Why we should care about Angelina Jolie’s breasts

14 May

Surgical images may be NSFW

Kinda strange that this is the lead story on CNN and a whole slew of other news sites, but Angelina Jolie has undergone a preventative double mastectomy and breast reconstruction to avoid the  potential cancer that might result from carrying the BRCA1 mutant gene.  Her mother died of breast cancer at the age of 56, so it’s a very real threat for Angelina.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/showbiz/angelina-jolie-double-mastectomy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

angelina

She had the procedure carried out privately and discreetly, and there is no reason to believe anyone other than her immediate circle of family and friends knew anything about it.  Angelina herself decided to come forward with the news by penning an Op-Ed for the New York Times.

nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/my-medical-choice.html?_r=2&

Why would she do that?  Her breasts have been reconstructed and there is no evidence that anything is amiss with the Jolie’s magnificent physique.

tomb

In her own words:

I am writing about it now because I hope that other women can benefit from my experience. Cancer is still a word that strikes fear into people’s hearts, producing a deep sense of powerlessness. But today it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are highly susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer, and then take action.

Unsurprisingly, she is already being subjected to criticism for her decision to make her health status public, and given that this is the first day of the story, she may well be in for more.

I’ve read the comments about Jolie’s decision on a number of different sites, and the criticism now falls under three broad categories:

publ

1.  She’s famewhoring.  Just trying to be the center of attention, as always

martind28

28 minutes ago

It’s entirely possible that she’s lying. How is anyone to know? Free publicity for a publicity junkie.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/05/14/angelina-jolie-reveals-had-preventive-double-mastectomy-after-discovering/#comments

HUFFPOST SUPER USER

bbgood

yawn!

71 Fans

2 hours ago (13:55)

Yawn! Women have been doing it for years and also talking about it. Another cheap publicity stunt for mass compassion by your average idiot!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/14/angelina-jolie-double-mastectomy-_n_3270634.html

2.  She wasn’t even diagnosed with cancer!  What the fuck is she doing?

NO, NO NO NO NO!… Another woman de feminised by the medical profession for something that she MIGHT get, and just where did they get the 87% probability of her getting breast cancer is false. The medical profession know that 95% of all cancers are caused by the environment and less than 3% by genes I can’t believe that she let them talk her into that!. There are better and far healthier ways of preventing breast cancer and even treating it if she was to get it. which ok is high due to the environment and weakened immune system NOT because of the gene! Why do we not hear about men having their testes removed due to their faulty genes? No, You don’t as it is meant to be another abuse that woman have to deal with. Some so called expert on cancer, with survival rates barely changing in years no matter what chemo drugs they have developed! Just an excuse to butcher woman. OH and before you red arrow me as I know most of you will as you refuse to look outside the box. I am a cancer fighter!

– Debbie, Woking, 14/5/2013 4:25

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2324149/Brad-says-Angelina-absolutely-heroic-hails-happy-day-family-undergoes-double-mastectomy-prevent-breast-cancer.html

lhardy

4 hours ago

What?

Are you kidding me?

She has just proven to be the dumbest woman in the world. Where is CPS?

What if she discovers that her boys are predisposed to a cancer gene and has their nuts removed before they might get testicular cancer?

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/05/14/angelina-jolie-reveals-had-preventive-double-mastectomy-after-discovering/#comments

3.  She’s rich and can afford the best medical care in the world and she should be using her experience to press for publicly funded health care for everyone

Crazixit

i am glad for her that this traumatic surgery worked out. but, for her to say that she hopes other women will feel empowered to make the same choice just highlights her privilege. most american women cannot afford this healthcare choice, much less afford the genetic screening. rich rich privilege. but still, im happy she had this choice. i wish we all did

http://jezebel.com/i-am-glad-for-her-that-this-traumatic-surgery-worked-ou-505196319

The sad thing is that the majority of women in the US probably can’t afford to have this done because of the dysfunctional healthcare system. Even those lucky enough to have health insurance still have to pay deductibles/copays every time they see a doctor or get a test. I have two friends who have family histories of breast cancer. Both have great jobs and even they can barely afford to go to the doctor to get weird lumps and other issues checked out. I had burst ovarian cysts for over 10 years starting when I was a student, and couldn’t afford to have them removed. I didn’t even know they were ovarian cysts; I thought I may have had appendicitis or cancer or something. In emergency situations, hospitals have to provide treatment, but then people end up paying off the bills that can be higher than the average mortgage or going bankrupt. Be grateful for your NHS.

