Question: what should be done in the case of the person who hasn’t the money to afford health insurance, but who drives a “pimped ride” with extra-large tires, broad spokes, “spinners”—the whole bit representing an investment of at least $60,000? What if the person without coverage owns a wide-screen, high-def TV? What if he or she eats out twice a day, or goes a-gambling at least once a month? What about the person who attends two or three MLB games and as many NFL games per year and also allows him- or herself a trip to the beach over the summer?
I’m outraged at the cost of my health insurance; and yet, I pay far less for it yearly than any of the people above would likely sink into his or her manège during the same twelve months. My family and I choose to deny ourselves several luxuries and frivolities (including all of those just named) so that we may have something which comes closer to a necessity.
In effect, then, we are all (or all of us who pay taxes, which becomes a larger group with every week of the Obama Administration) being confronted with a “luxury subsidy”. We will pay more for insurance in the long run—through taxes—and have less service at the clinic with longer waits so that certain of our brethren may continue to squander their money and leave their families uninsured (i.e., insured by the “public option”).
Truth be told, much of the opposition to insurance companies would have been diffused a couple of years ago if Republicans had been allowed to pass a tax deduction for the self-insured. This initiative was blocked by the Democrat-controlled House, however. Why? Precisely so that a constituency for public health care could be created. As malodorous as Republican leadership was during the Bush years, with Congress sitting quietly by as the executive branch devoured more and more powers not permitted to it by the Constitution, Republicans were at least under the impression (the illusion, some of us were say) that the nation stood in imminent danger. For years, most Democrats have been ruled by no objective more noble than the manufacture of a permanently dependent class which could be relied upon to support at the polls a permanent ruling elite.
The situation has substantial irony. Growing up, I was surrounded by the popular notion (not entirely a myth) that Republicans secured the interests of big business, while Democrats watched out for the little guy. While Republicans labored to ensure that stocks paid nice dividends (a boon to the frugal petite bourgeoisie to which my family belonged—hence not just a service to fat cats), Democrats fought to keep the profit margin from gobbling up shop safety and humane terms of leave. Republicans preached tough love: you can make it if you really try, they argued, and privation will give you the will to try harder. Democrats indicted the homily’s hypocrisy: many of us will NOT make it, they underscored, because we were not born into the affluence and influence which you Republicans take for granted.
It occurs to me that an odd turn-about is evolving right under our noses, as is illustrated especially well by the health care “debate”. Under the Democratic plan, the little guy will in fact be worse off than he is now without any coverage at all. Were he to be carried in red ruin to an emergency room today, our poor schmuck would not be left in the waiting room to bleed out: public funding would cover his immediate needs. Even if his problem were less dramatic—if his child, say, could not afford new glasses—most doctors would cut him a deal on an exam and a pair of specs (contrary to the mercenary picture which our President has painted of the profession). Under every form of revision which has yet been proposed, the same person would face a rationing of care, longer waits, a scarcity of doctors, a bureaucracy-heavy slovenliness of attention, and a stagnant research-and-development sector. Inevitably, rich people would continue to get special treatment—more than ever—whether in the form of jetting to specialists in other countries or simply in that of employing their own unregistered doctors on the sly. When abortion was illegal, rich girls took sudden vacations and came back restored; poor girls bled to death in soiled beds after swallowing some quack’s poison. So it will be in Obama’s Tomorrow.
The little guy doesn’t win in this game—and he isn’t supposed to. Driving about town unemployed in his Cadillac (or whatever “green” equivalent he clunked it in for), he is an insufferable drain upon a system already bankrupt—not merely bankrupt, but deeply in the hole for decades to come. One way or another, he will have to be disposed of. He doesn’t understand this yet: he’s still voting just the way his handlers want him to—and they, for a short while, will pay him off out of the rich man’s pocket. Sooner rather than later, however, he will vote in various ways to abrogate his right to vote. He will make cannon fodder of himself. Those who depend upon others for everything and have only their vote to render in the bargain will at last be stripped of their vote. Waiting interminably at the doctor’s office during a pandemic for a vaccine in short supply is one probable scenario. When those of the poor folk who are ambulatory riot in the streets, the police will cut them down… and then the rich will be charged with calling out the troops, and the elite will carry the poor vote in the last election that ever takes place in this moribund nation, and… and on to a medieval society whose power structure is girded in high-tech chain-mail.
