Personal Responsiblity
Thomas Sowell points to the real problem of our society and the progressive liberal mindset that prevents the solution. I’ve stated it many times on this and other blogs that personal responsibility is the key to solving most problems.
The bigger question is; What is Governments role? I’d like to hear some of the thoughts on what people really think the Government should be doing in our everyday lives.
The Great Escape by Thomas Sowell on National Review Online
Much harm results when we run from personal responsibility.
Many of the issues of our times are hard to understand without understanding the vision of the world that they are part of. Whether the particular issue is education, economics, or medical care, the preferred explanation tends to be an external explanation — that is, something outside the control of the individuals directly involved.
Education is usually discussed in terms of the money spent on it, the teaching methods used, class sizes, or the way the whole system is organized. Students are discussed largely as passive recipients of good or bad education.
But education is not something that can be given to anybody. It is something that students either acquire or fail to acquire. Personal responsibility may be ignored or downplayed in this “non-judgmental” age, but it remains a major factor nevertheless.
After many students go through a dozen years in the public schools, at a total cost of $100,000 or more per student — and emerge semi-literate and with little understanding of the society in which they live, much less the larger world and its history — most discussions of what is wrong leave out the fact that many such students may have chosen to use school as a place to fool around, act up, organize gangs, or even peddle drugs.
The great escape of our times is escape from personal responsibility for the consequences of one’s own behavior. Differences in infant-mortality rates provoke pious editorials on a need for more prenatal care to be provided by the government for those unable to afford it. In other words, the explanation is automatically assumed to be external to the mothers involved and the solution is assumed to be something that “we” can do for “them.”
While it is true that black mothers get less prenatal care than white mothers and have higher infant-mortality rates, it is also true that women of Mexican ancestry get less prenatal care than white women and yet have lower infant-mortality rates. But, once people with the prevailing social vision see the first set of facts, they seldom look for any other facts that might go against the explanation that fits their vision of the world.
No small part of the current confusion between “health care” and medical care comes from failing to recognize that Americans can have the best medical care in the world without having the best health or longevity because so many people choose to live in ways that shorten their lives.
There can be grave practical consequences of a dogmatic insistence on external explanations that allow individuals to escape personal responsibility. Americans can end up ruining the best medical care in the world in the vain hope that a government takeover will give us better health.
Economic issues are approached in the same way. People with low incomes are seen as a problem for other people to solve. Studies that follow the same individuals over time show that the vast majority of working people who are in the bottom 20 percent of income earners at a given time end up rising out of that bracket.
Many are simply beginners who get beginners’ wages but whose pay rises as they acquire more skills and experience. Yet there is a small minority of workers who do not rise and a large number of people who seldom work and who — surprise! — have low incomes as a result.
Seldom is there any thought that people who choose to waste years of their own time (and the taxpayers’ money) in school need to change their own behavior — or to visibly suffer the consequences, so that their fate can be a warning to others coming after them not to make that same mistake.
It is not just the “non-judgmental” ideology of the intelligentsia but also the self-interest of politicians that leads to so much downplaying of personal responsibility in favor of external explanations and external programs to “solve” the “problem.”
On these and other issues, government programs are far less likely to solve the country’s problems than to solve the politicians’ problem of getting the votes of those whose think the answer to every problem is for the government to “do something.”
The bigger question is; What is Governments role? I’d like to hear some of the thoughts on what people really think the Government should be doing in our everyday lives.
The Great Escape by Thomas Sowell on National Review Online
Much harm results when we run from personal responsibility.
Many of the issues of our times are hard to understand without understanding the vision of the world that they are part of. Whether the particular issue is education, economics, or medical care, the preferred explanation tends to be an external explanation — that is, something outside the control of the individuals directly involved.
Education is usually discussed in terms of the money spent on it, the teaching methods used, class sizes, or the way the whole system is organized. Students are discussed largely as passive recipients of good or bad education.
But education is not something that can be given to anybody. It is something that students either acquire or fail to acquire. Personal responsibility may be ignored or downplayed in this “non-judgmental” age, but it remains a major factor nevertheless.
After many students go through a dozen years in the public schools, at a total cost of $100,000 or more per student — and emerge semi-literate and with little understanding of the society in which they live, much less the larger world and its history — most discussions of what is wrong leave out the fact that many such students may have chosen to use school as a place to fool around, act up, organize gangs, or even peddle drugs.
