AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

There’s Nothing Selfish About Being Furious at Being Forced to Give Charity at Gunpoint

Absolutely excellent points made by these commenters at Ace of Spades HQ regarding “Obamacare”. All of which I agree with 100% (otherwise I wouldn’t be posting them, heh).

I don’t know if this is a good message for the Republican Party. It’s “selfish” (as if the other side’s position isn’t similarly “selfish.”)

Bullshit it’s “selfish”. It’s called taking care of myself. There’s an enormous distinction there. There is nothing unfair or cruel about the fact that I worked very hard to get to where I am and to have the job that I do and to have the health benefits that I do.

I’ve been poor. I don’t mean not well off, I mean ‘I don’t know how I’m going to pay rent or buy food’ poor. I was uninsured for years because I had to choose between rent and health coverage. And you know what? I never once expected anyone else to pay for me. What I did was to work and improve my situation. And I will be damned if I let anyone, anyone at all, try to guilt me into paying for someone else.

Look, I think it’s utter crap that health insurance is tied to jobs. I have a very close friend who has been out of works for months and he’s now uninsured. Needless to say, he’s all in favor of some kind of single payer. However he’s also turned down a few offers that, yeah, were for crappy jobs, but were still jobs that offered benefits. We got into a huge fight when I asked him why I would have to pay for his health benefits when he was turning his back on an opportunity to take care of himself.

There’s nothing selfish, nothing at all, about being furious at being forced to give charity at gunpoint. Make no mistake, that’s what a movement to single payer healthcare is.

Posted by: alexthechick at July 21, 2009 01:28 PM

For the latter, single payer is a step up. (Although, again, not as great a step up as hoped, because the system as a whole will inevitably become mediocre or worse, as it has everywhere else it has been tried.)

Not to mention it will run the best doctors right out of medicine. Brilliant doctors deserve to become rich; they go through the crucible of med school, where most incur thousands of dollars of debt, and then they go through internships and fellowships, where they get paid shit. But they know they’ll make a lot of money one day, so they do it. This plan will ensure that they don’t bother, and we end up importing doctors from places like Sri Lanka or wherever.

Posted by: UGAdawg at July 21, 2009 01:30 PM

And then there is also Peter Singer’s case for rationing:

http://tinyurl.com/kslxy3

He says that the dems need to be honest: there will be rationing with single payer health care. And that is a good and necessary thing.

Of course, he is right that everybody cannot get whatever health care they want at any time. The difference is that he wants the state to decide who gets to live. That happens to scare the shit out of me.

This is Peter Singer, in case you don’t know who he is. He’s in favor of a “trial period” for women with newborns. Don’t like the new baby? Then just kill it. Don’t worry, it’s ethical. He’s a professor at Princeton.

The piece is actually very interesting because it is so honest. I can’t help but think that it hurt the case for socialized medicine.

Posted by: Inigo Montoya at July 21, 2009 01:31 PM

Here’s a list of links dealing with healthcare:

NiceDeb has a great addition to the healthcare bill’s attempt to kill off insure the elderly.

http://tinyurl.com/nwt5ez

—————————

Pretty awesome sign/pic/whatever

http://tinyurl.com/ldwahs

http://tinyurl.com/mvbzjk

(NYPOST)

—————

http://tinyurl.com/nwddeq

Leftist Blogger to Obama: Does Your Health Care Plan Outlaws Private Insurance? Obama: I’m Not Familiar Enough With My Plan to Know…..(WZ)

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter

Posted by: momma at July 21, 2009 01:40 PM

Local radio talker Jay Severin is doing a good job of putting the message:

First, nothing’s free. You will pay for it. Your children will pay for it.

Second, when 50 million people jump into the pool, we’re all going to drown.

Third, the crimmigrants and scofflaws who don’t have insurance will be seeing your doctor, ahead of you, and you will pay for him to do it.

Fourth, there will be no recourse. If your child is sick, no amount of money, power or influence will get your child better care. There will be no “private option”. If the government says he’s going to die, then he’s going to die. Period.

Posted by: ATNorth at July 21, 2009 01:40 PM

I’ve given up trying to reason with libtards about this. Any time I’ve voiced my concerns that the gov’t might f up my coverage they’ve told me either 1) I’m being selfish – “you have yours so screw everybody else”. or 2) they pull the “we put a man on the moon”, so why can’t we do this.

And I thought that the Christians were the moralistic finger waggers. Silly me. They certainly come down on you when you blaspheme against the Federal Gov’t by saying it’ll screw things up.

The progressive’s 10 commandments:
1. The U.S. Gov’t is the Lord your God
2. You shall have no other governments be the U.S. Gov’t.
3. You shall not idolize anything, but the U.S. Gov’t.
4. You shall not take the name of the U.S. Gov’t. in vain.
5. Remember the Federally designated holidays and keep them holy.
6. Honor your president and 1st lady (only if they are Democrats)
7. You shall not kill in the name of the U.S. Gov’t.
8. You shall not love anything but the U.S. Gov’t.
9. You shall not bear false witness against the U.S. Gov’t.
10. You shall not covet your income, it belongs to the U.S. Gov’t.

Posted by: rockhead at July 21, 2009 01:41 PM

This is all so damn depressing, it really is. I spent a week at a conference/ training session last week, instructors were from the UK. Over lunch, one of the instructors told me about the deplorable state of health care for the elderly in London. Her 78 year old mum was hospitalized after a series of small strokes, and apparently the nurses come around during meal times, dump the meals on the bedside and come around again promptly 30 minutes later to pick them up, not caring if the patients had the capacity to feed themselves – some of them could not unwrap the plastic coverings from the meals or hold the utensils to feed themselves; hence the high percentage of ‘starvation deaths’ as she put it, in the hospitals. If their next of kin was not there, the elderly were literally neglected and left to die in the hospital.