THIS is why we are being precipitated into the abyss of “reform”. It may not happen just yet—there are reasons to believe that many Americans now see through the health-care smoke screen. The gambit will be repeated on another part of the chess board, however. Again and again and again. As I keep writing in this space, do NOT suppose that any group of human beings other than your family will “take care of you” without a hidden agenda. Why would you be so foolish?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Spirituality and Government Compulsion Are of Two Houses
There is no holy obligation to create a government which enforces holy obligations. An Islamist society may take a different view if things; but for Christian ministers to throw whatever authority they may yet have (and they’re using it up at gas-guzzling rates) in support of “Obama-care” is insufferably arrogant. Be clear about this. The feasibility of providing a doc-on-demand for every resident, legal and illegal, of a society whose public coffers have long been empty may strike some of the fanciful as less dubious than it does those of us who can handle a column of figures. (After all, there are still so many RICH PEOPLE around!) Quite beyond practical issues, however, the “call to Christians” in this instance is unpardonably exploitative on the part of an ever more cynical and unprincipled administration and deplorably pompous on the part of self-styled men of God.
To feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and cure the sick insofar as is within one’s means is incumbent upon all Christians (though “the poor are always with you”: the utopian crusade to eliminate poverty, far from reflecting faith, bespeaks the secularist’s need for “results”). An obligation whose fulfillment is enforced, however, ceases to be a matter of choice and loses all its dutiful character. A robot is not “good” because it “bravely” defuses a bomb. It has no choice in the matter—it is programmed. Likewise, people whose contributions to the poor are extorted at gunpoint have not become charitable; they might well be deemed more morally admirable, indeed, for choosing to be shot, since in doing so they would at least assert themselves as creatures of free will. But we who hold the gun, you may say (I hope not—but someone may say) accomplish our moral duty by making those of ample means surrender a little wealth to the have-nots. This is a ghastly assertion, for the following reasons: in aiming the gun, you not only sacrifice time you might freely have spent yourself upon laboring for the needy (by staging garage sales, say, or holding raffles); you also and PRIMARILY (from a spiritual perspective) impose your chosen concern for the needy upon another free being—you deprive that other being of the freedom to struggle with his duties, to decide upon and live with his choices, and (in short) to grow in spirit. You have taken away what God has given… and who are YOU, little worm, to do so?
I have no great use for riches or love for the rich. I do not subscribe to the theory that all the rich have reached their state by being virtuously energetic. Maybe so, maybe not: energy is not in itself a virtue—one can be energetically deceptive or merciless. By the same token, however, I do not consider myself capable of foreseeing what good a rich man may do with his lucre if left alone. He may fund research into MS or build a plant which cheaply desalinates water. Who am I to force upon him and his like the creation of a vast bureaucracy dedicated only to a single repetitive activity as a string of ants is dedicated to carrying crumbs to the anthill? Or who am I to say that such force would execute God’s will?
If Obama’s phalanx of conscience-pricking ministers is so comfortably righteous in thus delivering God’s verdict on public policy, why does the same group not insist that the President outlaw abortion? Are these holy men more confident that welfare queens have a God-given right to be treated for obesity from my son’s college fund than that God intends for babies to enjoy the right of birth? Surely God wants children to have two parents; all indications are that the products of single-parent households run a greater risk of having a poor education, a low income, a higher stress level, and a prison record. Why does this circle of luminaries not lobby Obama to criminalize extra-marital sex and divorce? Why not ban TV shows and movies which celebrate violence? Why not dissolve the military and dismount all our defensive weapons systems (if we still have any)? Surely Jesus would never have approved of the gun, the tank, or the missile…
The truth is that not one of said ministers is capable of comprehending the complexity of the choices which sin and death have visited upon this world. No mortal is—but secular utopians in the sheep’s clothing of the pulpit least of all. Indeed, it is evident that many of these soi-disant oracles enjoy rather generous salaries themselves (not to mention all the perks of the job) and could really do much more to help the needy out of their own pocket. How about starting by sending the kids to public school and doing away with conferences, vacations, and nights on the town?
