“The history of liberty is a history of resistance.” I am not sure whether or not he originated the quote, but one of the original neocons, Woodrow Wilson, spoke these words at the New York Press Club in 1912. [No, this is not an endorsement of Wilson.] Additionally, Noam Chomsky said, “Resistance is feasible even for those who are not heroes by nature, and it is an obligation, I believe, for those who fear the consequences and detest the reality of the attempt to impose American hegemony.”
The attempt to impose health hegemony has triggered people to dust off their inner rebel and take a stand. As Obama gets more and more frustrated that his Communist “change” isn’t embraced by us productive people, all the media can focus on is that reactionary right-wingers (whatever that means) are misinterpreting the health care plan, spreading false ideas about it, and generally just getting the whole thing wrong. To be generous, here, let’s just grant them that as being true and look at this health care resistance in a really simple context.
Forget about whether or not euthanasia is part of the plan, or an unavoidable consequence of the plan, or in fact, let’s call the whole talk about that nothing more than an exaggerated outcome of government-managed care. Forget about all the micro-arguments about who and what the plan will cover. Let’s focus on a few main points that seem to be glossed over in favor of going around the guts of the issue.
1) Government cannot ever contain costs. This is supposed to be one of the main reasons for the establishment of the ObamaCommuCare system. However, since the beginning of the modern state, no government anywhere has been able to contain costs on anything. First, there’s an unlimited supply of funding due to that rotten concept known as taxation. With unlimited buckets to empty into the trough, there’s no motivation to rein in outrageous costs. Two, there’s no profit and loss element in government accounting that will properly indicate the efficiency or inefficiency of its socialized system. Government is not run like a business and therefore it cannot isolate any particular sector and micro-manage its costs. Plus, cost containment is a two-edged sword – a business looks at revenues in balance with its cost-cutting procedures because it is impossible to look at them as if they exist in separate worlds with separate purposes. The revenue and expense worlds are closely related, and combined they produce a profit or a loss. Managing both ends plays a role in the end result. Three, politicians benefit personally – by increasing wealth and power – from dishing out special favors and services, and this serves to increase costs because the drive to personally enrich themselves is far greater than their need to have their constituents like them. So you have 535 different individuals acting in their own best interests, unlike with a private business where most managers and executives have a stake in cooperating to initiate a cost-effective structure.
2) Any formerly private – and costly – services that become “free” to the consumers of that service will necessarily be in much higher demand, thereby causing massive shortages which will result in an unavoidable rationing of health care. The current system of third-party payment already encourages people to misuse and abuse services they don’t have to pay for, especially in the case of managed care. In the current system, people run to the emergency room for anything and everything, they scarf down “free” prescriptions at an amazing rate, and they clamor for more and more privileges from a system that has trained them to depend on it like it’s a food line. A system sold as “free” – and the citizen advocates of this nonsense do believe it is free to them – will attract the most dependent and irresponsible people who don’t need the health care, squeezing out those who are prudent and do need it. Additionally, remember that the Redistribution Kings who have planned the socialized health care system already intend on using it as a scheme for the purposes of redistributive justice.
3) Last, and most important: most of these people resisting this idea are doing so because they just don’t want the government owning and running their health care system. Whether they are traditional conservatives, statist Republicans, FOX News warmongers, or fair-weather liberty types, they don’t want their lives run by the Post Office, Part II. People don’t want bureaucrats rolling dice to determine the level or type of medical care they can receive.
And good for Sarah Palin for sticking to the end-of-life issue and not relenting. She’s right, because there is no way the socialized system they have planned for us can possibly accommodate all of the parasites that want to line up and suck the blood from it. Government bureaucrats will have to resort to their perverse statistical models and central planning structures in order to decide who gets what based on availability. “End-of-life” counseling? Give me a break.
According to the demented, crank leftists like Hale Stewart at Huffington Post, rejecting this concept amounts to ”fear mongering and stupidity.” He goes on to set the stage for the necessity of this “counseling” by comparing it to estate planning and living wills concerning his elderly clients (he is a tax attorney). The numbskull doesn’t even consider the fact that an individual choosing (important word) to seek counsel from an attorney, doctor, family, etc., does so voluntarily, and with a specific result in mind. That is a far cry from what will become the government’s mandatory two cents when you have some self-interested, psychobabbling bureaucrat breathing down your neck and forcing his “expert” advice on you, giving out prescriptions for how to live or die. Anytime the government wants to “counsel” anyone on anything, it is a very bad sign; one that suggests authority and manipulation, with the end goal being able to control the outcome, which, in this case, is life or death, care or no care.
