In this case however, far from being drowned or otherwise dead, all those who have jumped off the bridge are swimming around in the water and having a hell of a time. And poor old Mr. Conservative is standing on the bridge, telling his kid (an excellent swimmer) not to jump because he could poke his eye out, and anyway those kids are obviously having a terrible time, and in any case are different from you and me, and in any case will surely be drowning in agony any minute now.
Just sayin’
That is, her freedom to subsidize the health care insurance industry. When it spends around 180 million a quarter just for lobbyists.
I would love to know how lobbyists improve your standard of healthcare.
Supporters of universal health care wish to take the responsibility for the basic well being of the population as a whole and place it in the hands of the government.
In any case, your “basic well being” is determined largely by genetics, diet and exercise, none of which have much to do with universal healthcare.
What you and other opponents of universal healthcare fail to realize is that the current system is not sustainable. The cost of health care is rising at a rate which will render it unaffordable to an almost comic percentage of the population in short order.
Friend **Scylla **give us an admirable display of political dogma, a witnessing of faith. But that’s all it is, really.
And as a practial reality, it just ain’t so. In a representational democracy like ours, the governments job is whatever we say it is. Its ours, it belongs to us. If we say the purpose of the government is to provide for the common defense and keep the rules straight on our giant Monopoly game, then that’s what it is. If we say the purpose of the government is to amass a strategic reserve of daffodils, then that’s what it is.
A government that does not provide for the well-being of its citizens is still a government. Its just not a very good one.
What about before 65? Also, aren’t Americans over 65 on “free”/“socialized” healthcare? This doesn’t seem to support your position.
There’s a big difference between everybody subsidizing a small group, and everybody subsidizing everyone.
My employer pays for most of my health insurance, and limits me to the choice of either a single PPO or a single HMO. I wonder if they are supposed to be limiting my freedom like the government supposedly will if they pay for some. I don’t feel very oppressed by this. I suppose I could quit and go work for a place with no benefits to maximize my freedom by paying more for less, though.
Since nearly everyone will make it to 65, everyone is subsidizing everyone. Not that the population of seniors can be considered a small group these days.
Sadly, you are 100% right. Not having had to fight for the freedoms our forbears won for us we have no idea how precious they are. We seem to be wiling to trade our freedom for a trinket.
One that does, isn’t a government. At best it’s a parent. More likely it is “Master.”
“Hey, a functioning respiratory system! What a lovely trinket!”
I don’t say that the government’s job is to provide healthcare. So…do I win?
Mine works. The government didn’t give it to me.
Freedom is a precious thing, I’ll grant you. Freedom from the worry of being dependant on others is paramount. I might lose my job some day, or my business, but I trust myself to bounce back. But being the practical guy that I am, I would worry more for later in my working life, between employment, if my freedom to secure health care insurance is removed because no insurance company will deal with me. Hey, its their right. You’ve got to approve of that. Depending on the private US insurance companies has proven to be less than reliable.
Actually, as for myself, being Canadian, I have absolutely no worries about that. My government will come through for me each and every time. I do have a say about that you know. My vote counts.
Funny, isn’t it, how a right for you becomes an obligation for everyone else?
No, it doesn’t.
To me, that’s what’s scariest of all; the idea that when all else fails, the government will save you. At the minimum, it creates moral hazard. In practice, I think it’s worse, this attitude, this faith based belief that the government will take care of you.
I remember all these people during Hurricane Katrina, just sitting waiting in the superdome for someone to come rescue them, help them, give them food and water. I remember how angry and indignant people were because the government wasn’t doing a good job of it.
Now, I think the government should step in in such a situation, and I want them to do a good job. This is not about that. It’s about this whole attitude that people have that the government is responsible for them, that they don’t have to take care of themselves. Tho government will do it.
It’s a very dangerous and very bad idea. People need to take care of themselves. People need to go plan their lives as if there is no safety net. In emergency situations and disasters it’s been demonstrated time and time again that the people with the highest likelihood of survival are not the strongest, but those who immediately go to work on the process of rescuing themselves and helping others. Books like Deep Survival and The Unthinkable which study the phenomenom point this out over and over.
If you are lost in the woods, your odds for survival go up the most if you have someone with you you feel responsible for. The second greatest indicator for survival is beginning to self rescue.
You’re responsible for yourself. Nobody else is. If you wish to be a productive and worthy member of society you need to plan to take care of yourself under any circumstance so that you will first, not burden society and, secondly, so that you will be in a position to help others.
