Clearly, many of you are really upset over this Health Care Plan thing. I won't comment on it because I honestly can not. And neither can anybody out there who thinks they can.
Who has read the thing?
So, how can you comment on something nobody else anywhere has even read, and act as if you know what the hell you're talking about?
You can't, if you want to be honest about it.
All I know is that those who have been selling it to us have been speaking out both sides of their asses for nine-plus months, and they aren't going to stop any time soon.
Once it passes into law, then the real sausage will me be made as implementation begins. We won't have a clue about that either, except for what the opposition wants to tell us. And that will likely be just as suspect as the lofty rhetoric we will get from the those in charge.
I am, for the most part, resigned to the idea that socialised medicine will become reality in this country. It is the way of modern civilized societies.
Nothing can stop it.
It will happen, along with a host of other bigger socialistic schemes that the smart people can dream up for us.
9 comments:
That seems like an intelligent approach. We individualistic Americans who think America transcends the flow of history think that we are so ahistorical as to avoid stuff like socialized medicine. This is perhaps as foolish as Christians thinking they can avoid the historical necessity of non-belief in God. "God is Dead" means God's further existence is historically impossible, though it once was necessary. "Private Health Insurance is Dead" means much the same. Perhaps what social conservatives and economic conservatives have in common is the pretense of ahistoricity, a pretense which is also closely tied to nationalism because it sets us apart from other nations which do fall under history's sway. The Left is more wont to push the historical along--as if it needed pushing. Militant atheism and communism share the same tendency- the question is "are these necessary to show what is necessary?"
I tried keep up with my reading. I really did. But the changes are so fast, insane and unpredictable, I lost all motivation to do so. Still, I am firmly against any bill that isn't fully understood by those who are voting for it..
Socialized medicine has already existed in this country for years. What we haven't had is coverage for everybody. As someone who is so disgusted by the sway of money and privilege in the justice system, I would think you would be a big fan of the idea of universal healthcare, Gino. (I am not presuming to imply what opinion you do have with that comment, though.) Justice for all despite individual socio-economic (or biological) accomplishments, right? Also healthcare.
amanda: you bring up a point that you miss yourself.
we already have socialized universal justice (for a good reason), and you seem to agree that there is too much sway toward money and privilage within it.
what makes you think a similar system dealing with medicine wont be the same?
i support universal healthcare as an ideal. a target. who wouldnt?
but like anything the socialists think they want to cram on us, the terms used to describe something are actually a softer mask of its reality.
my first instinct, my 'knee jerk', if you will, on any issue is towards opposing govt doing anything for us. he who pays the piper calls the tune.
and personally, i would rather we all choose our own tunes to dance to.
Actually, I don't think all people would support universal health care as an ideal. Many people who oppose that, oppose supporting other people who "don't work hard enough to afford healthcare themselves." (A notion that is a lie, of course.)
Anyway, our justice system is better then no justice system, and it reaches everyone. Just like medical coverage is better than no medical coverage. I'm not saying the system won't still be favoring those with more money/privilege, but covering all US citizens is still something important to strive for.
what they oppose is not other people recieveing care. they oppose other people living out of their wallets.
as do i.
as to your last remark: how do you think is best to go about this? i dont know.
but history has shown, whenever the govt is in control of delivering anything, there is usually less of it for everyone.
i want the most, for as many as possible.
free choices have always been the best guarantor of these results.
Our wallets already pay for government employees belonging to our justice system. And all other government employees. On the health front, also Medicare. And healthcare received by military members, their families, and veterans. My (active duty member) boyfriend's health coverage is excellent; the government has done a wonderful job of providing that for him.
People argue that military (as an example) members give their lives in order to receive such benefits, and that's true. But access to affordable healthcare to ALL citizens will be LESS of a drain on taxpayers dollars, not more. That's the goal anyway.
But I'm not arguing or anything - just comparing my POV to yours. I am a Democrat, after all. I will never be as wary of government.
amanda: i'm enjoying the discussion with you. you always bring something fresh to the table, and i appreciate that.
of course, military gets good care. they have to. military lifestyles have incrementally improved since the days of the draft. and for good reason. when the govt cant force service, they have to compete with other potential career choices its prospects might take instead.
once again, my point: when liberty/freedom to choose is available, the results are always better.
with a govt run med system, choices are always limited and lessened because the patient has no place else to go.
compare what the typical medicare options are to what sen kennedy had at his disposal (that taxpayers funded).
when the citizens are given the same coverages that the senators gift to themselves, then i will be on board the universal train.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't find any tinkering on Congress's part to be praiseworthy so much as the status quo indefensible. Hard to pick a side from there.
Post a Comment