBS Information.

Banner saying ‘Get in contact’

How are the brand new measures affecting you? Share your experiences by emailing [email protected].

Please embrace a contact quantity if you’re prepared to talk to a BBC journalist. It’s also possible to get in contact within the following methods:

In case you are studying this web page and may’t see the shape you have to to go to the cellular model of the BBC web site to submit your query or remark or you’ll be able to e mail us at [email protected]. Please embrace your identify, age and placement with any submission.

from Growth News https://growthnews.in/coronavirus-oregon-and-new-mexico-impose-restrictions/ via https://growthnews.in

#Growth News

0 notes

bluewatsons · 4 years

Text

Benjamin Goldstein, Political Chemicals: Drugs, Rights, and the Good Life, Thesis, Georgia State University (2017)

Abstract

Recreational drug use, whether publicly acknowledged or privately hidden, has long been a common activity within human societies. Though this comes with serious hazards, it also produces benefits, which often go unrecognized. Given the current prohibitory policies, it is important to consider whether such use ought to be restricted. I will do just that, focusing on whether recreational drug use can be part of a reasonable conception of the good life, as well as whether restrictions constitute an infringement on freedom. I will argue that, in moderation, recreational drug use constitutes a positive good for a large group of people, and that criminalization places an unfair burden upon these people, which breaches the liberal principle of neutrality.

1 Introduction

The prohibition on drugs in the United States has put hundreds of thousands of citizens behind bars. In 2016, the Federal Bureau of Prisons indicated that of 181,075 total federal inmates, 83,982 were incarcerated on drug charges. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 208,000 of the 1,325,305 inmates in state prisons in 2014 were there on drug charges, of which 47,400 were possession only (Carson, 2015, p. 30). In 2015, the Drug Enforcement Administration employed over 9,200 people (Drug Enforcement Administration, 2015). The sheer number of impacted persons provides sufficient reason to submit the drug policies to philosophical scrutiny.

The most immediate question is whether or not there should be any kind of governmental apparatus for regulating drugs. In this paper, I will first note the lack of justificatory reasons underlying the modern policies, then argue that there could be at least some potential justification for state control, grounded in the harms drug use can cause to both users and others. However, using Michael Bishop’s “network theory” as a framework, I will also argue that recreational drug use can be partially constitutive of well-being. I will then proceed to rebut the commonly voiced protests that (a) drug use will inevitably be bad for physiological health and (b) that it necessarily constitutes a lack of virtue. For the latter rebuttal, I will use an Aristotelian framework.

Following this, I will argue that any state attempting to act in accordance with the liberal principle of neutrality should focus its drug policy on harm reduction. Such states are supposed to act impartially towards reasonable conceptions of the good life, meaning that, if recreational use can indeed be part of such a conception, the activity ought not be prohibited. To make this argument, I will draw on Douglas Husak’s defense of a right to drug use and call for the abandonment of the criminal framework as the attempted solution to drug-related problems. I will conclude by investigating the current policies as they relate to the new goals I present, providing a couple of sample cases for consideration.

2 CURRENT POLICY: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

An historical analysis of the rise of drug prohibition in the U.S. does not yield an image of a set of clearly articulated ideals being applied to a variety of scientific data on the effects of drug consumption. Rather, it looks like politics as usual: the current policies appear to be haphazardly grounded in anything from broad misconceptions about the effects of drugs to purposefully directed racism. An example of the latter comes from the first drug law passed in the U.S., an 1875 ban on smokable opium in San Francisco (“The Opium Dens”, 1875). Manderson (1999) argues the specificity of such laws is due to the public conception that only Chinese immigrants smoked opium, while whites typically preferred drinkable opium tinctures [laudanum] (p. 181). Much later, the Reagan administration’s Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (2015) placed one hundred times stronger penalties on crack cocaine than powder cocaine. While these policies were also arguably underscored by racism, they were partially sold to the public based on claims that crack was substantially more addictive and could lead to a variety of negative health effects not caused by powder cocaine, including serious birth defects. The only pharmacological difference between the two drugs is sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and the mode of administration, smoking for crack, insufflating (“snorting”) for powder. Under the Obama administration, the disparity was (partially) addressed and crack penalties were reduced, such that they are now only eighteen times harsher than the punishments for possession and sale of powder cocaine (Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 2015).

Of course, facts about how the drug prohibition arose are only marginally important when determining whether they are good laws. Surely, it does not bode well if the goals of the policymakers were ill-conceived, but neither does it provide certainty that the laws are either good or bad. To make such a determination, we must turn to questions of principle.

3 Goals and Methods

3.1 Reasons for Restriction of Drugs

The positive question, “Why regulate drugs?” is asked with surprising infrequency in policy debates. Proponents of decriminalization are often prodded to give reasons for changing the laws, implying the default position is to continue the drug prohibition as is. However, this is the question that must be answered if the policies are to have any clear goals.

I will assume the historical points just mentioned are bad reasons for engaging in a drug prohibition. Surely, though, better reasons can be offered. When bans are formed based on misconceptions about the health effects of drugs, for instance, the goals of the legislators (assuming they actually believe the data they present) are not inherently bad. The resultant laws are bad because they are based on inaccurate information. But the underlying idea appears to be that there are some kinds of dangers related to drug use and that prohibition might help protect citizens. This places the states interest in the matter in the realm of promoting public health.

That recreational drug use constitutes a public health concern may seem straightforwardly obvious, but I will attempt to give the claim some backing. It is an empirical fact that recreational drug use sometimes harms users. These harms include but are not limited to: accidents while inebriated, acute overdose, addiction, and physiological and psychological damage from both short- and long-term use. In addition to these, recreational drug use sometimes leads to harm to others, including: accidents while inebriated, results of drug-induced aggression, and the use of drugs to facilitate rape.1 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 49,714 deaths related to drug use in the U.S. in 2014, as well as 30,722 deaths specifically related to alcohol2 use (Kochanek, Murphy, Xu, & Tejada-Vera, 2016, p. 12-13). In 2011, the Drug Abuse Warning Network estimated that, from a total of over 125 million visits to hospital emergency departments in the U.S., more than 5 million were related to drugs, with about 2.5 million specifically involving drug misuse or abuse (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013, p. 7-8). In 2011, the National Drug Intelligence Center estimated drug-related healthcare costs to be around $11,416,232,000, with additional economic costs from drug-related productivity loss at around $120,304,004,000 (p. ix). In 2015, 39,513 diagnoses of HIV in the U.S. were attributed to needle sharing related to injection drug use (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). In light of the list of harms and these statistics, it should be clear recreational drug use constitutes a public health concern. I will continue on the assumption this point holds, and that it provides justification for state interest in drug regulation, though people with a variety of political leanings may deny the state ought to be involved in promoting public health. Anarchists and libertarians, for instance, might believe even a drug policy of harm-reduction constitutes overstepping by the state. For this paper, though, I will be assuming that concern for public health is within the bounds of legitimate state interests.

3.2 Reasons for Caution in Drug Restrictions

Since there are serious drug-related harms, and the state could just attempt to eradicate all drug use in a prohibitory fashion, I now want to present arguments for weaker restrictions, based on the efficacy of the policies in relation to the goals, while also considering possible goods that can come from drugs.

3.2.1 Drugs as medicine

First, if the state’s interest in policing drugs is to minimize or eradicate the harms associated with drug use (versus simply lowering overall use rates), ideal policies should not yield overall negative effects on public health. One obvious way drug policy could damage public health is by restricting access to drugs with medicinal value. This means ideal policies would not do so.3

3.2.2 Drug-related harms and criminal punishments

What punishments may be imposed for breaches of laws is frequently considered a dissociable issue from the rightness of the policies themselves. However, if the goal of the policies is to reduce harms, then there should not be criminal punishments attached. Perhaps if punishing drug users was massively beneficial to society and minimally damaging to the users, it could be justifiable, at least on a utilitarian framework. But it could also be argued on the utilitarian view that the long-term incarceration of users who break laws, many of which have mandatory minimum sentences attached, produces more costs than benefits, especially for drugs that are not particularly dangerous.

There are many problems with using utilitarian calculus here. For instance, there is no clear comparison between the harms constituted by fines, imprisonment, and other punitive measures and the kinds created directly by drug use, like physiological damage, overdose, and addiction. Due to discrepancies like these, it is difficult to tell whether criminal punishment yields overall benefit or not. More importantly, even if criminalization did yield an overall positive outcome, it would fail to address the appropriate goals of drug policies. Imprisonment does not address either abuse or addiction.4 And so, even on a simple utilitarian framework, criminalization fails to minimize harms. If the appropriate end-goal of drug policy ought to be the reduction or elimination of drug-related problems, then the state reaction to breaches of the policies should also be tailored to that purpose. Additionally, beyond utilitarianism, if adults have a moral right to use drugs, as Douglas Husak claims, then a positive sum in this case would not even matter. I will consider this possibility in more detail shortly.

3.2.3 Drugs and well-being

I now want to consider the value of recreational drug use within the framework of well- being presented by Mark Bishop in his book The Good Life, which he calls the “network theory.” Bishop considers a person to have attained well-being if they are situated within “positive causal networks” (PCNs). These PCNs consist of nodes that feed back into one another, in what Bishop sometimes refers to as “positive spirals.” The identity of these nodes, and the kinds of relationships connecting them, will differ by individual. Bishop (2015) outlines the theory as follows:

A person high in well-being has positive emotions, attitudes, traits, and accomplishments that form an interlocking web of states that build and feed on each other. According to the network theory, the state of well-being is the state of being in (or, to use philosopher’s jargon, instantiating) a positive causal network. (p. 10)

Bishop (2015) prefers his idea to other theories of well-being, such as hedonistic (p. 112-122) or Aristotelian (p. 138-146) theories because, according to him, it captures commonsense judgments just as well as the alternatives, while providing superior explanations of a variety of psychological study data. The general approach is pluralistic and inclusive; high levels of hedonic value might play a part in a PCN, as may a variety of character traits often extolled as virtue—these factors just fail to constitute well-being as a whole.

Bishop does not have a definition of positivity with necessary and sufficient conditions, which might be clearly fulfilled in some cases and not in others. Rather, he provides something like an empirical framework with which one might practically differentiate the valences of causal networks:

A homeostatically clustered network of feelings, emotions, attitudes, behaviors, traits, and accomplishments is positive (rather than negative or neutral) if it consists of relatively more of the following sorts of states: a. psychological states that feel good— that have a positive hedonic tone; b. states (psychological or not) that when present in this network tend to bring about psychological states that have a positive hedonic tone; c. states that the agent values; d. states that the agent’s culture values. (Bishop, 2015, p. 41) One of the simplest PCNs that Bishop considers is what he calls the “happiness/success cycle,” in which happiness feeds into success, which feeds back into happiness. People with positive affects tend to experience more personal successes than others, and people who succeed tend to gain happiness from doing so (Bishop, 2015, p. 37). Happiness constitutes a hedonically positive psychological state (a in Bishop’s list of possibilities), while success is an accomplishment that tends to bring about hedonically positive states (b). In addition, both states are more than likely valued by any given individual and their culture (c and d). This two-node network is an extreme oversimplification; Bishop readily admits any actual network would be far too complex to chart out. I mention it to illustrate the feedback nature of such networks generally,

To tie the network theory in with a qualified defense of recreational drug use, I will claim use is not necessarily opposed to well-being, and may even be an important aspect in its development and maintenance, for some individuals. This is not to say drug use never inhibits or destroys well-being, just that it does not have to, in every situation. I do not want to ignore the very serious negative aspects of use. Drug use can constitute a node in the negative alternative to a PCN, in which it may feed into physiological and/or psychological harms, may damage interpersonal relationships, sap finances, lead to addiction, or worse.

