« UAW: Our jobs are more important than yours… | Main | Seeing as the Fantasy Football play-offs start today… »
Humanitarian=Domestic Terrorist
By Lt. Ripley | December 9, 2008
Here’s some heavy reading to do over your morning coffee. I found it over at Electric City Weblog during a discussion of a recent popular topic- Universal in-some-manner Health Care.
One excerpt I particularly enjoy-
If the primary objective of the philanthropist, his justification for living, is to help others, his ultimate good requires that others shall be in want.
Thus we see seemingly intelligent people like Mark T fall under the deceptive spell of Humanitarianism and all its failings and strive for something that will ultimately make things much worse for the majority while doing little to help the truly needy. We see a bill/idea being pushed that will force 90% percent of Americans, who are doing well, into a lower quality “program” because “kind hearted” Leftists feel that the other 10% of people (most of which ARE NOT complaining) have a problem. This happens with just about any sector- and I haven’t noticed one time where the Government taking over has solved a problem.
War on Poverty? Nope.
War on Drugs? Nope.
Medicare/Medicaid? Nope.
Education? Nope.
Homelessness? Nope.
Joblessness? Nope.
Hunger? Nope.
UNHAPPINESS??? Uh, nope.
And it’s playing just for you Mark T, and all the “humanity” you are attempting to “help”.
…Ahem…
Fact is, the Government cannot, nor will ever be able to, solve your problems for you. We must all be able to pay our own way, and if we cannot, we should not feel entitled to other people’s money. Ask for help from a local charity, your family or friends. But quit expecting the massive Federal or State bureaucracy to figure it out for you. It will only sink us all.
Two quotes from a man much smarter than me:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-Benjamin Franklin.
Topics: Healthcare, Terrorism, Welfare State, Economy, Randomness, Stupid things the Left does/says, Society and Culture, Zombie Apocalypse |
7 Responses to “Humanitarian=Domestic Terrorist”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:58 am
[…] Read the original post: Humanitarian=Domestic Terrorist […]
December 9th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
This is very extreme stuff you’re putting up here. Natelson is an extremist. You too?
First, in health care, 90% of Americans are doing well because 50% of them are already on government programs. 47 milliion Americans do not have insurance - younger ones often by choice, but mostly working poor and older people with preexisting conditions. It’s a situation that the private sector can do nothing about because these people are not profitable. Therefore, the government, which you mis-characterize as some evil force that is not us, must step in. And will.
When the day comes that you are 50 years old and have a preexisting condition and find that no insurer will touch you at any price, you’ll change your tune.
War on Poverty? I am largely opposed to merely giving people money - I am more in favor of providing a minimum standard, not pleasant, but enough to keep them alive while they either get educated or acquire the necessary skills to either hold a job or be self-employed. I agree, the War on Poverty had many shortcomings and mostly failed. But I was just a kid - 15 years old. What did I know when I started it?
War on Drugs? This is not my doing. The W-on-D is a cover for US military interventions in Central and South America, and has little to do with drugs.
Medicare/Medicaid? Successful programs.
Education? Hit and miss - public education coupled with good families does a fine job. Dysfunctional families (there are a lot of them), not so much. But the problem is in the families, and not the education system.
Homelessness? A problem. Care to work on it? Have you worked a shelter lately?
Joblessness? There are many programs and subsidies for hiring and training. Along with unemployment benefits, government does a pretty good job. But when the private sector crashes under its own weight, as it has now, government is the employer of last resort. Change it if you can. What would you do?
Hunger? Food stamps, while not my choice, and school lunches, a very nice program, work well enough. I say “not my choice” as I see too many overweight people using food stamps to buy high-carb-high sugar foods. More control and education is needed.
UNHAPPINESS??? Interesting - people are happy or not all on their own. A study (I’m aping Natelson, citing studies that support my point of view) I read about in the Wall Street Journal found that people on Wall Street and the streets of Bangladesh are as likely or unlikely to be happy in the same percentages. It’s all relative.
Anyway, your right wing litany is, as always, so flawed as to be useless. The world does not work as you think.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Extreme? How so? And does labeling someone help you defeat their argument?
50% on government programs? Numbers please and proof. Not very many people I know are on government programs for health care. And your “who’s who” of uninsured have been debunked , you just don’t care to listen. Shall I link you?
I’m not coming from the standpoint of blaming insurance for doing what it’s supposed to do- the very thing that Government WILL DO when it takes over health care- which is ration. Where I’m coming from is the point of view that says if I want/need an expensive surgery, I should foot the bill… whether that means putting money in a medical savings account over the years, or contributing to an insurance company, even paying high taxes. Two of these ways spread out the cost so that healthy people pay more in order to pay for the sick people. Guess which method I view as ideal? That’s right- saving for your own potential future health care needs.
The difference that we seem to have is that you feel that sick people have a RIGHT to cheap, life saving, top of the line health care- without breaking the bank or draining their savings. I disagree. Why should someone else be forced to pay (other than in a voluntary insurance situation) for MY health care? Insurance is voluntary. Any sort of government plan would necessarily involve forcing healthy people into the system in order to afford the higher costs associated with sick/fat/lazy/unhealthy/injured people.
People like a woman I knew who smoked for 40 years, then expected others to pay for miracles in cancer care. She also didn’t take care of her Type 2 diabetes and was forever on new meds, or in the doc’s office for more problems. Guess what? She expected others to pay for HER life choices. I know that not every medical emergency involves personal choices- accidents happen, but the responsible SANE individual knows that their bills are their own, no one else’s.