The great escape of our times is escape from personal responsibility for the consequences of one’s own behavior. Differences in infant-mortality rates provoke pious editorials on a need for more prenatal care to be provided by the government for those unable to afford it. In other words, the explanation is automatically assumed to be external to the mothers involved and the solution is assumed to be something that “we” can do for “them.”
While it is true that black mothers get less prenatal care than white mothers and have higher infant-mortality rates, it is also true that women of Mexican ancestry get less prenatal care than white women and yet have lower infant-mortality rates. But, once people with the prevailing social vision see the first set of facts, they seldom look for any other facts that might go against the explanation that fits their vision of the world.
No small part of the current confusion between “health care” and medical care comes from failing to recognize that Americans can have the best medical care in the world without having the best health or longevity because so many people choose to live in ways that shorten their lives.
There can be grave practical consequences of a dogmatic insistence on external explanations that allow individuals to escape personal responsibility. Americans can end up ruining the best medical care in the world in the vain hope that a government takeover will give us better health.
Economic issues are approached in the same way. People with low incomes are seen as a problem for other people to solve. Studies that follow the same individuals over time show that the vast majority of working people who are in the bottom 20 percent of income earners at a given time end up rising out of that bracket.
Many are simply beginners who get beginners’ wages but whose pay rises as they acquire more skills and experience. Yet there is a small minority of workers who do not rise and a large number of people who seldom work and who — surprise! — have low incomes as a result.
Seldom is there any thought that people who choose to waste years of their own time (and the taxpayers’ money) in school need to change their own behavior — or to visibly suffer the consequences, so that their fate can be a warning to others coming after them not to make that same mistake.
It is not just the “non-judgmental” ideology of the intelligentsia but also the self-interest of politicians that leads to so much downplaying of personal responsibility in favor of external explanations and external programs to “solve” the “problem.”
On these and other issues, government programs are far less likely to solve the country’s problems than to solve the politicians’ problem of getting the votes of those whose think the answer to every problem is for the government to “do something.”
Labels: government, healthcare, politics
posted by Anonymous at 5:41 AM
24 Comments:
So what you are getting at, is that no problem with "health care" exists, only a lack of personal responsibility. Interesting.
Personal responsibility in a government of the people, for the people by the people...
I think I will make it my personal responsibility to no longer support GOP Conservative Right wing fundamentalist candidates since it would appear the the conservative GOP party is more concerned with political agendas than it is the people they are supposed to represent.
Now, why would a lawyer not understand and/or not be in favor of personal responsibility? Job preservation?
And when did a lawyer ever support a conservative candidate? Everyone knows the agenda of the legal profession. More torts, more law suits.
And what is your agenda Slim Shady? relegious intolerance, elitism, economic discrimination, broad false labeling of people based on thier profession?
@Slim - That's an odd response to what I wrote.
And when did a lawyer ever support a conservative candidate?
I know many, many lawyers who support conservative candidates.
Everyone knows the agenda of the legal profession. More torts, more law suits.
Now you're just displaying ignorance about the legal profession. You have no idea what you are talking about here, unless you meant to say that everyone knows the agenda of the plaintiff-oriented trial lawyers, and even that is seriously misleading because they come in all stripes and political persuasions.
I hope you or your family members are never, ever, the victim of medical negligence, a dangerous product, an auto accident, an environmental hazard, wrongly accused of a crime, taken advantage of by an insurance company, etc. But if you are, I'm guessing you will call a good lawyer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Slim - you might have missed my comment on an earlier thread, and I think it is relevant to this thread:
You wrote:
My spouse has a medical condition that prohibits us from getting private health insurance in the current market place.
I wrote:
Had you only worked harder and made better choices, this wouldn't be a problem for you now. Right?
I'm just making a point, of course, I'm sorry to hear that.
And again, I mean no disrespect by making the point, but do you take personal responsibility for your lack of ability to obtain private health insurance or not?
You sound like someone who has played by the rules, and yet you are getting screwed. Your fault?
Looks like B.W.Smith is using H.B.'s blog for free marketing. Could it be he believes in the free market concept, at least where his interests lie?
Christopher, you missed the point of Dr Sowell's writing. Read the constitution, it is not that long or hard to understand. The founders were scared of government and tried their best to limit it at the federal level, giving the power mostly to the state and local governments. If a given state wanted to have welfare and confiscate the wealth of individuals to redistribute they could, of course many with wealth would leave.
Your convictions are admirable on a personal level, but by what right do you contend to take my legally earned money to give it to someone else?
