The Mendacity of Legislators, Part Two.
The health care debate rages on, and still I watch the news and want to throw up. We've got this brilliant plan to force everyone to have insurance which doesn't even stop to consider the question of who exactly it is that doesn't already have insurance.
Let's see. Poor people. Unemployed people. People who are already sick and uninsurable. That's who the government now wants to force onto the rolls of insurers. And to what end, really? I hear arguments about how "more insured equals lower costs of health care", but what that really sounds like to me is "let's steal money from healthy people." And, of course, the currently-uninsured include a large number of people who would be a drain on the system rather than financial contributors.
Let's be honest, people; there's only one party which benefits from a government mandate to carry health insurance, and it ain't the people who don't have it right now. It's the insurance companies. They absolutely love this legislation, because it's money in the bank for them. You may wanna check the campaign contributions for your local mendicant.
And it's for this reason that I am about to say something which surely must give pause to anyone who knows me, and which catches in my proverbial throat even as I "say" it: if I had to choose between this plan and the nationalization and socialization of the entire health care industry, then I'd have to choose socialism. (Admittedly, I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that health care should in no way be a for-profit endeavor anyway, but that's an observation based entirely on the effect of the health insurance industry to begin with.) It's one thing to tax me for the greater good; it's another entirely for the government to order me to increase the profit margin of a private business or else become a criminal. But of course our lawmakers can't possibly support socialized medicine. It's not because the populace would revolt over this vile display of socialist governance; it's because every major insurer and corporate hospital chain would go batshit and get people unelected.
Anyway, for those who think this is even remotely acceptable, change "health insurance" to "American automobile" or "cable television" or "cell phone service", and you'll see just how hard you should be fighting against this "health care plan". Setting aside the question of whether the government is even competent to run health care to begin with, one thing is indisputably true: if a service is so important that the will of the people deems it necessary for absolutely everyone to be served, then the government needs to get off its ass and run it. I can choose not to buy a GM, I can choose not to watch HBO, and I can choose not to carry around a phone. I can even avoid the legal requirement to carry automotive liability insurance by not driving. But when you tell me that I cannot choose, then you have to take the responsibility to oversee the operation. Otherwise, you are forcing me to do business with private concerns against my will, which is an even greater evil than socialism.
Let's see. Poor people. Unemployed people. People who are already sick and uninsurable. That's who the government now wants to force onto the rolls of insurers. And to what end, really? I hear arguments about how "more insured equals lower costs of health care", but what that really sounds like to me is "let's steal money from healthy people." And, of course, the currently-uninsured include a large number of people who would be a drain on the system rather than financial contributors.
Let's be honest, people; there's only one party which benefits from a government mandate to carry health insurance, and it ain't the people who don't have it right now. It's the insurance companies. They absolutely love this legislation, because it's money in the bank for them. You may wanna check the campaign contributions for your local mendicant.
And it's for this reason that I am about to say something which surely must give pause to anyone who knows me, and which catches in my proverbial throat even as I "say" it: if I had to choose between this plan and the nationalization and socialization of the entire health care industry, then I'd have to choose socialism. (Admittedly, I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that health care should in no way be a for-profit endeavor anyway, but that's an observation based entirely on the effect of the health insurance industry to begin with.) It's one thing to tax me for the greater good; it's another entirely for the government to order me to increase the profit margin of a private business or else become a criminal. But of course our lawmakers can't possibly support socialized medicine. It's not because the populace would revolt over this vile display of socialist governance; it's because every major insurer and corporate hospital chain would go batshit and get people unelected.
Anyway, for those who think this is even remotely acceptable, change "health insurance" to "American automobile" or "cable television" or "cell phone service", and you'll see just how hard you should be fighting against this "health care plan". Setting aside the question of whether the government is even competent to run health care to begin with, one thing is indisputably true: if a service is so important that the will of the people deems it necessary for absolutely everyone to be served, then the government needs to get off its ass and run it. I can choose not to buy a GM, I can choose not to watch HBO, and I can choose not to carry around a phone. I can even avoid the legal requirement to carry automotive liability insurance by not driving. But when you tell me that I cannot choose, then you have to take the responsibility to oversee the operation. Otherwise, you are forcing me to do business with private concerns against my will, which is an even greater evil than socialism.