What is it that's driving people to vandalize the offices of Democratic lawmakers who support the president's health care proposal? What's driving people to threaten lawmakers who support the bill?
What would make someone so angry they would vandalize someone's office or send a threatening message? What does it tell you when the vandals are bringing back Barry Goldwater's infamous and discredited statement that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Is it that darn reptile brain acting up again? Is it fear that incites these violent acts? Fear of what?
There are millions of people in this country that don't have health insurance. If you work for yourself you know how expensive coverage can be. Has heath care coverage become a game of the "haves" and the "have-nots?" Is this where we draw a line?
Is it the fear that if Joe Blow, or Jose Blow or Joey X has access to the same health coverage that you have that you are no longer "better" than them?
Poor Southern whites were persuaded to fight for the slave owners in the Civil War -- even though the plantation system exploited them, too. Workers have been persuaded to fight against the unions -- even though the interests of the factory owners were opposed to those of the workers. Divide and conquer has always been the mantra of those in power, but when you break it down, even a reptile brain can see that it makes no sense.
3 comments:
If you think that's what the health care debate is about, then you haven't been paying attention. No one thinks that our health care system isn't messed up and doesn't need reform. What is objectionable is that the federal government is now going to be running my health care and its not the government's business. I won't go over all the arguments here, but health care costs are going to skyrocket, we will have a single payer system, we will have rationing, and no one will be happy. The reason I know these things is because everywhere universal health care has been tried, those have been the results. Right now, there are young women dying in England because their NHS has decided it won't buy the effective drugs that treat their breast cancer because its too expensive. If the women don't have the means to travel here or elsewhere to get the drugs, they die. You have a provincial governor from Canada traveling to the USA to get surgery that he would have to wait 8 months to get in Canada, by which time he likely would have been dead. I personally know someone that laid in a hospital bed in England for 3 days before docs got around to setting his broken leg. He was on a waiting list. People like to say, oh that won't happen here. Well it will happen here, because we have over 300 million people here and more sneaking across the border daily. We already don't have enough doctors and nurses. Where are all the extra going to come from? The government can't run the post office efficiently. You have children, a daughter, do you want some rationing board to decide she isn't worth treating? Because that's what is coming in the future. So go ahead and welcome it. I will be flying to Costa Rica to get my medical treatment in a few years. Here's a place you can start, if you care to read, and find out what's coming for us. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/249938.stm
While I would not stoop to the means those people are using, I am as angry as they, and I think I can answer your question of why.
The debate over nationalizing health care is not about whether it would be nice if everyone could get free care (I'd love it, if we had a magic source of infinite money to pay for it). And it's not about prejudice, with some people being "unworthy" to get the care they need.
It's about these simple facts, which no amount of handwaving by the Democrats can change:
(1) We simply can't afford this third New Deal. In fact, we can't afford to continue LBJ's second New Deal or even FDR's first.
The most likely result of the ObamaCare legislation, if it isn't repealed or overturned by the courts, will not be to bring anyone better health care, it will be to make the poor poorer (by fining us -- yes, I qualify -- for not buying the insurance we still won't be able to afford to buy), while burdening what's left of the economy with such huge tax increases that the US will go the way of Argentina in the '70s -- straight to third world status, probably for keeps. (Or do you honestly believe there'll still be an IMF or World Bank big enough to bail out the US?)
(2) This debate appears to be the last chance we'll ever have to reverse the monstrous over-growth of the federal government and restore the Constitution from exile. (If you need this phrase explained, see Judge Napolitano's excellent book.)
Goldwater, by the way, was right. I only hope the Supreme Court can somehow be persuaded to do its job, and save us from civil war. Because there comes a point where the people have to say no; and John Locke told us exactly when.
Thank y'all for the comments. My point was not to debate the merits President Obama's plan -- there is ample room for reasonable arguments on both sides. I was more interested in the visceral reaction that some had to the proposal.
I think we can all agree that committing acts of vandalism doesn't lead to a healthy debate over the merits of one plan or the other. I would hope reasonable adults could sit down and discuss their differences rationally.
Post a Comment