– Annette, NYC, 14/5/2013 3:43

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2324149/Brad-says-Angelina-absolutely-heroic-hails-happy-day-family-undergoes-double-mastectomy-prevent-breast-cancer.html

Okay, admittedly, I’m cherry-picking comments here, but these three criticisms come up over and over again, and I’ll bet my ass within the next week, we see full columns on each of them from one news source or another.

I want to address them one at a time, because I think Angelina actually has something very interesting to say.

1.  She’s famewhoring.  Just trying to be the center of attention, as always

To this one, all I have to say is fuck off.  She doesn’t need to try to be the center of attention.  She already is.  And she is one of the rare celebrities who uses her fame to draw attention to issues she cares about.  Whether I agree with her politics or not, she spends an awful lot of time letting the media photograph her beautiful face in service to humanitarian goals.

un

2.  She wasn’t even diagnosed with cancer!  What the fuck is she doing?

There seems to be a great deal of debate around whether the procedure she chose to undergo really will affect the likelihood of her developing cancer, and honestly, I don’t really care about that debate. Some people drink liquid garlic to ward off cancer (my father, actually), and some people have double mastectomies.

Whatever.

I find the comments about how this is just an excuse to mutilate women pretty interesting.  Really?  The idea is that mostly male doctors scare the shit out of women just so they can have the pleasures of cutting off their breasts.  Yikes!  That is a pretty fucked up view of both men and medicine, but it’s not an uncommon one.

‘How did he maim me, mutilate me?’

A feminist since she was ‘absolutely tiny’, the veteran Woman’s Hour host Jenni Murray has never shied away from awkward questions. Now, three years after her mastectomy, she has one for her surgeon.

Demonstrating an absolutely stunning lack of awareness of surgical techniques, Jenni writes:

– she watches another woman, Sue, being given a mastectomy by the same surgeon who did hers, and is struck that absolutely everything other than the breast is covered, even the face –

Jesus Lord woman.  That is how you keep the patient dying from an infection!  It’s called keeping the environment STERILE.

sterile

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/jan/16/womens-hour-jenni-murray

Jenni goes to construct an argument about how the surgeon must “depersonalize” her in order to, you know, save her life.  The fact that he thinks she has a life worth saving strongly implies he considers her a person, but oh well.  That doesn’t jibe with the narrative.

It’s pretty sad when self-described lifelong feminists can take full advantage of male surgeons (and yes, most of them are men #sorryfeminists), and at the same time accuse them of mutilation.

Gratitude.  Not really a strong suit for feminists.

http://www.acshpri.org/documents/ACSHPRI_Surgical_Workforce_in_US_apr2010.pdf

(p.25 – 70% of surgeons in the US are men)

3.  She’s rich and can afford the best medical care in the world and she should be using her experience to press for publicly funded health care for everyone

Now this is where I find Jolie most interesting.  In her OpEd she writes that she wants women to be aware of the fact that genetic tests exist and her prescription for women is simple:

Take action

She plants the responsibility for women’s health directly in women’s hands.  Whatever alternatives and opportunities you have in front of you, regardless of what they are, how deficient, how inadequate, how less-than-ideal, your health, and your life is YOUR responsibility.

In a liberal culture that waits around for someone else to fix every problem that crops up, this is a refreshing assertion.

responsiblity

Your health is YOUR responsibility.  Take care of your body.  Life can hand you a stack of riches, as it did Angelina, but it can also hand you a bag of shit, like a mutant gene.  It doesn’t matter.  Your life is still YOUR life.

On the one hand, I’m glad she took this opportunity to remind women that they are ultimately responsible for their own lives.

On the other hand, I’m sorry she limited her advice to only women.

Men get breast cancer, too.

http://www.medicinenet.com/male_breast_cancer/article.htm

A double mastectomy sucks, no matter what gender you are.

male

As with many ugly things in life, the results can still turn out beautiful.  It all depends on what you do with them.

tattoo

Lots of love,

JB

49 Responses to “Why we should care about Angelina Jolie’s breasts”

  1. ar10308 May 14, 2013 at 16:42 #

    Cancer and health are ruthless regardless of who you are or how much money you have. All the money in the world cannot cure something that no one knows how to cure.

    I have a friend in my hometown who is one of the most gifted people I’ve ever met in terms of being born attractive, tall, athletic and infinitely personable as the heir to an multi-million dollar international company in a very cool industry, he regularly parties with celebrities who are household names. He is the All-American guy. QB of the football team, Homecoming and Prom King. A truly blessed son to my hometown. He was friends with everyone, you couldn’t help but like the guy because of the charm and charisma he exuded.
    A few years ago he came down with cancer. A very ruthless and resiliant kind. It has taken him around the world for treatments. He has been to the top doctors in every moderately advanced country you can imagine. To this day, he continues to fight it. Being the ever-optimistic, driven and determined type of person he is the only way he is still alive and willing to keep up the fight, knowing the pain he goes through for most of the treatments. I know he would give all his wealth and luxury up to have his health back.

    In my opinion, the saddest thing about Angelina’s surgery is the destruction of those glorious, natural sweater kittens. Other than that, it is her body, her choice.

    Like

  2. Quartermain May 14, 2013 at 16:53 #

    The whole thing was way too much than I really needed to know.

    Like

  3. princesspixiepointless May 14, 2013 at 17:00 #

    Why?

    Like

  4. redpillwifey May 14, 2013 at 17:04 #

    The rich thing is bullshit, first hand experience. There are some AMAZING charities out there to help out cancer patients without insurance.

    A good friend of mine was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 37. She went through the chemo like a champ, found out she had the same gene as Angie, and had a double mastectomy AND had a hysterectomy, all with help of a local charity, her friends, and community. Now she does public speaking events for that charity, and continues to help other women in her position. (And there are charities other than the profit whoring Susan G Komen foundation.) And she got the bigger boobs she’s always wanted after reconstruction, heh.

    I don’t really have a point, just feel angry at all those stupid comments. Love your writing JB, I usually agree with every word.

    Like

  5. Wilson May 14, 2013 at 17:24 #

    The Resentful always want to tear down the top female celebs. Personally I don’t care to think about their personal lives. And the breast cancer exposure is rather tiring. Couldn’t she get lip cancer instead?

    But while we’re on the subject, why the hell did Jolie give birth to two daughters when she knew very well that her genes were defective?

    Like

  6. princesspixiepointless May 14, 2013 at 17:27 #

    So are you saying she should have aborted the foetus once she discovered they were girls?

    Like

  7. princesspixiepointless May 14, 2013 at 17:30 #

    That opens up a whole can of genetic testing and ethics now doesn’t it. It’s possible she didn’t know the genetic disposition at the time. As the girls would have half of Pitts DNA, the whole 23 sets of chromosome thing, it is possible that they wouldn’t have that specific genetic mutation.

    Like

  8. Luke May 14, 2013 at 17:33 #

    The fertility clinics can test embryos for the BRCA gene, and only implant female ones that are negative for it. One of my two daughters carries the gene for negative Rh factor, and I hope she one day does the equivalent of this to screen it out from any children she has.

    Like

  9. sqt May 14, 2013 at 17:55 #

    Why is this even controversial? It’s her body. My mom had a boob job done back in the 70’s and got really sick in the 90’s thanks to all the lumps of silicone that were embedded in her lymph nodes. She ended up with a double mastectomy that couldn’t be reconstructed– it sucks but it’s what you do when you want to keep on living.

    I have nothing but respect for what Jolie is doing here. She’s not playing the woe-is-me card, she’s just doing what she has to do to be there for her kids. She also made a point to mention how wonderful and supportive Brad Pitt has been during the whole process, though I’m sure there are plenty of idiot fems who have decided that he’s just rooting for her disfigurement– or some other deranged woman-hating motive they’ve come up with today.

    Like

  10. Emma the Emo May 14, 2013 at 18:02 #

    I can’t understand why people think she is doing it for attention. It’s not exactly a great thing to draw attention to for ego reasons. I also disliked how everyone attacked her for the weight-loss when her mom died.

    Like

  11. judgybitch May 14, 2013 at 18:03 #

    Ugh

    The most common comment I came across was that he was going to leave her now that her breasts aren’t perfect.

    You know, proving what assholes men are.

    Like

  12. princesspixiepointless May 14, 2013 at 18:12 #

    It is pretty twisted and just another sign of how horrid our society can be. Talking about mastectomies is hardly fame whoring if enabling men and women to become more informed about options when it comes to preventative breast cancer, as sadly common popular culture eats up celebrity culture and thus it’s a great to spread information. The person who gave popularity to the vajazzal should be shamed. That said, Honey Boo Boo premieres tonight, I have read that is fame whoring at it’s finest…

    Like

  13. princesspixiepointless May 14, 2013 at 18:23 #

    Exactly. Jumping into the fountain in a $20,000 dress after winning an Oscar, Making out with her Brother, that spread in Q magazine to promote Mrs and Mr Smith, those were for attention.
    This, hmm, not quite. (see I am a popular trash culture whore)

    Like

  14. Spaniard May 14, 2013 at 18:30 #

    Wish her the best. Although I felt quite repulsive her compulsive collecting of children.
    If she would be living in my country (Spain) or Britain, France, Scandinavia or Canada she could have quality healthcare for free in case she couldn’t afford it. Not the case. But lot of cases.

    Like

  15. LostSailor May 14, 2013 at 19:09 #

    I agree that Jolie has been careful to use her celebrity and fame to advantage in highlighting social issues. This is another example. I’ve known several women who have battles breast cancer and survived and one who did not. A colleague of mine went through it in her mid-20s a number of years ago. A pre-emptive mastectomy is a radical step, but if I recall from a news story this morning, her risk factor was something like over 80%, so it certainly seems like a pro-active step.

    You’re right JB that this is a call for women to take responsibility for their own health. Only a woman and her doctor can decide if such a radical procedure is appropriate and only a woman can decide if she wants to take that radical step. And this can help. If someone as glamorous and beautiful as Jolie can do it, why not the average woman.

    Anyone who claims this is in anyway attention whoring is a moron. Anyone who claims that she shouldn’t have publicized it and is critical that Jolie didn’t take up their pet cause instead is spewing sour grapes.

    I admired Jolie and Brad Pitt for taking action in New Orleans (a city I love) after Katrina. I was down there (and on the Mississippi Gulf Coast) about 8 weeks after the storm. No images on TV can ever adequately convey the utter devastation. Jolie and Pitt moved to the city and Pitt started a foundation to rebuild houses in the Lower Ninth Ward, one of the poorest and hardest hit sections and which was essentially being written off. And they’re still there and still rebuilding. Pitt got and is still getting a lot of flak for it. The work is called a “vanity” project, and the houses too expensive and not “in character” with the old neighborhood because he raised all his construction on stilts putting houses about the flood line. You know, so they won’t flood again when the next fucking hurricane floods a flood-prone area. What the hell was he thinking?

    Jolie was at high risk for a deadly cancer. She took responsibility and took action. And she’s speaking out to encourage other women facing the same devastating choices. Good for her. Fuck the critics.

    Like

  16. Spaniard May 14, 2013 at 19:26 #

    Judgybitch I have just seen you on youtube. You are very attractive.

    Like

  17. judgybitch May 14, 2013 at 19:34 #

    You know, I’m actually pretty average.

    I’m just not fat.

    It’s amazing how attractive most women are when they maintain a normal body weight.

    But thank you. That’s very sweet.

    Like

  18. sqt May 14, 2013 at 19:48 #

    I wonder why Jolie’s wild-child antics have caused more controversy than most? Charlie Sheen is in his 40’s and acts more outrageously now than she did when she was 20 and no one seems to think anything of it. She’s been pretty mellow in recent years but can’t shake the perception as a maneater.

    On the other hand- it works for her. She’s probably gotten a lot of roles because of her bad-girl image.

    Like

  19. princesspixiepointless May 14, 2013 at 20:13 #

    I think it had to do with timing. When she came to fame via GIA (HBO?) she was a really raw persona in a time that most female celebrities were
    fairly controlled and marketed. This is a good decade before the Li-Los and Paris Sex Tapes. Which then not only became the norm but nearly necessary for stardom. She was (is) gorgeous but also had a brain, and was completely unhinged, and wasn’t afraid in interviews to be very (vulnerable) honest. Not that wild women weren’t harped on in the press before her time. But she actually made it, on a career level and then did something solid with it. A lot of the press I think still comes from the whole ‘home wrecker’narrative. As Jen and Pitt were such the iconic couple. It was the girl next door verses the one that gave the face of not giving two fucks about being a bit fucked up. People of that status, or celebrities, can never shake that..
    former stripper, former drug addict, former prostitute, tag line. No matter what they do. I think it’s people being intoxicated with the idea that wild women can then change.

