Freedom of Speech Under Attack

Oh look, people are trying to piss all over America’s freedom of speech again.

CBS is planning to air an advocacy ad featuring a story about Tim Tebow, Heisman Trophy-winning American football quarterback for the Florida Gators. Tebow’s mother gave birth to him in 1987 despite her doctors’ advice to have an abortion. Apparently her health was at high risk with the pregnancy but she decided to go through with the birth anyway. The ad will tell this story and promote a message of celebrating life and family. Or something like that.

The ad is being paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. The group’s spokesman, Gary Schneeberger, says the ad is not political. “I can tell you there’s nothing controversial about it, there’s nothing political about it,” Schneeberger says. “It is simply a very inspirational 30 seconds about celebrating life and celebrating families.”

Women’s groups and abortion rights groups are demanding the ad be pulled. They also warn that CBS might alienate viewers by showing divisive commercials. “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year—an event designed to bring Americans together,” said Jemhu Greene, president of the New York-based Women’s Media Center.

Unfortunately for them, they can’t just have ads they don’t agree with pulled off the air, especially when they don’t impose on anyone’s rights. God forbid they have to … *GASP* … change the channel when the ad comes on. Or … *LOUD SCOFF* … leave the room for a minute. No no. They have to take a nice long piss all over the freedom of speech instead. Yes, that’s much better. And certainly not un-American in the least.

I am aware that abortion is a very, very touchy issue and a divisive  topic, but really this isn’t about abortion. At least not to me. It’s about people who can’t handle the fact that there are others out there who disagree with them, so they go out of their way to try and stifle them. Despite the fact that their opponents are protected by the First Amendment whether they like it or not. They just can’t stand the thought that someone with opposing views is able to speak of them freely to the public.

Please know… This isn’t a matter of who I agree with on the issue of abortion. That will have to remain a mystery for you. But when it comes to our rights I am not biased. If there were a pro-choice ad that Christian groups were demanding be pulled, I would be just as angry with them. It doesn’t matter. I could agree with a particular group on every issue, every policy, everything in the world… I will still give them a good lip-lashing if they try anything to stop protected speech. A Voltaire quote comes to mind. But I don’t know if I’d actually die for your right to say something. Probably not.

Also understand that this is not about whether or not airing the ad is smart or not. A lot of fans are saying they’d rather not see advocacy ads during commercial breaks. Fine. That is their opinion and they are not the ones I’m pissed off at. It’s the idiocy of people who think they actually have the right to silence messages that contradict their opinions.

So. For awareness’ sake, what speech isn’t protected by the First Amendment? I left my pocket Constitution at work, but I got some help from www.firstamendmentcenter.org. Speech that is not protected includes:

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (includes libel, slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crime

Hmmm… I can’t seem to find “Advocacy ads” on that list. Or “Ads that some people may not agree with.” Or “Ads that hurt people’s feelings.” This ad is not threatening, violent, obscene, encouraging crime, or forcing anyone to do or think anything. It’s just an ad that tells a 30-second story. Well, guess these groups will just have to suck it up and change the channel. Boy I feel for them. That’s going to be tough.

What I don’t mind is their offering a simple suggestion to CBS – that they are going to risk dividing their audience on a touchy issue. That’s fine. They have all the freedom in the world to give some advice. In fact, if I worked for CBS I might have even advised against airing it. But nobody… nobody… has the right to pull that ad except CBS or the Focus on the Family organization as it is their business transaction. CBS obviously could use the money, otherwise I doubt they would have chosen to air a controversial advertisement.

To any person who really thinks this ad should be pulled even though it would violate our most important freedom in America, may I suggest that you take a little trip to North Korea? If you really hate freedom of speech, you just might like it there. Hell maybe you’ll even stay there. North Korea ranks zero or near zero on all the usual freedom indices: freedom of public speech, private speech, public religious worship, assembly and association, the press, residency, domestic and foreign travel, political participation, and due process of law. Any person who speaks freely about something that isn’t considered acceptable is at risk for execution or imprisonment. So yeah. That sounds right up your alley. Who knows, maybe you will decide to stay instead of impose totalitarianism on America.

I know that last part was a bit extreme, but I get pissed when assholes try to pull shit like this and think it’s “just”. It is the opposite of just. And it should NOT be tolerated in this country. We are free here. Get used to it assholes.

I’d like to end this entry with this question directed at the groups trying to pull the ad, or anyone who really wants to silence their opponents: How would you react if someone were trying to silence you? Probably let out a rant similar to mine. Just note that anyone who looks to the Constitution for support only when it’s convenient for them is an asshole, and I would happily pay for their one-way ticket to North Korea.

NPR: Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Commercial Causes Storm

First Amendment Center: Speech NOT protected by 1st Amendment

Foreign Policy Research Institute: North Korea: The Nadir of Freedom

Focus on the Family Website

Quality Health Care : True or False?

When it comes to getting the facts, things are not always as they seem. People are arguing constantly about the quality of health care here in the US as opposed to the quality of care in the countries that practice socialized medicine (i.e. Canada, UK, Cuba, New Zealand, Australia). The thing is, you have to challenge those supposed “facts” because chances are they don’t tell the story that person really wanted to tell. They want you to say: “omg i didnt kno that i totes belive u now!” You high-five them, you both go get a pizza. Then they just pray that you don’t question their logic. Unfortunately for them, there are a lot of us who still think for ourselves.

So. This is going to be an entry where I take arguments that people make to support their position, and then completely invalidate them. It is loads of fun. I refer to the OECD countries in this post, which refers to 30 Democracies: United States, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Canada, France, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Finland, Greece, Spain, New Zealand, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Korea, Poland, Slovak Republic, Mexico and Turkey. Most of these are considered the most economically advanced countries in the world, and they each have a government that funds at least 90% of their health care… except for the United States, that is. Onward.

#1 : OECD countries have higher life expectancy than the US.

TRUE. The average life expectancy for a person in the United States is 77 ½ years — slightly below the OECD average (78.3%), and 4½ years less than top-rated Japan (82.1).

HOWEVER… This doesn’t reflect the quality of our health care and certainly does not prove that our care is inferior to theirs. Consider the lifestyles of Americans compared to other countries. We have the highest number of overweight people out of everyone (about 3 in 5 Americans are overweight, 1 in 3 are obese). Considering the complications that come with obesity (diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and dozens more), that alone explains our lower life expectancy. That still isn’t even considering all of our other detrimental habits. We’ve also got a higher instance of AIDS than the 0ther OECD nations, second only to Portugal, because we’re still not wrapping out shit up for some reason. It’s no wonder we’re not living as long when there are more of us with compromised immune systems. Considering all of these factors, you’ll find it has nothing to do with the actual quality of care and everything to do with the higher instance of the stupid decisions that US citizens make*.  When you get to #3 you’ll find another good explanation.

#2: OECD countries have a lower mortality rate than the US.

TRUE. The United States has a higher rate of deaths from natural causes than 17 OECD countries. 

HOWEVER… Refer to the “however” explanation in #1. The US overall has an unhealthier lifestyle than other countries. There are more of us who practice bad habits that harm our health, thus more of us who develop disease, thus more of us with compromised immune systems, and thus more of us dying. Again, this does not reflect quality of care, but rather the less-than-great  lifestyles of the patients.

#3: People in the US visit health care facilities more often.

FALSE. When comparing U.S. utilization of hospital care with other OECD countries, the United States is well below the average. The United States experienced 121 hospital discharges per 1,000 people in 2004 compared with the OECD average of 161.

HOWEVER… This might be another explanation as to why the US has lower life expectancy and a higher mortality rate. When the country with the least healthy habits has the lowest tendency to visit a doctor, obviously the outcomes are going to be worse than those in the countries that are better at avoiding the same unhealthy habits. But why aren’t we going to see our doctors as much as the other countries? That answer should be fairly obvious – We Have To Pay. Sometimes a helluva lot. But that is a different entry for a different day.

#4: Patients in the US have longer stays in clinics and hospitals.

FALSE. Patients in the US have the shortest visits of all. The average length of stay in a hospital in America is 5.6 days, only about 2 days more than the lowest (Denmark at 3.4) and almost 15 days less than the highest (Japan at 20.2 days, but that’s quite an outlier. Refer to the PDF).

