I was reading several letters in yesterday's "Open Forum" section of the Denver Post. One letter was entitled "GOP health plan won't work." Sensing a commonality with the writer, since we both agree the GOP health plan is already doomed, I settled down to read what the author had written. Jim Craft of Broomfield was the author of the letter. Here is some of what he had to say:
"Well, House Speaker Paul Ryan has rolled out his proposed revision to the Affordable Care Act, and it's clear that it won't work. Why? Because it does not get all Americans, sick or well, into the health care insurance pool. The biggest objection the GOP had to the ACA was, of course, the mandate, the requirement for everyone to get health insurance. They've gotten rid of that, which pretty much guarantees that many Americans will not be able to afford health insurance."
Jim makes a very good point. Jim understands that nothing in life is free. If a person wants to have health care provided by a government licensed practitioner, or drugs provided by a government licensed pusher, or mental health care provided by a government approved shrink he must first have some sort of health insurance or he will quickly go bankrupt. Thanks to the government monopoly on all things health, the prices for health care services are astronomically high. Thanks to the astronomical prices on health care services the price for health insurance is astronomically high as well. So Jim has accurately assessed the situation. In order to have somewhat affordable health insurance rates it is necessary for the government to make a law forcing everyone to purchase health insurance. Those who claim they can't afford it will be subsidized by those who allegedly can afford it. The end result is a familiar one in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika. Since "many Americans will not be able to afford health insurance," the top 49% of the income population will end up paying for the health insurance of the lower 51%. Isn't democracy grand?
Jim goes on as he addresses what he calls the fundamental question in the health care debate. I continued reading with great anticipation. He wrote, "The fundamental question here is whether or not people should be denied adequate health care because they are poor. Conservative Republicans apparently think that if you are poor you don't 'deserve' adequate heath care. Shame on them!" Although I am not a conservative Republican I am already feeling shame as a result of Jim's words. Quick, take me to a safe place. Quick, shield me from these truths. Quick, enroll me in an Amerikan university where I can be protected from free speech. Quick, give me a baby pin to wear, thus declaring that people like Jim should not be permitted to talk to me in this fashion.
Notice how Jim frames the fundamental question. He asserts that the fundamental question is "whether or not people should be denied adequate health care because they are poor." I believe he has misstated the fundamental question. The fundamental question really is "should one group of people be forced to pay for the health insurance of another group of people simply because the latter group of people makes less money than the former?" Perhaps another way of framing the question would be to ask, "Is health insurance a civil right?" If health insurance is a civil right then it is the moral duty of the top 49% of the income population to pay for the coverages of the socialists living in the lower 51% of the income population. That is Amerikan socialism and democracy at its finest and Jim is clearly a firm believer in Amerikan socialism.
The problem with Jim's position is that forcing one group of people to pay for the bills of another group of people is theft. It is immoral. It is wrong. Those who support it are wrong. Those who support it are immoral thieves. Furthermore, those who believe that health insurance is a civil right are just plain stupid. Go back and read last week's posts about "stupid week." The idea that the god of civil government has a moral duty to purchase health insurance policies, paid for by the top 49% of the income population, for the "poor" is incredibly stupid. If government has a moral duty to provide health insurance, where are we to stop when it comes to other necessities of life? Should government be required to provide a minimum income, as some today are asserting? Is government expected to provide a car, apartment, condominium, house, college education, annual vacation or a cruise around the world to each of its citizens? If you do not believe each of the items listed in the last sentence are morally required items from the government, why not? Where do you draw the line on what the government should be required to provide and what it does not have to provide? I sincerely believe that those who believe in government provided health insurance do not have an answer to that question because they are blinded by their envy and love of socialism. Indeed, I suspect most socialists have never even considered my question.
Jim thinks conservatives believe that poor people do not "deserve" health care. He also believes that is a shameful state of affairs. I can't speak for what conservatives believe so I won't. I can speak for what those of us who believe in personal responsibility and freedom believe. We think that every citizen of this land deserves the right to our lives, property and freedom. None of us deserves anything but those three things. Beyond those three things nobody has a civil right to anything. I do not deserve a retirement pension. I do not deserve good health. I do not deserve two cars in my garage and a chicken in my pot. I do not deserve any of your money, no matter how much more of it you make than me. All government is required to provide for me is a defense of my life from foreign and domestic aggressors, the defense of my property via a just legal system and my right to behave freely and do anything I want to with my life and property provided it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of my neighbor.
Jim concludes that "the obvious solution is a Medicare-like insurance for everyone. Medicare is a part of the health care system that works." In other words, Jim wants to move all citizens of the SDA into a fully nationalized and socialized health care "system." He believes that will "work." I don't know what universe Jim lives in but I do not believe most people who are on Medicare would share his opinion that it works and serves as a fine model for fully nationalized medical care. Even if I grant his position as true, medicare only "works" because there are still more people paying into it than people taking out of it. Medicare only "works" because every single person who earns a measly dime is forced, by law, to contribute to it. Medicare only "works" because the demographics have not yet caught up to it. When they do, it is as doomed as Obamacare.
I am afraid Jim has missed the point. The fundamental question on health care is why should people like Jim be permitted to force other people to pay his bills? I feel no shame for my unwillingness to pay Jim's bills, just like I feel no shame for not paying the bills of anyone else. Jim, on the other hand, attempts to shame me into feeling guilty for not wanting to pay his bills. That is called socialism and it is growing stronger every day in this immoral and God-hating land. Beware, your property is in danger of being stolen because your neighbor is probably a socialist.