There has been a lot of fervor on both sides of the debate for public healthcare in the last couple of weeks. Driven in part by our 24 hour news cycle and the endless need for talking points, the coverage has been continuous and abysmal. Even in our office there are hot debates on whether or not this is the right thing to do.
There is no escaping the debate. Even as I walked home yesterday, a person handing out pro-Obama care pamphlets was out on the streets. Just one month ago, there were Acorn operatives in front of the JPMC building. Personally, I think both sides have really missed the issue, and that is unfortunate, because they have hijacked the debate with talking points and misinformation. (As far as I know, there are no provisions in the bill for 'Death Panels,' though I haven't heard any Democratic congressmen mention a provision in the bill protecting us from the possibility)
The bill in its final form is not known yet, so it would be presumptuous to assume that we really know what this thing will be about. Having said that, Democrats should give these town halls a rest until they have a final version that they can stand behind, and Republicans should be patient before verbally acosting the frighteningly loyal followers of Obama.
The factor that no one seems to be talking about is the human factor in all of this. I oppose the idea of a government sponsored health plan because of how horrible people can be to one another. Let me elaborate with an annecdote. Have you ever been in a grocery store that lower class people shop in? Here in Dallas, the Walmart that we frequent is such a place, existing on the margin between one of the most affluent areas in Dallas, as well as a barrio. One of the things that you are likely to see if you shop there often enough are people who make use of WIC or food stamps. I guess never having been destitute enough to rely on such things, I never really gave much thought to what my existence would be like if I were.
They are given a list of groceries that are government approved, meeting certain nutrition and cost saving standards. If the family is together, often the child will want something like a frozen pizza or a piece of candy, but these are not approved items on the list. They are forced to forgo some of the simplest pleasures that our abundant society can produce, because they are reliant upon the government for subsistence. But there is more here at work than some nebulous concept of government and its benevolent offering of food. These forced savings and approved lists are because the sponsoring agencies don't want to draw the ire of the tax payer. Nothing could be worse for their offices than for a citizen to see their tax dollars being spent on expensive or even tastier foods, or liquer or tobacco. Though bleeding heart is not a term I would use to describe myself, I do feel sorry for these people when they arrive at the checkout line only to find out that the things they really want won't be paid for by the tax paying citizens of the United States. As the barcode scanner beeps, all of the more favorable items are taken away and stashed to be restocked. This is a horrible existence that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. Though they do subsist and their nutritional needs are met, their quality of life in all of the less pragmatic ways languishes.
I imagine that there are some that are glad that the best things are not paid for by welfare, and that is exactly my point. We are a people warped on inflicting mutual suffering on one another. We all know that there is not the political will to eliminate this program outright, so the tax payers do the next best thing: ensure that nobody living on their dime is happy or satisfied. Don't believe me? Just look at the food stamp reforms that took place in the early 80's and then the welfare reform that passed in the mid 90's, with a Democrat president, no less!
As I look at our healthcare future, I can't help but feel like millions will be put into this situation, only with access to health services rather than that tasty frozen pizza or ice cream. Is it so hard to imagine a government and people willing to say, "pick this faux cheese, not that Sargento block cheese" in the grocery store to also say, "pick asperin rather than a truly effective narcotic?" I hear cries from working citizens to drug test welfare recipients before giving them food or shelter. I presume that they would empower government to decide who amongst welfare recipients is fed and given shelter and who is not. What powers would such a citizenry bestow upon government regarding criminals and malcontents (read: Obese, Smokers, Drinkers, Drug Addicts etc.) accessing healthcare?
If it is only the some 47 million who are currently uninsured that will be the beneficiaries of this healthcare reform, this is a far larger segment of the population at the mercy of the public. Make no mistake about it, to borrow an Obamaism, public subsidy invites public scrutiny into your life. By necessity, and the will to survive politically, dominance and rationing will have to take place by the government to placate the masses who begrudgingly accept the idea of governmnet healthcare.
There is no escaping the debate. Even as I walked home yesterday, a person handing out pro-Obama care pamphlets was out on the streets. Just one month ago, there were Acorn operatives in front of the JPMC building. Personally, I think both sides have really missed the issue, and that is unfortunate, because they have hijacked the debate with talking points and misinformation. (As far as I know, there are no provisions in the bill for 'Death Panels,' though I haven't heard any Democratic congressmen mention a provision in the bill protecting us from the possibility)
The bill in its final form is not known yet, so it would be presumptuous to assume that we really know what this thing will be about. Having said that, Democrats should give these town halls a rest until they have a final version that they can stand behind, and Republicans should be patient before verbally acosting the frighteningly loyal followers of Obama.
The factor that no one seems to be talking about is the human factor in all of this. I oppose the idea of a government sponsored health plan because of how horrible people can be to one another. Let me elaborate with an annecdote. Have you ever been in a grocery store that lower class people shop in? Here in Dallas, the Walmart that we frequent is such a place, existing on the margin between one of the most affluent areas in Dallas, as well as a barrio. One of the things that you are likely to see if you shop there often enough are people who make use of WIC or food stamps. I guess never having been destitute enough to rely on such things, I never really gave much thought to what my existence would be like if I were.
They are given a list of groceries that are government approved, meeting certain nutrition and cost saving standards. If the family is together, often the child will want something like a frozen pizza or a piece of candy, but these are not approved items on the list. They are forced to forgo some of the simplest pleasures that our abundant society can produce, because they are reliant upon the government for subsistence. But there is more here at work than some nebulous concept of government and its benevolent offering of food. These forced savings and approved lists are because the sponsoring agencies don't want to draw the ire of the tax payer. Nothing could be worse for their offices than for a citizen to see their tax dollars being spent on expensive or even tastier foods, or liquer or tobacco. Though bleeding heart is not a term I would use to describe myself, I do feel sorry for these people when they arrive at the checkout line only to find out that the things they really want won't be paid for by the tax paying citizens of the United States. As the barcode scanner beeps, all of the more favorable items are taken away and stashed to be restocked. This is a horrible existence that I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. Though they do subsist and their nutritional needs are met, their quality of life in all of the less pragmatic ways languishes.
I imagine that there are some that are glad that the best things are not paid for by welfare, and that is exactly my point. We are a people warped on inflicting mutual suffering on one another. We all know that there is not the political will to eliminate this program outright, so the tax payers do the next best thing: ensure that nobody living on their dime is happy or satisfied. Don't believe me? Just look at the food stamp reforms that took place in the early 80's and then the welfare reform that passed in the mid 90's, with a Democrat president, no less!
As I look at our healthcare future, I can't help but feel like millions will be put into this situation, only with access to health services rather than that tasty frozen pizza or ice cream. Is it so hard to imagine a government and people willing to say, "pick this faux cheese, not that Sargento block cheese" in the grocery store to also say, "pick asperin rather than a truly effective narcotic?" I hear cries from working citizens to drug test welfare recipients before giving them food or shelter. I presume that they would empower government to decide who amongst welfare recipients is fed and given shelter and who is not. What powers would such a citizenry bestow upon government regarding criminals and malcontents (read: Obese, Smokers, Drinkers, Drug Addicts etc.) accessing healthcare?
If it is only the some 47 million who are currently uninsured that will be the beneficiaries of this healthcare reform, this is a far larger segment of the population at the mercy of the public. Make no mistake about it, to borrow an Obamaism, public subsidy invites public scrutiny into your life. By necessity, and the will to survive politically, dominance and rationing will have to take place by the government to placate the masses who begrudgingly accept the idea of governmnet healthcare.
Comments
Post a Comment