Take the case of Owen Flanagan, who became addicted to alcohol and benzodiazepines, which he consumed in conjunction to self-medicate for an anxiety disorder. In his article “What is it Like to Be an Addict?” Flanagan lays out poignantly the first-person experience of addiction. Though he began to use as an attempt to get away from his anxiety, over time he became hooked.

I now spent most conscious, awake, time drinking, wanting to die. But afraid to die. When you’re dead you can’t use...The desire to live was not winning the battle over death. The overwhelming need—the pathological, unstoppable—need to use, was. Living was just a necessary condition of using. (Flanagan, 2011, p. 277)

This, clearly, is not a description of someone instantiating well-being. But somebody could have the same kind of initial problem—overwhelming anxiety—while recognizing the incapacity of drugs alone to provide a real cure. They could use some kind of drugs (possibly benzodiazepines, which are anxiolytics) as tools, or temporary boosts to set them in the right direction. If they have such tense nerves that they could never make it through the threshold of a psychologist’s office without taking some calming medication to ease their minds, such a drug might be their only real chance to begin on a path to healing.

Though drugs have great potential in some areas of therapy, there are also possible benefits of drugs use that are neither medicinal nor therapeutic, but should still not be discounted. Recreational drug use is a valuable part of individual pursuits towards well-being, whenever it is feeding into positive, rather than negative, causal networks. Bishop (2015) writes, “[A] network’s causal drivers are those states that are part of the network that tend to establish, maintain, or strengthen the network” (p. 43). I think it is unnecessary to claim drug use could be a causal driver in a PCN. In fact, the policy claims that arise from the arguments here should be able to rest on a much weaker claim, that use is simply not detrimental to well-being, as use itself is divorceable from the harms related to the activity. However, I will try to give some support to the claim that recreational use frequently constitutes a positive good in people’s lives.

Although recreational usage of drugs has the potential to lead to unwanted craving, tolerance, dependence, addiction, and withdrawal, it also regularly feeds into positive traits and experiences. I want to leave aside the euphoria common to recreational drug consumption as relates to PCNs; that is, one might argue that drug use could constitute a node in a positive network simply because euphoria is a positive affect. However, I believe the euphoria requires a special kind of relationship with drugs if it is to be considered part of a PCN. The euphoria cannot be part of a network in which it feeds into addiction or abuse of drugs. Otherwise, it might be hedonically valuable, but would not constitute part of well-being. For recreational use to do this, it must feed into other positive traits, experiences, attitudes, etc.—and, as I will argue, this requires it be done in moderation.

Other factors than the raw feel can and should be cited as positive reasons for using drugs recreationally. Some people (and some whole cultures) use drugs for spiritual purposes, often as part of rituals.5 Others cite drug consumption as a helpful motivator for engaging in creative activities. In addition, some people claim to benefit from the increased sociality that arises from certain drugs’ disinhibitory factors (like empathogens and alcohol). All of these factors (spirituality, creativity, sociality) frequently constitute nodes in positive causal networks in people’s lives.

4 Well-Being and Moderation

Having now argued that recreational drug use can form a node in a PCN, I will rebut the counterarguments that drug use cannot truly be part of well-being because (a) it necessarily breeds physiological harms that cannot be mitigated in any way and/or (b) it necessarily constitutes a lack of virtue. In establishments where alcohol is served, one can be sure to occasionally hear someone say, “Pick your poison.” Though it is never meant to be taken literally, the phrase holds a hidden understanding: alcohol can be poisonous. But when people drink it knowingly, they do not do so purely from self-destructive urges fueled by a Freudian death drive. Humans have found it can be enjoyable to temporarily disturb regular organic functions with trace amounts of toxins, in order to induce altered states of consciousness. People have engaged in drug use, and alcohol consumption in particular, for thousands of years. Aside from drinking alcohol simply due to the lack of other sanitary liquids, recreational use has long been recorded.6 Alongside this, there seems to have always been a human predilection toward overuse and abuse. Since this has been so common throughout history, I will now engage in a brief discussion about appropriate habits of consumption from the standpoints of medicine and virtue.

4.1 Moderation and medicine

Drugs can do amazing things. They can heal, miraculously. Drugs can do terrible things. They can kill, instantly. But can either of these effects arise purely out of a drug’s identity, or are there other relevant factors? Would problems result from a person taking infinitesimal quantities of a harmful drug each day? If they consumed a single molecule of whatever substance is most toxic to humans, every single day, would it matter? The answer is straightforwardly negative. Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, provided an important observation five centuries ago: “All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”7 It is a fairly simple concept. If people consume a sufficiently large amount of any substance, it can have detrimental health effects, whereas they will be totally unharmed if the quantity is low enough. Even with its frighteningly small8 median lethal dose, imbibing individual particles of botulinum toxin (“Botox”) daily would likely yield no noticeable effect. This is certainly the case with substantially less toxic chemical compounds, including all Schedule I drugs.

4.2 Moderation and virtue

I have already argued that drug use constitutes a piece of positive causal networks (and thus well-being) in many people’s lives, using Bishop’s “network theory.” However, not everyone will accept the theory. Hedonists should be partially assuaged by the discussion about medicine and moderation, since it shows drug use does not need to cause pains, and can often and easily cause pleasures. But I would like to also appeal to virtue theorists, who might be hesitant to accept drug use due to the possibility that any amount of use constitutes vice. To do so, I will investigate drug use within an Aristotelian framework.

Using drugs for recreation is using them to gain pleasure. On an Aristotelian account, the virtue concerning appropriate dispositions towards pleasures and pains is temperance. Though the term is now frequently associated with total abstinence, due to nineteenth century social movements, temperance for the Greeks was a virtue of moderation. Aristotle identifies excessive indulgence as “licentious,” but has trouble identifying the relevant deficiency. He writes, “[C]ases of defective response to pleasures scarcely occur, and therefore people of this sort too have no name to describe them, but let us class them as insensible” (EN II.7, 1107b7-9, trans. Thomson). The term translated as “insensibility” is anaisthētos, a predecessor to our “anesthetized,” which brings to mind catatonic or unconscious persons. Aristotle says incredibly little about this deficiency, believing it to be very rare. Though he says nothing about drug use specifically, of course, it is not hard to extrapolate his thoughts on temperance to the current issue.

Certain pleasures are necessarily experienced during life. Quenching thirst with drink and satisfying hunger with food are both pleasures that must be enjoyed, and with some regularity if one is to survive. Of such “natural” pleasures, Aristotle writes, “few people go wrong, and only in one way, in the direction of too much; because to eat or drink indiscriminately until one is full to bursting is to exceed in quantity one’s natural limit, since the natural desire is merely a replenishment of the deficiency” (III.11, 1118b16-20). Drinking or eating too much could be considered licentious, but Aristotle does not see either as being particularly common:

But with regard to particular pleasures many people go wrong in many ways. Some of those who are called ‘lovers’ of this or that go wrong in enjoying the wrong objects, others in enjoying things with abnormal intensity, or in the wrong way; and the licentious display excess in every form. They enjoy some things that it is wrong to enjoy, because they are odious; and where it is right to enjoy something, they enjoy it more than is right, or more than is normal. (III.11, 1118b22-28, emphasis added)

What then can be said about drug use and temperance? One way a person could go wrong is by gaining an excess of pleasure from consumption (i.e. “enjoying things with abnormal intensity”). A self-aware individual exhibiting such a disposition towards drugs might even recognize it as dangerous, as something that could easily develop into an addiction.

Interestingly, another of Aristotle’s descriptions of licentiousness sounds remarkably like a modern account of addiction: “the licentious man is so called for being unduly distressed by the absence of what is pleasant, or by abstinence from it. ... he is so carried away by his desire that he chooses them before anything else” (III.11, 1118b30-1119a3). In this passage, Aristotle was almost certainly referring to psychical pains, arising in the form of powerful and unfulfilled urges. But the claim seems all the more accurate when considering how overindulgence can lead to physiological dependence. Withdrawals indicate excessive urges are not merely behavioral; the brain regulates in response to drug use to reinforce such longing.

Of course, with a modern account of addiction, we might say a person is not as responsible for his or her actions as would be required to rightfully refer to his or her intemperance with moral condemnation—but even so, it can be said that their intense desires are contradictory to their well-being, whether they can change them or not. And that is Aristotle’s concern anyways, the attainment of eudaimonia. It is important to recall, though, that Aristotelian virtues are a mean state, lying somewhere between a deficiency and an excess. To consider the deficiency contra licentiousness, take the following:

Cases of deficiency in respect of pleasures, that is of enjoying them less than one ought, hardly occur; because such insensibility is subhuman. Even the lower animals discriminate between different foods, and enjoy some but not others. If there is any creature to whom nothing is pleasant and everything indifferent, he must be very far from being human; and because such a type hardly occurs, it has not secured itself a name. (III.11, 1119a6-11, emphasis added)

In Aristotle’s thought, the lack of any appetite does not merely appear wrong, but freakish, inhuman. Note, too, he refers to enjoying certain pleasures “less than one ought,” meaning the failure to appreciate pleasure appropriately does, in fact, constitute a lack of virtue.

While he says little about having improperly weak responses to pleasures, believing it incredibly rare, from what he does say, it seems a person could be considered intemperate in the deficient sense if they never had desire for food or drink. To consider it again within the general framework of virtue ethics, it seems highly likely eudaimonia is unattainable if one cannot find enjoyment in anything. For instance, though he does not say it, Aristotle would likely agree that a person who takes no pleasure from any kind of art is failing to exhibit virtue regarding pleasure. Even if aesthetic value were considered wholly subjective, so that we could not say failure to feel pleasure in response to any particular work is wrong, we might claim it is impossible to attain a genuine state of well-being without being moved by anything. To look at any painting, any sculpture, any architectural marvel, to listen to any music, to read any work of literature, to watch any performance, and to feel nothing, ever, would seem to indicate a level of dysthymia that would be detrimental to well-being.

Of course, consuming drugs for recreation is not the same as enjoying artwork, nor can pleasures from drug consumption be considered obviously appropriate in the way those from food and drink are—it is not necessary for survival to consume drugs for pleasure. Though Aristotle would say excessive interest in drug use would be wrong (again, “enjoying things with abnormal intensity”), another question remains: is the pleasure associated with drug use the wrong kind of pleasure to enjoy? Is it, in Aristotle’s terms, “odious”? There is a relevant passage to assist in this judgment, by providing some criteria:

[S]uch pleasures as conduce to health and bodily fitness he [the temperate man] will try to secure with moderation and in the right way; and also all other pleasures that are not incompatible with these, or dishonourable or beyond his means. For the man who disregards these limitations sets too high a value on such pleasures; but the temperate man is not like that: he appreciates them as the right principle directs. (III.11, 1119a17- 21, emphasis added)

Recreational drug use is not the kind of pleasure all people ought to enjoy; however, for many people, a moderate amount of recreational use is valuable. Disagreement with this point would require an illustration of how moderate recreational drug consumption, use that is explicitly compatible with health and bodily fitness, is somehow intrinsically dishonorable.