Posted by: IC at July 21, 2009 01:43 PM

Gibbs said yesterday that folks like you are “LUCK ENOUGH” to have insurance.

As if hard work and personal responsibilty has nothing to do w/it.

Posted by: dananjcon at July 21, 2009 01:48 PM

The real problem with single-payer in the US is that worldwide medical innovation will stop in its tracks.

Let’s suppose that America went single-payer in 1970.

There would be no MRI. None.

The private sector develops a lot of innovations just based on the profit motive, as all of us morons know, but none of the Obama voters have figured out. No government health system will want to pay for early MRI technology because it wouldn’t produce cost-effective results.

Of course, once it finally got developed, countries like Canada and the UK bought MRI machines (though not enough) but only because the technology was developed in the US.

The Obama voters will say, “Well there’s plenty of innovation at NIH and universities,” but there are two problems. One is that being in medicine will no longer be a desirable profession, so the vast army of researchers will be thinned and the whole profession will have fewer financial resources.

Further, it takes a long chain of research to get from theory to an actual working treatment. And anywhere along the chain will be some funding bureaucrat saying, “That isn’t worth the money, we won’t fund it.” Then it ends.

Of course, any given company can stop research along the chain, but with many researchers, funding agencies and companies all sharing scientific knowledge and innovations, it’s likely that somebody will take a risk on a new treatment.

The analogy that I love for innovation is the VCR. In the 70’s it was huge, unwieldy, ridiculously expensive and rare. Only the very rich could afford it.

But…because they could afford it, they bought it and the profitability lead to improvements that made it more and more affordable so that it was finally available to a mass market. Plus, companies figured out how to market and sell the products so that when DVDs came along, the culture of buying and renting was already established.

If somebody said, “Hey, we’re going to create a portable tape machine for televisions and it’ll cost tens of thousands of dollars” and there were no rich people to buy it, it would never get made.

The only reason there is any medical innovation is because it is developed in the US. We’re even subsidizing all of those cheap Canadian drugs because it’s a tiny market, the big money is in selling to Americans. If it weren’t for us, these drugs would never get developed in the first place.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 21, 2009 01:53 PM

the same pantywaists that got all hot and bothered about someone listening in on Mohammed’s overseas phone calls are now suddenly ok with the government holding their medical records.

Because medical records will only be used against the Right People.

How long, for example, between the passage of new slavery national health care and the “accidental” leak of Rush Limbaugh’s complete medical history? Meanwhile, of course, no one’s seen anything but a note from Obama’s doctor saying he’s excused from gym class.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at July 21, 2009 01:59 PM

I admit, I am “privileged” to pay for my own healthcare insurance. I am also privileged to get up off my ass and get to work every day. And was privileged to starve and study my way through engineering school, then work like an animal until I proved I was worth more than a paperweight. It is also true that the poor people I know are poor because its too much trouble to get up off their asses and do something for a living. Or work just interferes too much with their drinking/doping/fucking off time. Or they just prefer to buy toys with the money. So why should I give a fuck that they don’t have insurance? Somebody point out to me in the bill of rights where healthcare is their right. Screw that crap.

Posted by: maddogg at July 21, 2009 02:04 PM

An old accountant told me today “you’ll be lucky to take home thirty percent of what you earn” and he was serius and disgusted.

Posted by: muffy at July 21, 2009 02:04 PM

The question I have is not on the demand side, but the supply side. Obama is going to put the 50 million uninsured (sic — I don’t believe this number) on the insurance rolls, including 12+ million illegals. These folks, instead of living in the shadows, can now go to the front of the line and demand their free abortions, sex changes, liposuctions, etc. and the hospital has no choice but to take them — and for its efforts, it is reimbursed at something like 80% of what Medicare now pays, which is something like 75% of the actual cost. So the hospital has

a) an unprecedented increase in demand, at

b) a price it cannot sustain.

At the same time, no one who changes jobs can sign up for private insurance, so they get dumped into Obama/Gangstacare with all the illegals and the poor. So instead of the time honored solution of hospitals charging the paying customers more to subsidize the non-paying customers, the pool of actual paying customers starts to rapidly decline.

How many private hospitals stay in business a year into this program? They have no one to pass their costs onto.

So, from the supply point of view — you’ve just forced all kinds of hospitals to shutter their doors. Do you think with insane demand chasing minimal supply, prices will go up or down?

Granted, the government can hold prices down at gunpoint in a command economy — Hitler pretty much put an end to inflation by sending anyone who raised prices to the camps. How do you do it in America? How do you stop a private company from saying “We’re getting out of the hospital business since it doesn’t pay and instead we’re going into selling internet pr0n because we think it might be more lucrative?”

You end up with

a) massive government bailouts/takeovers of the health care industry, or

b) massive rationing (only Axelrod can approve operations costing more than $500),

c) a command economy in which doctors are simply ordered not to leave their posts, and X amount of college graduates are drafted into the profession to sustain their ranks.

So, which is it going to be? All three?

Posted by: PalinFan at July 21, 2009 02:31 PM

Advertisements

July 22, 2009 , 3:26PM - Posted by | Barack Obama, Communism, Fascism, Healthcare, Liberalism, Marxism, Socialism

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: