« Afghanistan and the pink folks' burden | San Fernando Curt's Blog | Stiffed by the TARP stiffs »

A publicly optional quiz


OK. Put away the PS3 controller and turn off the porn.

Test time.

Would you rather:

A. - Pay extra taxes for a pubicly administered health plan that would insure all Americans have access to care?

- or -

B. - Be required by law to buy private insurance that will insure you have access to care?

Obviously, for both choices, you're going to be out some money. But A will feed the socialist monster our government has become under Dear Leader Obama, while B will insure (heh-heh) that private enterprise does not vanish from the face of the earth. (That such a forced-payment scheme would be a f*ckin' goldmine to already-plush insurance companies is none of your silly little beeswax.)

If you make over $100,000 a year, likely you already have insurance, so B wouldn't be bug-smack on the windshield of your S-Class. However: A could spell... trouble... since a larger slice of your income would be parsed out to help the undeserving poor, writhing aimlessly in their guttersnipe misery.

Why should you be penalized for someone else's poor life choices?

For you classless rabble making less than a hundred large, the choice also is obvious. Of course, you'd probably prefer to pay some higher tax for a so-called "public option" - assuming your paltry income would qualify in this proposed supplemental-tax bracket. Over the past 75 years, you've put misguided trust in the unwise Social Security and Medicare plans - federal programs that opened the door to the dread, Eurotrash-style nanny state.

Let's be frank: Many of you find this option attractive simply because it would keep your "hard-earned dollars" out of the hands of insurance companies, which you see as endlessly greedy and inhuman.

Well, how's this for frankness: The ultimate law is the law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. Occasionally, the herd must be winnowed, and the weak allowed to... fade. In a capitalist system, we break down this food chain in economic terms. There is no arguable reason, when we think about it logically, that anyone unable to afford to live should do so.

Capitalism, in its pristine state, commodifies everything. All components of our lives, big and miniscule, must be purchased, must be paid for. Your chewing gum. The clothes on your back. The privilege of flushing away whatever you flush away down your toilet. When you think about it, even "God" is owned. He's "our's" - the big, judgmental property in the sky. Correct?

Private insurers, by storming alone, proudly, the red barricades, are really battling for your right to live a life worth living.

A strong society requires sacrifice. And strong people never have to sacrifice themselves.

Someone else can be paid to do that...


7 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Survival of the fittest is not the ultimate law. That would be 'survival of the lucky'.

I pick 'A'...because I'll never be rich....but, there's always a chance I'll be lucky.

user-pic

Pretty snappy Flower!!! hahaha

user-pic

Curt - The proposed public option would be self-financing through premiums, and would cost the taxpayer nothing. Where additional revenue is needed is to subsidize low income earners to enable them to purchase insurance, but that would be true with or without the public option, since these individuals will have the choice of whatever plans are in the Insurance Exchange. Without the public option, the plans would be exclusively private and would probably cost the government even more to subsidize. In that sense, the public option would actually save the taxpayer money.

user-pic

Fred, regardless of funding formula for the plan that finally is approved, I'd be willing to pay a little more in taxes for a plan that would ensure all Americans - yes, me included - have access to health care. Right now, a good chunk of my taxed income goes to the Mideast quagmire and bankers' bonuses, so it's all uphill from there.

user-pic

Me too, Curt, but I was just trying to point out that obsrtuctionists are trying to paint the public option as a tax-raiser, and it's the opposite.

user-pic

SFC

A-all the way!

Why you ask? I really really really hate a governmental "Must".

It just reminds me of being required to to have auto insurance but having to commute from Chino to El Monty for work. I was lucky to have enough gas money each week for my 59 Bug. I was in constant fear of loosing the transportation I was "privileged" to operate.

Like I said, I really really really hate a governmental "Must".

M. Paul

user-pic

Commodification:
A couple years ago our local paper reprinted a study by some asshat organization that concluded that no laws should outlaw cell phone talking while driving because (ta da!) the amount of capital produced via cell phone conversations heavily outweighed the cost of accidents caused by same, even if there were DEATHS involved.
Commodification. 'The bidness of america is bidness.'

Leave a comment

Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address