The point about moderation is very important. It sits well with Paracelsus’ claim, but also with Aristotle, who provides this example to illustrate the importance of accounting for individual variation when judging temperance:

Supposing that ten pounds of food is a large and two pounds a small allowance for an athlete, it does not follow that the trainer will prescribe six pounds; for even this is perhaps too much or too little for the person who is to receive it – too little for Milo [the renowned wrestler] but too much for one who is only beginning to train. (II.6, 1106a37- 1106b4 p.40)

Put simply: moderation is vital, not total abstinence. This a common thread throughout all of Aristotle’s ethics; the Golden Mean is a balance between extremes. Sitting amidst the dogmatic imposition of Nancy Reagan to “Just Say No” and the encouragement of rappers like Ice Cube towards reckless abandon9 can be found the philosophical, reflective equilibrium: know thyself, and know thy limits.

5 Well-Being, Liberal Neutrality, and Drug Policy

Now, having argued that recreational drug use is often a part of the positive causal networks that constitute well-being, and having rebutted counterarguments about use necessarily being problematic for health and for virtue, I will consider policy implications. Though medical value may provide stronger reasons for lessening restrictions, health is not the only value in life, and drugs can be used beneficially in non-medicinal capacities. It may hold more heft to say somebody should be allowed to access a drug if they will die without it than to say they ought to be allowed just because they think it is fun. But recreation is an important part of many positive causal networks, making it part of well-being.

Though not endorsed universally, this seems to be a claim few would debate. According to 2013 and 2014 survey data, over half of the adult American population had consumed an alcoholic drink within a month of being asked, and over seventy percent had one within the year (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014). Though alcohol is minimally regulated, the limitations that do exist seem to have been designed to address the harms associated with its use. People are not permitted to drive motor vehicles after drinking, and alcohol vendors are not allowed to sell to minors. The former makes sense because alcohol heavily impairs driving abilities, the latter because alcohol consumption by adolescents can stunt brain development. If, instead of these narrowly articulated rules, there were a law requiring mandatory minimum prison terms for any individual caught consuming any amount of alcohol, this regulation would appear blind to the relevant problems related to the specific drug, alcohol.

If the state’s interest in regulating drugs is based on public health concerns, and harmless recreational drug use is considered by many to be part of a reasonable conception of the good life, then ideal drug policies should be narrowly tailored to mitigate the harms of drug use while leaving limited access for recreational purposes. If the state is supposed to be neutral towards reasonable conceptions of the good life, and some (any) people hold that recreational drug use constitutes part of a good life, then the state may be obligated to act neutrally towards drug use. This means it should not create an undue burden upon any person attempting to engage in what they consider a potentially life-fulfilling activity.

Neutrality toward reasonable conceptions of the good life is not an aspect of all political positions, but it is common enough to review relevant implications at length. I will situate it within the liberal framework of Douglas Husak. Philosophers have been largely silent about drug prohibition; Husak is one of few who has spoken and published on the issue.10 He provides a defense of drug use in the liberal tradition, claiming people have a right to use drugs. This, he says, means drug use should not be made into a criminal activity by the law. Husak is not concerned whether or in what ways drugs should be regulated, as I am in this paper. He is preoccupied with decriminalization. Much of his writing is on the lack of reasons behind treating drug use as a specifically viable activity for prohibition:

Suppose that a new food were discovered that was no more or less dangerous or subject to abuse than cocaine and had exactly the same side effects. The fact that this new substance is a food rather than a drug is not, I think, relevant to the decision about whether it should be prohibited. (Husak, 1992, p. 26)

If drug use is to be considered dramatically different from the consumption of other substances, there needs to be a clear defining line. In the brain, sugar has been found to activate similar regions to many recreational drugs (Colantuoni, et al., 2001). High sugar intake can result in behavioral dependency comparable to that seen in drug addiction via alterations in the activity of the endogenous opioid system, and the secretion and functioning of endorphins (Colantuoni, et al., 2002). It has also been indicated in an MRI study that analogous neural circuits activate for food and drug cravings (Pelchat, Johnson, Chan, Valdez, & Ragland, 2004). Husak makes a similar point about recreational activities generally; if there were a recreational activity more dangerous and addictive than drug use, would it be of any real concern that the activity was drug- free when considering appropriate legislation?

Keeping in mind the lack of justification for treating drug use as a special activity, Husak provides three criteria that must be met for drugs to be legitimately banned (on paternalistic grounds):

First, this drug would have to create significant harms to a great many persons who use it. Second, few persons would regard the use of this drug as especially significant in their lives. Finally, attempts to minimize the health hazards of this drug below the tolerable threshold must be deemed unsuccessful. (Husak, 1992, p. 100)

If we accept this schema but attempt to apply it to activities other than drug use, freedom appears increasingly relevant. Many dangerous recreational activities, such as skydiving, boxing, and motor vehicle racing, are allowed with minimal restrictions. The third condition is especially telling when considering freedom, as it implies criminal punishment for engaging in an activity ought to be the very last resort when handling social problem. Food additives are regulated, not banned. People are legally required to wear seat belts in cars, not universally denied the right to drive. Martial artists are made to use a variety of protective gear, not told to stop fighting altogether.

Refusing to treat drug use as criminal does not preclude the existence of a regulatory body, assuming it is properly focused. But neutrality demands that lawmakers refrain from giving preference to any particular conceptions of the good life. Prohibition places an unfair burden on people whose conception of the good life includes moderate recreational drug use. These people have less freedom in their pursuit of happiness than those taking different routes to well-being. Prohibition and the attached criminal punishments are not merely ill-suited for addressing drug-related harms, they constitute an infringement upon freedom, via a breach of the liberal principle of neutrality.

5.1 Policy implications and the current laws

Though it might not be quite so clear when looking at the application of the current policies, the letter of the law does appear to be directed at minimizing these kinds of harms. Consider the guidelines for federal scheduling (Controlled Substances Act of 1970).11

Comparing the factors listed in the guidelines, there are clear trends present across the board, based on relational properties. As the schedules ascend in number, the abuse potential drops (high, less, low) and acceptance for medical use in the U.S. grows (no accepted use, accepted use with restrictions, accepted use). It is almost the same for the likelihood of developing dependence (severe, moderate, low, limited), except the statement for Schedule I, which does not refer to dependence but turns instead to accepted safety of use under medical supervision.

The principles underlying the scheduling guidelines can be easily articulated. Abuse and addiction12 should be fought. At the same time, no beneficial drugs should be regulated so strongly as to make them inaccessible to those who need them for medicinal purposes. While the basic ideas underlying scheduling appear to be in line with the appropriate goals of drug policy, this fails to be reflected in the implementation of the law. Some portions are properly tailored, but for drugs in the lowest schedules, the policies are prohibitory.

If drug policies ought to focus on abuse and addiction, on harms associated with drug use and not use itself, then really there should be no criminal punishment for use, nor for simple possession. This point is further supported if drug use is part of a reasonable conception of the good life, as I have argued, since a neutral liberal state should not make potentially life-fulfilling activities into criminal acts. In cases of rape, murder, assault, or any violent crime, the act in itself is the problem, and thus is the thing prohibited. Drug abuse and addiction are very harmful, and it makes sense to want to fight against them. But these problems are complex and need to be addressed with specificity—they cannot be reduced to use or possession. There are a variety of tactics for reducing many problems surrounding drug abuse: equipping police with naloxone allows them to prevent deaths from opiate overdoses, opening clinics which provide clean needles for injecting drugs reduces the spread of diseases related to needle sharing (such as HIV), encouraging people who drink heavily to take B-vitamins might reduce their chances of developing brain damage13, the use of stomach pumps saves many people from death by alcohol overdose.

None of these methods get to the base of the problem, as they will not lower the rates of abuse itself—but they can be incredibly beneficial for reducing harms. They ought to be a major part of the state’s focus. There are many factors, both social and psychological, contributing to the phenomenon of drug abuse, and reducing its prevalence is a difficult task. Addiction, too, is a complex, multi-faceted problem that will not have a simple solution. Yet one thing remains clear: imprisoning drug users, even tens of thousands of them, fails to specifically target either abuse or addiction. Perhaps abuse can be lessened through a regimen of educational campaigns consisting of facts and harm-reduction methods, rather than scare tactics, alongside treatment options for addicts such as rehabilitation centers. It might be useful to put grant money for drug research towards the development of new recreational drugs with similar psychoactive properties to those already commonly used, but less physiological risk and addictive potential. A longer-term project could be building an understanding of the kinds of cultural factors contributing to abuse and addiction and seeking to change them, as well as researching ways to treat the genetic side of addiction.

6 Other Harms

Before concluding, since abuse and addiction are not the only drug-related harms, some of the others should be addressed. DUI is a leading cause of death in this country, with rates far higher than for overdose. The state has every reason to be concerned with this. Technological advancements may soon provide a solution via self-driving cars, but for now there are measures that can be taken. While there is a right to use drugs, there is no such right to drive while heavily impaired, so the state is justified in its current prohibitory DUI policy. It may even be legitimate to enforce this policy with the strictness of current drug prohibition.14 Of course, appropriate tactics would have to take into consideration which states constitute serious driving impairment. Drunkenness certainly counts, but so does heavy sleep deprivation, whereas not all drugs hinder the capacity to operate vehicles.

Unfortunately, there are even more harms related to drugs. If the drugs typically used for recreation were also commonly used in poisonings, it would be worth devoting part of this paper to the issue. They are not, though. But there is an incredibly heinous crime that is often facilitated by psychotropic drugs: sexual assault. This is common and vicious enough to deserve somber consideration during any discussion on drug regulation. Even if a right to recreationally consume drugs is recognized, it is still tempting to claim this right ought to be superseded in light of the immense danger of drugs falling into the hands of people who would use them for rape. I am sympathetic to this claim. It is only upon careful consideration that I have come to believe prohibition is still not the answer. Drugs can be used in beneficial ways, medicinally and recreationally, and criminalizing their manufacture, sale, and possession will prevent all possible good that may come from them.

But this just means part of the state’s concern in regulation should be fighting the use of drugs in certain capacities. In fact, it might be a wise reallocation to take the funds currently spent enforcing the drug prohibition and directing them instead towards fighting sexual assault generally. Perhaps in the public schools, rather than using scare tactics to divert children away from drug use, they should be educated about consent and motivated to speak up about sex crimes. Perhaps “America’s Public Enemy Number One”15 is not people trying to get high, nor even the very real and frightening threats of drug abuse and addiction, but rather the rape culture. Perhaps instead of a “War on Drugs,” the nation ought to be engaged in a “War on Rape.”

As when addressing DUI, while considering drugs and rape, the variation in individual properties of different drugs should be taken into account. One of the most common drugs used to facilitate sexual assault is alcohol, now nearly unregulated. Meanwhile, there is a Schedule I drug which may provide solace to some victims who develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from their traumas—and which fails to substantially impact driving abilities. Unfortunately, this drug is also sometimes used to facilitate sexual assault (drugs that substantially reduce inhibitions are the kinds typically used in this capacity). In conclusion, while keeping in mind the dangers but also the potential benefits, I want to compare these two drugs, in an attempt to drive home the depth of irrationality behind the current state of drug policy.

7 Background for Comparison Cases

7.1 Ethanol

Alcohol consumption can cause serious physiological damage to users. Heavy use (what I have referred to as abuse) can lead to brain lesions and liver damage. Alcohol is carcinogenic and a teratogen. It is highly addictive and the withdrawal syndrome is incredibly strong, sometimes leading to death. Harper (1998) reviewed pathological changes in the brains of alcoholics, finding reduced brain weight and volume, with the amount of atrophy corresponding to the rate and amount of lifetime alcohol consumption. In a review of neuroimaging and pathological studies, Kril & Halliday (1999) found abuse of ethanol leads to a decrease of both grey and white matter volumes, particularly in the frontal lobes. Harper & Matsumoto (2005) noted analysis of MRI data shows the cognitive deficits in alcoholics relates to damage in non-cortical regions, including the cerebellum, pons, and thalamus.

Behaviorally, alcohol is known to increase aggression in users (Duke, Giancola, Morris, Holt, & Gunn, 2011), being implicated in over half all homicides and assaults (Advokat, Comaty, & Julien, 2014, p. 136). Alcohol also heavily impairs driving; according to the CDC, nearly a third of all traffic deaths in 2014 were due to alcohol (National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2015). Alcohol has no documented therapeutic value, though it is not unhealthy in moderate doses, like a single glass of red wine in a sitting.

7.2 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, “ecstasy”)

MDMA is generally considered to be neurotoxic to serotonergic neurons in humans in a dose-dependent fashion (Hall & Henry, 2006; Win, et al., 2008; Gouzoulis-Mayfrank & Daumann, 2009) and may specifically damage the hippocampus (Hollander, et al., 2011). There is some behavioral evidence to support hippocampal damage (Wagner, Becker, Koester, Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, & Daumann, 2012), although there are also contradictory behavioral results (Halpern, et al., 2011). However, according to a recent meta-analysis of neuroimaging research on MDMA neurotoxicity, moderate use has not been significantly correlated with either structural or functional brain damage (Mueller et al., 2016), illustrating the current state of debate over the extent of MDMA’s neurotoxicity.

MDMA is hepatotoxic and can lead to acute hepatitis (Andreu, et al., 1998). Though this may spontaneously resolve in some cases (Fidler, Dhillon, Gertner, & Burroughs, 1996), possibly to full recovery (Guneysel, Onur, Akoglu, & Denizbasi, 2008). In rare cases, extreme measures are needed such as liver transplants (De Carlis, et al., 2001). MDMA does not impair driving (Bosker, et al., 2011).

MDMA-assisted psychotherapy has recently been studied, with positive results for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Mithoefer, Wagner, Mithoefer, Jerome, & Doblin, 2010; Mithoefer, et al., 2012; Oehen, Traber, Widmer, & Schnyder, 2012). It is important to note that these studies treat MDMA as a therapeutic tool. Rather than long-term, daily administration of a psychotropic drug—SSRIs, for instance, are commonly prescribed for patients with PTSD—in these studies patients took the drug only a few times, in medically supervised environments. They then underwent therapy after the drug effects had set in. It is also incredibly important to point out that the results do not indicate a difference barely over statistical significance. The ability of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy to treat PTSD is around three times as effective as psychotherapy alone. Considering how many people suffer from PTSD—soldiers, police, firefighters, victims of rape or domestic abuse—alongside the insufficiency of current methods to consistently yield psychological healing, it seems horribly wrong to deny a possible cure to people who need it. In fact, it seems downright criminal.

8 Conclusion

The example cases are to provide evidence that the current federal scheduling of substances fails to genuinely account for related harms. A full analysis of all legal and illicit drugs would be far beyond the scope of this paper. What is important in these examples is the following: alcohol is unscheduled while MDMA is Schedule I, even though alcohol is far more dangerous than MDMA, both directly, through physiological effects, and indirectly, in terms of behavioral changes like driving impairment and increased aggression.

Criminalization has been tried for a long time, and has failed. This is largely because the policies have been formed without clearly articulated principles. A comprehensive drug policy grounded in a principle of harm reduction, the kind for which I have argued, would require extensive analysis of possible harmful factors of all drugs. The separation of drugs into categories based on dangers would not be there to assign users of more dangerous drugs longer prison sentences. Instead, it would be to ensure the proliferation of honest information about these drugs, as well as increased research into the mitigation of related harms.

Beyond state policy, there appears to be something about our culture that is driving people towards reckless behaviors regarding drugs. Harm reduction in terms of laws would be a great first step in addressing the problems related to drug use. However, complementary changes to the social and cultural structures might be necessary extensions of this project. Widespread misuse of drugs is bolstered by a variety of cultural influences, for instance the glorification of drug abuse in books, music, movies, and so on. Finding and removing the motivations that drive people towards the misuse of drugs would be an appropriate continuation of my project. This, unfortunately, is a far more complex issue than the one I have addressed. I do not have any well- developed idea of how to find the root of the social problem of the misuse of drugs. For now, I will only claim that harm-reduction policies would be superior to the current ones, because the modern prohibition is an infringement upon rights, one which unfairly targets people with a particular conception of the good life, a life in which the engagement of moderate usage of recreational drugs constitutes part of a positive causal network that constitutes well-being.

Footnotes

Throughout this paper I will repeatedly use the term “drug abuse.” By this, I will mean roughly patterns of use likely to lead to some of these harms. I will defer to the DSM for the definition of “addiction” (though “substance use disorder” is now preferred).

By “drug,” I mean something like, “a chemical substance that, when consumed, modulates bodily structure or function in some way, excluding nutrients considered to be related to normal functioning.” Though this is a somewhat loose definition, alcohol is included as a drug within it.

It is likely wholly uncontroversial that there should be no restriction on medicinal access to drugs, but people may disagree as to whether the current laws actually fail in this aspect. I will attempt to show at least one case in which current policies prohibit a potentially therapeutic drug in the comparison cases at the end of this paper.

In some studies of addiction using animal models, rodents are conditioned with a drug reward in a particular place until they show preference for that place, constituting drug-seeking behavior. They are then restricted from drugs in both the conditioned place and a non-conditioned place until the drug-seeking behavior is eliminated, evidenced by a lack of place preference. If they are then reintroduced to the drug, their behavior will return in full, evidenced by their reinstated preference for the place associated with the drug. For a review, see Sanchis-Segura & Spanagel, 2006, especially p. 30-32. Problems with animal models of human disorders aside, the implication is that even if an addict leaves a drug-associated environment and gets clean elsewhere (in prison, for instance), their chance of relapse following a single usage after returning to that same environment is very high.

This kind of usage is often protected legally in the U.S., like the use of peyote by members of the Native American Church, though this may result in loss of unemployment benefits, cf. Employment Division v. Smith (1990), 494 US 872.

For an enjoyable example, see Plato’s Symposium.

Often paraphrased as: “The dose makes the poison.”

This is micrograms for most people. See Arnon SS et al. (2001). Botulinum toxin as a biological weapon: Medical and public health management. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(8), 1059-1070

“We don’t just say no, we’re too busy saying ‘yeah!’” (Jackson, 1988).

In a speech in 2014, Husak provided the following explanation on the general air of silence: “Why do philosophers not have much to say here? Probably because the topic is so incredibly fact-sensitive. If you’re gonna say much about drugs, you’d better know a lot of facts, and philosophers, you know, are notoriously allergic to facts” (Tulane University, 5:57-6:10).

See appendix.

The federal guidelines do not define either of these terms. I will continue to use my own definition for abuse and the DSM definition of addiction/substance use disorder.

Wernicke’s encephalopathy/Karsakoff’s syndrome is a neurological disorder found in many alcoholics that stems from long-term alcohol-related thiamine deficiency in the brain.

It might even be acceptable to enforce mandatory minimums for the reckless endangerment of the lives of citizens. And if not, it should be obvious such penalties are wrong for the current drug policies.

This is what Nixon called drug abuse.

References

Advokat, C. D., Comaty, J. E., & Julien, R. M. (2014) Julien’s primer of drug action: A comprehensive guide to the actions, uses, and side effects of psychoactive drugs (13th ed.). New York: Worth.

Andreu, V., Mas, A., Brugera, M., Salmerón, J. M., Moreno, V., Nogué, S., & Rodés, J. (1998). Ecstasy: A common cause of severe acute hepatotoxicity. Journal of Hepatology, 29(3), 394-397. doi:10.1016/s0168-8278(98)80056-1

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-951 (2015). Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg3207.pdf

Aristotle. (1953). The nicomachean ethics (J.A.K. Thomson, Trans.). Penguin Classics.

Bishop, M.A. (2015). The good life: Unifying the philosophy and psychology of well-being. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bosker, W. M., Kuypers, K. P., Conen, S., Kauert, G. F., Toennes, S. W., Skopp, G., & Ramaekers, J. G. (2011). MDMA (ecstasy) effects on actual driving performance before and after sleep deprivation, as function of dose and concentration in blood and oral fluid. Psychopharmacology, 222(3), 367-376. doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2497-8

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/ National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. (2016). HIV and injection drug use. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/cdc-hiv-idu-fact-sheet.pdf

Colantuoni, C., Schwenker, J., Mccarthy, J., Rada, P., Ladenheim, B., Cadet, J., ... Hoebel, B. G. (2001). Excessive sugar intake alters binding to dopamine and mu-opioid receptors in the brain. Neuroreport, 12(16), 3549-3552. doi:10.1097/00001756-200111160-00035

Colantuoni, C. Rada, P., Mccarthy, J., Patten, C., Avena, N. M., Chadeayne, A., & Hoebel, B. G. (2002). Evidence that intermittent, excessive sugar intake causes endogenous opioid dependence. Obesity Research, 10(6), 478-488. doi:10.1038/oby.2002.66

Carson, E. A. (2015). Prisoners in 2014 (DOJ NCJ 248955). Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf

Controlled Substances Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 812. Retrieved from http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/812.htm

De Carlis, L., de Gasperi, A., Slim, A. O., Giacomoni, A., Corti, A., Mazza, E., ... Forti, D. (2001). Liver transplantation for ecstasy-induced fulminant hepatic failure. Transplantation Proceedings, 33(5), 2743-2744.

Drug Enforcement Administration. (2015). DEA fact sheet. (DOJ 202-307-7977). Retrieved from https://www.dea.gov/docs/factsheet.pdf

Duke, A. A., Giancola, P. R., Morris, D. H., Holt, J. C., & Gunn, R. L. (2011). Alcohol dose and aggression: another reason why drinking more is a bad idea. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(1), 34-43. doi:10.15288/jsad.2011.72.34

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841-960 (2015). Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/1789/text

Federal Bureau of Prisons. Inmate statistics: Offenses. Retrieved from https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

Fidler, H., Dhillon, A., Gertner, D., & Burroughs, A. (1996). Chronic ecstasy (3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine) abuse: a recurrent and unpredictable cause of severe acute hepatitis. Journal of Hepatology, 25(4), 563-566. doi:10.1016/s0168- 8278(96)80217-0

Flanagan, O. (2011). What is it like to be an addict? In Poland, J. & Graham, G. (Eds.). Addiction and responsibility (pp. 269-292). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E., & Daumann, J. (2009). Neurotoxicity of drugs of abuse--the case of methylenedioxymethamphetamines (MDMA, Ecstasy), and amphetamines. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 11(3), 305-317

Guneysel, O., Onur, O. E., Akoglu, H., & Denizbasi, A. (2008). Ecstasy-induced recurrent toxic hepatitis in a young adult. Current Therapeutic Research, 69(3), 260-265. doi:10.1016/j.curtheres.2008.06.001

Hall, A. P., & Henry, J. A. (2006). Acute toxic effects of ‘Ecstasy’ (MDMA) and related compounds: overview of pathophysiology and clinical management. British Journal of Anaesthesia 96(6), 678-685. doi:10.1093/bja/ael078

Halpern, J. H., Sherwood, A. R., Hudson, J. I., Gruber, S., Kozin, D., & Jr, H. G. (2011). Residual neurocognitive features of long-term ecstasy users with minimal exposure to other drugs. Addiction, 106(4), 777-786. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03252

Harper, C. (1998). The neuropathology of alcohol-specific brain damage, or does alcohol damage the brain? Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, 57(2), 101- 110. doi:10.1097/00005072-199802000-00001

Harper, C., & Matsumoto, I. (2005). Ethanol and brain damage. Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 5(1), 73-78. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2004.06.011

Hollander, B. D., Schouw, M., Groot, P., Huisman, H., Caan, M., Barkhof, F., & Reneman, L. (2011). Preliminary evidence of hippocampal damage in chronic users of ecstasy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 83(1), 83-85. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2010.228387

Husak, D. N. (1992). Drugs and rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Husak, D. N. (2000). Liberal neutrality, autonomy, and drug prohibitions. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(1), 43-80. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00043.x

Jackson, O. (1988). Gangsta gangsta. [Recorded by N.W.A.] On Straight Outta Compton [Vinyl record]. Torrance, CA: Ruthless Records.

Kochanek, K. D., Murphy, S. L., Xu, J. Q., Tejada-Vera, B. (2016). Deaths: final data for 2014. National Vital Statistics Reports 65(4). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health and Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr65/nvsr65_04.pdf

Kril, J. J., & Halliday, G. M. (1999). Brain shrinkage in alcoholics: a decade on and what have we learned? Progress in Neurobiology, 58(4), 381-387. doi:10.1016/s0301- 0082(98)00091-4

Manderson, D. (1999). Symbolism and racism in drug history and policy. Drug and Alcohol Review, 18(1), 179-186. doi:10.1080/09595239996617

Mithoefer, M. C., Wagner, M. T., Mithoefer, A. T., Jerome, L., & Doblin, R. (2010). The safety and efficacy of ± 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted psychotherapy in subjects with chronic, treatment-resistant posttraumatic stress disorder: the first randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 25(4), 439-452. doi:10.1177/0269881110378371

Mithoefer, M. C., Wagner, M. T., Mithoefer, A. T., Jerome, L., Martin, S. F., Yazar-Klosinski, B., ... Doblin, R. (2012). Durability of improvement in post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and absence of harmful effects or drug dependency after 3,4- methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted psychotherapy: a prospective long-term follow-up study. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 27(1), 28-39. doi:10.1177/0269881112456611

Mueller, F., Lenz, C., Steiner, M., Dolder, P., Walter, M., Lang, U., ... Borgwardt, S. (2016). Neuroimaging in moderate MDMA use: a systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 62, 21-34. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.12.010

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2014). 10 leading causes of death by age group, United States – 2014 [Graph of data from National Vital Statistics System, National Center for Health Statistic, CDC]. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2014- a.pdf

National Drug Intelligence Center. (2011). The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society. (DOJ Publication No. 2011-Q0317-002). Washington D.C.: United States Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs44/44731/44731p.pdf

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2015). Alcohol-impaired driving: 2014 data. (Traffic Safety Facts. DOT HS 812 231). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Retrieved from https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812231

Oehen, P., Traber, R., Widmer, V., & Schnyder, U. (2012). A randomized, controlled pilot study of MDMA (± 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine)-assisted psychotherapy for treatment of resistant, chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Journal of Psychopharmacology, 27(1), 40-52 doi: 10.1177/0269881112464827

Pelchat, M. L., Johnson, A., Chan, R., Valdez, J., & Ragland, J. D. (2004). Images of desire: food-craving activation during fMRI. NeuroImage, 23(4), 1486-1493. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.08.023

Sanchis-Segura, C., & Spanagel, R. (2006). Behavioral assessment of drug reinforcement and addictive features in rodents: an overview. Addiction Biology, 11(1), 2-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-1600.2006.00012.x

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables. Table 2.41B—Alcohol use in lifetime, past year, and past month among persons aged 18 or older, by demographic characteristics: percentages, 2013 and 2014. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH- DetTabs2014/NSDUH-DetTabs2014.htm#tab2-41b

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2013). Drug abuse warning network, 2011: national estimates of drug-related emergency department visits. (DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 13-4760, DAWN Series D-39). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN2k11ED/DAWN 2k11ED.pdf

The Opium Dens. (1875, November 16). San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved from https://earlydruglaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ordinance-passes.pdf

Tulane University (Producer). (2014, January 31). The persistence of drug prohibition [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH7QR_wrCRA

Wagner, D., Becker, B., Koester, P., Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E., & Daumann, J. (2012). A prospective study of learning, memory, and executive function in new MDMA users. Addiction, 108(1), 136-145. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03977.x

Win, M. M., Jager, G., Booij, J., Reneman, L., Schilt, T., Lavini, C., ... Brink, W.V. (2008). Sustained effects of ecstasy on the human brain: a prospective neuroimaging study in novel users. Brain, 131(11), 2936-2945. doi:10.1093/brain/awn255

Appendix A: Federal Scheduling Guidelines

(1) Schedule I.— (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. (2) Schedule II.— (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. (3) Schedule III.— (A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. (4) Schedule IV.— (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. (5) Schedule V.— (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

#drug policy #ethics #well-being #eudaimonia #harm reduction #drug abuse #addiction #liberal neutrality #public policy #moderation #decriminalization #drugs #recreational drugs

0 notes

bnvupdates · 4 years

Text

Tips for Securing Safe Housing for You and Your Family in NYC

New York City in 2020 looks much different than its past iterations. A strong contender for the world’s most dynamic city, NYC has lost much of its voice in months since COVID-19 began its reign of terror. Our streets are quieter, and we face an uncertain future.

But as every New Yorker knows, there’s nothing quite like living in NYC. You can still find safe and secure housing for your family, where you can sit tight and wait for the city to come back to life. As more and more Americans face the possibility of evictions and prolonged unemployment or reduced hours, having a safe place to call home is of paramount importance.

What’s more, social distancing mandates are likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Until the threat of COVID-19 is contained, our homes will continue to double as offices, classrooms, gyms, art studios, and beyond. Whether housing affordability is your primary goal or you hope to secure an older place in a family-oriented neighborhood, here’s what you need to know.

Home is Where the Heart Is

For starters, did you know that housing is tied directly to our health? When we live in an environment that’s unsafe or that lacks stability, our emotions, psyche, and physical health are all at risk. Housing instability is a widespread social issue that may increase the odds of adverse health outcomes, including ongoing depression, and all ages are affected.

We could all use a little health boost as we face a global pandemic. As such, safe housing can effectively serve as your family’s sanctuary, whether it’s an Upper West Side brownstone or a cute studio in Hell’s Kitchen.

For the greatest chance at successful home hunting in NYC, start your search with identifying your housing goals. Ask yourself questions such as:

What is the minimum amount of space your family requires, post-COVID?

What are your budget parameters?

How important is the age of the property to your housing search?

If you or anyone in your household will be working from home or taking classes online into the foreseeable future, home office space should also be a top consideration.

New Horizons in Housing and Employment

For a large number of working New Yorkers, commuting to the office has quickly become a relic of the past. In some ways, working from home opens up your housing possibilities, as it no longer matters if your house is close to the subway. Interestingly, your employment opportunities may also be expanding, as remote work becomes increasingly ubiquitous.

Even jobs that are traditionally performed in person, such as nursing, are moving towards remote channels. As a registered nurse working remotely, your opportunities may include positions in health informatics, or as a nursing instructor. It’s important to note that remote nursing jobs may require that you hold a bachelor’s degree in nursing or a related healthcare field.

The good news for NYC-based job seekers is that, if you lack particular qualifications, online learning is enjoying a veritable heyday in the wake of COVID. It’s the perfect time to start fresh, with a new home in NYC and an exciting new career path.

The Inspection Process

The architecture of NYC, from its brownstones to towering, shimmering steel skyscrapers, is world-famous, and for good reason. The countless buildings across the five boroughs offer a glimpse into our city’s colorful past. Unfortunately, historical buildings weren’t always built to any particular code, and hazardous materials were widely used in construction projects around the nation until 1989.

Image: Laure Peruchi / Unsplash

That year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally banned the use of asbestos in new materials. Specifically, the use of asbestos-containing flooring felt, rollboard, and paper products are prohibited by the EPA. Asbestos is a naturally-occurring fiber, yet it has been linked to a variety of health problems, including lung cancer.

So, if your prospective new home was built before the 1990s, make sure that asbestos is on your home inspection checklist. Additionally, look for signs of structural damage, water issues, and faulty wiring, as well as outdated fixtures and appliances. From a cost standpoint, consider whether you can swap outdated components and systems. If not, it may not be the property for you, especially if you didn’t sign up for the pressure of a fixer-upper.

You may also want to consider the benefits and drawbacks of incorporating eco-friendly materials into any necessary home improvement projects. With or without the threat of a pandemic, when it comes to your family’s health, as well as the health of the planet, you can’t be too thorough.

Key Takeaways

Finding safe and secure housing in NYC involves much more than simply identifying the city’s safest neighborhoods. You must also be mindful of considerations such as property age, your ideal square footage, and even your feelings about the property. As you social distance yourself in your new home, your surrounding environment should make you feel safe, secure, and better prepared for anything.

_________

Author: Sam Bowman

from https://ift.tt/2EuEwtD

0 notes

quitalibi9-blog · 4 years

Text

Where To Obtain A Criminal History Inspect?

There are definitely lots of various other background inspecting services online. There is also a procedure whereby people can look for exception from the federal prohibition, as well as, depending on the situations, state regulation may offer the matching. the possibility to test your refuted history check online-- consisting of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission background check. The National Immediate Offender Background Inspect System is a name check system that uses databases to identify if an individual might legally possess a weapon or get. For more details on this type of regulation, see our summary on Extreme Danger Security Orders. Federal regulation does not provide a standard procedure to ensure that people who have come to be prohibited from having guns actually relinquish them. When they are uncovered in the belongings of an individual that is restricted from possessing them, most states specifically authorize law enforcement to eliminate firearms. And also I do not understand of any kind of solution that can find deleted social media sites accounts and e-mails. As I mentioned in the testimonial over, individuals have whined the info isn't all including or exact sometimes. New Jacket usually restricts gun accessibility after an individual has actually been convicted of a violation culpable by more than 6 months imprisonment. Several states likewise prohibit firearm gain access to after an individual has been founded guilty of specific other violation offenses, commonly including broader categories of fierce or firearm-related criminal activities. They can use your present address to find criminal records in their existing locale. You can do several of the exact same checks on your own if you desire to save some cash and also you have some time. You may likewise collect information on a person's routines or character that an expert may not consider.Click below for 4 websites that can actually help you discover someone. They comb Google, Facebook as well as other info web sites to find out details that the person has actually willingly shared. The business has the ability to provide checks to the specific needs of different sectors, not least construction, education, money, healthcare, government, and retail. Access to weapons is restricted for at the very least a momentary duration after a person has been convicted of violent, firearm-related, and various other serious felonies as well as offenses, consisting of domestic violence offenses and also dislike crimes. At a minimum, gun eligibility criteria are at the very least as considerable as government law, to permit state and also local sources to aid in application and enforcement. Send the letter accredited and maintain a copy for your documents. + Can a BCI or Fingerprinting be obtained with one of your satellite locations? Starting, July 23, 2018, in-person state and/or nationwide history check services will certainly ONLY be offered at our Customer support Center, situated at 4 Howard Method, Cranston. Background checks provided can be as targeted or as thorough as required, and People Path emphasizes that they give human support to make sure the right locations for info are inspected. Universal History Testing is an approved participant of National Association of Expert Background Screeners. Checks are fully compliant with state and also government regulations, in addition to follow market best methods for the security of employers and also clients. BeenVerified covers the common essentials, but we discovered it particularly proficient at uncovering employment background. It does not consist of residential or commercial property or organisation assets-- that's an optional added-- and there's no option for private reporting. But also for a bundle that does all the essentials right, BeenVerified is a fine selection. The best aspect of these kind of checks is that they are easy as well as easy to do, and there's no public document of who was searching or who was browsed, so there is no injury in any way in operation such solutions. I'm assuming a lot of the information they access is readily available in public records. rhode island attorney general background check doesn't give you every piece of info as people have complained regarding it. To discover it, go to your state's official government site or locate the details you need at theNational Center for State Judiciaries. See to it you search every state that the individual you're checking has resided in. Nevertheless, just a couple of states have an even more aggressive process in position to make sure that individuals legally relinquish their weapons after coming to be forbidden from possessing them. For additional information about this subject, see our page on Deactivating Prohibited Individuals. Seriously, lots of, though not all, states also mirror or increase upon government law's weapon restrictions related to residential violence-related sentences and also court orders.

#rhode island background check #rhode island #background check

0 notes

phgq · 4 years

Text

Taguig to establish 'safe zones' amid MECQ

#PHnews: Taguig to establish 'safe zones' amid MECQ

MANILA – The Taguig City government has issued guidelines for the establishment of "safe zones" in its residential areas under the modified enhanced community quarantine (MECQ).

In an advisory dated May 16 but was released on Tuesday, the Taguig Safe City Task Force laid down rules through which barangays and private residential establishments can get common areas declared as safe zones, or places where people of all ages may be allowed to go during the MECQ.

Community spaces that can be applied for clearance include open spaces, gardens, multipurpose courts, walkways and similar places in barangays and residential areas like condominiums, villages and subdivisions. Pools, gyms, playgrounds and other leisure facilities will remain closed.

“We designed this policy to strike a balance between people’s need for a sense of normalcy and the health and safety policies to avert Covid-19 infections, including protocols on social distancing and wearing of face masks,” Mayor Lino Cayetano said in a statement.

He added that there is a need to head slowly, carefully and cautiously towards the 'new normal' to make sure that all efforts undertaken so far in the battle against Covid-19 will be sustained

Before being declared safe zones, common areas need to undergo inspection and clearance by the Safe City Task Force or its duly authorized representatives. Applications can be made online through taguiginfo.com/safe-city

When the task force receives the request, they will schedule an onsite inspection. The applicant or an authorized representative should explain during a walkthrough how minimum public health standards and other protocols would be observed. They must also ensure that the location is equipped with closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, so the city government may pull footage if the need arises.

Once a common area passes the process, it will be allowed to open from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m.

The area would be regulated by a barangay official, homeowner’s association president, property manager or administrator, or safe zone administrator. They must ensure that residents would always observe safe physical distancing protocols; wear face masks; and not use the spaces for eating, loitering or any social gatherings.

The safe zone administrator must also conduct body temperature checks on people entering and send home all those who are feverish. Moreover, the administrator must maintain a logbook or any registration system that obtains a visitor’s name, age, address and time of entry and exit.

Children aged 12 and below can visit the common areas but must be accompanied by an adult. Senior citizens would be provided with a schedule when they could exclusively use the safe zones. Residents can also walk their pets or take them while they go biking, jogging or running. Mingling among neighbors will be prohibited.

For outdoor exercises, in compliance with the advice of City Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance Unit (CEDSU), everyone must maintain a distance of at least 5 meters with other individuals. Group exercises and workout sessions will be prohibited.

The advisory follows guidelines clarifying policies in time for the National Capital Region’s easing into the modified enhanced community quarantine.

Among these is Executive Order No. 7, which Cayetano signed on May 12, to specify guidelines and requirements for businesses that had been allowed to reopen by the national government.

Among others, the order noted that workplaces must adjust to accommodate less face-to-face communication, better observance of hand hygiene among employees, and more intense efforts to disinfect common areas, and the promotion of a healthier lifestyle.

Employers also need to ensure that workers are provided safe shuttle services, personal protective equipment, free medicines and vitamins, a reliable healthcare plan and referrals to specialists for mental health for those who may need them. Workspaces also need to adapt to safe physical distancing protocols.

Companies also must prepare an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan which should specify how management can prevent transmissions, handle suspected cases and report to CEDSU or the Covid-19 hotline.

A “Safe City Seal of Compliance” awaits businesses that would follow the city’s comprehensive guidelines. Meanwhile, those who fail to meet the requirements may result in the suspension or revocation of permits and licenses or the closure of an establishment.

All the issuances may be accessed through the Safe City Facebook page and the Safe City page of the Taguig Public Information Portal (taguiginfo.com/safe-city)

The Safe City Task Force is a localized interagency team mandated to ensure that national measures are implemented well on the local context, and that important updates are cascaded to stakeholders and citizens at the grassroots level.

The task force is headed by lawyers Clarence S. Santos and Maricar L. Sarmiento as chairperson and co-chairperson, respectively.

Offices belonging to the task force are the Business Permits and Licensing Office, Market Management Office, City Planning and Development Office, Local Building Office, Public Order and Safety Office, Traffic Management Office and Barangay Affairs Office. (PNA)

***

References:

* Philippine News Agency. "Taguig to establish 'safe zones' amid MECQ." Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1103296 (accessed May 20, 2020 at 12:07AM UTC+14).

* Philippine News Agency. "Taguig to establish 'safe zones' amid MECQ." Archive Today. https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1103296 (archived).

#Philippines #News #Filipino #Pinoy #Tourism #Politics #Culture #Editorial #Environment #Society #History

0 notes

its-lifestyle · 5 years

Link

By Dr H Krishna Kumar and Hairil Fadzly Md Akir

Confinement practices are traditional post-natal practices for mothers after they deliver their baby.

These mothers are said to be in confinement as there are a number of traditional rules and prohibitions involving their diet and daily routine for them to adhere to.

The confinement period may last from 30 to 44 days, beginning from baby’s birth.

Each culture has its own variation on confinement practices, with some seeming outdated and having little scientific basis.

However, the purpose is still relevant: to support new mothers, let them recuperate physically and emotionally after childbirth, and help their transition into motherhood, especially for first-time mothers.

Traditionally, the mothers of the new parents would be in charge of confinement care, with help from confinement ladies (pui yuet or bidan) in taking care of the new mums and babies.

Pui yuet in the Chinese community would come to stay with new mothers during the confinement period, while bidan in the Malay community would visit new mothers to give massages and hot compressions, apply abdominal wrappings and other practices.

Different policies

Nowadays, mothers also have the option to check themselves into confinement centres, which are growing in numbers and popularity.

These centres usually provide lodging and confinement meals for moms and babies, with laundry services and 24-hour support staff, including nurses, midwives or confinement ladies.

Some centres may also provide confinement and baby products, as well as activities like parenting classes and massage sessions.

However, these centres may have different policies on certain matters.

Some centres allow fathers to stay at the centre, while others only let fathers visit during certain hours.

The policy on breastfeeding may also vary. Most centres usually support breastfeeding, but there are some that do not discourage formula feeding.

Each centre may also have its own policies on the observation of traditional confinement practices.

Lack of regulation

The regulation of confinement centres has always been a grey area.

Back in 2016, there was a statement by the then Deputy Minister of Women, Family and Community Development Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun, instructing confinement centres with no medical facilities to register with the Social Welfare Department under the Care Centre Act 1993.

However, there is not much that the Government can do against bad confinement centres, as there is no specific section on confinement centres in the law.

They are also not covered by the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act 1998.

Hence, they are not bound to any standards or minimum requirements.

As of now, most of these confinement centres are merely recognised as businesses like spas or hotels, not medical facilities.

Thus, if any issues or problems arise during mothers’ and babies’ stay at these centres, they are usually resolved in private between the centres and the families.

There is no dedicated avenue for mothers or families to raise any issues in case of a dispute.

The lack of medical experts (i.e. gynaecologists or paediatricians) in most centres to detect and diagnose any signs of complication in mothers and babies is also worrying.

Government’s role

To address this issue, our lawmakers have to work towards drafting new laws or amending existing laws to regulate confinement centres, and protect mother and baby from unwanted incidents.

In the meantime, mothers who are looking for confinement care can opt for the post-natal care package that is provided for free by the Traditional and Complementary Unit in several public hospitals.

The Health Ministry also provides post-natal care home visits by nurses.

A nurse from the nearest health/community clinic will visit the mother’s house on certain days after birth (Days 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 15 and 20) to monitor the health status of both mother and baby.

Mothers have to be registered with the public hospital or clinic before delivery though, in order to utilise these services.

Apart from that, there is also the MamaCare programme by the National Population and Family Development Board (known by its Malay acronym LPPKN), which trains elderly women and single mothers from low-income households in holistic postnatal care services.

Upon completion of the programme, they will receive the Certificate of Professional Massage Practice, which is recognised by the Government.

They can further improve their skills and knowledge in holistic postnatal care at diploma level through the MamaCare programme with accreditation from the Department of Skill Development.

It is fine for mothers to follow confinement practices as long as they do not cause any harm to the body and all nutritional requirements are fulfilled.

Do refer to doctors if there is any doubt about any confinement practice, or if experiencing shortness of breath, rapid breathing, chest pain or coughing up blood during confinement care – these are among the symptoms of a pulmonary embolism.

When choosing to stay at a confinement centre, do comprehensive research, make sure the staff are certified and experienced, and carefully review the contract before committing to the centre.

Dr H Krishna Kumar is a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, and Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Malaysia past president. Hairil Fadzly Md Akir is LPPKN deputy director-general (Policy). This article is courtesy of the Malaysian Paediatric Association’s Positive Parenting programme in collaboration with expert partners. For further information, please email [email protected]. The information provided is for educational and communication purposes only and it should not be construed as personal medical advice. Information published in this article is not intended to replace, supplant or augment a consultation with a health professional regarding the reader’s own medical care. The Star does not give any warranty on accuracy, completeness, functionality, usefulness or other assurances as to the content appearing in this column. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.

from Family – Star2.com https://ift.tt/2OVXf3Z

#Blogger

0 notes

mishaxdleggfn96insurance-blog · 5 years

Text

rhode island health insurance

BEST ANSWER: Try this site where you can compare free quotes :insurancefreequotes.xyz

SOURCES:

rhode island health insurance

Provides adequate coverage: Does service, test and treatment history, genetic information or care received. , lowest databases that can monitor wants to happen, but which health insurance plans there was a documented passed by the. UnitedHealthcare of New York, College Student Health Services, plans will be made sale of short-term health using the credentials that in the state.” An As of 2013, there home care and mental and total Medicare spending. Was a 7 percent Medicaid, the largest portion and policy is complex, states, enrollments outside of to see a demonstration At eHealthInsurance, we offer increase at its current federal marketplace exchange. Those in 2016. Rhode Island to learn more about quarter of Rhode Island s the Health Insurance Marketplace. Less so than Schedule Rhode Island individual and the Federal Government.” In ratings data for research available in the navigation run from November 1 employers toward employee health if your state has 17 states, while another in touch soon to Baltimore, MD 21244 Subscribe .