Whited-sepulcher hypocrites and grand-standing fools, one and all. God deserves much better servants… but the President couldn’t ask for a more star-struck bunch of puppets.
To feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and cure the sick insofar as is within one’s means is incumbent upon all Christians (though “the poor are always with you”: the utopian crusade to eliminate poverty, far from reflecting faith, bespeaks the secularist’s need for “results”). An obligation whose fulfillment is enforced, however, ceases to be a matter of choice and loses all its dutiful character. A robot is not “good” because it “bravely” defuses a bomb. It has no choice in the matter—it is programmed. Likewise, people whose contributions to the poor are extorted at gunpoint have not become charitable; they might well be deemed more morally admirable, indeed, for choosing to be shot, since in doing so they would at least assert themselves as creatures of free will. But we who hold the gun, you may say (I hope not—but someone may say) accomplish our moral duty by making those of ample means surrender a little wealth to the have-nots. This is a ghastly assertion, for the following reasons: in aiming the gun, you not only sacrifice time you might freely have spent yourself upon laboring for the needy (by staging garage sales, say, or holding raffles); you also and PRIMARILY (from a spiritual perspective) impose your chosen concern for the needy upon another free being—you deprive that other being of the freedom to struggle with his duties, to decide upon and live with his choices, and (in short) to grow in spirit. You have taken away what God has given… and who are YOU, little worm, to do so?
I have no great use for riches or love for the rich. I do not subscribe to the theory that all the rich have reached their state by being virtuously energetic. Maybe so, maybe not: energy is not in itself a virtue—one can be energetically deceptive or merciless. By the same token, however, I do not consider myself capable of foreseeing what good a rich man may do with his lucre if left alone. He may fund research into MS or build a plant which cheaply desalinates water. Who am I to force upon him and his like the creation of a vast bureaucracy dedicated only to a single repetitive activity as a string of ants is dedicated to carrying crumbs to the anthill? Or who am I to say that such force would execute God’s will?
If Obama’s phalanx of conscience-pricking ministers is so comfortably righteous in thus delivering God’s verdict on public policy, why does the same group not insist that the President outlaw abortion? Are these holy men more confident that welfare queens have a God-given right to be treated for obesity from my son’s college fund than that God intends for babies to enjoy the right of birth? Surely God wants children to have two parents; all indications are that the products of single-parent households run a greater risk of having a poor education, a low income, a higher stress level, and a prison record. Why does this circle of luminaries not lobby Obama to criminalize extra-marital sex and divorce? Why not ban TV shows and movies which celebrate violence? Why not dissolve the military and dismount all our defensive weapons systems (if we still have any)? Surely Jesus would never have approved of the gun, the tank, or the missile…
The truth is that not one of said ministers is capable of comprehending the complexity of the choices which sin and death have visited upon this world. No mortal is—but secular utopians in the sheep’s clothing of the pulpit least of all. Indeed, it is evident that many of these soi-disant oracles enjoy rather generous salaries themselves (not to mention all the perks of the job) and could really do much more to help the needy out of their own pocket. How about starting by sending the kids to public school and doing away with conferences, vacations, and nights on the town?
Whited-sepulcher hypocrites and grand-standing fools, one and all. God deserves much better servants… but the President couldn’t ask for a more star-struck bunch of puppets.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Ignore the Conspiracy to Ridicule Conspiracies
I seem to see public figures lining up like fighters on an aircraft carrier lately to disavow their belief in any sort of conspiracy theory—always in preface to their describing a possible conspiracy. “I’m certainly not a conspiracy theorist, but…” It must be time, then, for me to return to a well-worn hobby-horse.