HOWEVER… This measurement is not a good way to decide the quality of health care. If you think about it one way, a short visit is good. Maybe there are more staff available, the procedures are more efficient, and the recovery rates are quicker, thus leading to a shorter stay. But, if you think about it another way, a short visit is bad. It could mean there’s not enough time, not enough room, or the staff do not care enough to keep you any longer. I think it’s safe to conclude that length of stay is not the best way to judge the overall quality of care unless you have detailed accounts of each visit.

#5: The US  has a better supply of resources.

TRUE. For example, the United States has nearly twice as many CT scanners and three times as many MRI machines per capita as the OECD average. In fact, the United States has the second-highest number of both CT scanners and MRI machines per population in the OECD, second only to Japan. They also perform more advanced invasive procedures (such as coronary bypasses and angioplasties) more frequently than the average OECD country.

HOWEVER… That advantage obviously comes at a cost. Having the most resource-intensive technology and procedures also means it requires more money from the patients to use them. Implementing such procedures and surgeries more often than the other countries is obviously going to affect more people. The question is whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs. How many more deaths would occur due to our habits if we didn’t have the advanced and resourceful health care that we do? Well if my opinion matters, our life expectancy would likely plummet and our mortality rate would climb.

#6: The US has a higher number of deaths due to medical mistakes.

TRUE. The United States has the third-highest rate of deaths from medical errors (0.7 per 100,000 people), among the OECD countries.

HOWEVER… Like I mentioned before, we perform a lot more invasive procedures than everyone else does. So yeah, no shit we are going to have a higher number of mistakes and resulting deaths. If the other countries performed as many surgeries as we do here, I wonder what their rates would look like then. Another thing to consider is the number of elective surgeries we conduct here. In 2008, there were: 355,671 boob jobs, 341,144 liposuctions, 152, 434 nose jobs, and 700,000 LASIK procedures conducted, and that’s only scratching the surface (Get it? Like scratching the surface of the cornea? Come on that’s funny). Overall, there were 1.7 million cosmetic surgical procedures performed in the US in 2008. And still, cosmetic surgeries only make up a fraction of all elective surgeries. Don’t forget gastric bypass, vasectomies, tubal ligation, circumcision, etc. Since all surgeries come with a risk, and the US takes the most risks, it only makes sense that we would have a higher number of deaths due to medical mistakes.

#7: OECD countries have longer waiting times than the US.

TRUE AND FALSE. The United States is one of eight countries in which wait times for elective surgery are reported to be very low. In a recent survey, a quarter to a third of respondents in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia reported waiting more than four months for a non-emergency procedure, compared with only 5% of Americans. In terms of doctor visits to primary care physicians, a five-country survey found that Americans had the greatest difficulty getting care on nights and weekends and were the most likely to forgo care because of cost.

HOWEVER… The US has fewer clinic hours open. I couldn’t find any documentation on open clinic hours in the US or other countries, but I did Google a few dozen clinic websites from the US and Canda, just to get an idea of how we differ in that respect. I found that most of our own private practices tend to close no later than 6:00 PM on weekdays and are open for only a few hours, if open at all, on Saturdays. Very few were open on Sundays. After checking out some Canadian clinic hours, many of them had similar hours to the US but there was a much, much higher chance of finding a clinic with longer hours. One center in Alberta is even open from 9am-10pm every day of the week. If you want to see a doctor after 5:00 PM on a weekday or anytime during the weekend, you’ve got a much, much better chance of finding that in Canada. So my suggestion to US practices would be to extend their hours a bit, just so people won’t have such a hard time making same-day or weekend appointments. Though that’s easy for me to say as I’ve never had to work at a medical clinic.

#8: The US spends the most money on health care, more than any other country.

TRUE. The US spends about 15% of its gross domestic product on health care. The only country to be even remotely close to that is Switzerland at 11.6%, and that isn’t even close. The average percentage of GDP spent on health care among the OECD countries is about 8.9%.

HOWEVER… Different topic for a different day.

————————————————

* Stupid decisions that we make because we have more freedom to make them. Which isn’t a bad thing.

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS09_Table7.pdf

http://www.cosmeticplasticsurgerystatistics.com/statistics.html

http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Media/stats/2008-US-cosmetic-reconstructive-plastic-surgery-minimally-invasive-statistics.pdf

http://www.mcithedoctorsoffice.com/patients/clinics.cfm?location=AB