Can the Moral ‘Narrative’ of ObamaCare Be Defeated?
Related: "Hopenchange 2010: It’s Come To This."
President Obama has finally demanded an “up or down vote” on his health care plan. Republicans have already raised numerous economic and procedural objections, arguing that his plan relies on economic “smoke and mirrors” and that the president is now endorsing the same controversial “reconciliation” process that he denounced in 2005 as a senator as “the wrong place for policy changes.” Yet the president and his supporters remain committed to their goal of government-run “universal health care.” Why is that?
The key is Obama’s declaration, “I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right.” Ultimately, Obama and his liberal base believe that government-guaranteed health care is a “moral imperative” — i.e., “it’s right.” And that will also be the key to defeating it.
As Leonard Peikoff once wrote, “So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan — not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it — to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.”
Hence, one must challenge ObamaCare not merely on the economic or procedural levels but on the moral level. One must challenge the underlying moral “narrative,” which runs something like this:
“No one should live in fear that they could get sick and be unable to afford treatment. Everyone has a basic right to health care. Hence, the government must guarantee basic ‘health security’ for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. That’s just the right thing to do.”
Opponents might argue that any attempt to guarantee an alleged “right” to health care necessarily infringes on the freedoms of those obliged to provide and pay for such care. The liberals then typically reply:
“What good is freedom if you’re dying of cancer? Freedom won’t pay your medical bills. Freedom is overrated when your life is at stake. I’d rather have the security of guaranteed health care, not freedom!”
Yet a curious inversion occurs when liberals discuss similar issues of freedom and domestic security.
Suppose a would-be tyrant proposed preventing terrorism by imposing a comprehensive system of domestic surveillance. The government would monitor all conversations, track all personal spending, and conduct random personal searches, arguing that:
”No one should live in fear that a terrorist bomb might snuff out their life at a moment’s notice, while shopping for groceries or playing with their kids in the park. Safety and security are essential to civilized life. Hence, the government must guarantee ‘universal security’ by monitoring potential terrorists before they strike.”
Liberals would be outraged. They would correctly argue that such a system of “universal security” would essentially enslave Americans, thus destroying what’s essential about America in the name of allegedly protecting it.
Thoughtful liberals would also correctly observe that ultimately, there is no conflict between freedom and security. Instead, the only way for a government to guarantee long-term security is by scrupulously respecting and protecting essential American freedoms. Only a free society will possess the robustness and vitality necessary to defend itself against threats to that freedom. And more importantly, only such a free society would be worth defending.
The same argument applies to the health care debate. The only way Americans can protect their long-term access to quality medical care is by demanding that the government respect their freedom and individual rights. Any system of “universal” health care necessarily requires a bureaucracy to control who can receive what services and when — if only to control costs. The medical rationing in Canada and the UK are typical results. In these countries, far from being a “right,” health care becomes just another privilege to be dispensed at the discretion of the bureaucrats.
ObamaCare would also stifle medical innovation, as Glenn Reynolds and others have observed. The medical advances we currently take for granted may not be there in 10-15 years, resulting in thousands of needless “deaths by regulation.” In contrast, in the least regulated sectors of health care (such as LASIK and cosmetic surgery), we see the typical pattern over time of falling prices and rising quality that we take for granted with cell phones and computers. This can and should be the norm in all of health care.
But what if someone needs care but can’t afford it? In a free society, who would pay for his care?
The answer: anyone who wished to.
Americans have always been magnificently generous in helping those in dire straits through no fault of their own. But anyone in such need must rely on voluntary charity, not government coercion.
If someone needed $10,000 for an operation, he is free to ask his neighbors for voluntary assistance, and they are free to offer it (or not). But it would be immoral for him steal that money from his neighbor’s college fund — or to steal $100 from 100 of his neighbors. His need does not give him an automatic “right” to his neighbors’ wealth. Using the government as his agent in such theft does not somehow make it morally right.
The government should not rob men to pay their neighbors’ medical bills. Instead, it should protect each man’s right to his hard-earned wealth, including respecting his right to decide whether and how he should save it, spend it, or give to others as charity. That’s “the right thing to do.”
And as with domestic security, in the end there is no fundamental conflict between freedom and health care. The only way we preserve our ability to receive quality affordable medical care is by respecting core principles of freedom and individual rights.
If we violate those principles in a vain attempt to guarantee “universal health care,” we will violate the moral principle that each man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, instead enslaving each man to pay for his neighbor’s medical care. We will destroy the prosperity and innovation that make modern medicine possible. We will give the government control over how doctors may practice, and which treatments patients may or may not receive. Our lives will no longer be ours, but rather the government’s. The end result will be, in Leonard Peikoff’s words, “the very opposite of noble.”
Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” Let us not ignobly enslave ourselves for an illusion of “guaranteed health care.” We’ll have neither freedom nor health care — and we’ll deserve neither.
Bravo, Mr. Hsieh. Well put.
I heartily agree and could someone please tell me when health care became a “right”.
There is nothing “noble” about the charade being played out on the current American landscape.
Radicalizing this nation into an extremist and totalitarian state via soothing words and under the cover of “protections” for the “people” is belied by the nasty screaming, epithets, false accusations of racism, and all the other “ism’s”.
It is belied by the fakery needed to infuse ambush legislation into every nook and cranny of our lives.
It is belied by the cramdown nature of midnight stealth deals and the use of “reconciliation” to deprive the people of a voice in their self-governing of this land of ours.
Radical leftism has grown fangs and claws and it is spitting out venom at record levels, while screeching in the night at rock concert decibels.
“Health care” is neither about health, nor about care. The radical leftist doesn’t give a damn about whether you live or die. This is about owning a permanent vote. If they give you “health care”, they can take it away. They own your health.
They also want to own your energy. And your auto, transportation, ….your very mobility.
They want to own your finances and banking.
They want to own your 401k and yo’ daddy’s 401k and yo’ granddaddy’s 401k.
They want to own Puerto Rico.
They want to own Fannie and Freddie.
They want to own the media, entertainment and academia.
They want to own the insurance industry.
They want to own the medical device industry.
They want to own research and science.
They want to own space exploration.
They want to own the pharmaceutical industry.
They want to own the unions.
They want to own our borders, so that a permanent underclass will be protected and infused into their scheme.
This is NOT about one sixth of the economy, this is about making every citizen, every entrepreneur, every small business owner, every Joe the Plumber or Joe Sixpack, every salt of the earth patriot…into a whimpering pool of melting butter at the threat of being “cut off, shut off or shunned off” the reservation.
This is not about “one” thing, this is about everything. It’s a grab for the whole enchilada. The internal debate raging inside the extremist walls is whether to keep slow boiling the frog or seize the country by the throat now that they were able to sneak into all three Houses.
By any means necessary. Reconciliation is just a warm and fuzzy term for shoving their extremist notions down your throat and up your most available other orifice.
Some argued to keep this going slowly. The “f—ing retards” got a little too anxious and power mad…they want to strangle any complaint, put it in a chokehold and declare all matters “settled”.
The Tea Party movement is simply the natural reaction, instinctive, reflexive…”get your hands off my throat and out of my pocket”. It doesn’t seem to have any “form or direction” to the leftist extremist class, because it isn’t about “politics”. It’s about survival.
We are coming to a stark fortnight and it could not be driven home any clearer than to have the lorry handed over to Fortney Stark.
I firmly believe that if the government got completely out of the health care business, there would be so many cool free services we’d think we were on another planet. For one, I bet women could have babies for free instead of being charged to bring life into the world at great pain and inconvenience.
“Moral” narrative? It’s a leftist fetish that America doesn’t want.
Eugenics is never a noble cause, and eugenics is the heart of the democrat drive for “health” care. Stand up and paint the leftist drive for first, the mass abortion of those they consider worthless, and now the power to deny care to the already living they deem worthless, as exactly what it is. The democrat thugs are trying to revive the same policies as the last bunch of national socialists who came to power on a wave of propaganda and false fears.
How long will conservatives wait until they call these people and their policies by their real names? Until the Reichstag fire? Until gangs of Barry supporters and their Muslim friends rise up one night and burn down Jewish businesses in major cities? You cannot defeat evil by saying that it’s, “not very nice”, or “not well thought out”. You defeat evil by calling it evil and pointing out their evil goals. Ignore the chants from the crapoola media and the left, just repeat the truth and have as many repeat the truth as possible, and you’ll overcome the propaganda with the truth. These democrat thugs aren’t ten feet tall. They have a tough shell and nothing but water inside. Confront them, portray them for what they are, call their policies what they are, and never again pretend that someone can be a democrat without having already bought in to the totalitarian dream of the left.
The democrat party is now and always has been the party of slavery, secession, civil war, KKK terrorism, Jim Crow laws, eugenics laws, anti-Semitic immigration laws in the face of Nazi Nuremburg laws, Stalin worshippers, the welfare plantation system, voter fraud, voter intimidation, and the mass murder of minority infants. The democrat party has to be so thoroughly destroyed as a national political party that the only democrat left in the US Congress is an elderly doorman or some such.
Regards
Dr. Hsieh, excellent article. I fear however we are on the precipice of events that could become out of control. The tea party movement is an attempt by ordinary citizens to say NO to the governments plan to socialize medicine and reduce our freedom.
Mr. Obama has a vision for America that is in conflict with our traditions. If he and his people seek confrontation,by God, they will get it!
Access to health care is controlled by a coterie of billionaires who have sentenced the multitudes of the uninsured to deaths of preventable diseases. The high costs of health care is for the untold luxuries paid for by the profits of the insurance industry that leaves millions without any health care at all and millions more at the mercy of insurance claims adjusters out to save every penny no matter what the human costs.
Obama’s program will introduce a smidgen of compassion into a system that has been hitherto completely dominated by greed. There will be a compassion-based public option, but it will be just one option. The forces of corporate greed will still have the lion’s share of the power.
What the apologists for the unconstrained greed like Mr. Hsieh and their racist allies in the Tea Party movement (Perish the thought that a dying Mexican will receive treatment in an American hospital!) fear is that little glow of compassion will warm the hearts of the American people who will demand the forces of greed have no power of people’s lives. If health care is made a basic human right, we will demand that food and shelter also be made basic human rights as well. This will undoubtedly lower the costs of health care since hospitals will no longer have to treat those who die on our streets due to exposure and starvation. Violence will cease as well, since people will have their needs cared for, and costs of medicine will go down even lower. Yes, a compassionate society can work, if we only give it the chance.
I have no problem dealing with Obama’s healthcare reform as a moral issue.
In fact, if it passes into law every American has the moral duty, obligation and right to celebrate by dancing in the streets and pouring beer on copies of it..
As long as it is rotgut south of the border beer and they get to drink it first.
Clearly by every action we the people have the POTUS who would be dictator.
For years the word “right” has been bandied about loosely. It seems that anything the left thinks is a good idea somehow becomes a “right”. For the same reasons that health care is a “right”, you could easily argue that food and shelter are “rights”, too. And the list goes on…
Apostle: Excellent parody! Loved the extra dash of straw-man bigotry, too!
Almost had me fooled.
And more importantly, only such a free society would be worth defending.
The Left thinks people living like ants is just fine. Everyone having their place and everyone in their place. They really shouldn’t have been born as human beings, they should have been born as ants. They’d love it.
“Yes, a compassionate society can work, if we only give it the chance.”
Compassion is false when it is compelled by force. Taxes are used to pay for this “compassionate society” and taxes are taken by force.
Compassion only truly lives up to it’s name when it is done voluntarily.
HealthCare is not a Right. It is a combination of products and services. People should pay for it through insurance and out of their own pockets.
If they can’t afford it, private charities should help them.
No governments, local, city or national should get involved at all.
Here’s the answer: Under Obamacare YOU WON’T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO LIVE. Abortion Rights: MY BODY. MY CHOICE! Obamacare: OUR BODY. NO CHOICE.
Amazing how the left just keeps changing the argument to suit their agenda!!!
I have a question: If the current congress uses reconciliation to pass sweeping policy changes, could not a future congress use the same process to reverse that policy change? And, after amending the Byrd rule, then use the same process to privatize social security? etc… etc…
It seems to me that this is A Bad Thing, beyond the particulars of this individual policy (health care). Doesn’t it set a precedent to be used by future lawmakers to enact a tyrannical majority? So, to those who support the use of reconciliation to pass health care: Never again claim that you are supportive of a democratic process.l
Apostle of Love, that’s quite the utopian society you’ve envisioned in your mind.
Admittedly I prefer reality whereas individual rights, successes and ability to provide for one’s self and THEIR OWN family is of their own consequence, action.
As for the ‘..little glow of compassion..’ dig, a majority of our $12 + trillion (almost 13 if you’re keeping count) dollar debt is due to TAXING, FUTURE TAXING of our productive people and the have-nots taking these entitlements.. and asking for more. And more..
Your sanctimonious comment speaks volumes.
Frederick Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom” summarizes the moral and logical objections to Socialism.
Essentially, Socialism supports a system in which “who you know” is far more important than “what you know.” In terms of health care whether you live or die will be determined by which doctor you see and how fast you will be able to see him. How fast a person will be able to access a diagnostic or treatment procedure will be determined again based upon position in the hierarchy of society, not the efforts of the patient and his family. The European system is infested with this disease, but it is not apparent to most users because cronyism is kept at the very top, while most people are treated “equally.” This circumstance will become the accepted societal norm in America as well.
Story: I knew a person who developed a severe scoliosis of the spine so that the person was bent at almost 90 degrees to the right. No one would operate on the condition, but this person ultimately found a “cowboy” surgeon who was willing to take a chance. This person later returned to work in the field of nursing and has served many patients, particularly when they had painful and difficult conditions. This person accomplished this feat by fighting for treatments with doctors to use unconventional methods. If this case had been measured against “expense” then there will be no room for innovation in the future practice of medicine.
If we were facing this conundrum de novo, then there might be some excuse for imposing it as a noble experiment. However, we already know from experience what the trade-offs are for imposing “uniform” health care – the government becomes the agent in deciding who will live and who will die. That makes Socialized medicine a criminal act with no recourse to correction by the courts. You cannot fight the government, but you can still fight the insurance companies. We must preserve the government as a potential recourse to societal correction. Thus, we should never allow government to become its own final arbiter. That role should be preserved for the people.
Here’s a moral cause that should work:
THE WAY to Really Call The Democrats’ Bluff and Save Us in the Process
Barak Obama just wants to give granny a pain killer, not treat her condition. And the state of Oregon would rather assist suicide than give one of its residents cancer treatments/medications.
In response, here’s what we do:
Introduce and pass legislation that would prevent the Federal government, or any of its agencies, from harming us, killing us, or otherwise prevent us from receiving life-preserving treatment, as a matter of its operating any sort of health care system.
Push for a constitutional amendment. Really raise as much stink as possible.
Credit Rose Pappas, senior citizen, Chicago, Illinois.
Let’s get behind this. I have a premium membership with Rush and have already emailed him. If you have access to Glenn Beck and/or Sean Hannity and/or Mark Levin through premium membership, please email them.
Also, if any of you are friends with Congressmen or Senators, please copy them.
So what part of socialized medicine don’t you understand?
19. Cybergeezer:
Sorry, I’m a little dense. I really don’t get your question/comment. Can you explain? Thanks
CFBLEACHERS,
Your observations are spot on, sir; succinct and linear in logic.
Thank you.
77/88
S.M.
Just what are our rights that we are supposed to enjoy? We send representatives to Washington through the power of our vote and depend on them to do the right thing, but do they? Once there, they encase themselves in a cocoon of priviledge and power, courted by special interest groups and lobbyists. They live in a world where they are among a very select few and all day long, they are befriended by like minded compatriots and soon, they lose sight of, and are no longer in touch with, the voters who sent them to Washington in the first place.
They form cliques in their new Washington home and back home that continue to isolate them from the every day working people who earn the money so taxes can be collected and used to pay for their lifestyle, perks, and all of the other advantages of belonging to a very exclusive club that has 595 members out of a population of 300 million people. A club whose membership affords them a large staff of people to respond to their every demand. Researchers, secretaries, advisors, private office space, office supplies, and all of the other necessities voters have to pay for in their own businesses. The new perfume of fame can be overwhelming and those who are not diligent and on guard can easily fall prey to a false sense of importance and worth. Every new senator and representative should have the equilivent of Roman leaders who had a servant walk behind him and constantly remind him of how fame is fleeting for the first year in office. Then, for one month on election anniversary, it is repeated every day.
The ordinary citizens who participated in local Tea Party events have been demonized by liberals, the press, Democrats, academia, and progressives. Their right to assembly and protest questioned by those who are guilty of participation in violating the very rights they are supposed to protect. Insulted with innuendos relating to a disgusting, perverted sex act are common among the elected elite on the Democrat side of the aisle. Average citizens who recognize what is going on much better than the elected who have grown scales over their eyes and no longer see or understand what it is like not only on Main Street, but on the sideroads and paths that make up the American landscape. They can only see what is relevant in the large cities where there is a concentration of potential voters who can be easily swayed. Obama capitalized on that one demographic and transformed it into an army that catapulted him into office.
It is time for us to understand there must be a greater degree of accountability from those we send to represent us. It is time we demand answers, not political slogans. It is time we confront the truth of what has transpired and be ready to accept the hard choices of sacrifice for all, not for a few. It is time we understand that even in a free society such as ours, there are and must be rules and regulations to keep predators from using the freedoms they enjoy against society for excessive enrichment. It is time we demand that social programs like Medicare and Social Security be isolated, cleaned up, and returned to their original intent, a safety net for Americans who have dedicated themselves to fulfilling their obligations as law abiding, working citizens of this country.
We need to understand and accept the fact that we cannot be everything to everyone on all issues, needs, and demands. Some will fall through the cracks. Some will never achieve the level of prosperity others will. Some will spend all they have with no eye to the future. Some will always let their personal greed overcome any sense of humanity and personal restraint. It is the nature of humanity to follow the path of least resistance and it is much easier to allow a government to think, act, feed, and protect us than to do it for ourselves. This is the legacy we are building to leave behind for the generations to come. This comes back to the original point. If we are not careful, soon, the 595 will become even more powerful and isolated, becoming an elite assembly of rulers and dictators by committee. It is almost to that point now and if not for the recent victory in Mass. for Scott Brown, one party would continue being nothing less than a dictatorship by political ideology.
We are on the verge of another act of absolute hypocrisy by Democrats. Obama, Clinton, Reid, Schumer, and a parade of Democrats decried the use of “reconciliation” when George W. Bush asked for an up or down vote on a judicial nominee. We were innundated with cries of a “constitutional crisis” among so many other dire warnings of ending senatorial decorum, rules, and established procedures from the Democrat side of the aisle. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, the very same Democrats have reversed their position and now, “reconciliation” is acceptable, noble, and if asked, in their eyes, not unconstitutional. We face the continued danger of having one side with too much power. If passed, once health care legislation is in force, the Gordian’s Knot left behind will not be solved with a simple swipe of a legislative sword. All we have to do is look at the two programs already mentioned as prime examples, Social Security and Medicare.
Please Obamacare is not universal or singlepayer plan. There are enormous differences. Osbamacare still uses health insurance industry to cover the care of of the uninsured. It seems he wants to make them richer by forcing the uninsured to buy health insurance. Also single or universal plan is not socialist. Otto Bismarch was Chancelor of Germany during latter part of the 19th century. He was a committed reactionary, however he introduced universal health care and Social Security for Germany.
The most straightforward way to unmask this naked, amoral power grab is to STOP allowing the left to define the language we use to discuss it. STOP calling it “health care reform”. STOP calling it “ObamaCare”. Consistently refer to it by its rightful name.
The Progressives’ and Democrats’ plan is, and has always been – by definition – Socialized Medicine. That is a proposition that has been rejected by Americans since it was first suggested.
Why do you think the left seeks to control the very language we use to discuss policy? “Assault Weapons”? “Social Justice”? “Affordable Mortgages”? “The ‘Right’ to Choose?” All of these are meaningless linguistic decorations that are used to hide the underlying socialist agenda.
ANY shift in the narrative that moves to arguing over whether the Democrats’ plan IS or IS NOT socialized medicine will kill it. Consistently calling this turkey what it is will force that shift. Why? Because no one – at least no one I know – kids themselves that socialized medicine as “noble”. They understand, rightly, that it is nothing less than an intrusion by the State into the private affairs of the People. Some even understand, rightly, that it is extra-Constitutional. Clearly, Americans STILL reject it for these very reasons.
When the government regulates an industry to the point where it exerts almost total control over the means of production – as it has done with the banking industry – that is socialism.
When the government takes indirect control over the means of production – as it has doen with the auto industry – that is socialism.
When the government seeks to take direct control over the means of production – especially in the critical area of health care – that is socialism.
By definition, Socialism and Communism are anathema to a free society and calling these things by any other name only cedes the moral high ground to the socialists.
Socialized Medicine is NOT “health care reform”. That’s the only moral argument we need. BHO didn’t invent it, so it’s therefore not “ObamaCare”. Start consistently calling this spade what it is: a spade. Then see how far the Democrats can push it.
52% of my fellow citizens are too ignorant politically, historically and economically to realize that they voted for a communist in the last election. Those of us who understand the truth will have to fight like hell at every level of our society to re-educate them. Humor can be a very powerful tool for us.
To that end, watch Victoria Jackson’s “There’s a Communist Living in the White House” on YouTube. http://tinyurl.com/yklvdep
Every election in this country is a Revolution without blood. As long as the people are listened to, elections will remain without blood. If the government does not listen but dictates the prediction is it will become bloody. No one wants this, but citizens will not be made slaves to any dictator.
The government belongs to the people. The people do not belong to the government and will not be dictated to in a tyrannical way.
Any money that the government has is our money; it is not the government’s money.
I will not be terrorized and dictated to.
We the people elected people to represent us, not dictate what they want for us. The President is not elected to serve as god, a ruler, or dictator. The most important and highest ranking person in this equation in the citizen and voter. NOT anyone in the government.
NO, NO, NO to this health care, or any health care from the government. I am military disabled and go to the VA. I was told I must wait 8 months for emergency surgery for a spinal cord injury, each day in terrible pain, losing use of leg. I went to civilian doctor and had surgery in 8 days. Because I was treated in 8 days, I did not lose the use of my leg. Why would anyone want this type of VA health care for everyone?
Two members of my Freedom Warrior network have, at great personal risk, obtained a copy of the upcoming Democratic bill. Apparently it’s only to be released after it passes!
Right on page 23, they state that after all the private health care options have been “eliminated”, they will institute “purity tests” at hospitals to see who is eligible for care. I think we all know what *that* means, don’t we?
I’ll write back as more of the data comes in. My fellow patriots are currently in hiding from the shock troops of “President” Hussein. And they’re only sending data when they can find a safe connection.
Well spoken, cfbleachers. My sentiments, exactly!
23. Herbert Miller: – Otto Bismarch was Chancelor of Germany…
Teddy Roosevelt was President of the United States, and hardly a devoted socialist either, yet he pushed this same socialist nonsense with respect to health care. “Universal” health care and Social Security are both inherently statist and collectivist and, therefore, Marxist-socialist in nature, irrespective of who introduces or supports them.
Excellent article, again, Dr. Hsieh!
The moral argument is the only one that can win, along with a vision for what free market and rights-respecting health care would look like.
I hope some Republicans can learn this FAST! I plan to refer my legislators and candidates to this article and hope others will too.
Gawd…. You guys don’t seem to quite understand what the issues (surprise surprise): there is already defacto universal healthcare — even if you’re homeless and don’t have a penny to you name, you can’t be turned away at an emergency room, and using emergency rooms as walk-in clinics is not exactly cost effective. And overall healthcare cost keep relentlessly rising regardless of the economy and any lack of good justification for them. Healthcare costs are often one of the big reasons why your property tax bills keep going up.
Obama is trying to fix this, and anybody with more than iota of real knowledge of the healthcare mess in this country supports him. Everyone else….well, it’s been only the same old hot tempered cluelessness that seems to be way of the modern right winger.
As Dr. Hsieh points out, the insidious notion that we are our brother’s keepers and are thus obligated morally and legally to help them must be challenged at its root. There is no such thing as a right to health care, which would mean, a right to the force others to provide or pay for one’s medical services. There is only the right to freely contract with the providers of health care (a right, which sadly, is not respected today and should form the basis of a real reform program). Those who have no money must rely on charity, which can be a fine thing under the right conditions but should never be considered an unchosen moral duty, never mind a forced legal obligation. Morally if we stand on principle the opposition will lose this battle!
great argument.
regards
He was a committed reactionary, however he introduced universal health care and Social Security for Germany.
There’s a huge difference between proposing something which had never been tried before and proposing something which is bankrupting the European and other countries who’ve tried it. 100+ years of experience, to be exact. Are we going to fund start-up car companies which will mimic GM’s business strategy, too?
And Bismark was as much a paternalist as anything else. I already have a daddy and I’m not looking for the state to become an ersatz substitute.
Here’s an idea: Get your liberal buddies together and START YOUR OWN NON-PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANY. Why does the government need to be involved? If there really are as many people who support this thing as you people are constantly claiming, your insurance company would become the 800-lb. gorilla of the industry overnight and be able to dictate terms to providers. The best part of it? I can just sit on the sidelines and not be involved at all. Problem solved.
Narrative . . . narrative . . . hmm . . . how does that work, actually?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/jon-stewart-fox-news-sarah-palin-megyn-kelly_n_485235.html
Thank you, goy (#24) for your cogent thoughts. The left has controlled the language for so long now (especially via the Old Left Media), that they have easily framed the debate not only for the general public, but also for those who ostensibly are in opposition.
Your thesis (as I understand it) needs to be repeated as many times as possible… it is the essential part of an effective strategy/tactics that actually goes on the offense, and is not playing defense to the relentless machinations of progressives. Is there actually a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy? Maybe not, but there certainly is a well-organized left-wing collusion that has been in place for decades. Their first order of business has always been to control the memes, definitions, slogans, and labels of political and social discourse. The pithy jargon they have created over the years has appealed directly to the ADD type of society we have created. It goes to the gut, and sidesteps any need for substantive discourse.
Republicans are certainly clueless in this regard. For example, their use of the mantra “it costs too much” falls on deaf ears, because it doesn’t have anything to do with underlying principles. It is a monotonic conflation of cause with effect, and it makes Republicans look emasculated.
Conservatives must understand what constitutes effective language, and they must employ it for themselves. The goal is not to control the masses a la progressives, but instead to use it as an effective wedge by which to inform and instruct. Look at this essay as an example… it is correct in its message, it is thoughtful, it is essentially well-written, but it can never change the minds of anyone not already in agreement.
We cannot continue to sit back and preach to our small choir with long essays. There must be a plan of attack that appeals to the American public in all its many variations. Taking back the language is the first essential step. He who controls the language, controls the debate.
Herbert Miller (23):
Please Obamacare is not universal or singlepayer plan. There are enormous differences. Osbamacare still uses health insurance industry to cover the care of of the uninsured. It seems he wants to make them richer by forcing the uninsured to buy health insurance.
Like most liberals, you entirely miss the point.
First: The Federal government has no right to force anybody to purchase anything, much less insurance. (Yes, the states can demand that you purchase auto insurance, but driving is a right, not a privilege – and there’s also the 10th amendment).
Second: Insurance, by definition, is a voluntary sharing of risk. The key words being voluntary and risk. A fundamental tenet of insurance is that you cannot insure a event that is sure or has already happened. Lloyds won’t insure a ship that has already been captured by pirates or sunk; State Farm won’t insure a car that has already been wrecked or a house that is currently on fire. USAA won’t write a life insurance policy for someone that has a terminal illness. Likewise, you cannot expect an insurance company to write a health-care policy for somebody that is already ill.
The whole problem stems, actually, from the government regulations that force health-insurance companies to spread health-costs, instead of risk. This is exacerbated by policies that link health-coverage to employment; thus the inability to take health insurance across state lines or between employers. Most of the “uninsured” are people that have lost their jobs, and thus their health coverage from their employer (despite the fact that they don’t necessarily lose any other insurance).
Here’s what should be:
* Unlock health insurance from employment, and reduce the differences between states. The ideal situation, from the points of view of both the customer and the insurance company, is that I initially purchase health insurance when I’m young and healthy, pay into it, and thus balance out what happens later in life. This only works, obviously, if I can keep my same policy regardless of moves or changes in employment.
* Return insurance to its proper role as insurance. Insurance should cover catastrophic events, not routine exams or treatment. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out several times, you can actually get significant discounts from doctors and hospitals by paying cash and saving them the paperwork of having to deal with an insurance company.
* Implement tort reform. Medical liability costs account for a significant percentage of overall health-care costs.
new utopian (18)
“Introduce and pass legislation that would prevent the Federal government, or any of its agencies, from harming us, killing us, or otherwise prevent us from receiving life-preserving treatment, as a matter of its operating any sort of health care system.”
Right there is an example of what’s wrong with a whole lot of people these days. What part of “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness …” should have to be reinforced with a law of any sort when the Constitution already declares it to be an inalienable right from our Creator? Any form of government control of health care means that the government grants you the right to live or denies you that right, period. In plain English, government run health care cannot exist under our Constitution without in fact overturning and setting precedent to further overturn our Constitution.
Any programs or laws that pretend to improve our lives or save us from some mythical band of billionaires while at the same time defying the Constitution are nothing other than outright denials that our Constitutional rights even exist. The democrats in this country HATE the Constitution and this president in particular has said that in his opinion it is completely unacceptable. If the Constitution itself is insufficient to guarantee that the government will not deny you the right to life what good is a simple law passed by those who are in fact already actively denying that you have inalienable rights as outlined in the Constitution?
Each and every one of those folks who the government will make judgments about in order to reduce cost and be “rational” about “health” care is, in the eyes of the same people who promote nationalizing health care most vehemently, exhaling a deadly gas every time they breath. Do you really think that those who have made a religion out of the AGW lies will not insist that the individuals’ impact on the environment be considered along with medical factors? Of course your impact on the environment will become part of the equation, and when it does there will be no way that anyone can justify the elderly remaining alive given the horrible damage they’re doing to “mother earth”, impotent bitch goddess that she is. No, the same dark view of mans’ place in the universe that drove the Aztecs to mass violent human sacrifice will drive the current crop of earth worshippers to making sure they eliminate as many as possible.
It’s way, way, beyond “pass a law to …” anything as it’s now obvious that only by eliminating existing laws, existing programs, and decades worth of existing democrat lies that we can we avoid far worse outcomes than our health care system not matching some utopian ideal.
Unless and until the democrat party and its’ attendent academic socialist infrastructure are utterly destroyed as a factor in national politics, the Constitutional rights of American citizens will not be secure and their current drive for this health care madness proves it.
have a nice day
#24 Goy
I absolutely agree with your post.
And I disagree with Dr. Hsieh, precisely because we cannot accept to fight on the terrain chosen by the enemies of Freedom.
The problems of health care have been created BY THE DEMOCRATS: THEY have created all the possible limits to the free market that on the long run have led to an increase of costs.
Insurances are not free to operate in every state, trial lawyers are hunting doctors etc. etc.
We simply don’t know how the situation would be if we had a free market of health care, and we cannot know because the democrats oppose any real reform.
What they are trying to do is to build a socialist state that will have death and/or life power over each citizen, this we know.
This is what we must oppose.
The high moral ground is ONLY this: we know that every time that the free markets have been allowed to develop, solutions have been found (compare the average life of the average “poor” of today with the average life of the average poor of one hundred years ago).
The socialists EXPLOIT social problems to create more government power…thus creating more social problems.
@31. BC: You guys don’t seem to quite understand what the issues…
You’re projecting. Clearly, you’ve never read the statutes that control this issue.
- … you can’t be turned away at an emergency room, …
Uhmmm… yeah, you can. You can’t be turned away without a screening if you show genuine evidence of suffering from some health problem or injury, but once that screening finds no critical issue, you can and will be turned away if you refuse to pay for services or can’t produce your NO-LIMIT HEALTH CARE CREDIT CARD (aka ‘insurance card’).
- … overall healthcare cost keep relentlessly rising …
Because EVERY aspect of how we collectivize and pay for health care by abusing insurance forces cost increases.
- Obama is trying to fix this, …
Liar. BHO is trying once again to ram socialized medicine down the throats of Americans who have consistently demonstrated that they do not want it.
Unlimited access to full healthcare is a fantasy…
it can be rationed only by costs or by queues.
The first requires personal choice,
the second requires government control.
Which do you want?
Rather than take the democrats self-righteous claims about “the right thing to do” seriously, I see this President, and especially his declarations yesterday (not incidentally contradicting all his previous negative observations on reconciliation) in the context of his dis-ease…
Malignant Narcissism
In the same vein as your Ben Franklin observation:
“In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.”
~Edward Gibbon
BC, yeah.. ‘Thanks’ for the ‘informative’ op-ed.
The gist of it is Government/Union employees receive top notch health insurance while the public dole pays for that former employee and their family’s health after leaving the job.
Obama is ‘helping’ (as you put it) this ‘valiant’ effort by.. ding ding ding – MORE Government employees/ entitlements, larger unions/ tax exemption on their Cadillac insurance coverage and the unions having more power. That sounds greeaaat..
Massachusetts already ‘boasts’ of possessing universal health care, along with the highest premiums in the nation, less provided care as compared to non single-payer insurance plans. If you weren’t aware, rationed care is being discussed as well.
You have no reasoning skills whatsoever, bub.
‘Right wingers’.. BC, you do realize the productive members of our society, productive retired folks will be paying for mandated health insurance, right? Regardless of political leanings. You are the epitome of the term, ‘useful idiot’. Fitting, it being a Soviet sympathizer and all.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a clearer example of the selfish idealism that is objectivism (yes, I know, to an objectivist being called “selfish” is a compliment) — it boggles my mind that Dr. Hsieh, who’s presumably taken the Hippocratic Oath, finds it compatible with these views.
The government has a compact with its citizens that it provides certain functions for them, functions that aren’t feasible for an individual to handle on his or her own. (National defense, for instance.) The idea that health care should be one of these functions is pretty straightfoward; not everyone will need a heart bypass, just as not everyone will have their house catch on fire and need the assistance of the local fire department.
I also don’t know what on earth would compel Dr. Hsieh to think that “Any system of “universal” health care necessarily requires a bureaucracy to control who can receive what services and when — if only to control costs” is a reasonable argument against health care reform. Does he possibly think that rationing of care for the purpose of cost control doesn’t happen today? And happen by the health insurers who answer to shareholders and wall street, who could care less about the quality of care as long as the profits are coming in? Isn’t it more than reasonable to assume that a government who answers instead to the people who elect it (and doesn’t have profit as its primary goal) would do a better job of providing higher-quality care?
To try to redefine NOT helping the sick as the moral choice is frankly one of the most disgusting Orwellian concept redefinitions that I’ve ever heard outside of 1984.
Eugenics is never a noble cause, and eugenics is the heart of the democrat drive for “health” care.
The point has been accurately made, that takeover of the “healthcare” system was a central tenet of national socialism, Naziism.
Obama advisor, Dr. Zeke Emanuel and Obama science Czar, John Holdren, both seem to be very happy with the notion of “government” making guidelines as to who flourishes, who does not, which age groups get the most intensive “healthcare”, which do not.
The sleepy doe-eyed stuff the propagandist “apostle of love” would have you believe is simply.not.true.
Please Obamacare is not universal or singlepayer plan. There are enormous differences.
“Please, a knife is not a gun or a baseball bat, there are enormous differences” said the mugger to his victim….
What the??? Pg. 2 – “Thoughtful liberals would also…” Oy vay! Cognitive Dissonance. Incongruity. Paradox. Conundrum. Möbius strip. Unicorn. Puff the Magic Dragon. Urban and legend. Oil and water. Night and day. Batman and Joker. Lieberman and Lindsey – oh, my bad – that’s not opposite.
Seriously, where in HIGH politics does one meet such a fantastical creature? “Thoughtful” and “liberal”… I haven’t hear much of this genus and species. Now, now, now… before liberal-bent flamers start flaming – no one has said a person such as this can’t be found in day to day life and lower decks but, in the upper echelons of the DNC? Their entire premise is that Big Bro Gubmint is the dispenser of ALL that is good, which is basically everything including “life and death” and partnering with His Most on High – when they chose to acknowledge Him. They think “USA” has two definitions – for the “enlightened” it’s United Socialists of America and for those needing their enlightenment it’s “United Slaves of America.”
Actually, that’s rather discriminatory of me. I could/should include some GOP beasts as well only we know how to identify that animal – RINO.
And that’s that.
To try to redefine NOT helping the sick as the moral choice is frankly one of the most disgusting Orwellian concept redefinitions that I’ve ever heard outside of 1984.
Why are you trying to force your morality on others?
You forget the crucial distinction between the fire department and medical service providers. The former SIGNED UP to be public servants, the latter DID NOT.
You have ZERO logical ground to stand on with your moralistic “cri de coeur”. Grow up. The world doesn’t revolve around what you find disgusting or appealing.
re: Joshua (44)…
I personally revel in making you feel disgusted.
Your comments are absurd nonsense, as they employ some of the standard mental gymnastics of the left including semantic games, shifting definitions, over-generalizations, double standards, disingenuous rationalizations in one instance that are blithely discarded the next, postmodernist narratives as thinly disguised excuses for might-makes-right, inability to frame hierarchies, and cherry-picked symptoms mistaken for underlying causes.
Nowhere, repeat nowhere in the Constitution is mentioned universal healthcare. It is only in the fevered imaginations of progressives that they endlessly seek to conflate defense with healthcare. This is “pretty obvious” only to someone such as yourself that has been trained to avoid making distinctions and hierarchies in their thought processes. Progressives hate something that is provided for by the Constitution (defense of the nation by the military), and crave that which the Constitution explicitly refuses to mandate (the “right” to universal healthcare). But with the strategy of a “living Constitution” this doesn’t pose any obstacles, and the end-run around representative democracy is complete.
In rebuttal to your next attempt at ratiocination, I direct you to the fine posts #37 and #40: “…EVERY aspect of how we collectivize and pay for health care by abusing insurance forces cost increases.” Then you have the unmitigated gall to announce that it is reasonable to assume government would do a better job of providing higher-quality healthcare. This is a prime example of the progressive mindset. Except for a few cherry-picked factoids you are blind to history, and you are unable or unwilling to perceive reality (read post #43 for the reality of Massachusetts).
Finally, I suggest you re-read Orwell. He warning was against the forces YOU represent, so your thinly disguised attempt to posit otherwise is ridiculous.
Here’s what I revel in, and I hope it makes you so disgusted you pass out on the floor…
- I support the traditionalist, originalist Constitution.
- I detest and oppose with all my might the forced collectivization by governement in all its forms past, present, and future.
- I am not responsible for your personal feelings, that is solely up to you.
Good luck with all that, bub.
@36. Charles Stevens: – Thank you, goy (#24) for your cogent thoughts.
You’re welcome. And thank you.
- Republicans are certainly clueless in this regard.
The reason for this cluelessness is pretty simple, but it’s elusive. It requires some outside-the-box thinking, on the same level as the logical leap needed to realize that health care INSURANCE is not health CARE and that we (yes, we) encourage skyrocketing health care costs by collectivizing payment for it and, thus, dissociating the consumer from the provider in determining price (BRAVO Paul of Alexandria!!).
As morally holistic, mature adults, conservatives tend to see compromise as a valid, if not valuable part of policy-making. And when the opposing options are both rational, that’s a healthy viewpoint. But when one of those options insists that 2 + 2 = 6 … not so much.
What has compromised with the left given us? A world where 2 + 2 =5.
Consider today’s America: insolvency and massive debt are encouraged; sloth and subterfuge are rewarded through welfare; productivity is punished through punitive taxation; corruption goes unchallenged; illiterate liberal celebrities preach with unassailable moral authority; hysteria, repetition and propaganda pass for truth; terrorist cultures are lionized while democracies are denigrated; the People and their property are seen as little more than a source of revenue for an ever-growing, unaccountable government; and everything right down to one’s waistline is politicized.
Over the decades, compromise with the left has led to exploding debt; more internal and external conflict; more divorce; more dysfunctional, fatherless, single-parent homes; skyrocketing health care costs; more welfare; more entitlements that result in pathological, generational dependence on a therapeutic state; declining quality of life; higher taxes; unwarrantedly high self-esteem (narcissism), destruction of industry by the unions & concomitant (and ironic) loss of jobs; declining quality of education; and a general, widespread breakdown of our social infrastructure.
Clearly, the compromise we’ve been pursuing in good faith, which has taken us further left every year, is not only “not working”, it’s socially suicidal. But still, despite the overwhelming historic evidence that discredits collectivist ideology, we keep on compromising.
Why?
Simple. Compromise seems reasonable, and the people with whom we compromise – those whose leftist ideological view is different from ours – seem like fully-functional, morally mature adults.
But they’re not.
Clinical research (at least at least the only research to examine this phenomenon across multiple cultures to date) shows that there exist millions of people whose psychological development has left them with a narrowly selective, limited view of morality. This limited view comprises roughly 2/5ths of the full range of intuitive ethics – a society’s moral ‘genes’, if you will – required for a stable, sustainable society. Such an incomplete moral condition can quite aptly be labeled adolescent, and that’s how I personally refer to it. Meanwhile it certainly fits with the adage (and pervasive observation) about being a “liberal” at the age of 20 and a “conservative” at 40.
As it turns out – and you can probably guess – those individuals who are stuck in this state of moral adolescence are the ones most likely to be drawn to the ostensibly “liberal”, collectivist ideologies of socialism and communism. Again, this is clinically demonstrated – and continually reinforced – through the research referenced in the link above. Compounding the problem is that these folks are often highly intellectually mature which, unfortunately, facilitates extensive rationalization of a socially suicidal moral viewpoint.
This is the sort of advanced intellect which can redefine the language through the invention of meaning (e.g., “social justice”, “assault weapons”, etc.). This is the sort of advanced intellect which can “fold economic space” in order to maintain that a country can borrow and spend its way out of debt. See also: Paul Krugman.
In the world of this advanced leftist intellect, 2 plus 2 can, in fact, equal 6 if that’s what you really feel is the “truth” and you can come up with a rationalization to “prove” it.
So here’s the problem: we keep compromising with morally adolescent leftists because they APPEAR rational and they can make rational SOUNDING arguments. But at the end of the day, the discredited ideology to which they are characteristically drawn by their selective morality is NOT rational. Therefore, policy based on that ideology should NEVER be entertained as an option in any compromise.
That’s the key to understanding how to deal with the left. And we’d better learn it quick. Because moral adolescence is a self-perpetuating, self-amplifying condition. Visit any American college campus today if you’re unclear on this point.
Some time soon – if we haven’t already – this Republic will reach a critical mass of moral adolescence and devolve into a nation of pathologically dependent subjects who must depend upon a therapeutic State for everything. Our President and the government he leads see us in exactly this way already, and he proves that with every lecture he reads from his teleprompter over the airwaves. The linchpin in their agenda is socialized medicine – a platform from which the State can legislate any aspect of life that can be construed as increasing the cost of health care. Once that gets a foothold, you can kiss this Republic good-bye.
Here’s an idea:
Congress takes a recess at the end of March. Next week, every Republican in both chambers should co-sponsor a bill making it mandatory that all Senators and Congresspeople have a completely open town hall meeting during that recess. I suppose we should stipulate that the meetings be held in their home districts, otherwise there will be a lot of confused people on Grand Cayman and Aruba. Naturally, I would not expect the Democrats to pass such a bill, but it would be big fun listening to the explain why town hall meetings are such an affront to democracy.
@44. Joshua: – The government has a compact with its citizens that it provides certain functions for them…
Yes. You should try reading it. It’s known in some circles as the Constitution for the United States of America. Nowhere in Article I of that document is Congress given the authority to legislate itself an insurance company using Taxpayer funds. Period.
Limited government can be a tricky concept. But the alternative is not pretty. Just ask these folks (when you see them).
For years the word “right” has been bandied about loosely. It seems that anything the left thinks is a good idea somehow becomes a “right”. For the same reasons that health care is a “right”, you could easily argue that food and shelter are “rights”, too. And the list goes on…
This is because the Left is passing off a counterfeit concept of rights — the so-called “positive rights”. These are the “rights” to education, health care and other economic goods produced by man.
The real payload of this false concept of “rights” is that if X has the “right” to a good, someone else now suddenly has the duty to provide it. The Left usually attempts to evade this by saying that it is society that bears this duty, but “society” does not exist in its own right; there are only individuals. So someone’s going to be expropriated.
This concept of “rights”, of course, obliterates the genuine concept of rights: the so-called “negative” rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness — the right to be left free.
As written by Auguste Comte:
[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service…. This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely.”
What name did Comte give to this “social point of view” that subordinates our lives to the notion of duty?
Why, altruism, of course.
So there you have it: Individual Rights — or altruism.
Pick one.
Sooooo… someone who needs to keep searching for his tree because he still hasn’t found what he’s looking for wants to invoke the name of Orwell in a twisting of his ideas. Back at’chya -
** Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind ** George Orwell
The “let me twist this around” invocation of Orwell and ’84 by said somebody just a little bit ago is the height of unintended self-parody and irony. Still, like the Möbius strip, is this a compliment to Orwell as a twisted but shrewd application of double “double speak” or is it an insult to George in that a Big Brother lover who demands that we all HAVE TO BE our brother’s financiers would high jack the 1984 concept?
If the poke at Dr. Hsieh is to be taken seriously then let’s keep going with it. Since a good number of the “ill” are indigent/incapable due to economic misfortune (or whatever) why even think of billing them? Just send those that aren’t needing any “Hippocratic help” or pay for their own insurance the bill. And why should doctors and staff even have a life? How is their work ever done with so many still suffering and untreated? How selfish of them to take time off to cavort and have a private life.
Wait, we’re not done here. Why don’t we just grab a large percentage of the general student population in our indoctrination cent, uh, higher education facilities and redirect them towards studying medicine? Who cares if it’s compulsory or not? How can they offer up any “morally imperative” objections when the needs of the suffering are crying out without remittance?
Enough of that PBS-like Masterpiece Theater of the Absurd Presents cr*p – Public Bullshyte Service. The Gubmint is already out of control and now they want to take more coin from an already over-taxed/fee’d/whatever population and redistribute it to people who are “disadvantaged” and unhealthy? A fair number who are unhealthy due to chronic smoking problems or alcohol issues or drug use or STD’s or “free (from responsibilities) love” offspring or the aborting of the development/existence of said offspring.
Simply put – the DNC screed from #40whatever sounds like a have-not demanding from the have’s. Oh, and his argument that Big Bro would do a better job of managing the trillions of dollars taken from the producers of this nation because “profit is not the motive”? Social IN-Security and Trillion$ in “deficit spending.” Yeah, ‘NOUGH SAID!
** A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul ** George Bernard Shaw
** A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it ** de Tocqueville
** Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom ** ibid
** Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude ** ibid
** Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master.” Dwight Eisenhower **
** If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom ** ibid
** It is both foolish and wicked to teach the average man who is not well off that some wrong or injustice has been done him, and that he should hope for redress elsewhere than in his own industry, honesty, and intelligence ** Teddy Roosevelt
What an interesting set of responses.
venividivici (48): I could just as easily argue that you’re trying to force your morality upon me — my sense of morality says that those who would otherwise die for lack of health coverage should be helped. But I’m actually curious — you’re implying that your sense of morality disagrees with that statement? I would respectfully be very interested to hear a more thorough description of how you define your own sense of morality.
Charles Stevens (49): Come one, seriously, those are some of the broadest and overgeneralized caricatures of the pro-HCR position that I’ve ever seen. You can’t exactly use that to criticise me. And okay, if you don’t like national defense as my example, how about the fire department; where is that specified (as opposed to perhaps implied) in the Constitution?
And then there’s the perhaps-not-realized fact that George Orwell was, er, a socialist. Kind of undercuts your argument there.
(And I don’t really understand the mindset of someone who revels in making another person feel disgusted. The nasty doesn’t necessarily win the debate.)
goy (52): Er, yeah — that was the point I was making with the fire department analogy. No mention in the Constitution. Are you arguing it shouldn’t exist as funded by the government?
GFreemanHL2 (54): I don’t understand why the scenarios describe would follow from the health care reform proposal. Can you elaborate? And for the bits you mention about money (“Social IN-Security and Trillion$ in “deficit spending.” Yeah, ‘NOUGH SAID!”), that raises an interesting question: the distinction made by politicians seems to be between “health care is broken but we can’t afford to fix it” vs “it’s not broken”. The original post seemed to go for the former — are you taking the latter? Let’s say that in a perfect world there was no corruption or inefficiency in government (yes, I know, it’s a fantasy world, but work with me): in that case would you be in favor of letting the government guarantee health care, or even then, no changes to the status quo?
Oops, realized I reversed the “former” vs. “latter” in the above paragraph. My goof.
You PJ media conservitive nationalist types better get with the New Age Marxist program.
In Marxism everyone is equal. Therefore, you need to help pay for your neighbor’s pool if he does not have the money to get one too.
Go watch Avatar, worship Gaia, and get on board the New Age.
See Lucis Trust inside the UN buiding to understand in depth why you Nationalists, Christians, and Jews are sooooooo wrong.
Sarc/off if you did not already know.
re: Joshua 55…
- I pointed out your inability to make distinctions with the specific example of your absurd conflation regarding the Constitution. It is but one example out of many on which I could have commented; however, to describe all the other examples of your mental fallacies is something on which I don’t care to waste my time.
- Your refusal to acknowledge the previous then proves my other point about your inability to perceive reality.
- I deliberately stated that I revel in your disgust because of (1) your sanctimonious attempt to proclaim some type of absolute morality in your first post, when the only thing progressives actually have is a shifting set of relative values, making them moralistic poseurs, and (2) because it draws you out even further as a perpetual adolescent who believes others are responsible for his feelings. (For a much better analysis of that, I draw your attention to the superlative post by goy #50).
- Regarding the fire department, you are still unable to understand the Constitution. Fire departments are local governmental concerns as per (dare I say it?) states rights under the Constitution, provided IF AND ONLY IF the people so affected decide to impose a specific tax upon themselves.
BTW, this is the last rejoinder I will post in response to your nonsense. As an individual, I refuse to waste my time with a typical progressive who is unable to perform logical analysis, and unable to engage in reality-based feedback.
@56. Joshua: – that was the point I was making with the fire department analogy. No mention in the Constitution.
Well, then you missed YOUR OWN point, fool: the federal government DOES NOT RUN YOUR LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT.
Jeebus, where does Axelrod find you idiots?
Charles Stevens (59): boy, one might imagine that the “no ad hominem attacks” rule is only loosely enforced here. I acknowledge and appreciate the fact that you’ve promised not to do so any further, though it’s kind of sad that you’re not open to debating the issues.
So let’s say the fire department is a local concern. That, of course, would rule out any sort of national forest/department of the interior firefighting force (I assume that you’re intrinsically against the concept of a national forest or park). But let’s try a different example, then, one that President Obama mentioned in his health care summit. Would we be better off with no federally-mandated meat inspections? Or would the meatpacking industry do a perfectly fine job of correcting itself? I mean, sure, some folks could die from eating bad meat, but those brands will go under and the market will correct itself, right?
And I haven’t stated any sense of absolute morality any more than Dr. Hsieh did in his original post. His notion of morality is one in which not covering the uninsured is more moral than covering them; mine is the opposite. I just think mine is more fully supported by the notion of doing good. If your worldview defines “good” differently, more power to you, but sucks for everyone else, right?
goy (61): kindly see the second paragraph of my response in post 60.
Anyone interested in an absolutely fascinating read has to stop by Ed Driscoll’s and click on the last link on this page.
This is phenomenal stuff about economic fascism, classic liberalism and the world turned on its head.
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/03/04/michael-moore-and-the-late-ted-kennedy-would-concur/#comments
@62. Joshua: – kindly see the second paragraph of my response in post 60.
So now your ‘defense’ is that you’re clinically brain-dead?
I wrote post 60.
Again: the federal government does not run your local fire department. What part of that simple statement did you fail to comprehend?
I could just as easily argue that you’re trying to force your morality upon me — my sense of morality says that those who would otherwise die for lack of health coverage should be helped.
No, because nothing I’ve suggested REQUIRES you do to anything beyond what you would voluntarily do otherwise, whereas your morality REQUIRES that I do something (pay into a cross-subsidized insurance program) I would not otherwise do. What if I’d rather use the money I would pay in “health insurance tax” to fund a business or buy a gift for someone I love, rather than pay for someone else’s health care? If your sense of morality is so appalled, become a doctor and help those people. Or, as I suggest above, get together with your liberal pals and START YOUR OWN INSURANCE COMPANY and cover those who would otherwise not be covered. You people always think everyone should be involved in your moronic schemes when many of us just want to go our own way and do our own thing.
But I’m actually curious — you’re implying that your sense of morality disagrees with that statement? I would respectfully be very interested to hear a more thorough description of how you define your own sense of morality.
My morality is none of your business. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe a man’s labor should be put at the disposal of another to do with as the other sees fit, beyond certain things. “Health care coverage” is not one of those things.
‘bleachers (#63) – that is indeed a good article. And there were some great comments.
Much of that ground is covered in a fair amount of depth – and extremely well referenced – in Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. If you haven’t, I highly recommend reading it. He also goes fairly deeply into the fascist nature of Wilson’s administration.
Limited government can be a tricky concept. But the alternative is not pretty.
There are two types of people who see a problem in the world and say “You know, someone ought to do something about that”.
One group thinks about it a little more and they realize that, in actuality, the cost of “doing something about that” is probably higher than the benefits, especially if you get the government involved. Some in this group actually create businesses based on their observation and “do something about that” for a profit.
The other group are liberals. They endlessly tinker with people’s lives until you reach the point where you just want to punch them on sight.
goy (64): boy, It seems to be a habit of folks here to attack the messenger — doesn’t reflect well on your message. I goofed and entered 60 when I meant 61. Please check that one out re: meat inspectors, which ARE run by the federal government.
But I’d even question the premise of that particular argument. Are you telling me you’d support health care reform if it were pushed by a state or local government instead of federal? Somehow I doubt that, which pretty much moots the “fire department isn’t federal so it’s okay, idiot!” argument. (Or is that assumption incorrect?)
BREAKING: MYSTERY SOLVED!!
This afternoon I finally discovered the answer to a question that has been plaguing PJM readers and commenters for weeks, if not months.
Where has BC been getting his endless list of talking points?
Here’s a sample:
My vote: #3.
Try guessing where this comes from BEFORE you peek (hints are generously sprinkled through the text).
Well, I think that the moral narrative of Obamacare is the same as the moral narrative for socialism, and the correct counter argument fights it on the basis of it’s own form of analysis.
Materialist analysis is supposed to look at the material before the ideological, but in the arguments for Obamacare this paradigm is inverted.
The bottom line is this, capitalism has produced as good or superior results, and the socialist countries have not in any indisputable manner surpassed the US in any manner when it comes to healthcare.
In many areas the qualitative differences are glaring.
Capitalism has produced better results for more people without any of the pesky genocides attributable to the more extreme forms of socialism.
In more marxist terms the productive forces of capitalism are superior to socialsim modes of production? Will this always be the case? My answer to that is this: it will continue until will have unlimited means to produce unlimited ends…or until someone can make one of those matter compilers that makes Captain Picard’s tea for him.
So everybody here is also against medicare, VA Hospitals and social security, right? Just want to make sure.
Well, sorry about this, you’re getting Health Care Reform whether you like it or not. It’s going to pass and it’s going to make our country stronger and better. Obama campaigned on HCR and the majority of Americans elected him. Sorry, you lost, but it about time we had real leadership in this country. Yes, I’m a progressive, I’m for progress.
@68. Joshua: – boy, It seems to be a habit of folks here to attack the messenger …
The only “message” you’re peddling is ignorance of the Constitution and a lack of critical thinking skills.
- Please check that one out re: meat inspectors, which ARE run by the federal government.
So – you realize that your idiotic assertion about fire departments was completely and utterly bogus. You’re a little slow, but that’s good to see.
Meat inspectors??? You’re kidding, right?
Please explain what, exactly, makes you think that the existence of meat inspectors gives the government the authority to legislate itself an insurance company, and then force every American to purchase that insurance? We’ll wait.
Someone in these pages once said, “Charity by force of law isn’t charity.” We can add that compassion by legislation and political promise is too easily turned to its opposite, i.e. obsequiousness.
“Pre-existing condition” is one of the cornerstones of stuffing through the socialized insurance plan of this big government administration. Without the details that concepts seems like a nice and right thing to do. In detail, there are millions of pre-conditions, dispositions, risk evaluations, and self destructive patients ready and willing to take from the public that which they would not earn for themselves. Giving out free medical services is often rewarding bad behavior.
@71. Whitey: – So everybody here is also against medicare, VA Hospitals and social security, right?
Nice straw man you’ve got there. Careful with that molotov cock…. oh well, never mind.
Bad choices.
Medicare is completely insolvent. It survives today ONLY through a combination of extortion, theft and deficit spending. The reason? Simple. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to run an insurance company using the Taxpayers’ money.
What’s your beef with V.A. Hospitals? Do you have something against veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces? V.A. Hospitals do not serve the public at large.
Social Security is also insolvent. It should have been stricken along with the other parts of the so-called “New Deal” that were declared unconstitutional. It is a Ponzi scheme designed to funnel revenue through the federal government while at the same time forcing a segment of the population to depend on government.
Socialism is not progress, it is slow, national suicide.
Another flawless series of arguments from Dr. Hsieh.
Since they are flawless, I predict no Progressive will come anywhere near them but – following their usual methods – will simply ignore them. The question becomes, then, how many non-Progressive politicians will hear and heed them?
Here’s a thought on the “HRC if it were pushed by state or local gov instead of federal.” One – this nation was founded on a loose confederation of states that preserved, IN WRITING (Mother Laws and Documents), the autonomous independence (redundant for emphasis since it seems like it’s needed for some) to dissolve said alliance AT THEIR CHOOSING. Two – the entire purpose of the States assumption of this is so that citizen’s of one particular state might choose to relocate to another state who’s overarching laws and social contracts more closely resembled said individual’s values.
The entire distinction of a Federal Monolith vs. the Individual’s free association and governance is encompassed in the very notion of a Federally mandated UHC plan that puts the government in the business of health and life and death. As an individual the person can choose to “relocate” their business of health care both regarding provider and practitioner as they see fit. But, even barring any satisfactory situation regarding these matters… it is NOT anyone else’s responsibility for my health or financial provision to attend to such.
The very notion that any government will/can/must subsume MY RESPONSIBILITY for MY LIFE under it’s aegis is absurd and from the pit of hell. Yeah, “dialogue” is a tool for the illogical and intellectually dishonest, once exposed, to prattle on and try to entangle his opponent in answering the same challenge a thousand different ways.
If I don’t like the Health Insurance and Provision game I can, as it is now, keep my damn monies to myself and make whatever provisions I see fit to ensure my health as best as possible including using my wits to amend my diet and lifestyle to that which is most conducive to longevity. To come into ill health and short provision and expect my fellow man to pay for it through Big Government RICO techniques is to reveal an evil spirit that is anathema to the values that gave America her unique distinction among governments throughout history and drew hundreds of millions to her shores.
I will not engage traitors in debate about clearly delineated limits on the Federal Monolith. As others have said, it’s pointless to argue with the intellectually immature who will argue from the pragmatic view that has been in vogue since judicial fiat came into favor rather than from a Constitutional basis but . They’re the kind of people that, when push comes to shove, will stop arguing and put on the jackboot that comes for those that resist the compulsion.
Where will the madness of ” compulsory collective caring” end? Once we’re all bankrupt and enslaved?
** Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions ** Daniel Webster
** There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters ** Ibid
Socialism is not progress, it is slow, national suicide.
It’s slow at first, but at the very end, it’s quite fast.
** The wisdom of the wise and the experience of the ages are perpetuated by quotations ** Benjamin Disraeli
** The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion ** Edmund Burke
** I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them ** Thomas Jefferson
** The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the states, and too much liberty with the Constitution ** Ronald Reagan
** Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery ** Winston Churchill
** The history of liberty is a history of limitation of government power, not the increase of it ** Woodrow Wilson
** It is by the goodness of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either ** Samuel Clemens
Yes, I’m a progressive, I’m for progress.
Yes, because the word “progress” can’t POSSIBLY mean different things to different people.
For example, to me, because I’ve studied history and didn’t allow my mind to be co-opted by mindless modern political sloganeering, “progress” means the gradual release of the individual from the collectivism which marked early hunter-gatherer society. For you, “progress” means reverting BACK to collectivism.
Who’s the “progressive” here? You, who wants 21st century individuals to live under social strictures reminiscent of the earliest forms of tribal life or me, who regards individuals as autonomous units, capable of both voluntary cooperation and voluntary non-cooperation, as suits their individual interests?
That whole “noble savage” thing the Left has had going for a few centuries OUGHT to have tipped you off that whatever the Left is for, it isn’t “progress”. Not to quick on the uptake, I see.
The math is pretty simple. (just some averages used from personal research here) Heart surgery costs about $125,000. Cancer treatment, about $300,000, pregnancy, on the low end maybe $20,000 – on the higher end with complications, maybe $200,000 or even more. Prescription drugs maybe $5,000 a year for one person.
One in eight women will get cancer and require $300,000 in treatment. One in eight people will require heart surgery, Four of ten will certainly require preganacy coverage, Half of America is on a prescription drugs, and so on. The average family will expend maybe, what $100,000,000 in medical costs over their lifespan?
What can’t otherwise sane people see this? There is no “reform” that can fix this problem. The math simply doesn’t add up. We can’t force medical people to work for less. They’ll find different careers. Same for insurance companies, we can’t force someone to be in a specific business, they’ll just move into another one.
The reform will simply reduce access to these services because that’s all that can be done short of leaving it alone as a private capitalist “you get what you can afford” system. The reform will simply do this – it will restrict access to services and create waiting lines just as they’ve done in every other country where there is “universal coverage.” Because that is ALL it can do.
Yes, we’ll have some form of universal healthcare forced upon us through back room deals so lots of Congressmen and Senators can retire early and enjoy their newfound riches. The new healthcare will begin failing almost immediately as access to services becomes more and more limited and will dwindle your service level just as Medicare and VA hospitals and free clinics have over the years. Taxes will have to be increased on a regular basis to keep up with the costs. Those who were “for” it will continue to deny any issue (with the exception of their own personal suffering when they try to get said services and find themselves waiting for months, perhaps in pain) and they will proclaim “it’s for the common good” and we’ll all live under this new format of “we can only be as good as our weakest link” and it will be bliss.
It’s the new America. Reward failure, cheating and irrational thinking, penalize success, honesty and rational thought.
Kelly, you make a good point, but don’t take it far enough, IMHO.
It’s important to understand the how and why of these astronomical costs. They didn’t just “happen”, they evolved over decades, from a time when health care costs were in line with other commodities. This means there are at least two facets of this problem that indicate how we can resolve it WITHOUT turning control of our lives (literally) over to an elitist, unaccountable, bureaucratically paralyzed and ideologically corrupt government.
First, the scenarios you cite have a very workable solution that has existed for decades: high-deductible / low-premium “catastrophic” insurance. With a large enough group size, the costs you cite for the percentage of individuals affected are easily handled.
By decoupling health insurance from one’s employer (thereby removing the insurance administration overhead and making business in general more efficient) and, instead, purchasing catastrophic insurance either through one’s municipality or, say, a credit union, etc., we can leverage some huge benefits. For one, people change their residence far less frequently than they change jobs, which will virtually eliminate the “portability” issue. Also, temporarily unemployed individuals won’t lose their catastrophic insurance. COBRA will be almost completely unnecessary. Finally, even small municipalities can take advantage of actuarial group sizes that dwarf most companies, which will keep down rates for a catastrophic policy, which are already quite low.
Second, none of these health care prices are fixed in stone. They are the end result of decades spent paying for all health care in the most insane way possible: through the collectivizing abuse of comprehensive, group health care insurance. That insanity gave us a system where the consumer has absolutely no influence on price, and that has removed virtually all economic pressure to keep costs down. The result has been four decades of skyrocketing health care costs.
It also gave us a system where a large group of people, with extensive financial resources (i.e., the premiums they pay) fund the health care consumed by only a subset of that group. This does interesting things to price.
In a free market, the price of ANY commodity tends to rise unless there’s some downward pressure to keep it from doing so. The plans we use now completely dissociate the consumer from the provider, creating a broken market, and removing almost ALL downward pressure on prices. So prices increase constantly. Basic Econ 101 stuff.
But worse still, because of the dynamic described above, with group plans the cost of the health care consumed by, say, 30% of the group rises to a level that corresponds to the resources of 100% of the group. Hopefully it’s obvious that this is a huge problem: resource-pooling actually encourages the price to increase beyond the point where any single individual (or family) can afford to pay it. That’s the point we’re getting dangerously close to today, and it’s the phenomenon the socialists are exploiting as an excuse to ram socialized medicine down Americans’ throats.
By moving away from this insane payment system, which leftists in government have suggested, pushed, subsidized and even mandated since the ’60s, we can actually reinstate the economic relationship between the health care provider and the consumer and, thus, reinstate the free market for health care. Paying for the bulk of health care out-of-pocket will slowly bring costs back into equilibrium with other commodities. In doing so, we will also eliminate the financial burden imposed by the comprehensive, group health care insurance parasites, which are a huge part of what makes health care so expensive in the first place – not only must we support the skyrocketing cost of health care, but what we spend on health care ALSO has to support the multi-billion-dollar health care insurance industry. Without that burden, overall health care costs will dramatically decrease.
All of this can be done through tax incentives and rational action by government with respect to health care, that is – get the hell OUT of it.
– were in the Rose Garden, now inside the White House. Mr. President, let those doctors go and treat the thousands of patients who are waiting to see them. Return to Oval Office and do some work.
Excellent article, Dr. Hsieh. I think, the most important idea that you pointed out is that delegating the government to “steal” from neighbors does not make it moral.
“It’s the new America. Reward failure, cheating and irrational thinking, penalize success, honesty and rational thought.
Kelly Mar 4, 2010 – 4:57 pm”
Dear Kelly,
Are you at liberty to entertain marriage proposals?
As far as arguing the moral aspect I think it is the right approach, but this article takes it’s own bait to diverge, I think, from the moral approach and makes it a matter of a simple economic challenge. Because the argument in the article comes down to primarily paying for healthcare (as the chronological moral wrong is theft), and, secondarily, the freedoms that are lost (if they are indeed lost, at that). Whether the challenge is possible or not doesn’t matter, as we always see rhetoric trump logic in politics. And even this itself (as a moral issue) doesn’t really offend and shouldn’t be argued against, because it is rhetoric itself that we find plausibility to individual liberty. So, be specific, like a moral surgeon, and divide truth from falsehood.
The correct moral argument, I believe, is to persuade that self-preservation is in the interest of a free people, and, in fact, a movement to minimize the desire for any welfare should be prioritized by the government. Not the need for welfare, but the desire to do nothing, be lazy, and accept what you haven’t worked for needs to be stigmatized. We should, as a culture, never (not even tongue-in-cheek, or ironically) imply that laziness and doing less is somehow superior. This is constantly implied in the superiority of rest over work. Our culture promotes the do-nothing lifestyle. And our government is simply the manifestation of our cultural faucets.
Also, it must be shown that any thing that begins as a tax or mandate can never be Charity. Healthcare is about one thing: healing the physical body. It is not charity, which is a spiritual matter, and always implies the free-choice desire of the giver. Therefore, anyone who implies that universal healthcare is morally correct in this vein is a LIAR or deceived.
38. rashputin:
Excellent! Excellent! Excellent! Eloquent and very articulate. I could not have written it
better myself. Really. Bravo!
I am not a constitutional scholar or lawyer, nor am I a political strategist. And, I
really do not write this as a rebuttal. It’s more of an overall question for you and any
other interested parties who share your views on what I posted.
To begin, you said: “It’s way, way, beyond “pass a law to …”” What about hate crimes laws?
God knows we don’t need them. And I’ve heard (remember that I’m just an average Joe, not a
constitutional scholar or lawyer) there are many, many other laws that are simply
redundant, that already cover pre-existing situations.
And, I assume you were talking about me when you said: “Right there is an example of what’s
wrong with a whole lot of people these days. What part of “Life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness …” should have to be reinforced with a law of any sort when the Constitution
already declares it to be an inalienable right from our Creator? Well, yes, of course, I’ve heard that our beloved Constitution includes the words “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but the Left appears to have a different idea of what those words mean. To them, at a minimum, they mean, give me a whole bunch of your earnings each and every year so that we can redistribute them the way we see fit. Then, what’s left over for you can set the upper boundary of your “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” suckah. Who knows what they might mean to them at a maximum? Ever heard the word “Gulag?” But, no! That can’t happen in this country. Did we think a Marxist like Obama could ever happen in this country?
And, as far as “our Creator” goes, while you and I believe that there is a Creator who
endowed those things, enough people do not even believe in the Creator, while many others
believe that G-d goes by the name of Allah, who is ordering them to kill anyone who does
not share their views. (And, who knows, the ACLU might be hashing up legislation right now to strike words like “Creator” from the Constitution, under the mythical “separation of church and state” clause? Who knows what those crazies might come up with?)
Regarding your “only by eliminating existing laws, existing programs, and decades worth of
existing democrat lies that we can we avoid far worse outcomes than our health care system
not matching some utopian ideal.” I could not agree more. But you have to admit that what
you propose will not happen over night. Even if we voted out every Dem at every level of
government, they would still make up a super-majority of civil servants, who would probably
dig in their heels all the more. And, we can’t “purge” them.
Finally, I admit that I don’t know if Rose Pappas’ idea is sound from any sort of legal perspective, but I do think it would call the Dems’ bluff. So, maybe getting behind it would only prove to be good political theatre. It should help even more Americans to see what the Democratic political party has become, just how nefarious the Left is, and how a healthcare bureaucracry is all too quick to go Oregon on us and offer to assist suicide instead of cure disease.
God bless you, and you have a nice day, too.
A clear analysis of Obama’s moral ‘reasoning’ about health care is here.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/father-jonathan-morris-obama-health-care/
#86 New Utopia. The phrase “Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. The Constitution was basically a contract between the States. This contract has been mis-interpreted many times in the past. The Creator mentioned by Mr. Jefferson is “nature’s God.” Many founding fathers were Deists.
To paul_unalaska: Really, is that what Obama is up to? Do you have any non-deranged, non-right wing-nut source that for this info that you can cite?
The bottom line is:
1) We already have defacto universal health care.
2) It’s a twisted, confused and ever increasingly expensive mess.
3) You can successfully argue that any responsible President should be expected to try to deal with this.
4) You can also successfully argue that any politician who deliberately misrepresents what’s at stake just to appease an easily confused demographic is no more than an irresponsible dumbass.
Individual rights are restrictions against government. I have an inalienable right to medical care (by contract) free of the obstruction of government. Yet government denies me and you that right through the Food and Drug Administration. We should demand that it be abolished along with the grand health plans of the Democrats. Remember, they will use fear of some grand disaster as an argument against it. But all we have to fear is fear itself.
44. The problem is that the article doesn’t espouse objectivism like you accuse it of doing. This article is written from a Christian perspective; Objectivists wouldn’t consider charity a virtue, but rather regard it as a collectivist mindset to be stamped out. If that isn’t clear enough for you, then suffice it to say that we don’t want to have to pay to heal people who are suffering illness or injury due to their own bad choices and have neither the desire nor the requirement to change their ways. Why should we be asked to subsidize lifestyles we consider evil? The man who refuses to work should not be supported by the welfare state; let him starve if he refuses to procure his own food with his own resources! Love for one’s neighbor is a great virtue, but no one has a duty to support the covetous and the unrepentant fornicator, drug user, what have you.
@89. BC: – The bottom line is: …
Heh. This should be fun…
– We already have defacto universal health care.
Universal? Really? Are you high again? If we already HAVE de facto universal health care, then why are you continually exaggerating and whining endlessly about the so-called “uninsured”? If we already have de facto universal health care then, by definition, everyone is covered. But of course they’re NOT, because you don’t actually even understand what you’ve written here.
In fact we DO have “universal” health care, but it’s not “de facto”. EVERYONE has access to health care in this country – all they have to do is accept the responsibility to either insure themselves against catastrophic medical costs, using relatively low-cost high-deductible / low-premium insurance, or pay out of pocket for routine health care costs, like they do their car, rent, mortgage, utilities, cell phone, iPod, designer jeans, Nikes, flat-panel HDTVs, beer, hair dye, toothpaste, sushi and Skechers.
The problem we face now has been created by the fact that we have de facto collectivized payment of health care – the majority of Americans are enrolled in some form of comprehensive, group health care insurance plan that “spreads the cost around” (sound familiar?). Everyone enrolled in such a plan is handed a NO-LIMIT HEALTH CARE CREDIT CARD that they can use whenever they like and for which they never directly pay a bill. Spreading that cost around and encouraging people to over-consume health care because “insurance will cover it” is part of what encourages the cost to constantly increase.
- It’s a twisted, confused and ever increasingly expensive mess.
Yes, and the federal government – specifically, leftist elements in the federal government – are directly responsible for having created that mess. They have destroyed the free market in health care by manipulating it through regulations, mandates, subsidies and policy. All of those have worked to destroy the economic relationship between the health care provider and the consumer, destroy the consumer’s ability to discern the difference between health CARE and health care INSURANCE, and brainwash Americans with the belief that health care insurance is an entitlement. The result has been 40 years of skyrocketing health care costs and an electorate too dumb to realize that “coverage” is not health care.
- You can successfully argue that any responsible President should be expected to try to deal with this.
Sure. You can successfully argue that ANY responsible President would listen to Paul Ryan, who knows the financial details of this issue down to the last gnat’s hiney. Any responsible President would listen to the CBO regarding Ryan’s proposal, which has been deemed by that body as infinitely superior to current fiscal policy. Any responsible President would realize that it’s the COST of health, care not a lack of cost-ratcheting insurance, that poses a problem to some small percentage of Americans. Any responsible President would work with Ryan and the Republican minority in a BIPARTISAN way to restore the free market for health care and, in so doing, bring the cost of health care down. Any responsible President would not ignore the Constitution, pretending that the federal government has the authority to seize control of the health care AND health care insurance industries. Any responsible President would already know that the Constitution does not grant government the authority to run a health care insurance plan using the Taxpayers’ money.
- You can also successfully argue that any politician who deliberately misrepresents what’s at stake just to appease an easily confused demographic is no more than an irresponsible dumbass.
And anyone can successfully argue that this statement fits BHO’s deliberate misrepresentation of the health care “crisis” to a tee.
Another excellent article Dr. Hsieh.
88. JB:
You’re right. When I was writing what you referred to, I simply picked up on what rashputin had written to me, wherein he referred to the Constitution, and I mistakenly cited the Constitution without thinking things through. Thanks for the heads-up.
(94)
The Constitution was created to secure what was declared in the Declaration. Rereading my post, I guess my writing there wasn’t clear.
Regards
Nice article. I actually learned something when I read this. And I appreciate nothing more than learning from something I’m going to take the time to read…except maybe teaching someone something via whatever it is I do, say or write. Thank you much.