Both are "sold" to a "stupid" public through a "campaign of exaggeration and outright lies" now known as "Grubering".
Monday, November 17, 2014
How climate alarmism relates to Obamacare
Labels: global warming, healthcare, liars, Obama, Watts Up With That
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Obamacare was botched and did have a lot of problems, but I think the real question needs to be asked is why do most Americans oppose the idea of having universal health care which almost every other developed country supports. The real proper way would be to say a society is judged by how well it treats it weakest members and having 45 million uninsured is not a sign of a civilized country. Off course that argument would have politically hurt Obama since Americans unlike Canadians don't believe in helping their fellow citizens thus why he had to lie. I would off course argued he just shouldn't have bothered since if Americans don't want a more compassionate and caring society, then why bother trying.
"Compassion" is personal, not administrative.
"Society" is shaped by voluntary interaction between free people not by a coercive State.
"Civilized" is respecting and protecting individual rights.
And maybe that is why Americans reject Obamacare. It's a pack of lies built on a foundation of bureaucratizing compassion, glued together with coercion and violates basic property rights.
Just because half the world believes or supports something doesn't make it right.
And if, in fact, we were a "compassionate society" then we wouldn't need universal healthcare because it would be taken care of through personal initiative. The fact that it has to be forced onto us is proof that either we are not a compassionate society or that our compassion is multifaceted and distributed instead of being concentrated in a single area such as healthcare. Personally I believe it is the latter. So, in other words, universal healthcare diminishes, by force, the free choice of how to dispense ones' own compassion. That's tyranny and has no place in civilized society.
johndoe124 - I think your being a little unrealistic. The Libertarian ideals may sound great but like any ideology it needs to be taken in moderation. Second of all it may be force, but the majority and in the case of Canada the overwhelming majority want it so shouldn't governments serve the public for good or ill.
... Americans unlike Canadians don't believe in helping their fellow citizens ...
That is just rank bigotry. American values are not much different from Canadians'. In fact Americans are known to be much more charitable than Canadians. And privately expressed "compassion", as johndoe points out, is far superior to the government dispensed variety, which isn't charity at all.
Although they generally like their mostly private system, a large majority of Americans support reforms. There are many reforms available that would be much more effective than the dishonestly imposed Obamacare.
I would disagree that American and Canadian values are similar. There are a lot in common relative to non-Western countries but there still are some start differences. I would say Americans lack compassion, but they tend to be less community oriented and while charity is great some things, but not all require government programs. And it should be noted even Canadians prefer the private sector on most issues although tend to tolerate government ownership and intervention to a greater extent.
And I agree reforms other than Obamacare are possible. I believe the best system is a parallel private system which is what exists in much of Europe and falls in between what Canada and the US have right now.
I should add maybe lack of compassion is a bad term for describing Americans, but rather they are less communitarian. Compassion is strong at a community level, but there isn't the same level of social solidarity as there is in Canada. Off course private charity works in many cases, but some things like health care are too large to rely on private charity and wouldn't work without a government program although you can still allow a parallel private system which I should note of the 29 OECD Countries everyone save Canada and the US have.
45 million Americans that you say don't have access to healthcare is a misnomer. No one dies in the streets in America. Everyone has access to free healthcare through state owned hospitals. The stark difference between the term healthcare in our two countries is that in Canada we pretend that healthcare is surgery and access to a doctor of our choosing. In the US, healthcare includes, dental, drugs, physio, optical, chiro etc. all of which are not covered in Canada either. When anyone makes the claim that 45 million Americans are uninsured, it's pure propoganda because the belief is false that these people do not have access to healthcare.
I agree, Steve, and not only does everyone have access, they have access without long waiting times.
Also, that number of uninsured includes 10 - 12 million undocumented (illegal) "Americans" plus a large number (up to one third) of voluntarily uninsured (mostly young people who take a calculated risk). Without those two groups the number drops to about 20 - 22 million or 7% of the population. That's a lot less dramatic than the 45-47 million progressives are so fond of quoting.
It's true no American will be denied health care due to inability to afford it, but they can however go bankrupt or have their life wrecked in terms of high bills. Also those who cannot pay up and walk away are covered by charging higher fees to those who can pay. Very few Canadians even Conservatives favour a US style system. Most who want more private sector involvement tend to point to Europe where you have a public system like Canada, but you also have the option of using a parallel private system otherwise having a mixed system, which interestingly enough seem to work better than both the American private system and the near government monopoly in Canada.
"...but they can however go bankrupt or have their life wrecked in terms of high bills"
And? Does that mean, then, that they have a right to force me to pay for their healthcare bills? Or maybe it means that you have a right to use someone else's property to express your compassion?
Rights are universal. If healthcare is a right then why aren't we paying for the healthcare of anyone from anywhere? Because we know, intrinsically, that that wouldn't be "right". Because you can't force anyone to compensate for anothers' misfortune. Do I have the right to force you to pay for my misfortunes? Of course not. Ergo, government, no matter how much you want it to express your personal compassions, cannot have that right either.
If you don't protect individual rights then you only have the rights that government concedes. That is, you have no rights at all and you end up with mob rule. That's uncivilized and has no place in a free society.
Post a Comment