Not only is Obama a sneaky, underhanded something or other, with a missing link he hides from the public—unqualified to be our president—but his Obamacare, with his underhanded scheme in 2,400 pages aimed at making you think government is giving 30 million people health care at no cost, if it sounds too good to be true, it is.
The U. S. gives selected people health care with the idea that it is right, good, and proper. It is proven in Canada and England that socialized health care does not give many needing health care the care they need. If it is right, good, and proper for government to give people health care, it is certainly right, good, and proper to give people food, clothing and shelter. Guaranteed health care is but one cog in the wheel of cradle to grave security, compliments of government, government producing nothing. Government is merely people acting as redistribution agents. What makes them more right than those who produce? Nothing. It is people with the power to make might right, good, and proper.
In order to reduce the cost of health care, so that the 30 million new recipients can get theirs, the U. S. is paying doctors to advise senior citizens to not take advantage of costly treatments, but rather to let their lives end. Since senior heath care is responsible for most of the cost, and government is obliged to pay it, government should have the right to cut the cost, but the question: why should government be at all involved in the decision of whether we live or die? Why should government be involved in our health care at all? Since government’s involvement, the cost has skyrocketed. Because of government’s involvement in our personal lives, giving and taking at will, the national debt is out of control. Just since Obama took over, the debt has increased more than the total debt created since America’s beginning.
Enter the drug cartel. The drug industry has bought government and medicine. Chemo medicine alone is a $300 billion a year industry in the U.S. The results of chemo are absolutely dismal, with oncologists making millions, and Uncle Sam, the goon squad, protecting them. There are cancer cures that work, and at a fraction of the cost. Chemo does not work. The drug industry is putting out billions fighting sure cures.
The way America’s government has heretofore paid its debt is mostly by controlled inflation, watering down the value of the dollar with printing press money. The mighty, to keep inflation from hurting a weak economy, make printing press money. Monopoly money has reached an unprecedented amount. The mighty have the thought that it is better to loan money to the nations about to fold than to let the world’s economy go up in smoke.
I’m not interested in control. So I ask: why is it better to put off this manmade disaster? The only assurance we have is the public’s confidence that this pie in the sky will not come down in flames. Sooner or later, when people lose confidence in the dollar, we will have uncontrolled inflation. We know what happens in uncontrolled inflation. The mighty take total control; the people become slaves. Obama is not an American. He is hiding his identity. A something or other Obama is part of a worldwide plan engineered by people who have convinced themselves that they have the answers for all of the world’s problems. They start with a desired end and then force all the pieces to fit. We are in that process. When we reach the point of moral, spiritual, and fiscal bankruptcy, desperate for the answer, the mighty will have their answer for the whole world. They think they can take the place of God. We’ll see. I say they don’t have a chance.
Comments
Phil:
As presented, this is a much more palatable argument. Especially so with the closing caveat.
Yes, you do have the right to sit on a curb and starve to death. Yes, you do have the right to sleep out in the rain and snow and freeze to death. Yes you do have the right to be a miserable individual who constantly whines about the unfairness of the world. You should even have the right to run through the streets naked; but at least doing that might help you to get some relief for the first to conditions mentioned.
Just because a society has grown does not then make that society answerable to a small percentage of the populace. Yes 30 million is a small percentage; in the U.S. A. that is less than 10%; elsewhere it could even represent an even smaller percentage of the populace.
It is the Largess that society is willing to offer and can afford that determines the degree to which those who are disadvantaged will be cared for by others. But, claiming that largess as a Right is like saying, "You gave me this so NOW you OWE me that." This outlook then becomes a growing perception. Eventually, society will wise up and say "NO!", or it will face collapse.
Drop the self-delusion that anyone has any RIGHT to freely lay claim to any of the work product, property, or time of another.
Years ago there was a working healthcare system that actually did provide for the disadvantaged in accordance with their need. Yes, there were still those who fell through the cracks, but it was far better than anything available today. That has long since failed, thanks largely to our legal system.
Right now the system is simply overwhelmed.
Get the lawyers out of our healthcare system, or, at the very least, severely hamper their effect. Stop providing non-emergency/life-saving healthcare to Non-Citizens who have entered, or remained inside,this Country in defiance of our laws, and the system could once again become workable.
By the way, I think I fall into about six of the seven categories you listed that place one's continuing healthcare at risk. I would also like to see the system corrected. But trying to proclaim something a Right when it is entirely dependent upon the viability of the society to be able to provide it is not an answer; it is a recipe for disaster.
Phil:
I think I disagree with almost everything you had to say here.
Health care is not a Right nor is it incumbent upon Government, READ THE TAXPAYING POPULACE, to assure that the cost of care for any individual, or group, is within the means of that individual or group.
For something to be considered a RIGHT, I believe it must pass one simple test: must anyone else actively provide it for you?
If someone else has to do anything active in order to assure you have something, then it is not a Right. I will allow for exception in the case of infants, children, and other persons who have not yet learned, or who cannot learn, to fend for themselves.
Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. Think about that!
You have the Right to be alive and nobody has the right to deprive you of life without just cause. But it is not incumbent upon anyone else to feed you or provide you with protection from the elements of nature. Consider a person alone in the wilderness. Society will not be there to care for them. If they cannot care for their own needs then they are just not going to make it.
You have a Right to move about freely and nobody has the right to arbitrarily restrict your movement. True, in today's world there are property restrictions and such. But, these are not arbitrary and did not simply come about because some individual randomly decided to make it so. You cannot legally be imprisoned in the United States without some justifiable reason. I know there are some terror suspects who might disagree with me on that. But, if they were not suspect for some definable reason they would not be held; and I will grant that those reasons are getting sketchier and sketchier as time passes. Still, no one has to provide a person of normal physical capability with a means of locomotion.
We have the Right to try to be happy with our lot in life. No one else is responsible for causing another to be happy. Others may bring you sadness, but it is still up to you to find the joy.
All of these Rights are yours for the taking, No one must provide them for you, and it is only incumbent upon you to not cause harm to others or deny them their Natural Rights while exercising your own Natural Rights.
One other Right we are supposed to have is the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms". It is a shame that this Constitutionally stipulated Right is all too often "Infringed". ("A well armed Society is a Polite Society!" I am not certain who said that, but I think it may have been Mr. Franklin.)
Malpractice is ridiculous, not in that it provides compensation for the victim of a wrong, but in the outrageous extent to which that compensation is exacted. TORT REFORM NEEDED! That alone would probably do wonders to reduce the cost of health care.
Accidents happen, that is unavoidable. But just compensation need not, and should not, set out to "Break The Bank."
I do agree that the best way to drive up the cost of an established activity is to get the Government involved. But, Government, again read the Taxpayer Money Pool, can still be of service where research and experimentation is still in the active or early stages.
As for what the "Republicans did for our health care crisis before Obama stepped in"; even that was too much!
Joseph:
Good article, but I do not think we are done yet. We are close but it ain't fork time.