Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Why "socialized medicine" is a stupid idea

Over the weekend, I had one of my usual political discussions with my largely liberal friends. The topic this time: Socialized medicine (SM). Oh, they tried to call it something else - like Obamacare - but in essence they were talking about government run healthcare, which is pretty much SM. I told them that SM was a stupid idea, no matter what noble intents they have in mind, and of course, I explained why! ;-)

Their usual arguments was for the need to insure even the most poor among us; not only that, if I say that I am Christian, then one of my Christian beliefs is to help "the least of my brothers". Such emotional manipulation by liberals is common, and pretty much their only strategy to persuade others into thinking their way. The intent is the manipulate the person into thinking that "if I don't do as they say, then it shows that I'm a mean, heartless bastard, for what good person would deny (victim group) what they most need?", so the person being manipulated capitulates. It's a tactic that liberals have used to great effectiveness for at least four decades.

However, having been raised in such an environment, I am virtually immune to such tactics, so often have I been exposed to it. SM is still a stupid idea, regardless of the emotional propagandizing that is used to get it accepted. For one, if that's what liberals support, then call it what it is: Socialized Medicine. To try to find new terms for the same thing suggests doubt of the purity of what they are trying to peddle us. To try to push something despite the doubts they themselves have about it suggests a con game is afoot. And given that we are talking about the government running health care, the likelihood that a con game is afoot goes up to virtually 100%.

What makes me say that? Because, friends, who will be running the show if we get into government run health care? D.C. politicians and bureaucrats! So what do politicians care most about? Hell no, it's not the well-being of the voters - it's getting re-elected! I was gonna say that "well-being so long as they vote for them" - but hey, the dead have voted too (seriously!), so as long as they get your vote, you can be alive or dead! Once they get power, what's next? Keeping it, of course! So my view is that the Democrats' push for SM is a push for more power. If they can get this show on the road, then they'll further entrench themselves in power more so than they are now.

Such desires for power are paramount - even more than the health of their constituents. Hell, if the health of the constituents gets in the way of the acquiring of even more power, then they'll be allowed to die - that is, unless mandatory euthanasia is also passed. Don't think that they won't try to work that in next! Don't believe me? Which party talks the most about overpopulation: Republicans or Democrats? If all this is still not enough to scare you, then maybe this will: To pass SM is to hand your healthcare over to... lawyers! Do you seriously want your healthcare to be run by a bunch of lawyers?

Now don't get me wrong; I'm not blind to the failures and shortcomings of HMOs; so ultimately our healthcare decisions are based on whether we want to trust a bunch of greedmongers out for a profit (HMOs) or a bunch of powermongers out to score their next reelection (politicians). Either way, we're screwed, it seems. However, if we die, then HMOs get no more profit from us, so it's in the best interests for their bottom line for us to stay as healthy for as long as possible. For liberal politicians however, if we die, then that's one less carbon footprint to worry about. If they succeed in institutionalizing SM, then it's no sweat off of their collective brows whether we live or die, because remember, they can still get our vote even if we're dead!

Ultimately, however, SM is a stupid idea because it will never succeed in getting healthcare to the very poorest among us, because dear friends, there simply isn't enough money to do that with things the way they are now. This is because of the giant boondoggle of a bureaucracy that would be required to run SM, which would only succeed in ensnaring much needed funds in mountains of red tape. Thus, these funds won't reach the poorest of the poor, but only find their way to other "needy" folks - that is, those in need of being reelected. If we really want to get healthcare for the poorest among us (and arguments can certainly be made for why it's to all our benefit to do this, including the previously mentioned Christian belief.), then there are much better ways of doing this without lining the pockets of politicians. I just might make that a separate blog entry.

And last, the final reason that I think the liberals are fullacrap when it comes to their alleged belief in SM is this: If they feel that SM is going to be that beneficial, then get on it too. Here's the kicker, folks, and this is one of the reasons that I ultimately went down the path of conservatism: A lot of liberals are hypocrites, especially the wealthier they are. SM is supposed to be a healthcare utopia, yet they won't go on it if they can help it. Public transportation is supposed to be good because it helps the environment, yet how many ride the city bus? In fact, how many of them have fancy cars, and more than one? Public schools are supposed to be great because it keeps impressionable young people out of the hands of religious idealogues, and yet how many liberal parents send their kids to public schools?

If these things are supposed to be great, then shouldn't these liberals be setting the example for the rest of us by using them? That they don't speaks volumes of what they really believe. Along with not using SM, public transportation, and public schools, they are also not emotionally invested in the success of these things. With no emotional investment, then there is no motivation to make these things better. The rest of us can put up with crappy healthcare, poor public transportation, and failing schools so long as they exist as a shiny badge for the liberals to show off to their liberal friends.

I really, really hope that the upcoming election brings the sort of change that is feared by the Democrats, because it would be unprecedented, as well as shocking to the establishment. And I hope this groundswell carries over to 2012. That would truly be a populist uprising, and one that I could support.

No comments: