Thought this might interest you all — y’know, give you a sense of the kinds of things college students are carrying around in their beer-besotted, weed-befogged, and the WB-addled brains these days.
This quarter (the university where I work runs on the quarter rather then the semester system) I’m teaching persuasive writing, a ten-week argument and research course in which students are encouraged to select their own topics for investigation — provided these topics contain at least two arguable positions (For instance, “animal cruelty should be stopped” is not a promising thesis, because its obverse, “Screw you, do-gooders! Me an Zed here’re gonna have our way with some cows, then we’re gonna lop their stinkin’ cow heads off, just for the hell of it!” is not a position held by any more than a handful of loony cow screwers with chainsaws; on the other hand, “breeding mills that provide puppies for sale to pet shop chains should be subject to more thorough regulation” is a usefully debatable stance) — and to develop an extended position paper.
But aside from teaching my students the workings of rhetoric, part of my function is to trip them up, too — to use the socratic method like a twisted-up beach towel with a moistened tip (Snnnnap!) in order to raise welts all over their naked li’l arguments (at least — until they discover the good sense to put some pants on, that is).
So here are the student topics and positions:
1. The federal government should decriminalize marijuana (2 students working on this one)
2. The federal government should decriminalize all narcotics
3. The federal government should institute a plan of universal health care.
4. The federal government should pay for the treatment of cancer patients.
5. The federal government should tax fatty and unhealthy foods to pay for long-term health care.
6. The federal government should develop new energy alternatives to replace fossil fuel use.
7. The federal government should pass more stringent regulatory laws governing dog-breeding mills.
8. The federal government, through the Office of Civil Rights, should pressure for the elimination of Native American mascots and team names.
9. The federal government, through the Office of Civil Rights, should re-examine its interpretation of title IX as it relates to funding for college athletics.
10. The federal government should relax its gun control legislation.
11. The federal government should focus on better regulating firearms.
12. Cosmetic testing on animals should be banned.
13. Federal prisons should pay inmates standard wages for work.
Should any of you have particularly strong counter-arguments to any of these assertions (or can provide links to relevant materials), please feel free to share them with me (and the few students who venture over here) in the comments section.
Much obliged.
<i>3. The federal government should institute a plan of universal health care.</i>
Given what a sad joke the UK’s health care system is, with Canada’s not far behind, this becomes more and more laughable with every passing year.
Every day I thank the powers that be that The Hitlarity Healthcare Debacle was a bellyflop. And, given that I am at a hospital *every* day, I mean that literally.
<i>4. The federal government should pay for the treatment of cancer patients.</i>
In a sense they do, at least in extreme cases – the government is the insurer of last resort.
As you know, I’m caring for someone with cancer. Given her three bone mets (metastatic occurrences of breast cancer in the bone) – id est, terminal cancer – there is no insurance company on earth that would touch her with a ten foot pole (can you say “pre-existing condition”? Knew ya’ could…). She is now on disability and almost certainly will never work again. Her current insurance will continue to cover her through disability for the next two years – since her company, as with most companies these days, self-insures, this will cost her company a phenomenal amount of money. By the doctor’s best guess she has maybe five years before the cancer gets her – probably less, maybe more – so there’s going to be around three years where she will not have private insurance. Her only living relative is her 79 year old father, obviously he can’t put her on his insurance, she couldn’t get insurance herself, so that leaves medicare/medicaid.
<i>5. The federal government should tax fatty and unhealthy foods to pay for long-term health care.</i>
See “Cigarette tax”, also “tobacco settlement”. Ostensibly these were supposed to pay for the health problems incurred because of evil tobacco, only problem is that on the way to the hospital most of this money gets diverted to other “worthy causes”.
See also “gas tax”.
<i>6. The federal government should develop new energy alternatives to replace fossil fuel use.</i>
Ummm… They did, it’s called “nuclear power”.
<i>8. The federal government, through the Office of Civil Rights, should pressure for the elimination of Native American mascots and team names.</i>
Why stop there? I’m sure the use of “Celtics” is offensive to someone.
<i>12. Cosmetic testing on animals should be banned.</i>
Yes, I’d feel much better if they tested on humans instead…
Myria
<i>3. The federal government should institute a plan of universal health care.</i>
This always ends up either being a Dickensian hellpit, which people will travel and pay money to avoid (England, Warsaw Pact states); a rationing system that makes people wait weeks or even months for surgery (Canada); or else simply a very expensive drain on the economy (France and Germany, I believe). Tragedy of the commons and all that.
There’s also the morass of entitlement. The Federal medical system will be competing for funds with other things, like Social Security and Defense. My guess is that pretty quickly it will replace Social Security as the Third Rail of the federal budget, which will mean that more and more money is shoved into a poorly working system (again, see England). Once people (especially “the poor”) get used to having a “right” to medical care, you won’t be able to take it away. Especially since the middle class will likely come to depend on it. So, even if (when, really) people realize that federal health care is a bad idea, we’ll be stuck, because no politician will want to be seen throwing “poor people” out of the hospitals.
Finally, there’s the problem of resource allocation. As in, who should get how much health care, and who should be denied it? Whatever the money poured into this entitlement, it will still be limited. So, should a clumsy mountain biker continue to qualify for medical treatment every time he rolls downhill sans bicycle? (In today’s world, the answer is “yes,” with higher premiums.) What about a 50-year-old chain smoker: should the government pay to care for their emphyzema, even though they brought it on themselves? And 85-year-old with cancer: is treatment worth it at this point? A 5-year-old leukemia patient? In each of these cases, might the resources not be spent better helping several people with less unusual circumstances? Who decides? On what grounds? Because, monstrous as these questions are, I guarantee they’ll be asked, as unlimited wants outstrip limited means.
<i>4. The federal government should pay for the treatment of cancer patients.</i>
Why <i>just</i> cancer patients? Not to trivialize the disease, but there are other diseases out there, which are just as bad. Why not Aids, heart disease, congenital problems?
<i>6. The federal government should develop new energy alternatives to replace fossil fuel use.</i>
There’s some that already exist, and others that are being researched. It’s not simply a question of throwing more money at the problem. (And it’s not like money isn’t being spent right now.) Appointing Washington as the funder-in-chief will necessarily mean arbitrating <i>between</i> the alternative sources, depending on the short-term promise, political acceptance, the well-connectedness of the developer, the preferences of the Senate funding committee, etc. In short, corporate welfare.
The proper way to fund this development, as with any other development, is with venture capital (of which the government can provide some).
<i>8. The federal government, through the Office of Civil Rights, should pressure for the elimination of Native American mascots and team names.</i>
This begs two questions:
1. Whether Native American mascots and team names are a violation of civil rights.
2. Whether “civil rights” should trump free speech.
<i>13. Federal prisons should pay inmates standard wages for work.</i>
Then they would simply be workhouses with bars.
Federal prisons exist so that their inmates can either be kept away from society (because they are dangerous) or else so that could pay back their debt to society. One of the more common ways to pay this debt is to work it off. The prisoners already get the benefit of a structured work day and useful experience. They should be paid less than what law abiding people are paid <i>precisely because</i> they broke the law, and shouldn’t be equated to those who did not.
A convicted prisoner should not be equal in stature to an honest burger flipper. Besides, prisoners already get free room, board, exercise equipment, medical care, etc. If we started playing “real world,” we’d have to charge them rent and expenses.
<a href=”http://bearstrong.net/warblog/2002_05_01_archive.html#85050500″>http://bearstrong.net/warblog/2002_05_01_archive.html#85050500</a>
A warning as to what happens when the Gov’t is the resolver all problems.