The early forenoon bestows my soul with an adamantine optimism. I can rest in the promise that, for the Christian, “hope maketh not ashamed.” Yet at times, owing to my selfish, terrestrial sense of entitlement, even hallowed covenants ring hollow when I remember that hope is born of tribulation.
In a few hours I shall relish exercising at a local YMCA. Shortly thereafter I plan on thoroughly enjoying an early morning round of golf. Next, during the lulling hours of a rare day off of work, I may write, enjoy a book, or draw. Tomorrow, it’s back to a job I love, earning money for to spend on fast food and textbooks this fall. Why should I not be allowed to do all of this, to experience the elementary gratifications of life, without having to worry about whether or not my friends and family will die an unnecessary death at the hands of an ineffective government health care system? Why must I be fearful of the strangle-hold of an overbearing number of taxes that may keep me from advancing my family’s livelihood? Why should I have to use any certain types of light bulbs in my own house?
Of course, I should not. The problem with the “progressive” worldviews so popular among the teeming, alternate realities of American college campuses, is that it flies in the face of individual freedom. The human capacity, and indeed need, for community, is perverted by its adherents. However, otherwise good people many times don’t notice the misconceived, unnatural evil of collectivism for its elusiveness.
For example, notice the subtle perversion of the following quote: “Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential.” On the face of it, I certainly do not disagree with these deceitful words of Barack Obama. But notice what he is doing. He is talking as a politician, not from the perspective of a pastor. The hearer is to believe that Obama has found his true potential, no “poverty of ambition” there. No naked, desperate grasp for power or anything. It is fine for Obama to dictate your life (he’s the “larger than yourself” part) because government, for him, has replaced God. You, as an individual, have no right to separate your ambitions, your goals, your dreams, from the larger community. Your desire to be wealthier than whatever the latest benchmark is ($200,000?) is judged by the non-greedy, non-ambitious-for-the-wrong-reasons federal government as a sin.
The arrogant, reckless, totalitarian rot all to common among Obama’s speeches, interviews, and off-hand comments seem to be cool ‘wit us youngsters. Well I for one reject the worship of government and its puppeteers that manifests itself in the disgusting, religious display of numerous “hope” bumper stickers and shirts which literally treat the image of Obama as that of Christ.
I am not scared by Obama or congress, not really. But, at times the fullness of the pregnant quote of George Washington’s that “The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army” hits me. For, the fates of unborn millions depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of the American electorate. Let us allow the tribulation of history’s collectivist societies bear in us hope, not the failure of our own nation.
Leave me alone to live my life, I beg of you.
Do you not worry about whether your friends and family will die an unnecessary death at the hands of an ineffective corporate health care system; or be rendered impoverished by an unsympathetic insurance company that denies coverage?
I imagine that most residents of any other industrialized country in the world would find your apprehension about government-run health care to be misplaced. Or, closer to home, US military employees and their families appreciate having access to what is essentially a government run, single-payer health care system.
Absolutely unfounded? Not sure what you mean there — private health insurers routinely drop people’s coverage entirely or refuse to pay for elective care, given the slightest pretense. Private insurers also routinely lean on employers who have employees with certain expensive conditions; an employee with breast cancer can add $1 million to an employers annual health care cost. I would personally feel much more safe and free with a national health care system that would cover me whether or not I’m employed and whether or not I have any pre-existing conditions. Why should anyone be impoverished by medical costs?
@ *: I do not pretend to be an expert about health care. However, to me it is simple. It is about freedom of choice. I don’t care what they say about being able to stay with our current providers. They are lying or at least in a round-about-way telling the truth. They will tax business and individuals who do not do what they say and provide very strong incentives for companies and people to go to the government provider. When someone comes along and has pretty much endless amounts of revenue and provides something free, other companies can’t compete with that. And, then, the government will inefficiently run health care because they cannot, it is impossible, to efficiently centrally plan something that intricate. People will die because of it.
Freedom of choice doesn’t do you any good if you have no health insurance, or you are denied coverage by your insurer, you’re unemployed, your deductible is too high, or you’re dead. Before I returned to school a few years ago, I had insurance through my employer. It was a really good plan with a very low deductible, but I couldn’t find a dentist who was “in network” any closer than Cary. I saw a doctor in the UNC system for several years, but then one day I received a bill after an appointment — UNC no longer accepted my insurance and neither the doctor’s office nor the insurance company had notified me. No choice there…
You assert (with no evidence) that the government will inefficiently run health care, yet the US system of private health care is vastly more inefficient and expensive than government run or government funded health care in other countries. Compared to France, Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the US spends the most — twice as much as Germany — yet still has the lowest quality care.
Close to half of all US personal bankruptcies are linked to medical expenses and medical costs have been rising at 2-5x the rate of inflation. Clearly the current system is not sustainable. I look forward to your upcoming series on how to actually deal with these problems!
@ *: Look, you are obviously very informed and I appreciate you commenting. I lack your experience, but, nevertheless, I have been sick before. How in the world have my parents afford the ability to keep me healthy and pay the bills for my medical needs if America is such a crappy place to get medical help?
And, no offense, but you seem to be whining about a personal problem that has nothing to do with whether we should nationalize health care. Obviously you should change insurers. And, frankly, it is stupid to suggest that we have the lowest quality care in all the world.
Of course tragedies occur in life to some people and medical expenses wipe out their savings. This also happens when investments go bad, when people are swindled, or robbed, or when a natural disaster occurs. Life is tough. But, I am not buying your arguments.
You need to work on your reading comprehension:
1. Did I say America is a crappy place to get medical help? No, I said private health insurance is a very inefficient method for delivering medical care.
2. “Obviously you should change insurers” — are you really that naive? You can’t go to your employer and say “I don’t like the health care plan you’re offering, I want a different one.” At the time, my options were to find a new doctor; or pay out of pocket $400+ per month for an equivalent plan from a different insurer; or find a new job. I found a new doctor.
3. Nowhere did I suggest that the US has the lowest quality care in the world.
@ *: This is tiring. You most certainly did suggest that America has crappy health care. On your third point I admit you did not mean in the whole world you meant out of France, Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Lastly, I meant pay out of pocket if it was that bad. I also could have suggested you get a new job or choose from the other insurers your job may offer if the health care you had at that time was too debilitating. If you desire to understand what it is like not to be able to do those three things, I suggest you support government mandates; the government has a monopoly on force. If it tells you you can’t do something, you really can’t unless you desire to face criminal charges. Please stop acting so arrogant.
*:
I think you’ve got some legitimate points on the health care system. The problem, however, with socialized medicine is that too few people will end up paying into the system, yet everyone will benefit from it. And although insurance companies routinely do all the things you described, and although they can be rather cold-hearted, it’s also true that the West’s advanced medical care is inherently expensive, and not all people are ever going to be able to afford such advanced treatment. The question then becomes: Do we treat everyone equally poorly, or do we accept the sad reality that some people are going to get better care than others? Then there’s the fact that people of all financial backgrounds waste a lot of their money. They spend money on drugs (of all kinds), alcohol, iPods, movies, etc., that they could be spending on health insurance. Certain types of people make it part of their lifestyle to live on welfare and government checks, and are incredibly lazy. Giving them essentially free health coverage would do nothing but encourage such behavior and make it even worse than it already is.
*:
I appreciate your experiences. My biggest problem with socialized medicine, however, is not that it, per se, is a terrible idea. The biggest problem is that a good number of people could afford health coverage if they didn’t spend so much money on other luxuries. I can’t even begin to count how many people I have come across in my experience who complain about conservative fiscal policies, yet who go to the bar every weekend, smoke weed and cigarettes, have all sorts of unnecessary gadgets, and basically spend unwisely every red cent that comes their way. I have trouble feeling sorry for those people—and there are a lot of them. In fact, I would venture to guess that a significant percentage of people who cannot afford health coverage could afford it if they were more responsible.
Also, let’s face it. Western medicine is pretty miraculous. Such miraculous treatment is inherently expensive. I hate to inform you, but people in Europe and Canada who are deemed “too sick” are also denied coverage. It’s called rationing. The government does not have the ability simply to create wealth or resources. The real question, then, is: “Will the government do a better job than the free market in creating the most EFFICIENT system?” That is certainly debatable, but, ultimately, let’s be honest. The idea that the government can provide comprehensive coverage to everyone is unlikely. So, my biggest concern, at this point, is whether or not my and my family’s coverage will be affected (as it certainly could), whether or not my taxes are going to go up significantly, and whether or not it is going to affect the economy too detrimentally. I’m also concerned about the lower class and irresponsible people living off of my hard work.