FirstClown

firstclown at firstclown.us

Why I’m Against the Federal Health Care Bill

I've seen a lot of discussion about the Federal Health Care Bill that eventually devolves into name calling or 'rah-rah team' style arguments without getting into actual facts about why people are for or against nationalized health care. I sometimes wonder if people even know why they are for or against it or if they're just saying what all their friends say or what their party tells them is right. I've thought a lot about this and this is the conclusion that I've come to.

First off, if you think giving health care to everyone is a dumb idea in and of itself, then you are a heartless prick. If universal health care were possible, I would be all for it and I would hope everyone would be all for it.

The problem is, it's not possible, and it hurts me to say that. I wish we did live in a world where everyone could be taken care of and kept safe, but we don't. This country is in a severe debt crisis, a debt crisis brought about because we thought we could take care of everyone and we're realizing that socialism on a grand scale doesn't work. We saw what happened in the USSR when they tried it, the economies of Greece, France and England when they tried it and now we're getting the same results; a weakened economy, loss of wealth and a government with it's hands in every aspect of our society.

I'm not saying socialism as an insult here either, which a lot of people seem to be doing lately. I mean socialism in the way Karl Marx meant it; the pooling of capital and resources to be used in the collective benefit of the community. I actually think socialism can work on a small scale within a larger free market society and I have respect for anyone who chooses that kind of life.

However, it can't and hasn't worked on the scale of an entire country. When people are forced to to become socialist and pay taxes for services and programs they don't want or don't believe in, that is wrong and immoral. If they can't use money they earned to better their communities in the way they see fit, all of society loses. Then governments, that are run by human beings just like us, gets power over the people since they are the sole deciders on how money, just a stored form of labor, is used in a socialist country. Power breeds corruption in all people and the more power you have consolidated, the more corrupt individuals you attract and the more power they want to have. Lobbyists come in and try and grab a little for themselves and work to get the government bigger so that they can keep getting a bigger piece of the pie. Soon lobbyists and those attracted to government positions feed off the government and government feeds off the people until the country is bankrupt and in so much debt and with so little freedom that it won't be able to survive.

It's hard to name a program that the government has actually gotten right. We keep being told that the reason we need universal health care is because Medicare and Medicaid aren't working (and are going broke). More and more doctors are going out of business or turning away Medicare patients because they can't afford to take them anymore. When costs go up, the doctor's get blamed for it even though the government's been monkeying around in health care for the past 50-some years and helping drug companies do whatever they want. The problem isn't people, the problem is the government's influence and regulation of the health care industry which drives out competition and drives up costs.

Another problem I have is just taxes in general. Distribution of wealth is just legalized theft.

Say you're walking down the street and see someone begging for money and decide to give them $10. That's a noble and right thing to do.

Let's imagine the same scenario, but you see five other people on the street too. You tell them all, "Hey, let's give this guy $10." Maybe some of them do it, but one of them says no. The begger got $50 from you and four of the other people but you feel angry about the other guy who didn't give. Are you allowed to beat the crap out of the guy? Should you be able to get all of the other people together and force him to give up his $10, even if he needed it for something else? What if you called it "taxes"? Can you do it then?

That is what taxes are, a forced way to make people give to your cause. You are being forced to have police frisk your kids at school, pay for someone who isn't working, give money to banks to prop them up (and get huge bonuses), imprison people for using drugs, maintain the parks, run the libraries, teach kids about sex in school, give grants to non-profits doing things that you don't agree with, maintain old lighthouses, etc. I'm against some of these things and for some of them, but no one should be forced to pay for any of them. How many don't go to the library but still pay for it? How many will never have children but will still pay for others to go to school (and a shitty school at that).

People would say that if the government didn't pay for these programs that no one would. That's bullshit. If everyone suddenly had 33% more income, you would see a lot more charity donations and giving in general (and paying for many of the programs above). You would also see a lot more investment from people who had more money which would mean more jobs and more productive growth. The fact that people wouldn't put money into some of these programs probably should tell you that people don't want it. One of the most democratic things we can do in this country is vote with our dollars. Voting with our dollars has more impact and more use then a vote for a representative will ever have and that vote has been taken away from us in many areas of our lives. Would you buy bombs for the military for their wars overseas if you had the choice? I know many who would and some who wouldn't, but it's not our choice and we can't regulate how much money is spent on that war. I would much rather spend that money on domestic charities, but I don't have that choice.

It's a running joke that government wastes most of the money they take from us, so why do we always keep hoping that it will somehow change and do it right this time? It has never done it right, so let's all please stop hoping and instead try something else. With the government's track record, it is clear to me that a Federal Health Care program is going to cause way more problems than it solves and waste way more money then they're saying it will. That is why I'm against the Federal Health Care Bill.

And just to be 100% clear, Democrats and Republicans are both filled with corrupt power-hungry bottom feeders. I don't like either one of them or what they stand for. I'll talk about that in a future post.


Related posts:

  1. A Comment on the Movie “Zeitgeist” This is a response to a friend about a post...

Tags: , , ,

  • Well, first and foremost, I would like to say that your tone in this post is refreshing, you are being intellectually honest, even if there are problems with some of the arguments. I am glad you say it bothers you if we can't provide everyone health care, it is an honest approach and you may very well be right.

    First, I would like to say, I am a fence sitter on most major issues, including this one. I also, can say, that I wish we could cover everyone, but I can't claim to know how to do it any better than anyone else. There is a shortage of doctors, hence limited supply and nearly unlimited want. Not sure how this can ever be solved.

    With that out of the way, there are a few factual holes. First, between 1900 and 2000 England went from being the financial, political and cultural centerpiece of the world, to passing those mantles off to the US in almost every respect. Yet, during this time period both US investors and British/UK investors received return on investment at the same percent down to a tenth of a percent (I am still looking for citation, it is either Robert Shiller or Jeremy Siegel). The UK had socialized healthcare for approximately 50% of that time and they were rebuilding their country from 45 to 55 if not longer. I believe England/UK is a bad example.

    Besides, linking French, Greek, and English economic problems causally to their nationalized health care is anecdotal at best. The counter to this argument could be Belgium and especially Japan.

    Next you stated, "When people are forced to to become socialist and pay taxes for services and programs they don't want or don't believe in, that is wrong and immoral". This is a slippery slope that could never be used to justify government policy. There are plenty of pacifists and doves that would love to opt out of paying for defense, roads, boarder guards, etc.

    Though I have made your argument many times about paying for schools (I don't have any children and I am 34), I know it is ludicrous to opt out of all programs I don't want to participate in. I would surely become a free rider. It happens now, even in private industry, at many jobs, you can't opt out of the health care benefits completely.

    After getting excited reading your initial paragraphs, I was a bit disappointing to find that you didn't back them up with more logical arguments. I don't completely disagree with you, just in your form of argument.

    I think the strongest argument against nationalized health care right now are the economic downturn and the complete and utter ineptness of the Democrats, I genuinely wouldn't want any of the bills I have seen. It needs to be logical and balanced. But, given the Hippocratic (Hospitals Treat Anyone/Everyone), we (the USA) are bound to a philosophy that is not strictly economic in nature, but ethical in nature. Therefore, I believe, though we are currently helping everyone (at least to the best of our resources), there may very well be a more economic approach, that satisfies these ethical obligations. Or maybe we will just continue down this path and all of us will go to the emergency room when we have problems. Then doctors will truly ration our health care.
  • I can see how the argument might break down. I think that I'm assuming a certain mindset here that not everyone has. This is usually the problem with political arguments anyway and something I hope to avoid in general. I read it now and see where you're coming from.

    My central argument still remains, this country is not in good financial shape. Passing any kind of big spending bill like this will cause us more debt and more pain. We just saw what happens when the American public takes on too much debt and I would like not to find out what happens when our government takes on too much debt and overextends itself (if it hasn't already).

    I think the ethical choice is not allowing the government to do this because they won't do it right and will kill any future attempts at letting people do it right. We may have a philosophy that is ethical in nature and not economic, but I don't believe economic forces will care.
  • Agreed, it is all about mitigating pain.
blog comments powered by Disqus

FirstClown is powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).