    Like

  20. Emma the Emo May 14, 2013 at 20:16 #

    At Heartiste, some has been saying he will get some women on the side now. But I feel he would have done it anyway, if he wanted to. He’s Brad Pitt, and not known for being perfectly loyal. A man (just a man) can be expected to stay with his wife despite double masectomy, but I dunno how much I’d trust Brad Pitt.

    But I doubt he’d leave her, they have so many kids together.

    Like

  21. Marlo Rocci May 14, 2013 at 20:24 #

    I have heard of these women who supposedly have normal body weight, but I live in Oregon, and here that is as unseen as Bigfoot.

    Like

  22. Marlo Rocci May 14, 2013 at 20:54 #

    On the plus side, now directors can use CGI for her breast scenes. So she can end up looking more like the Tomb Raider Laura Croft.

    Like

  23. judgybitch May 14, 2013 at 20:55 #

    😛

    You’re mean!

    Like

  24. princesspixiepointless May 14, 2013 at 20:56 #

    So modest. In the flesh, JB is a right hottie.

    Like

  25. princesspixiepointless May 14, 2013 at 21:19 #

    That’s working wonders for Keira.

    Like

  26. Goober May 14, 2013 at 21:37 #

    I’m so tired of the only rich people can afford healthcare narrative.

    The amount of uninsured people in America is very small. So many of these folks spin it as if Healthcare isnt free then it is unobtainable. Her friends have to pay COPAYS! GASP!!!PEARL CLUTCH! !!

    If 50 bucks, or even 500 bucks worth of copays is keeping you from seeking treatment for fucking cancer then your priorities are way out of whack.

    I don’t want to pay for your cancer treatment and in return I won’t make you pay for mine. Why is that so evil and wrong?

    Like

  27. Wilson May 14, 2013 at 22:06 #

    Or stuck with adopting. And her 3rd world babies would seem less like status symbols

    Like

  28. Liz May 15, 2013 at 10:27 #

    Relationship ponderings from random contributors on a PUA site should be given about the same level of consideration as grammar advice from graffiti.

    Like

  29. Spaniard May 15, 2013 at 10:59 #

    I am not American, I am Spanish, so, I do not feel really concern. It just your inner business and debate. But I think it is pretty sensible to have a quality public healthcare. I am going to follow your logic (like if I would be an American citizen):
    I do not want to pay for your security (cops, Law, courts), you do not have to pay for mine. I do not want to pay for the national highways you use, you do not have to pay for the national highways I use. I do not want to pay for the army that defends your (our) homeland, you do not have to pay for the army that defends my (our) homeland. I do not have to pay for the firefighters that saves you in case of catastrophe (particular or general), you do not have to pay for the firefighters that save me, etc.
    If you do not want State at all, then you are an anarco-capitalist which is something politically childish. By the way, I wonder why the conservatives always increase the taxes (not sure about the Republicans in USA) but Thatcher did in Britain and Rajoy did in Spain)

    Like

  30. Spaniard May 15, 2013 at 14:48 #

    Judgybitch I would like to suggest a topic. Probably it would interesting adding some philosophy to the usual sociology.
    Nietzsche said: “Are you going with women? Then, take a whip”. XIX Century. Weininger said: “Women want to be devalued, not adored”. XIX Century.
    Sociobiology has proof they both were right. And a lot of women reckon today openly (even in youtube videos) that they want to be treated like scum by a-holes. As much as possible. Until they want to settle down, of course. But that is another story.
    So, if is that the ideal for most of women, maybe we have to consider that being a prostitute is the dream of most of women. The secret wish and will.
    Then, the Prostitute is The woman “par excellence”.
    The prostitute is devalued by the clients and brutalized by the pimp. So, it seems that it is Prince Charming fantasy for most of women.
    It is shocking. But it seems is just like that.

    Like

  31. Luke May 15, 2013 at 14:53 #

    Most important thing here IMO… Christina Applegate took some nude pics of herself before getting both her boobs whacked off. Does anyone know where they can be seen?

    Like

  32. The-Other-Steve May 15, 2013 at 17:02 #

    What troubles me the most is that Cancer, that great scourge, is overblown to the extreme. Yes, extreme. There are effective cancer protocols out there, but they just aren’t utilized by the medical mainstream here in the USA. And I’m not talking new agey, sci-fi type stuff of questionable efficacy. Some of it has come from top notch scientists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Or8xLOGBu8, others are more do-it-yourself endeavors, such as the use of cannabis oil, which seems to be almost a panacea (if you believe all of the testimonials) http://phoenixtears.ca/ http://grannystormcrowslist.webs.com/apps/forums/ . If non economic, non political, pure science were driving our medical practices, surgery for cancer would be a thing of the past, and this conversation would be moot.

    Like

  33. Doc May 15, 2013 at 17:54 #

    So true – the single best thing a woman can do to remain attractive over time is to maintain her weight, and really just look after herself. I see couples where the guy is height-weight proportional and the woman is a beach-ball – come on, you can’t tell me that “it’s glandular” – no it’s because you have “hand to mouth disease” you hand goes to your mouth too much. It is as simple at that…

    Like

  34. Emma the Emo May 15, 2013 at 19:10 #

    It wasn’t just random guys, but it doesn’t really matter. My point was that these sentiments are not coming only from the jealous or man-hating women.

    Like

  35. Goober May 15, 2013 at 21:43 #

    Putting the words “quality” and “public” together doesn’t really work. In fact, putting “public” with any descriptive noun does to it the same as putting it with “restroom ” or “transportation ”

    It makes it suck. Proof of that is in how manypeople come from your country to mine to get the quality care you can’t get there.

    You want to talk childish?how about begging the government to come take care of you because making decisions for yourself is too hard?

    How about begging for government to fix something when their track record shows thatgetting them involved will screw stuff up worse rather than fix it?

    Like

  36. Goober May 15, 2013 at 21:46 #

    How about the proof displayed in the only healthcare sectoers the government hasn’t gotten involved in yet? Lasik and plastic surgery are factors of ten cheaper than similar non voluntary procedures for a reason, and the reasonis less government not more.

    Like

  37. Spaniard May 15, 2013 at 22:06 #

    Goober, we DO have quality public healthcare in: Spain, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Britain, Canada, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Iceland and Finland. And in all that countries they (we) have private healthcare as well. You can choose. If you can afford the private, go for the private. If you cannot. You always have the public, which in the cases of Britain or Spain, for instance, is better that the private. If you are rich and you have a private healthcare insurance you have the right of the public also. Every citizen has,
    Spanish people going to USA to healthcare, IN GENERAL? No way. There are some rich people who go to USA for some very specific things you have there. Especially for cancer treatment and as well to some genoma stuff. And fertility treatments too.
    So, you do not believe in the intervention of the State. That is OK. Which things you would let to the Uncle Sam? Could you write me a list? I bet the list is going to be not short.

    Like

  38. Liz May 16, 2013 at 11:25 #

    The government is involved in both (health staff is trained and licensed, medicinal practices and medicines are regulated, and sometimes the government pays for those procedures as well) but less so than other types of medicine.
    Reason being both are (generally) elective types of surgeries. That makes a huge difference. Cost versus beauty and/or the ability to not wear contacts and glasses is an entirely different equation than cost versus life or death/maiming/permanent disability. One is a relatively small quality of life change, the other is life itself, or the life of one’s children. Same could be said for pathologists as they deal mostly with the dead. Doctors for the procedures you mentioned can be selective of their patients and reject for even the most arbitrary reasons. Others are subject to EMTALA.

    In most other types of insurance markets we’re speaking of some tangible item. A car, for instance…it might be totaled and then you lose around 30K and buy another. Human lives aren’t fungible commodities. There’s no possible way for a family to assess the cost to gains equation of betting if their child might or might not get leukemia, for instance.

    Like

  39. Goober May 16, 2013 at 19:47 #

    None of that explains why it would be better to bring the government in to muck things up worse as well as add a 70% bureaucratic loss on top of the existing system but thanks for trying.

    Like

  40. Liz May 16, 2013 at 20:07 #

    The bureaucratic loss alone is reason to go to a single payer system. It isn’t only government bureaucracy, it’s bureaucracy that stems from an incredibly inefficient multi-payer system.
    Exhibit A: There isn’t another country on the planet with a healthcare system as inefficient and expensive as ours, yet ours is comparatively far more privatized. It isn’t just dat damn gubermint.

    Like

  41. Liz May 16, 2013 at 20:20 #

    Add to that job loss via outsourcing (companies can pay employees more in other countries when they don’t have to cover healthcare payments, and still come out ahead, in that way universal healthcare serves as the equivalent of an indirect tariff), and the fact that middle class citizens aren’t forced to declare personal bankrupcy for getting sick.
    I was a military brat, and I’m a military wife, and I’ve seen the results of the push towards privatization personally…it isn’t always more efficient, and when it comes to medical treatment and military housing it has been exactly the opposite.

    Like

  42. Goober May 16, 2013 at 21:18 #

    Furthermore, I hardly think that a man living in a country that is currently being bankrupted by its entitlement spending policies has any business trying to get everyone else to follow along.

    In fact, it is coming to light that more or less every country with nationalized healthcare is finding themselves in dire financial straits (or soon will). Even Canada is having trouble funding their healthcare, and are working on “bending the cost curve” by denying care and lessening the quality of care being provided. I have a close friend in Canada that had to travel over 600 miles by rail, and wait 5 days in a hotel in a strange city for an MRI. When I needed my MRI, I had it the next day. But apparently nationalized healthcare is way better, because at least I wouldn’t have had to pay for it (forgetting the fact that I WOULD be paying for it through increased taxation anyway…).

    Oh, wait, my insurance DID pay for it, so it WAS essentially free…

    Huh… Why was it that we needed to nationalize healthcare again?

    If your concern is that the poor are uninsured, I think we could fix that problem by buying them insurance, rather than nationalizing 1/6th of our economy and giving it all the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles and all the compassion of the Internal Revenue Service…

    Of course, we know that the IRS would never, ever discriminate against anyone… Been reading the news recently?

    Like

  43. Goober May 16, 2013 at 21:22 #

    The out of control bureaucratic losses that exist in our healthcare system are the result of government rules and policy. Our system is hardly “private” or “free” anymore. You point out an inefficiency, I’ll point out a stupid, idiotic rule that is creating it, and very likely trace that rule back to cronyism and backdoor deals rather than good, honest attempts to fix problems.

    Before the government got balls-deep in our healthcare system, the “losses” that you’re talking about weren’t there.

    Also, I really doubt that adding the government to anything is going to make it more efficient, given their 5,000 year track record of doing exactly the opposite in every single case, with very few exceptions.

    Like

  44. Liz May 16, 2013 at 21:41 #

    5,000 years? Wow. Now we’re going back to the time before written history. Back to slavery, and the quest for fire. Was the barter system more efficient than portable money? Hunting and gathering more efficient than property rights that enabled agriculture? Give an example of a government-less or virtually government-less society, and I’ll show you a society that isn’t only inefficient, but barely on the pointy edge of survival. They exist, they’re just rare for a reason.

    Like

  45. Spaniard May 17, 2013 at 09:11 #

    I never meant “nationalizing” private healthcare. I think it is perfect to have a private healthcare and a public one. In fact, in Spain , the problem is not about nationalizing the private sector but to defend the public one from being privatized. That is the intention of the current conservative Government. It was not in their program when they won elections, anyway. So, if they do it, I am afraid they will have to deal with a revolution.
    The State in Spain is bankrupted because the helps to private financial sector. After the helps of the Spanish State came the bailout from the European Union (not to the Spanish State but to the Spanish private financial sector) But, it is funny: the DEBT of that bailout will be for the Spanish State not for the rescued banks. I deeply believe in capitalism but this is not capitalism, this is an “in your face” joke to the people. This capitalism needs socialism to survive. But they only “socialize” the debts, not the profits. No fair.
    Oh! This is becoming politic. This is a blog on women and their mystery.

    Like

  46. Spaniard May 17, 2013 at 10:17 #

    Why “public” an “quality” do not go together?
    The American Army, Navy and Air Force have no quality?
    The NASA has no quality?
    The highways have no quality?
    The firefighters corp has not?
    The National Guard?
    The high schools?
    The Secretary of State?
    The state police, the local police, the FBI?
    The courts?
    The Law?
    The Constitution?
    The Declaration of Independence?
    The Treasure?
    The White House?
    The Post Office?
    Etc.

    Like

  47. Bill May 17, 2013 at 11:12 #

    Angelina Jolie is insane! She has really taking cutting and her history of self-mutilation to a whole new level. I guess cutting your tits off is one hell of a rush….

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1292866/Angelina-Jolie-driven-cut-I-felt-caged.html

    Like

  48. pavetack June 8, 2013 at 11:06 #

    They already have…

    Watch Beowolf.

    Like

  49. pavetack June 8, 2013 at 11:11 #

    “Conservatives always increase taxes”

    In the US, when the same party holds the presidency and both houses of Congress, taxes go up. That’s why some of us advocate for smaller government and more personal responsibility.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: