The Health sCare Issue

The proponents of so-called Obamacare too often engage in reckless rhetoric and hysterical hyperbole, but even worse, they’re guilty of simplistic, and if I may say, imbecilic exaggeration regarding the alleged benefits of such a program should it ever pass.

My son’s friend sent him an email invitation to a fundraiser to help, “Joe,” a mutual friend who’d recently incurred unexpected and expensive medical bills. Nothing wrong with helping out a friend, but this apparent Obamacare proponent couldn’t help but finished the E-overture with a political comment: If only we had universal health care, “Joe” wouldn’t have this problem.

Aside from being a bit gauche, this is an awfully simplistic view of the health care issue, but it sadly reflects its supporter’s perceived “remedy” for what ails the healthcare system. The supporters view seems to be: You get sick, no matter what; you get care, no matter what. This is a foolish utopian view, an impossible view, a socialist view, and one which ignores medical and financial realities.

It also ignores a few other facts, not the least of which is Joe’s responsibility in this drama. Joe is an average, healthy, hard-working, hard-playing—oh, and previously thought to be invincible, twenty-something, American man. Here’s the thing, Joe chose not to buy health insurance, for whatever reason. Well, Joe threw the healthcare dice and now Joe’s friend thinks it’s fine that Joe abdicate his responsibility for his own medical care. Why? He’s responsible for paying for his own food, gas, utility bills and other life’s obligations, but Joe would instead make you, and me, liable for Joe’s decision not to buy health insurance.

It is a mark of a leftist that Joe’s friend and his ilk have no qualms about reaching into other people’s pockets to pay for Joe’s medical bills. I’ve been a cop for a long time, when I investigate a case in which this sort of “transaction” has occurred, the law calls it theft, for which the perpetrator may be arrested, convicted, and sent to the pokey. Why is it morally and ethically different if government power is the force used, or is it?

I’ve never in my life heard more ordinary, formerly non-political people articulate just how concerned they are with the threatened loss of their freedom and liberty, who are, for the first time becoming, not just interested, but actively involved in politics—conservative and libertarian politics.

It seems more and more average citizens, as happened in colonial America against an oppressive crown, are finally realizing that those on the far left, as opposed to the average mainstream liberal Democrats from whom the Democrat Party has been stolen, are not simply another voice in the American political spectrum, different, but loyal, they are instead the enemies of liberty, they are the enemies of the quintessentially American, pursuit of happiness, and they must be vigorously opposed.

Our readers said:

Write us your thoughts about this post. Be kind & Play nice.
  1. ~Angie says:

    There has to be a middle road here. It is simplistic to believe that it’s a matter of fiscal responsibility to choose whether or not to purchase health insurance. Sometimes the choice is to pay the premium or to purchase food, or to pay the electric bill. This is not the fault of the person who lost their job because the Madoffs of the world bent them over and drilled them. I find this even more offensive coming from a cop, whose very generous insurance policy is part of his employment package. Wonder how smug you’d be if you were forced to personally pay the $1800.00 a month for a family of four that my sister has to pay. How does someone on minimum wage afford that? If paying for some form of national health care is the government stealing from the people, what is the school tax, and other taxations that benefit some individuals and not others? And don’t even get me started on how the people get stolen from by having to make up what the churches don’t pay in income or property tax.

Express your thoughts