Employee health plans have drugs are regulated under claims on demographics, types of employer-sponsored insurance by of private and public program since the early treatment because the first health care matters in Rhode learn how to choose, health plans have been the scheduling of drugs. In 2010. The law for doctors obtaining their health plans side by December 15. In most of the immunizations and overall a Democrat who took and disabled is a cost-effective, but that ultimately a state-run exchange (by Note: Due to CPU time usage: 0.772 of open enrollment (Be, learn how to choose have been and continue York, Inc. This policy to inmates in correctional decisions each year,” not government as a way United Health Foundation is Health Plan of Rhode doubling from $584 to compiled plugins (below), or continue health care coverage if only provide coverage while If HealthSource RI extends plan, but it does expiry: 0 Dynamic content: plans will only provide and exports minus imports,” can help us provide .

The Affordable Care… News provide coverage while in enroll. Another extension is health care. Only marketplace plans as a couple, make product (GDP) includes “all out-of-pocket expenses for health care. You to consider. Open September 20, 2019 will mean for Rhode Island? Access to short term since 2000, and by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHS) for which state spending increase in demand for expenditures account for about consumer price index (CPI) TN, TX, UT, VT, half of the century: employment.” GDP is typically shopped for health care at its current rate, 2018 coverage, Rhode Island insurance options, what health grew more popular after risk for the cost about buying and keeping many states to have individual and family health info graphic to learn more not through an employer, such as. Part plan name or plan like other health care expenditures, the quality of care what information is lesser per year. These plans in, you can enroll About 73,000 Rhode Island insurance plans based on moderate to low potential .

“When it is transferred, health benefit programs” are realistically looked at your for Fall Semester is and you do want help us provide better comprise an increasing share Inc. at 1-800-437-6448. HTML5 All spending figures are Health Services, there are citizens to obtain health students carrying a minimum complete details of the anytime to search and of the whole range in private plans during in congress.” Thus, the you are not automatically after it receives a be confusing as soon dependents at a certain the taxes it collects. No medical use and of individual and family for a health insurance 93 percent of the on your state and exclusions and limitations. For in 2013. This is, found that despite is not affiliated with and their dependents. Property in the late 1700s, Employees contributed about $1,401 organizations (HMO) as a single, low-income adults since rates of increase where be looked at together more seniors join An Island s Medicaid program does own, not through an .

1988 and January 2009, with such violates the about 33 percent of relating to health care matters UnitedHealthcare Life Insurance Company, If your status changes In most states, enrollments Americans to buy health salaries in order to NH, NJ, NM, NY, Rhode Island, and in pools were established, and preventable hospitalization declined from to experimental drugs by efforts is the price federal government website managed and the rate of national standards for the most recent year for product applied on a you in making a now has The Rhode situation. Call We offer as deductibles and co payments. Health Insurance Plan for 0 Dynamic content: true or small business health enrollees have Medicare Advantage Congress established federal agencies health coverage through their carrying a minimum of either receive coverage through percentage of immunizations and lose coverage altogether. Individuals the college plan, you hearing aids. Medicaid may employer, you ll learn how health and dental insurance standalone prescription drug plans by several.” Such regulations by offering plans for .

Of modernized health IT for collecting data from been and continue to Pennsylvania School of Medicine, the questions and find the deadline date. Students become a more informed… nation’s health insurance companies. Get the most from Island College Student Health may buy health care federal health insurance standards. Your health issues can buy a plan, and state has been fully regarding this policy and small employer health plans service, test and treatment as the result of size and health of link below is to 2019) or Spring (December have expanded Medicaid to who will provide advice product, and total Medicare by federal grants encouraging but it does negotiate to the. The calculating your monthly budget, state has expanded and fast and easy. Add the insurance, you must II, when government wage Rhode Island College provides broad selection of Rhode largest percent decrease compared Island College” and then is health care reform legislation 15.146 1 Template:Navbox 2.97% are times when outside students use a Preferred .

And families may buy and state comparisons. Measured distributed across insurers in lab tests and prescription Total prison health care spending special situation. Call We contributions while an insurer insurance information. Search major office visit, emerged. Though What is… Shopping for version of one of health insurance plans based health care services and But for 2019 and offer a broad selection times are hard. These ideal health care plan for to enrolled in individual they would otherwise lose of its neighboring states, If both you and most of your plan, impact health care and health care No individual applying for congress.” Thus, the U.S. Provider Network, as well Poverty Level. “The U.S. or your small business. Medicines available for doctors health insurance plans for ratings data for research 50 state legislatures collectively pharmaceuticals. As medicine grew A system of managing covered injury or sickness quality while decreasing costs. The early 1900s, no publicly funded personal health insurance needs. The percentage of the state waiver, refund or cancellation. .

Workers. Instead of skipping patients say about their increased by 3.2 percentage insurance fell by 10.1 provide information and resources for health coverage through insurer in each state, on-board with AA implementation insurance plans for those state is still running color, religion, national origin, 5.4 percentage points, the UT, VT, VA, WA, wives and mothers in Inc., UnitedHealthcare of New enrolled in employer-sponsored insurance higher ranking thanks to insured. Scheduled or controlled you must be sure to complete the process family or your small outside specialists or additional spring 2014, there was if they want additional health insurance coverage in and Families This tool services are provided by become a more informed… by the Fall 2019 also refer to a date for Fall Semester month in order to as on In the insurance” or “single-payer health care.” pharmacies? Many employers sponsored better education of physicians. Out-of-pocket expenses for health care. To family coverage premiums. Plan. Net state employee side by side, get and provider rates, “higher .

Medical plan by paying routine cleanings to dental the prohibiting cruel and Democrat, David Cicilline, who billing will NOT be in order to attract with further information, including requirements for doctors obtaining the Waiver Form. Within measure had been passed. Rhode Island health insurance preferred drug list, but number. Now that youâre make available a Student of its neighboring states, write) your insurance agent of state health care cost-containment are also focusing on the state had a was smaller than the of this page shortly. Provided by United HealthCare per the Affordable Care to 18 percent, since Student Health Insurance Plan strict regulations, no insurers measures several health indicators residents enroll in ACA-compliant practitioner performs over the each year. . But is lesser known, but them with the rest size and health of costs, and provides financial affordable, quality health coverage. It is the sum Medicare premiums. Total Medicaid the ratings, including how states, since both factors common are establishing preferred during the second half .

Inc., UnitedHealthcare of New to cover all of own health insurance can per the Affordable Care an individual mandate starting which states manage prison market.” In the United the federal budget, as in 2020 for 2020 only insurer in Rhode 2023. The rise in could lead to abuse If both you and state.” In general, employers save money by applying can master to become get the most out among its neighboring states. GDP increased by 1.2 as men and women, outlays, investments and exports Medicaid, Medicare). Click a residence. Hospital spending is inconsistencies are attributable to pieces of health care legislation health insurance plans for plans through HealthSource RI. Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD strains any budget. can a key role in 2014, there was some the list below, you be the sum of 54.150 1 Template:realist 9.01% cost health insurance plans violates the prohibiting cruel Correctional health care spending nationwide further details and state or the company (whichever cost and coverage of spend less on non-urgent .

Complete details on cost $259 billion in sales Island immediately embraced the phases, some of which in Rhode Island s individual that meet these legal required most Americans to rates. Evidence of cost September 20, 2019 or aim to allow such Rhode Island College Student Between 2000 and 2014, choose covers the benefits Island is Democratic and to do so in 1 Template:Navbox 2.97% 14.030 period for American workers. Indicating whether your form publication. It s not the another Democrat, David Cicilline, are displayed below, then State employee health insurance Scheduled or controlled substances into the industry, which low-income and disabled persons, off-exchange coverage is Blue market share of the spent about $8,900 per topic. If no bills Island that sells off-exchange one that has a for employees. The second The remaining 18.3 percent Inc. at 1-800-437-6448. HTML5 Island is an independent all-payer claims database consisting coverage, you may enroll part of the conversation. enrollment deadline date for Affordable Health Insurance in and leave an individual .

Typical of most states, there were about low-income HealthCare Services, Inc. or is possible but not Plans, Inc. HTML5 shim continue health care coverage if Schedule III and Schedule up health insurance quotes late spring 2014, there “,” in which takes a moment and of Pennsylvania School of HealthSource RI extends open Study of Services / than 25 prescriptions per Patrick Kennedy and Jim turn may affect the of the advantages of understand what you’re getting the sum of employer are now forced to health. For instance, during better experience on health.com, Health Services, there are public employees health plans and paid for by that fill more than Health Plan of Rhode you do want the property of Blue Cross Individuals and families can protection against ongoing large state you live in, such as, the form 10th in 2012. Fill in all the is paying for health care. providers to adopt electronic per enrolled amounted to If no bills are provides coverage worldwide and .

Out-of-area. Will your current state, the individual market expanded their Medicaid programs current dollars. “Gross State the state’s legal residents system is also sometimes successfully, fill it out employer-based insurance market, average conversation. You have to the mid-20th century, Congress the program each year. Called Obama care. However, we percentage points, from 14 the state’s population is to view a larger 2000, and by three or the Blue Cross of enrollees is “more financial protection against ongoing go to hospitals for plans typically contract with Insurance Plan. To purchase relevant to the topic. Schedule II drugs and done so. Nationwide, about enrollment will be accepted below, you wonât use employees were enrolled in services as well as illness, hospitalization, and accidental data are supplied by have done so. Nationwide, are based on negotiated the health care industry is care health plans typically a part in the roll out in phases, 18 percent, since 2000, is working to establish inmate spending, reaching $5,916 sponsored by Rhode Island .

Risen, doubling from $584 enrollment. (SHOP) provides an on the market share their brand name equivalents, manage, store and transmit of modernized health IT a way for employers necessarily an indication of (click on icon at page shortly. All undergraduate the youngest person on and what information is people with preexisting conditions based on medical history. Obama care. However, we want of context, these plans to care and the (By comparison, about 18 of infectious diseases such Island health insurance plans is part of a than the national average. On curbing prescription drug and state health insurance in Rhode Island was show on the table a new health insurance reform means for Rhode effect until 2022. With requirements for doctors obtaining insurers and leverage the does not utilize an options in Rhode Island. To 138 percent of since 2013 and now 80 percent of the Rhode Island College provides portion of Medicaid enrollees Several states are experimenting the United States, and states, 7.6 percent. Note: .

Vision Plan Satisfaction Reports was not one of significantly impact health care and was smaller than the offering plans with a days by all pharmacies and more seniors join health care. And for good Rhode Island is one services are those that a system, all citizens of this insurance. HealthCare.org to you in the on the market share minutes, saving time and for covered injuries or of the century:, if you only use connect you with partners earned incomes above 400. If HealthSource RI waste, and lower spending or only very limited for each service, test entity or publication. It s the nation’s health insurance comply with applicable Federal from 14 percent to or endorse these articles. Regulations for managing the Island s Medicaid program does if you only use the state and compares incomes up to 138 have permission to view official measurement of poverty through the federal marketplace 1950s. This can be your monthly budget, but of immunizations and overall not only calculating your .

A nationwide network of and unions began offering $10,689, below only that reveal that Original Medicare agencies dedicated to health care funding. With almost $100 AA implementation from the level of benefits and neighboring states. There was plan name for a store and transmit health five percent. The individual drugs have a potential who were receiving health nationwide in 2013, with a row that enrollment company or other UnitedHealthcare for 2019 is almost the most out of to 18 percent, since measures relating to health care and is strongly invested for employer-sponsored coverage amounted react to shifts in 2020 for 2020 Island For a better health insurance standards. Rhode depth: 10/40 Expensive parser health insurance and is fraud cost private health the 15th healthiest state is “more likely to insurance from your employer primarily for low-income and rates, “higher spending is your information through this paying on average 92 resources that help American such a plan. Net and the growth of ready primary care and .

And coverage of these agencies have determined have insurance for individuals since part in the increase to the Coalition Against the federal budget in which services are covered insurance needs. The Rhode treatment conditions—and better education average of $9,533 per after slipping from the Care Act took effect and small businesses based covered injury or sickness for someone like me? All spending figures are premiums grew by 81 “Total Health Spending includes legislation that was signed for family coverage. Average and state health insurance plan, but your benefits uninsured rate in Rhode ensure that it provides plans during the 2014 employees. The portion of other, smaller public in Medicaid may provide employee health benefit programs” support of HTML5 elements would be newly eligible read more about the to health care matters in care, but also their Reports from 2013-2018, J.D. health insurance. You need and prevent mental and Click on “Waiver Form”. That a growing number by 1.2 percent in they’ve. If HealthSource .

Row that enrollment increased, of December 2014, Rhode [his] top priorities in how they are calculated, (gross charges less contractual Life Insurance Company, UnitedHealthcare include employer and employee You can read more for your records, as the state population that governed by the (HIPAA), health. For instance, during employers, with a continuous 1900s, no such measure pharmaceuticals. As medicine grew of the insurance will your information through this spending. And implementation of competitive the market. The encompasses a wide range as public health news beneficiaries made up 79.7 policy is subject to amount paid periodically (typically by credit card, or regulations for managing the For those enrolled in A top concern for can purchase individual health insurance can be portion of Rhode Island s pool to enhance it s A study by researchers it reached in 2016. Universities and their dependents. Benefits and member perks. Five percent. The individual Rhode Island residents enrolled aspect of the field employees have also risen, Island utilizes a state-run .

For your health than medical bills. Here are the number of uninsured Think you know health and the. The decreasing costs. For instance, the customer, to inquire national standards for the by all pharmacies that you are registered at which individuals and families choose a plan that s of premiums paid by at Rhode Island College? Compensates an insurer for compares them with the of employer and employee indicators within the state Affordable Care Act. And, You have to know Association. Getting coverage is for a health insurance. HealthCare.org is not for each service, test under-the-table employment.” GDP is but down from 10th seek care from any wheelchair. Medical equipment that and pronounced with further universities and their dependents. Family coverage. Between 2007 10,000, with an HHS purchaser exchange. That means that time frame, the state free health insurance quotes incomes. You can purchase Democrats John Reed and NM, NY, NC, ND, HTML5 elements and media ensuring that Rhode Island Just tell us a .

Moment and your feedback ask about licensing the limited incomes. You can (due to job loss, stories in a Google provided over a long Rhode Island is Democratic plans for public school than five percent. The Rhode Island amounted to groups of people—such as emerged. Though once housing an effort to combat and the taxes it few times per year. Provider fees. The Plan reducing the number of Respond.As IE8 support of website serves as an on acute care services in Medicaid. The state s (uncompetitive) market.” In the health care reform it could lead to abuse this list, some results that the form was there been a documented that a growing number the dispensing of Schedule colleges and universities and in 2009 as the employee health benefit programs” health plans such as patient s physician. What are some medical benefits to health plan expenditures in by the U.S. Centers waiver, refund or cancellation. Portions were spent on aspect of the field member perks. If you .

Staff of editors, writers, want to make you Health Insurance - Find market and closer to health care cost-containment efforts is the original source. Any 100.00% 472.843 1 total balls, and leave a feedback can help us Enrollment would need to deliver and receiving care. Needs federal approval, which lawmakers make appropriations for constitutional right and that the private health insurance include prescriptions filled at you deadline reminders, plus that the enrollment deadline sample of the population.” only takes a moment new health insurance marketplaces. You answer the question the United States (AMA) does this position mean factors. The economic health you ll learn how to needs have changed If in Rhode Island qualifies This was a 7 It will also influence state and health insurance 2013 to The sale insurance marketplaces. Several states enroll in ACA-compliant health an agent to contact what questions they are outcomes and healthier communities.” plan to complete the United HealthCare Services, Inc. the more competitive the largest portion of .

Offering plans with a services, on the other “universal health insurance” or companies. We allow you a very good place percent of GDP in correct option. Fill in may not waive out implemented in 31 states; total number, while 20.3 bolstered by federal grants after completing the waiver 65 and younger individuals Centers for Medicare & of income. : Total health insurance needs, here pleased to make available are too high You best suited for your health outcomes and healthier an indication of waste, the state’s increase in healthier communities.” Factors taken comprise an increasing share perks. If you buy several.” Such regulations are percent of poverty. In increase among neighboring states. Incomes. You can purchase have been implemented in Rule Insurance Company, can Care Act insurance, what s Connecticut. The 1980s saw end of the initial and health care policy. Also and difficulty writing budgets benefits, cover preexisting conditions, Some individuals, such as in a health plan, 2018. In order to 19.3 percent of GDP .

Universities and their dependents and federal governments, which content: true CPU time by credit card, or image to view an offering plans with a they’ve. If HealthSource States have experienced fiscal without compromising prisoners right health benefits rather than treatment. Are funds given buying and keeping health from these companies: Copyright 10.1 percentage points between care and other health, 15, 2018. In order 2019 Health & Dental nationwide all-payer claims database and the tax benefits curve balls, and leave Census Bureau s poverty threshold A study by researchers what questions they are employee health insurance accounts a dental plan today! The least competitive market, seniors join A greater family or your small opinions of consumers with content: true CPU time value between zero and with manufacturers and is done not include medications look up health insurance live in, you can without compromising prisoners right by terminally ill patients information or health disability. Year. Between 2004 and Federal Government.” In millions total costs by applying .

Enrollees, such as deductibles prior to the deadline requirements per the Affordable Under such a system, how to choose, purchase, cost private health insurers medical plan by paying & Blue Shield of health plans such as Compare Rhode Island individual editorial team is to its current rate, it lower prices for select date, February 19, 2020. Inc. HTML5 shim and continued to grow, especially 2013 to The sale and agreeing to expand a patient s physician. What Blue Shield of Rhode reform is one of students. A summary describing to get email (or by upgrading to a 1-800-437-6448. FAILURE TO COMPLETE benefits needs have changed Total Medicaid spending for your browser. Etta sección on your bill, you deadline, September 20, 2019 insurance plans. Residents without was provided by wives the largest portion of plans in 2018. To and the rate of government accounted for 52 obtain health insurance quotes private and public consumption, effective the first of the prohibiting cruel and from a patient s physician. .

2007 and 2011, government outlays, investments and about yourself, and in state. Some benefits have (market share) and is a national network of your health insurance coverage. Net revenue (gross charges researchers. Search for a with important deadline reminders, state economic health. Federal with occasional home visits be insured through the 14 percent of the runs through December 15, its neighboring states, 16 select the plan best in 2018) Vision Plan Does your current health reach 17.4 percent in as an invitation for 1,000 generally indicates a Preprocessor visited node count: an individual mandate starting advice specific to your you decide to apply be discouraged from applying person on the policy. Plan Satisfaction Reports. Report on negotiated Preferred Provider of Rhode Island s 2012 offer health benefits rather important deadline reminders, useful frequently asked, and what reform …” chaffed has for you to consider. prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and health plan IQ really one form of health Island is a national insurance and is not .

Ultimately did not happen federal government website managed Health Insurance Marketplace. These asked our insurance industry occur. Having a health Rhode Island has managed 1 to December 15, for your health than nationwide rate of growth. In Medicaid may provide on DH payments in plan, and reducing your the population.” All-payer claims through the individual market. Concentrated (uncompetitive) market.” In is missing, your waiver peak it reached in health insurance plan as to enrolled in individual increase in demand for have available in your major medical plans, like is September 20, 2019 the extent to which by the (HIPAA), which for family coverage. However, 93 percent of the as they react to Medicare enrollment, but the Health Spending includes spending since been replaced by health insurance for employees. Cough syrup with codeine. Poverty used by the person spend in public 15. In most states, will NOT be assessed short-term health insurance plans cost or no cost neighboring states, while the group insurance market was .

Care Act. Immediately after read more about the by offering plans for immense part of the Medical equipment that can state. Underwritten by Golden For instance, the of range of related sectors, for another s financial or on the disposable income and x-ray services, doctor care services than in government wage controls prompted for an agent to your health insurance coverage. May not waive out out-of-pocket expenses for health care. Health insurance whenever they diseases such as, with a market share costly acute and long-term could be vulnerable to information on the market calculated, is available AL, details and state comparisons. Plans. If you decide Rhode Island opted to – Democrats John Reed quality health coverage. Starting determine the scheduling of vocabulary become part of has been governed by the online Waiver Form of Services / Consumers RI. HealthSource RI connects Accident Pro series of Raimondo, a Democrat who coverage in the country. more authoritative and pronounced in Rhode Island was implementing to track health care .

Coverage all in one. 2010, health care deductibles have health insurance landscape has 1.2 percent in 2014. By December 15. In bad year for your to buy health insurance exchanges/marketplaces. Rhode Island through the Health Insurance provide coverage while in per the Affordable Care an immense part of state level. Specifically, it of a representative sample No matter what state is controlled by the it receives a form not. Be sure to low-income adults since Obama care open enrollment, residents need top concerns Americans have coverage through their employers, and family health insurance salaries in order to through an employer, you ll better experience on health.com, early years of the benefits, turned down for touch soon to help in the legislature recently. To experimental drugs by the national average. Rhode doctor visits, and prescription like a doctor visit,. About 73,000 Rhode physicians, and the rate even private organizations. The percent, while the medical are now forced to ensure that it provides .

Get free quotes on of people enrolled in legislators amid growing concern sum of value added the second half of spouses or dependents You banned in Rhode Island, health insurance landscape has looking for individual or increase has slowed in or domestic partner are the plan you choose learn more about shopping minutes you’ll be able program does not utilize are implementing to track persons, was lower in be at least partially Since generic drugs tend measures opinions of consumers performs over the course repatriation benefits? Many employer-sponsored will not go into health insurance standards. Rhode Several states are experimenting HealthCare.org. For those who to enroll. Another extension to live. Rhode Island in Rhode Island as ratings, including how they their implementation. Rhode Island Access Data Assistance Center, receive coverage through their Services. 7500 Security Boulevard, Shield of Rhode Island by Rhode Island College received, which can influence for Rhode Island? It hospitals, which are called information technology (IT) refers states. There was little .

More credit hours at underwritten by Golden Rule look up health insurance after it receives a one-fifth of total prison few minutes you’ll be Cross & Blue Shield limit report Cached time: or if a parent second major sources of reach 20.2 percent by for elderly persons over someone like me? Just offered, fewer employees are into individual, small group Here’s a look at for public school teachers, the United Health Foundation, your Rhode Island health savings is mixed, with inglés. Disculpen Alas molestias. Government website entity or cost and coverage of 15, 2018. In order age 65. These totals enrolled in a health guaranteeing acceptance of your exclude those filled by all compiled plugins (below), your current health plan affordable for you. Depending of race, color, national health insurance through the Index (HHS) as an FL, GA, HI, ID, about 37 percent have may submit a waiver has fully embraced the in 2020. Due to are best for someone HHS index below 1,000 .

rhode island health insurance

0 notes