To allow certain shills for sweeping public policy initiatives to convince you that only gullible fools ever entertain the suspicion of a conspiracy is to renounce your commitment to serious thinking.
No large corporation has ever lowered prices to knock smaller competitors out of business, right? That would be a conspiracy—and only an idiot believes in conspiracies.
No two or three owners of sports franchises have ever colluded to withhold whopping millions from a free agent so as to discourage others like him. No MLB or NFL schedule has ever been arranged so that popular, high-profile teams would play the most games during television primetime. No cereal company has ever placed cartoon figures in its flakes at just the time when its corporate affiliate was releasing a movie about said cartoon figures.
No mechanic has ever put deficient parts in a car so that the owner would soon need to bring it back into the shop. No product has ever been designed to wear out sooner than its predecessors so that consumers would have to purchase more of the same product earlier. No auto manufacturing company has ever resisted engineering a more fuel-efficient engine because its corporate first cousin just happens to sell oil.
When local politicians who own land just outside the city limits become active in raising city taxes, it’s just an accident if the value of their property shoots up as the wealthy flee to the suburbs. When state legislators introduce a bill designating tax dollars to send the physically challenged to a special summer camp, it’s pure coincidence if Senator X’s son-in-law owns said camp.
No young woman ever married a wealthy older man with the intent of divorcing him months later and legally walking off with half his fortune: that’s just bad luck. No struggling young attorney ever married a wealthy older woman prior to embarking upon a political career: that’s just good luck.
In short, life is embedded in conspiracies. To say that the CIA launched 9/11 is infantile. To say that there’s more to the JFK assassination than the Warren Commission declared is less so. To say that FDR prodded the Japanese into hostilities because the country didn’t want to enter a war with Germany—or that Churchill (then with the admiralty) knew that U-boats were in the vicinity of the Lusitania and did nothing to protect her, hoping that a catastrophe would bring the States into WW I… I don’t know. Neither do you. It’s not beyond belief, because life in general—and politics in particular—works this way. The people who encourage us to let conspiracies grow unremarked by jeering every time someone raises a suspicion (“You think Obama WANTS the economy to collapse? You must believe that the army captured aliens at Roswell, too!”) are themselves part of a conspiracy… or perhaps they are just the morons (to use the phrase of one such railing hack) that they charge us with being. Indeed, the President himself has implied over the last month that doctors, insurance agents, police officers, and talk-show hosts all participate routinely in vast conspiracies. It seems that the skullduggery is only the work of aliens when it’s not viewed from your side of the aisle.
The other night I heard a certain Mr. Cohen (I cannot confirm that it was Richard Cohen of Florida—the name turns out to be common in government) glibly dismissing every objection about the “health care reform” bill raised by Greta van Susteren with a “not true”. A word or two to reassure voters that this big-city phone book of legalese does not contain the abominations about which they have been warned… that’s should do it, right? To Greta’s objection that the bill’s language was too convoluted for one to know WHAT was encoded therein, he answered that the courts would tear to ribbons anything clearly, plainly phrased. To her question about his recent townhall meeting, he remarked that it was not representative—that two-thirds of his constituency was African American, while only about 5% of the faces at his meeting were black. He concluded by stressing the need for citizens to trust their representatives.
This all deserves to be mounted and framed in a Rogues’ Gallery. Within about three minutes, one of our Congressmen 1) sweepingly denied the presence of several items in the bill while admitting that its obscurantism was almost impenetrable, 2) further admitted that our courts are likely to shoot down anything not worded with enough lubricity to mean everything and nothing, 3) further admitted that fair representation to his mind equates to tabulating various skin colors in attendance (as opposed, say, to prioritizing public spirit and civic concern), and 4) advised his electors that they should resume their blinders while he and his mates go about their very complicated and arcane business.
This doesn’t sound like the kind of atmosphere in which conspiracy would thrive, does it? “Trust me…” now, where else did we hear those two words during the past few years?
