So, I've been reading editorials again and it seems that I always find something that ticks me off when I read them.
First, I think it's just silly to watch the current flack and scuttlebutt about Bush's newest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers.
Basically, everyone is criticizing Bush for his choice saying that it was stupid. But from his point of view, maybe it's not. He knows that someone who has a public conservative record on things like abortion, homosexuality, end-of life and everything else would have a difficult (if not impossible ) time of making it through the confirmation process. By nominating Miers, Bush has chosen someone that he knows well enough to be confident in her views, but who has no public record that can trip her up in confirmation hearings. I'm not saying that he's my favorite person, but it seems that this was a much smarter move than most are claiming.
Second, How on earth is it a good idea to mandate raising all insurance costs to cover natural disasters like Katrina and Rita?
How is it any different that life insurance or auto insurance? If you want to buy life insurance, it will cost you much less at 20 than it will at 50. Why? Because they know that you're statistically more likely to die sooner at 50 than 20. Same thing with health insurance. If you have two tickets in the past 6 months, you are going to pay more for auto insurance than you will if you had never been pulled over.
The most logical plan is to rate based on the likelihood of disasters. I mean come on people who live on the gulf have to know that they have a higher chance of losing their homes to a natural disaster that people who live in Kansas. I think they should have to pay more money in insurance costs to live in a place where they know their homes are like to be demolished every time there's a hurricane that people who chose to live in areas of the country where natural disasters are less likely to happen.
Third, SHUT UP about the stupid 'Bird Flu'!
According to the Center for Disease Control: The only reported case of a human with 'Bird Flu' in the United States is from back in November 2003. A patient with serious underlying medical conditions was admitted to a hospital in New York with respiratory symptoms. The patient recovered and went home after a few weeks. Subsequent tests showed that the patient had been infected with an avian influenza virus. An investigation to determine the source of infection is ongoing.
There has been no (I repeat not even one) case of this bird flu passing through person to person contact. Avian influenza viruses are transmitted to humans through direct contact with birds or from avian virus-contaminated environments..
All the scare the news is pumping up is nothing more than a theory that if all things align perfectly, might happen (person to person transmission).
Marc Siegel, an internist and associate professor of medicine at New York University School of Medicine, explains it here.
No comments:
Post a Comment