Another side effect of government-controlled health care
August 1st, 2008, 10:29 am · 7 Comments · posted by Scott Shackford
My editorial today is about how the trans fat ban is a consequence of the public demanding government “do something” about health care costs.
Reason’s blog has another example worth exploring. Janet Riviera, in Fresno, has been in a coma for years and is being kept alive with the financial assistance of Medi-Cal.
It raises the rather horrifying ethical issue of how much of other people’s money should be used to keep somebody alive. With private insurance, this is a matter for her family. But because tax money is involved suddenly everybody gets a say.
It’s an unpleasant problem with no easy solution when we’re talking about people who can’t afford private insurance, but again it’s an example of putting decisions about health care in the hands of the government and not thinking through the consequences.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Maybe the DD should stop worrying about putting a price on human life (worth around six million according to the U.S. government) and hire an actual reporter, not just a copywriter that re-writes what they are told by city leaders. I think during this whole trigger-happy fiasco playing out in our city’s southern section, the only actual reporting done was an interview with a neighbor and a call to a detention facility to check on a detainee — the rest is just propaganda, verbatum reprints of factless quotes, smoke and mirrors. People in this town have opinions but no facts to check them against, “no comments” and character assassination by using myspace quizzes as printable news — this paper is either the laziest in America, or perhaps just entrenched in bed with the fuzz. Barstow, you deserve better…and it may be coming…
August 1st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
We have Freedom of Information requests submitted for copies of 911 calls related to the shooting you mention and the memo the DA’s office sent to the Police Department about why they have not filed charges. The deadline for the information passes next week and we intend to report the results. (Here’s a preview — it’s not looking good) The tone of your comment seems to suggest that we should be acting like independent gumshoes trying to solve the murder on our own. That, frankly, is a myth about what newspaper reporters do based on representations of journalists on television shows and movies, not in reality. Abby Sewell continues to attempt to get information about the shooting, but she also has to continue reporting on the rest of the city. We don’t have resources to independently investigate crimes. We’re a tiny community newspaper. Abby works about 50 hours a week and frequently pops into the office on her days off if there’s breaking news.
You clearly have not read my editorials about the drug war or police raid tactics in the Desert Dispatch (or even this very blog) if you think this newspaper is “in bed with the fuzz.” Perhaps you should ask the police if they think we’re on their side. And if you had read our content, you would also realize we are hardly engaging in “character assassination” by including details that the shooting victim himself decided to publicly reveal. I think it’s interesting how nobody is complaining that we also reported how much he loved his grandfather.
We’re operating on the presumption of both the shooter and the victims’ innocence, as we try to do with all crimes. We have provided family members the opportunity to talk about the shooting victim to let the public know more about him than just his MySpace page. They decline to do so, thinking perhaps they are “punishing us” for reporting information they don’t approve. That’s a shame, because the ultimate result is that information that you don’t like is the ONLY information that Barstow residents are going to know about this young man.
There’s a famous saying, especially among us libertarians: “The solution to bad speech is more speech.” If you don’t want Barstow residents to remember most of all that Mr. Firkins once admitted to doing drugs and shoplifting, then you need to provide more information about him, not withhold it.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
You are right Mr. Shackford, my tone was perhaps a bit too standoffish and blaming of an overworked, undersupported staff. I grew up with and talked in the last year or so to a recently departed staffer who seemed to be running around busy all week during his tenure. I ran a few rumors of corruption I had heard by him and he agreed that although he had heard things, he couldn’t verify them, get anyone to say anything on the record, and that if someone would put their neck out for their version of the truth, he would support them by putting his out too and proceeding — of course time proves that no credible accusations were ever brought forward. The gossip mill around town has stated that perhaps the police secrecy is to protect the deceased, though that seems somehat illogical, though the parent’s silence does raise an eyebrow. But what bothers me is if they had reason to seek two million dollars in bail, what changed the DA’s mind so quickly as to not seek charges at all — that is a huge change of opinion that so-called “public servants” can’t in all fairness brush off without comment. So perhaps my anger is misplaced, perhaps I should be asking those on Mountain View to explain themselves, to do their job, not treat us like we are stupid and unworthy of a few facts. But in turn, the Desert Dispatch must admit that some of the stories run on the subject are pathetically sparse (not entirely your fault), lacking any insight or print-worthy information, just runaround and “no comments” by the fuzz (I regret choosing that word in my initial reply, you got me on that one) — they do nothing to further the story. I apologize Desert Dispatch staff for overreacting, but you have to understand that you are the only substantial voice in the area, and that people in this town are joining sides of this argument without any facts to check their views against. So, I call out the Barstow PD to ditch the D.C.-esque secrecy and at least answer three questions:
1. Does evidence indicate that the Marine crawled into the car after being shot, or did the eventually-fatal blow occur inside?
2. Why did MP’s arrive at the hospital (confirmed by staff) before the trauma victim (who took upwards of an hour to arrive)?
3. Where’s the second intruder he told his neighbor about, why no evidence of intrusion (as said by Espinoza), and how can we believe that a trained soldier’s best bet to subdue an unarmed man was multiple shots aimed towards his upper-half (which he conveniently forgot doing)?
I give him the benefit of the doubt, but all this secrecy does absolutely no one any good; it stinks of something, maybe not a whitewash, but something fishy. I hope your FOI Act requests shed some light on the truth, hopefully the PD will throw you guys a bone, or else some of those aforementioned rumors of corruption and cronyism (arguably affecting every department nationwide) might start swirling around and cling to a notoriously bad apple or two. And don’t set your sights too low, persistant journalists have cracked many a case wide open. Dialogue is good, very good. Thank you for allowing me to express my frustration frankly and in length.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
To correct the above response, question #2 is based on mere hearsay, gossip that cannot and has not been confirmed, and should in fairness be redacted, I apologize for hastily including that as fact.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 am
I don’t get it;why capitalize on a woman in a coma to point out a debate on government supported health care? It makes you sound like a person that wants her to die?
Last evening a national cable news program pointed out each car made in this nation has over $6,000 added onto the price because of health insurance costs for all employees ( management included} in Canada the auto makers pay a little over $ 600. in health insurance. Other industrilized nations can give health care to allow their employees to live longer fuller lifes and work longer. So in this nation you give no one any government health care, so if tragic injuries are not even mended you have a dieing workforce unable to even to raise their own children becauase of their lack of any health care!
What made you a hater of mankind? Those unable to preform or live at your standards are not to be housed, not to be helped, not to be cured.
What mansion do you live is it surrounded by fire and brimstone?
Could be Scott you just fall inline to get paid.
This paper is small, I feel the community gets a great benefit from your paper when it reports on children and activities that this community as a whole supports. But when it becomes to adult centered issues the reporting takes a big step backwards.
The politics are subject to Orange County center Republican dominance, plus strange commentarys favoring twisted journalism by people putting to much history of racial haterd in America on your web sites.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Sorry I’m late for responding back and posting spoziemek’s comment. I was out of town for the weekend.
Dwrogers, I do appreciate your response. Believe me that we’re as frustrated when we can’t get to the truth of a story as our readers are. I imagine it’s no different from when any other business has customers clamoring for a service that they find themselves unable to provide. It’s maddening.
Despite my defensive responses, we do treat criticism seriously. It definitely helps us take a closer look at what we’re writing and how we’re doing it to make sure we can argue a good reason for it. Even though some of our readers may not agree with our methods, we do listen to their comments and discuss them seriously.
Sdoziemek, in response to your comment, you seem to think that when the government gets involved in health care, we will automatically get better results. Have you thought about the possibility that the opposite could happen — that the government could decided to end this woman’s life earlier than the family would want? The problem here is that when you put the government in charge of health care, then you no longer have control of a very important facet of your own life. Your assumptions about government health care are contradicted by the thousands upon thousands of stories of people who cannot get good treatment under government health care systems. And people like Janet Rivera are the ones who fare the worst in the system. I can say with confidence that under a national heath care program, Janet Rivera would probably already be dead.
And my cozy little two-bedroom house is not surrounded by fire and brimstone. I do have a dog though.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Maybe the womans life should be terminated. The current system is overwhelmed and maybe it’s time to figure out when to terminate a life. People are willing to have a loved one on life support forever whether it’s hope or fear of letting go. I had to make that decision a few years back. Yes I do sometimes feel guilty. But sometimes if someones life isn’t what it can be as it was. Then the time is now.