Tired of politics yet?
Too bad.
The good news, for you, is that in two days will will get a break from the incessant political ads which are about as truthful as a 16-year old who promises to pull out in time. The bad news is that the sniping will continue until the next election cycle begins in two years.
I’ve received plenty of responses to my last little diatribe, and rather than respond to each of them one by one, I’d like to offer a blanket response. First, I’d like to respond to one post in particular. How can you shoot down the concept of government subsidized health care while simultaneously advocating an arrangement shared among extended family (I believe you called it “clan”)? You’re making the same arrangement from a smaller base. Instead of looking at all of the United States as “your clan”,you break it down into smaller social units of people that you happen to be related to by blood. There’s a difference? You have no problem “chipping in” to help others, as long as they’re family.
There are two fundamental arguments at work here. Obligation is not something that can be forced upon someone else indefinitely. At some point an individual must accept responsibility or he will either be negligent of, or actively resistant to, that obligation. On the other hand, living in a society is a social contract. In accepting society’s benefits and protections (police, roads, armed forces, etc.) you implicitly agree to obey that society’s laws. The law is not an “ala carte” menu. You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which do not apply to you. Law applies to all equally. (at least, in theory)
The question that must be answered is “Can government perform this societal function better than the individual, and would the benefit of such activity be beneficial to all?” In a comment from Data Vortex, he includes a link to a story about a Congressman who votes to give money from the treasury to a family who is burned out by fire. Indeed, in the story cited, it would be inappropriate for Congress to vote to give money to an individual or single family. The story fails to pass the test of the above question. It does not benefit everyone equally.
However, what if Congress had voted to create a trust fund that could get all families who are burned out by fire back on their feet? What if such a fund were available to any families who needed it? Such a concept would pass the test of “beneficial to all”, and if such a plan were possible, the government could employ the economy of scale required to make it happen. It does not answer the practical details of such a plan, and I believe that is our greatest weakness as a government. Too often, we pass bad ideas as law in the interest of “doing something”. “Something”, in this case, has to be the RIGHT thing.
I would not support “Universal Health Care” if the plan is “a blank check for every medical procedure”. Such a plan would invite waste and fraud. I do not believe that means that there is no solution that would provide benefit to all, but I believe it is a problem that should be addressed, and soon. I believe that promoting competition in the medical and insurance marketplaces is beneficial. I believe that transparency in the insurance industry is a good idea. I believe that if an individual can do better on their own that they should be encouraged to do so.
But I also believe that “Tough Shit” is not a good enough answer to those who can’t. At some point, it is in our interests to look out for our fellow Americans. Not on every issue, and not all the time, but at some point it makes things better for us as individuals if we make sure our neighbors are in good shape. There is a continuum between “every man for himself” capitalism and “nanny state” socialism. The question is where we lie on that continuum.