This whole thing drives me insane because it is so stupid. Getting people to believe and act as if the government is going to take care of them is crazy. You’re placing the responsibility for your life, wellbeing and the lives and wellbeing of those around you into the hands of the DMV.
Our government has done a terrible job managing healthcare. Medicaid patients can’t get prevantative care. Veterans are given shameful levels of care. The track record sucks. Even if it was ok, do you really want to let somebody else tell you what is best for you, or your loved ones? A government agency? Lunacy.
My lifelong experience with the government has produced one incontrovertible rule that I follow: Whatever I do, I must minimize my interraction with the government and with its agencies because those interractions are uniformly unsatisfactory. I want bureacracies to have as little control over my life as possible, because they uniformly handle that control to their benefit, not mine.
Our current system sucks because their is too much bureacracy involved. The answer is not more.
I also truly don’t understand the liberal attitude to this. Liberalism has a healthy fear of bureacracy. You recognize that power corrupts. You see it in the police, you see it in the army. You see it in large corporations. But you don’t see it in big government. You don’t see that giving the government greater control over our lives is evil.
You would be insane with anger if the military declared control and created a police state. How is this different? The government is going to take over and control an aspect of our lives that it already has too great a hand in.
Insanity.
Excellent post.
In my experience, usually when something seems ‘insane’ or irrational you need to dig a little into people’s psyches to understand the root cause. I too, have struggled with this notion for a while…why would you place the most important decisions of your life with government officials? They are total strangers. They are taking your money, and will make whatever decision suits them. Maybe it will be in your interest, and maybe it won’t. But why would you give them that power? Isn’t that crazy?
And we’re not talking about Albert Einsteins or Thomas Jeffersons here. We’re talking about some Joe or Mary, just like you, who has a GS-11 job and sits in a cubicle in a Federal cinder block building downtown. And who has absolutely no incentive to do a good job, and has zero consequences if they do a bad job. It’s even worse if they’re unionized, which about 50% of them are.
I think the fundamental reason goes back to human insecurity. The same insecurity that drives people to trade liberty for security…or at least think they are trading liberty for security. It’s happened in countries all over the world for hundreds of years. People will run into the arms of a savior if they think he will solve their problems, when the citizens don’t trust themselves to solve their problems on their own.
You rightly point out that many on this Board would get indignant if the government began intruding on their personal liberties…whether or not they can smoke pot, get drunk, marry a member of the same sex, or download porn from the Internet.
But those are things over which they feel confident in their control, and confident in the outcomes of their decisions. I want to smoke pot. I’ve done it before and enjoyed it. You aren’t letting me. Therefore, you are bad.
But the language from the majority on this Board makes it clear they are much less sure of themselves when it comes to making decisions with uncertain outcomes. And when that happens, their insecurity builds a defense mechanism to absolve them of guilt if they make a bad decision.
Go back and read some of the ‘Libertarian/fringe’ thread and Sam Stone’s FDA thread. In it, a number of people claimed that they wanted the government to put their stamp of approval on mortgages, food products and drugs.
And here’s the important point: they didn’t even WANT the option to choose something else. They didn’t want to make it voluntary. They wanted to make it mandatory. They wanted the government to dictate to them what was allowed, and what was not.
It’s because they aren’t sure of themselves when it comes to decisions like those. Those are decisions that carry some risk. That makes them uncomfortable. These are pretty important decisions - buying a house, picking drugs to ingest, buying food, selecting medical treatment.
They don’t trust themselves to make the right decision. They don’t even trust themselves to have the option of (1) selecting the government or (2) choosing another path if they wish.
That’s because if they choose, and something goes wrong, they only have themselves to blame. And that hurts. You can’t be a victim when it’s your own fault.
That’s why they paint themselves as victims of corporations, or bankers, or the rich, or the free market system, or something else. You can go to just about any post on this Board where we’re talking about free-market economics, trade, investing, or doing anything that involves a bit of caveat emptor and personal risk. The thread will fill up with posters who claim that a corporation is ‘out to get them’, even though the corporation can do nothing unless the poster decides to engage in a voluntary transaction with them. And even though reputable corporations generally don’t want to intentionally screw over, or kill off, their customers.
When social issues are involved, they think the government is ‘out to get them’. But when it comes to economic or health issues they feel less certain of their footing, and the pendulum swings the other way. Actually, it will swing to whatever direction it needs to, in order to bestow victim status and create artificial villains wherever they need to be created.
If you’re a victim it’s not your fault. It can’t be your fault. That’s why you are willing to run into the arms of a savior who (1) tells you it’s not your fault, it’s the fault of That Guy Over There and (2) will promise you he will fix everything, punish the wicked and make it all right.
Even though it’s obvious to clear-headed people that he has no more power to solve your problem than you or I do.
The shame is, as you’ve pointed out, that once you disempower yourself and devolve that power to the government, it ain’t coming back. Want to buy drugs that millions of people freely purchase in Africa and South America, but are not FDA-approved? Too bad. Can’t do it. Can we roll back the FDA’s power a little bit. Good luck. Go ahead and try.
Of course, the government won’t really solve the problem anyway. In fact, they will probably make it worse. But what’s the government’s excuse then? ‘We don’t have enough money. It’s not that we suck at what we do, or are inefficient, or shouldn’t be in this business in the first place. It’s that we don’t have enough of your money. Give us more of your money, and we’ll make it better’. That’s the story the public teacher unions have been spinning for 50 years.
Watch the upcoming threads on economics, or government approval bodies, or mortgages, or trade or whatever. You see the same behavior over and over again.
And thanks again for the post. Please contribute as much as you possibly can.
“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Notice how life comes first? Can’t enjoy the latter two things without being alive.
I’m curious… are any of the Republican or “Blue Dog” Democratic Congressman choosing to forego the government healthcare plan they get in favor of a private plan?
This is not really true though, is it. A corporation can pollute, can engage in behaviour that fixes prices to the detriment of consumers (think Enron et al) and can do a host of things that have negative effects (think sweatshops). It happens whether you enter into a voluntary transaction with them or not.
Why do you think the government is out to get you?
This is pretty much true. Power should only be given to the government after careful consideration of all the other options. I agree with you here.
Maybe, maybe not. I think the American people can devise a slightly better system than the one they have now, so long as they don’t rush in to anything.
I don’t see how this is scary at all. What’s the point of having a government if you’re going to have anarchy either way? If my house catches on fire, I’d like to have the fire department put it out, and my insurance company to fix what was burnt up. Is it irresponsible for me to pay for insurance, instead of setting money aside? Is it irresponsible for me to vote to fund local fire departments, instead of hiring my own private fire company; or better yet, having fire extinguishers placed around my house so that I can put out any fire that occurs?
So, yeah, I don’t have a problem paying some taxes as insurance in the event that all else fails.
This is a really bad example, and I’m guessing that you wish you hadn’t used it. Because this is a perfect example where having a competently run government is beneficial to those who get hit with a natural disaster. The failure of the government in this particular case was due to FEMA being run by someone who was not qualified for the job. That problem has been corrected.
Well, now you sound like a commie.
Impossible. Because all government employees are incompetent boobs, who probably couldn’t deliver a letter, or put a man on the moon; and all private companies are benevolent, and only want the best for their customers.
So, if you had been in the Superdome, you would have just walked and swam your way out? Or would you have had that private helicopter (that you responsibly keep on retainer for just such an occasion) come pick you up?
I’m guessing that the greatest indicator for survival is the government of the country of the woods that you are in. I’d rather get lost on the Appalacian Trail than in the congo or the Amazon rainforest. (But I’m just an irresponsible slave like that.)
Agreed.
"ANY"? What if a meteor hits your house? Do you have a plan for that, or are you just SOL?
Help others? Why should I enable those irresponsible losers? They should take care of themselves, or die. F them if they’re too worthless to man up.
So… we should just let anybody on the road? No matter how many DUI’s they’ve gotten? Or how blind they are? Anyone who doesn’t take the responsibility to coat their car in rubber deserves whatever they get?
Is this because all government employees are incompetent?
And private corporations are better?
And private corporations are different?
Here’s what I think is insane: the conservatives/Republicans opposed to UHC because it makes the government bigger quoting Thomas Jefferson: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” What government organization is going to have the power to take away everything that you have? The DMV? The FDA? FEMA? Medicare? No, it’s the only one is the one that Republicans insist on spending the most money on (as much as the rest of the world combined.) Thinking that UHC is going to take away your freedoms is as ridiculous as thinking that your shotgun is going to prevent any military from taking your freedoms.