No one owes us shelter, income, houses, education, cars, food, or even health care. In this country we are promised the OPPORTUNITY, but not the outcome. It’s up to us. And charity/family/friends are designed to take care of us when we momentarily struggle.
I could go down that line of items, showing you where and why I disagree, but suffice it to say that I disagree with you on nearly every one. The cause of unhappiness is the only thing we see eye to eye on– why isn’t everything else the same? Why is it that Unhappiness is only thing we leave (correctly, IMO) up to the individual and their personality, but when it comes to security, situation of life, etc. all of a sudden it’s up to the Government to insure good outcomes?
Like many others have said before me, this is the true evil of humanitarianism. In order to “help”, you have to keep people in want or need of it. Sad, Mark, sad.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:36 am
The uninsured number of 47 million has not been “debunked”. It comes from the US census, which has not been debunked either. It does not include illegal aliens.
Health care costs are like the angel of death hovering over us - at any given time, very few people will be beset with huge costs that will wipe them out unless they are very wealthy. To address this problem, insurance was invented, but it suffered from a fatal flaw - adverse selection. Healthy people were unlikely to buy insurance - only people likely to get sick applied.
The industry came up with two solutions - one, sell insurance through employers - employees are not adversely selected. Second, in the private insurance market, insurers reject coverage for people likely to get sick, and of course, for people who cannot afford policies.
Consequently, insurance avoided coverage for certain people - the elderly, the poor, the sick. Government stepped in. Government has done a very good job.
By the way, your solution, an HSA, would be wiped out by chemotherapy in a week. You’re not cognizant of the nature of the problem. You, like many on the right, simply don’t have a good grasp of the nature of the problem and the most effective solution (universal coverage, as all other industrialized countries have done.)
6 in 10 Americans (61%) have private health insurance coverage. Twenty-eight percent of adults nationwide are covered by Medicare or Medicaid, and 11% do not have any health insurance at all. I said 50-50.
Regarding extremism, the libertarian ideology is on the fringes. You picked up this thread from one put up by Rob Natelson - he is a man who believes in no government regulation, no public property. He’s an extremist.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I’ll repeat what I said … do you have a link or proof that “most” of the uninsured are “poor and older people”?
And 28% in Medicare or Medicaid would indicated that just over a quarter of the population is covered through government programs, NOT 50% as you asserted earlier. How many of those are happy with that? I’ve never thought that Medicare or Medicaid was a good program. It’s ok if you have no other options and you’re wanting coverage. I personally would not wish to be on it (and I certainly can’t afford health coverage). But what do I know.
Yes, the specter of death and destruction looms over all of us… but it’s called LIFE. When you get into a car, you face the possibility that you may die. Life has risks. You cannot remove them all, nor do I understand why you would want to. Your health is part of that risk.
And I do completely understand. You do not know me. My ideals and principles are formed because I have experience and knowledge of it. What would I do if I faced a life threatening disease, and the prospect of huge bills? Well, either I do not accept treatment and die… or I do what I can to pay the bills that my treatment requires. Either way, it’s up to ME.
At some point, we all die, Mark. You can mitigate that somewhat by good preventative care (which I practice) and by looking ahead…. by mentally and financially (if you can) preparing for whatever life throws at you.
If we all paid for what we used, and paid for it directly to doctors, hospitals, etc, then we would be facing lower costs and better care. If we all faced those costs OURSELVES, you would see people educating themselves and using more preventative care. Whenever I am sick, or one of my children, I don’t first head to the ER or even the doctor. I research what it is, watch symptoms and decide if there are things I can do myself. If I need to, THEN I head to the doctor. If he/she suggests a certain treatment or course of action, I find out what that entails, what risks may occur if we don’t do it, and find out costs and difficulty.
In other words, we have the system we have because a sizable chunk of people have allowed themselves to be lazy and ignorant about their health. Now they want to spread that to the whole country. Not all of the uninsured want insurance. Not all of the “poor” want the government to step in. I certainly don’t, and I would qualify. I’ve been under government “health” care and would NEVER want to repeat that experience.
I’m not an extremist, but I do not trust the government with my health, information or my money. This is a collision of basic ideals, Mark. Unfortunately, it appears that we can look at the same info and come to different conclusions based on our differing viewpoints.
December 21st, 2008 at 9:56 am
If you are in a car accident, and one of your children needs expensive life-saving care that you cannot afford, we will pay for it. You’re a free rider. Further, the idea that you would willingly give up life rather than accept charity health care is far-fetched. Only someone depressed and world-weary would make such a choice. Healthy people who love life always choose life.
You’re on the Natelson fringe, misunderstanding the nature of humans who live in communities, are interdependent, share infrastructure and pay for it with both taxes and charity. We care for one another, just as the Puritans did. I suppose they had one or two who thought they could go live in the woods on their own, but they woudl always come back to share the warmth of the community hut after being dispossessed of their illusions.
The problem is, your illusions masquerade as a coherent philosophy, complete with gurus.
December 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I’m starting to question your reading comprehension skills.
I didn’t say I wouldn’t accept care- only that I’d work to pay for it myself or go to family, friends or charity. Also that I evaluate what care I do currently receive based on education and a knowledge of what a procedure costs, its effectiveness, and the availability of other solutions.
What I’m pointing out is that no one OWES it to me.
I think infrastructure is awesome, and we totally need charities, organizations, etc. I just want to see it on a smaller level, have the Feds stay out of it, and keep tax dollars for what they were intended.