The Insane Myth of Government Health Care
The question was this: A seemingly healthy 30 year-old man decides to not buy health insurance because it is too expensive. He ends up in a coma. Should we let him die?
Wolf Blitzer loaded the question as a man would load bullets into a gun. It wasn't meant to get an honest response. It was meant to make a tv spectacle, and to make Ron Paul look bad. Just as the debate was not meant to be an honest debate, but a show, a spectacle to befuddle the masses into a stupor between election cycles.
The scenario seems like a case of rampant, inhumane capitalism versus merciful government intervention. Our debates are usually constructed in similar anti-capitalist false dilemmas, because establishment Republicans and Democrats both hate capitalism, and want to give more power to the state.
Start at 2:30.
The Republican audience cheered that he should die. (Jon Stewart correctly points out that Ron Paul opposed that response).
We should all be appalled. And we should do something about it. But this is where debate actually matters. We should ask ourselves, "what's the best way to save lives?"
It would be completely insane to consider giving control of medicine over to the government.
When government decided to provide retirement through Social Security politicians spent the money on things other than Social Security. Things like wars. And handouts to corporations and banks.
When government decided to wage a war on poverty, they made it harder for poor people to get jobs, and increased taxes on poor people through the secret tax of inflation.
When government decided to wage a war on terror, they increased the likelihood that we'd be attacked by terrorists.
Putting these people in charge of medicine seems like a bad idea.
Some would argue that unless we force people to contribute, no one would help. But that argument proves itself wrong. The fact that we're debating whether or not we should help him, proves that there are people out there who would help him, otherwise there would be no debate.
There are millions of kind-hearted people like you out there who would help.
So let's do it. Let's provide the best healthcare in the world to everyone, whether or not they can afford it. Nothing can stop us.
Why waste this golden opportunity on that same organization blew our Social Security funds? The same organization that steered our economy off of a cliff, and then bailed out their co-conspirators on Wall Street. The same organization that murdered 500,000 Muslim children and said it "was worth it." The same organization that harasses us at airports. The same organization that blew $500,000,000 on bad investments. The same organization that hasn't figured out to run a business.
Why in the hell would we hand over the keys of our hospitals to them? You would have to be out of your effing mind.
If you want to help the poor and uninsured, why would you choose to do it through the most inefficient system ever devised by man? Why not use an efficient system, like a non-profit NGO that has some sort of accountability and track-record of success? Why do we always turn to those corrupt bureaucrats in D.C.?
They've proven that they are incompetent. They've proved that they'll murder children if it's politically expedient. They've proved that they are only good at failing.
Let's help poor people. But let's not funnel our hard-earned money through the sticky hands of Congress and their crony Big-Pharma lobbyists. Let's not put the lives of the injured and the dying in the hands of those who will say and do anything to get elected.
Wolf Blitzer loaded the question as a man would load bullets into a gun. It wasn't meant to get an honest response. It was meant to make a tv spectacle, and to make Ron Paul look bad. Just as the debate was not meant to be an honest debate, but a show, a spectacle to befuddle the masses into a stupor between election cycles.
The scenario seems like a case of rampant, inhumane capitalism versus merciful government intervention. Our debates are usually constructed in similar anti-capitalist false dilemmas, because establishment Republicans and Democrats both hate capitalism, and want to give more power to the state.
Start at 2:30.
The Republican audience cheered that he should die. (Jon Stewart correctly points out that Ron Paul opposed that response).
We should all be appalled. And we should do something about it. But this is where debate actually matters. We should ask ourselves, "what's the best way to save lives?"
It would be completely insane to consider giving control of medicine over to the government.
When government decided to provide retirement through Social Security politicians spent the money on things other than Social Security. Things like wars. And handouts to corporations and banks.
When government decided to wage a war on poverty, they made it harder for poor people to get jobs, and increased taxes on poor people through the secret tax of inflation.
When government decided to wage a war on terror, they increased the likelihood that we'd be attacked by terrorists.
Putting these people in charge of medicine seems like a bad idea.
Some would argue that unless we force people to contribute, no one would help. But that argument proves itself wrong. The fact that we're debating whether or not we should help him, proves that there are people out there who would help him, otherwise there would be no debate.
There are millions of kind-hearted people like you out there who would help.
So let's do it. Let's provide the best healthcare in the world to everyone, whether or not they can afford it. Nothing can stop us.
 |
| Well, almost nothing. |
Why in the hell would we hand over the keys of our hospitals to them? You would have to be out of your effing mind.
If you want to help the poor and uninsured, why would you choose to do it through the most inefficient system ever devised by man? Why not use an efficient system, like a non-profit NGO that has some sort of accountability and track-record of success? Why do we always turn to those corrupt bureaucrats in D.C.?
They've proven that they are incompetent. They've proved that they'll murder children if it's politically expedient. They've proved that they are only good at failing.
Let's help poor people. But let's not funnel our hard-earned money through the sticky hands of Congress and their crony Big-Pharma lobbyists. Let's not put the lives of the injured and the dying in the hands of those who will say and do anything to get elected.
Comments
Post a Comment