To allow certain shills for sweeping public policy initiatives to convince you that only gullible fools ever entertain the suspicion of a conspiracy is to renounce your commitment to serious thinking.
No large corporation has ever lowered prices to knock smaller competitors out of business, right? That would be a conspiracy—and only an idiot believes in conspiracies.
No two or three owners of sports franchises have ever colluded to withhold whopping millions from a free agent so as to discourage others like him. No MLB or NFL schedule has ever been arranged so that popular, high-profile teams would play the most games during television primetime. No cereal company has ever placed cartoon figures in its flakes at just the time when its corporate affiliate was releasing a movie about said cartoon figures.
No mechanic has ever put deficient parts in a car so that the owner would soon need to bring it back into the shop. No product has ever been designed to wear out sooner than its predecessors so that consumers would have to purchase more of the same product earlier. No auto manufacturing company has ever resisted engineering a more fuel-efficient engine because its corporate first cousin just happens to sell oil.
When local politicians who own land just outside the city limits become active in raising city taxes, it’s just an accident if the value of their property shoots up as the wealthy flee to the suburbs. When state legislators introduce a bill designating tax dollars to send the physically challenged to a special summer camp, it’s pure coincidence if Senator X’s son-in-law owns said camp.
No young woman ever married a wealthy older man with the intent of divorcing him months later and legally walking off with half his fortune: that’s just bad luck. No struggling young attorney ever married a wealthy older woman prior to embarking upon a political career: that’s just good luck.
In short, life is embedded in conspiracies. To say that the CIA launched 9/11 is infantile. To say that there’s more to the JFK assassination than the Warren Commission declared is less so. To say that FDR prodded the Japanese into hostilities because the country didn’t want to enter a war with Germany—or that Churchill (then with the admiralty) knew that U-boats were in the vicinity of the Lusitania and did nothing to protect her, hoping that a catastrophe would bring the States into WW I… I don’t know. Neither do you. It’s not beyond belief, because life in general—and politics in particular—works this way. The people who encourage us to let conspiracies grow unremarked by jeering every time someone raises a suspicion (“You think Obama WANTS the economy to collapse? You must believe that the army captured aliens at Roswell, too!”) are themselves part of a conspiracy… or perhaps they are just the morons (to use the phrase of one such railing hack) that they charge us with being. Indeed, the President himself has implied over the last month that doctors, insurance agents, police officers, and talk-show hosts all participate routinely in vast conspiracies. It seems that the skullduggery is only the work of aliens when it’s not viewed from your side of the aisle.
The other night I heard a certain Mr. Cohen (I cannot confirm that it was Richard Cohen of Florida—the name turns out to be common in government) glibly dismissing every objection about the “health care reform” bill raised by Greta van Susteren with a “not true”. A word or two to reassure voters that this big-city phone book of legalese does not contain the abominations about which they have been warned… that’s should do it, right? To Greta’s objection that the bill’s language was too convoluted for one to know WHAT was encoded therein, he answered that the courts would tear to ribbons anything clearly, plainly phrased. To her question about his recent townhall meeting, he remarked that it was not representative—that two-thirds of his constituency was African American, while only about 5% of the faces at his meeting were black. He concluded by stressing the need for citizens to trust their representatives.
This all deserves to be mounted and framed in a Rogues’ Gallery. Within about three minutes, one of our Congressmen 1) sweepingly denied the presence of several items in the bill while admitting that its obscurantism was almost impenetrable, 2) further admitted that our courts are likely to shoot down anything not worded with enough lubricity to mean everything and nothing, 3) further admitted that fair representation to his mind equates to tabulating various skin colors in attendance (as opposed, say, to prioritizing public spirit and civic concern), and 4) advised his electors that they should resume their blinders while he and his mates go about their very complicated and arcane business.
This doesn’t sound like the kind of atmosphere in which conspiracy would thrive, does it? “Trust me…” now, where else did we hear those two words during the past few years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
