by CylinsierThe Public Option. Is it alive? Is it dead? Is it in some kind of half-dead half-living state of zombie-like existence, shuffling back and forth on the floor of the Senate, incoherently mumbling and grasping at nearby people as they stare, horrified? Or is that last one Richard Lugar trying to remember where the bathroom is? I don't know.
But I do know this: the whole optional public option thing is kind of silly. Mostly in name. "Optional public option." Think about that. Its like a bullet gun or a wooden tree. In other words, it was optional before you made it optional. The only thing that "optional" part of "optional public option" is accomplishing is the essentially the exact opposite of what anti-reformists have been crying about, and that is more government control.
Let's be reasonable here for just a second. Those of you against the public option are all about making your own decisions without government intervention...right? So if the public option does get passed, do you really want your dumbass governor deciding whether or not you will convert to socialism? We're talking the principal here. The whole point of the option is that individuals are supposed to choose if they want it.
Not that I care that much. It'll be better than nothing and I live in a state that'll choose it. Once the option has been instituted in various states and shows a certain level of success, the other states will bow to pressure and eventually allow it. And it will be successful, as Republicans continue to remind us. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so worried about private insurers going out of business. But I felt the need to point out yet another ridiculous lack of consistency in the anti-reformists' playbook: Using government intervention to protest the intervention of government. Sphere: Related Content
5 comments:
Well, it looks like the public option is a) alive and b) super optiony... First, the states get to choose, then the individuals get to choose...
I wonder how many states will throw their own citizens under the bus for the sake of party ideology?
Socialism is based on the fatally flawed misconception that man is able to shape the world around him according to his desires. Like all self-deceptions, it is guaranteed to end up in failure and usually ruin.
I can hear your cries of “socialism, smochalism.” And it is evident to me that a sense of self-importance has been festering in American hearts and minds for years, right alongside the ballooning growth of government and the ever increasing American ignorance about what government is about. You guys are the poster children.
What’s new is the willful bending over and grabbing of the ankles. The Declaration of Independence, states that man has the "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that men form government to "secure these rights." Jefferson said that the purpose of the government is to protect me.
Now Congress is making it the role of government to define what health insurance is, and force me to buy a policy that covers what government dictates, tracking my behavior through the IRS to see if I have complied, fining me if I haven't, and sending me to jail if I refuse to do it.
Which begs the question, can Congress enact legislation that orders me to buy insurance? Maybe a better question is can Congress enact legislation that orders me to buy tofu? If so, where did they get that authority? What provision in the Constitution empowers the federal government to order an individual to buy a product he doesn’t want? This isn’t a question about nutrition. Its not a question about whether tofu is good for you or about the relative merits of tofu versus other food. It is a question about the constitutional limits on the power of the federal government. It is a question about freedom.
What scares the hell out of me is that no one seems to care about the constitutional limits on government power. Government is now attempting to exert authority over the lives of Americans in a way no president and Congress has done before. All versions of the health care bill under consideration in Congress would order Americans to buy health insurance. If any of these bills is enacted, the first thing it would accomplish is the gutting our Constitution, and another sucking chest wound to our liberty.
So move over Grandma, Elipptikarl and Cyvladimir want their health insurance. I, Me, Mine.
Actually the government already requires that you have insurance. It's called Car Insurance. And if you don't have it, they track you and you pay a big fine. $300 or so the last I encountered it. I will explain why THIS is okay, but health insurance is not: The primary person benefiting from health insurance done correctly is the PATIENT. Since those in power already have health insurance, it won't benefit them. In contrast, the primary people benefiting from requiring poor citizens who can hardly buy groceries to insure their vehicle (which is only worth maybe $100 to begin with) are rich people driving $50000 Beamers. You certainly wouldn't want to get stuck with the bill after some $100 1989 Toyota caused $20,000 worth of damage to your Beamer... No. Much better that that dude with the shitty Toyota pay more than his vehicle is worth every year to make sure YOU don't get screwed.
Not to mention that we already legally mandate that doctors and hospitals treat people regardless of their ability to pay... It's ok to force one person to do work for another person, but not ok to force the other person to have at least a minimal ability to financially reimburse the doctor for his labor?
Why don't we force concrete finishers to give people new driveways, but without requiring that the homeowners to pay for the work?
That doesn't sound very conservative to me...
Gertard…you are mixing apples and chain saws. Requirements for car insurance are state by state and they are mandatory for liability only. You are not insuring your shitty little Toyota, you are insuring your liability for killing someone while you are driving irresponsibly. This of course would not be necessary if we did not have so many frivolous law suits. The insurance is so if you drive your Toyota into your neighbors garage door there will be some money to replace the garage door, not your Toyota.
Everyone benefits from liability insurance. They don’t care how rich you are, if you seriously injure someone with your car, they don’t ask if the victim was rich or poor before they write the check for the medical care and more. The primary person benefiting from the mandatory car insurance is the injured VICTIM.
A person driving a $50,000.00 beamer can probably self insure the value of the car. The insurance is when the $100 Toyota owner acts like they won the lottery and sues the shit out of the beamer owner for injuries real or imagined.
Once again we mandate that doctors have to treat everyone because of liability. Are we seeing a trend here? The best way to reduce medical expenses is Tort reform but we never hear that from the Dems. The Dems want to keep their voters on the new plantation. Keep them dependent on government for everything.
The difference is simple. I can hurt you with my car and you can hurt me with your car. But my health is of no consequence to you and your health is not my responsibility either. If I don’t take care of myself and have no insurance then it’s not your problem. By the same token if I do take care of myself and have Beamer health care then that is not your business either. And vice versa.
Public health care would be like saying that because some people are homeless we need to put everyone in public housing so everyone will have a home. Why should I have to have Yugo insurance when I have worked hard all my life to have Mercedes. To bring it closer to home, if you have earned an A in your Masters College Course and another person in your class is flunking, why should you have to reduce your grade to a B to bring their F grade up to a D?
Post a Comment