Recycling old stories is brilliant. Converted comics even better. Why take a chance on an unproven story our concept? Hollywood is all about making money first, making points second. But ideology also sells, and hollywood, by definition, is compelled to present ideology. They tell stories.
So, are we redefining autism as encompassing those other conditions etc, or did we mistake autism for all that other stuff?
Btw, most school systems in the U.S. spend 30-40% of their budget on 'special needs' students. Including boys that cannot settle down and learn.
That sounds heartless.
What causes are included in that statistic? Food poisoning ? Fires? Knife wounds? And how often do people cook at home vs be exposed to communicable diseases, since the population is largely immunized?
BTW, I am in favor of imunization. I'm not in favor of denying unimmunized children healthcare because their parents did not have them immunized.
Care delayed is care denied. You can't arbitrarily decide the priority for care unless you want to take control of people's lives.
That is the weakest spot in single-payer. Defending the needy, protecting the weak, equal access for all is the right easy.
And putting children at the end of the line because of the bad choices of their parents is almost the worst possible choice. Children are innocent of their parents' decisions.
I don't want YOU in charge of this.
I was exposed to chickenpox. This got me shingles later in life.
And there was no vaccine for that when I was young. Who do I sue?
So how does your refusal to vaccinate for children put other vaccinated children at risk?
The confusion is deliberately caused
Hey, AC... How does me not vaccinating my child put your vaccinated child at risk?
As I wrote: All legislation is someone's morality.
You seem to believe the State has both authority and responsibility to evaluate your practices raising your children, and should exercise its power to either compel you to raise them a certain way, or when take them from you if they disprove of your practices.
It is important, I think, to consider these policy decisions from a key vantage point - would your opinion change if the State were dominated and controlled by political forces that you did not agree with? More importantly, if you believe that these policies should be enforced because you agree with the political forces that propose them, do you believe that any opposition needs to be silenced, permanently, lest they overturn your choices?
My point isn't that you seem to want a State that is not constitutional in our nation, but that you wish to do unto others that which you probably do not wish done to you.
And for that reason, you should both not do it, and seek to prevent the State from doing it at all.
I'm equally interested in cloning its last meal.
" that doesn't mean Hollywood is just part of the intelligence apparatus."
You are literally correct, AC. THAT doesn't demonstrate that Hollywood is part of the intelligence apparatus. You would need more evidence, found by looking elsewhere.
Casually watching the autism debate, I see that autism is:
- Now a spectrum, not a syndrome or disease. This has enlarged the affected population, enhancing the power of their advocates and increasing the urgency of finding a solution;
- Being blamed (root cause) on vaccines, diet, environmental effects, technology, with a de-emphasis on genetics and prenatal care.
- Used to describe many more behaviors, hence becoming a 'spectrum', not a syndrome or disease or even a process.
- Described as a growing treat, capable of potentially impacting a majority of the population, being caused by a multitude of toxins, exposures, and behaviors, hence the urgency to find 'a cure'.
This pattern is familiar to me. Have you other
You can't deny coverage in a single-payer system. You just crank up the deductible/copay, for punishment. Accept the consequences of that action or get out of the business of governing.
And those who do not vaccinate are costing us all money in a single-payer system, which is reason to compel vaccination.
Which is reason to decide on a single-payer healthcare system based not on supposed cost savings, nor even charity/indigent care, but on the inevitable loss of individual choice. Remember, those who do not vaccinate their children put their children at risk, but these are THEIR children, not 'ours'. If they want the freedom to choose how to raise their children, they need to accept the responsibility for their actions.
Yes, radical ideas, that you are responsible for your choices, that if you exercise that right you are subject to the consequences and deserve no shelter from them, and that asking the State to impose your choices on others is always an exercise in using force to impose your will.
All legislation is someone's morality. All if it.