Do you criticize H.B.'s "fundamentalism" as a religous persecution or criticism of his respect of the constitution?
Personal responsibility was the cornerstone of the founding of the nation and government of, by, and for the people so the people could be free to reach their individual potential.
Looks like B.W.Smith is using H.B.'s blog for free marketing.
...the anonymous coward attacks again...
I've been commenting on blogs, including this one, since 2004 before I was a lawyer. Can't say getting into heated blog debates is good for business, but thank you for playing.
by what right do you contend to take my legally earned money to give it to someone else?
You might want to read the 16th amendment to the Constitution, too.
Anon,
"by what right do you contend to take my legally earned money to give it to someone else?"
I intend to take no more money than is all ready being taken from you in the "free market system" of health care.
In fact, the function of an FQHC would probably take less.
If you do not think the free market system takes your money, then you had better think again.
When medically indigent patients run to the ER for every sniffle and ache, knowing they have no coverage, it IS in fact you and I and every other working Joe and Jane out there that pays for it.
How you ask? Excellent question, and the answer is simple.
When Physicians and Hosptials have huge write-off expenses for the medically indigent, they will collect as much as they can on that, and in doing so they will raise the fee's that they charge for all procedures, and supplies, which is passed on to the medical consumers both with insurance and with out.
This cost is more often than not billed to those with coverages insuarnce companies, as they loose profitability from these higher fees being charged to them to cover you and your family, the next open enrollment period, they increase your premiums, increase your deductable, increase your copays, further limit prescribing "formularies".
This also effects your employer if they pay for part of your insurance premiums, they have to pay more, profitability is decreased, and cuts are made, usually by way of raises.
So in essence thinking that you do not all ready foot the lions share of care for medically indigent citizens, unfortunately you are mistaken, and this is an issue that neither the democrats or the repulicans are willing to discuss or even attempt to rationalize, but it happens and it costs us all billions either by way of taxes or direct out of pocket costs.
FQHC's and Community health centers decrease this occurance, and do so effectively and efficiently with a relatively low operational cost.
It is "socialized" coverage, it has been going on for years and years, and it has and continues to work, with no long lines, no death panels, no extra taxes
By the way, I commend HB on his commitment to his patients and the care he gives to the medically indigent, and I have done so publicly on here.
But I also disagree with his politcal ideologies, because there is NO valid excuse for a country as powerful, resourceful, and weathly as a whole that the United States is, that any person, regardless of age, race, education, or socio-economic status should EVER be fourced to routinely choose between food and medicine, providing clothing, food, shelter, and utilities to their children, or getting that pesky growing lump in their breast taken care of, and it happens every single day, repeatedly across the country, and across all levels of economics, education, or "social status"
The 16th says the government can tax. Where does it say it can bestow charity? Where is the charity clause?
Article I, sec. 8 lists the spending, and general welfare was not intended by the framers to mean what it has become.
Don't like it, tear it up and start again or ammend it as is provided.
Why do the hospitals have to give away free care except that the government mandates they do.
Charity should be a voluntary thing, otherwise what do you choose to call it? Again, it is commendable that H.B. chooses to do charity care, but that is the difference.
One hundred years ago 90% of hospitals were private and 10% were charity or nonprofit. Now it is the reverse and the tax law has allowed the government to pervert the system and the concept of charity.
FYI to B.W.Smith and Christopher http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0611williams.pdfD.
Personal responsibility, maybe.
What we really need is information. Information on the hospitals that offer top quality total hip replacements, for example. Information on physicians who are the best at doing total hips with the lowest infection rates. Everything else that we buy, consumers have an idea of the quality and how much it costs, the U.S. healthcare system doesn't work that way. I kinda like what Pennsylvania is doing publishing medical outcomes data. Consumer information will bring healthcare costs down and foster competition.
Walter Williams (an economist who subs for Rush Limbaugh) is your source for understanding Constitutional law and history? Wow. Talk about a failure of public education.
I understand that many conservatives want to send us back to the Gilded Age, before the expansion of the Commerce Clause. Boy those were great times! Good thing Walter Williams's opinion on what the law "should" be isn't what the law IS.
And, let's not forget that Franklin Pierce, Mr. Williams's hero, enforced fugitive slave laws with a vengeance...but I digress.
This is not the place for me to teach you Constitutional law and history 101, but a very accessible place to start for a general reader is Peter Irons, A People's History of the Supreme Court , which is an excellent read and written by a constitutional law scholar and practitioner.
I also hope you understand that Constitutional jurisprudence consists of the Constitution + all of the judicial opinions since Marbury v. Madison (and see Article III of the Constitution).
Don't like it? Tear it up and start again or amend it as is provided.
Well, well, well. By using the Liberal play book, I sure got some good comments on this issue. Here is an example of bad personal responsibility. Today, I must attend the funeral of a niece who died of lung cancer at 46. She received the best medical care available, but she still died. She leaves a large family, including her husband, four children and two grandchildren. She suffered for several years with this terrible disease. Her family diligently cared for her during those years. She was a victim of wild living. For years she abused her body. The results are her premature death. She made conscious bad decisions to live the way she did. In my opinion, she did not accept her personal responsibility to take care of herself and her loved ones. The only redeeming things that I can think of about her life now past is that she died a Christian having tried to turn her life around after it was too late, and maybe those her knew her well will look at the bad example she set and will not do likewise.
Slim,
So would would basically cheapen the horrid suffering death of your family member, in order to further your rhetoric, labeling, and assumptions?
SHAME ON YOU!
If this is the way that your mind operates, there is NO point in further discussing this issue with you.
It is people like you that has ruined the credibility of the GOP.
Christopher D.
My point is this: Bad decisions have bad consequences.
That is the same point that Mr. Sowell made in his piece.
You cant argue with people unwilling to even consider an opposing view.
Slim,
I am sorry, we are going to have to just agree to disagree, on this and be civil about it.
Everyone makes bad decisions, no one is perfect, Christian or not.
But persons decision making skills should play no real big part in this discussion.
The bottom line is this, they are all human beings, whether bad decision makers, good decision makers, or no decision makers, and everyone should have access to affordable health care.
To do any less is inhumane, period.
By the way of thinking presented here, if a person decided to smoke in college, and they get lung cancer, and they can not afford health insurance they deserve to die.
But yet, from your point of view, any public health option should be defeated because of the trumped up, false allegations of the "death panel". The conservative right wingers, such as yourself, scream to high heaven how wrong that is, but yet you make statements that allude to the fact if a person has made decisions that place them in a catagory where they do not have coverage, they deserve to get sick, they deserve to go broke, and they deserve to die.
Would that not fall under the guise of being hypocritical? Or perhaps oxymoronic?
You consistantly say I am only following the "liberal playbook", yet you yourself are repeating nearly verbatim echo the sentiments of the national do nothing forums.
So please, tell me, Is there middle ground on this? Are you willing to take a look at expanding the roles FQHC's as an alternative to a "public option"?
To make one other point, I am not a born and bred "liberal", I do not believe in "hand outs" with nothing given back in return, I do however believe in "hand ups", and a mechanism to bridge the gap between being insured and not having any coverage.
I further am all for tort reform, and limiting the amount of awards given for so called "medical malpractice", and that the awards given should realistically reflect the actual physical damage done, and the dismissal of lawsuits based on "I dont like the way this scar looks".
B.W., Interesting you are so dismissive of Dr. Williams, a PhD. and former chair of an econ department. He was educated when a degree meant something. I'd put his knowledge of history up to yours anytime. And somehow I doubt Dr. Williams supports slavery or it's concept. Using one of your courtroom innuendo tricks?
So, only lawyers can interpret the constitution? Then why is it not a requirement that a supreme court justice be a lawyer?
It was the peoples document and was not designed to be read between the lines. That came later, after activist justices.
The commerce clause is the excuse used for the federal system to bypass the rest of the document and stick it's nose into every aspect of our lives.
Liberals love Marbury v. Madison because it started the courts taking over the role of legislator. And it was all so Marshall could cover his butt because he screwed up as secretary of state before he was on the court. He bent the law and started a terrible precedent. Then he started the abuse of the commerce clause which continues today.
And you call us the radicals? Wow.
I love it when you guys say what you really mean, because it helps my side. You don't just want to take us back to the Gilded Age...you want to repeal 200+ years of federal law. Amazing. Even Justice Scalia would raise an eyebrow at that.
Chris D.,
Yes, even those who have a history of living very healthful lives get sick. I deny your premise that if a person makes a bad decision in regards to their own health that they should be denied health care. I am strongly in favor of affordable health care insurance for all. I am in favor of health care reform. As I have stated many times on this blog, I oppose Government run health care. I favor a private system based on capitalistic principles free from government encumbrances.
Post a Comment
<< Home