I don’t doubt the conviction of liberals who advocate that government control of healthcare will benefit almost everyone. It’s an appealing argument: e.g., coverage of pre-existing medical conditions; “children” can remain on their parents’ insurance until age 26, if you don’t have the money to pay, you get it all free. Where do I sign up? And, if the goodies you receive are not sufficient to persuade you, then there’s always the argument that, “Everybody else is doing nationalized healthcare.”
What’s wrong with this picture? For one thing, the government provides absolutely nothing for free. Someone has to pay - - big time; that is, you, I, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and at least 50% of all Americans. (When all this settles out, it’s likely that the remaining 50% will pay zilch.)
Not a problem, you say, just cut back on defense spending and all will be fine. That may work - - until the Chinese or some radical Middle East country, emboldened by our deteriorating defenses, decides to call our bluff and destroy a few of our cities. (Remember 9/11?)
The seminal question is: What’s likely to happen when our heretofore relatively benign government takes over at least one-sixth of our economy? Do well-meaning liberals truly believe that healthcare will be managed more efficiently or fairly?
Certainly Lenin and his proteges (a.k.a., dictators) sincerely believed that their “humane” collective systems would bring the greatest benefits to the most people. What the people got (their elite rulers excepted) was an almost sub-human existence, constant propaganda (lies), and extreme cruelty.
And as for those “enlightened” countries with national health plans, medical mediocrity and bureaucratic quagmires are now the norm, not the exception (e.g., shortage of doctors, lengthy waits for treatment, lack of innovation, severe rationing).
Let’s not go there.
Jim Littlejohn
Concerned Coastal Voters
Gualala, CA
No comments:
Post a Comment