Tags
We’re at war apparently, a metaphorical war, a cultural war, the left against the right, good against evil, or so I have been informed by one of the far right’s best and brightest members. That’s sarcasm by the way, I hardly think he’s worthy of the title.
I did write this post solely for the pleasure to be derived from mocking him or perhaps kicking the three legged chair of wobbly ideology out from under him. However, principles before personalities, and if I really wanted Mr. Right to suffer, I’d just accidentally step on his internet oxygen tube or something.
This idea of war, however and how I better get it together and pick my side, compels me to ask, “Gee, I hope this is not like the war on drugs or the war on poverty or the war on plastic shopping bags or something, because whenever we declare war on some cultural or social issue, we always, and I do mean always, make the problem much, much worse!”
War is something that happens in the physical, a grievous and tragic thing, hopefully only undertaken when all other options have been exhausted. War is flat out about completely annihilating the enemy and all his resources. Might makes right and your job is to wrought total destruction, generally involving a great deal of collateral damage.
That is war and as such, war has no place in domestic matters or socio/political clashes here at home, tucked away safely in the civilian world. You cannot declare war on your own self and even though some of your fellow countrymen may make you angry, you must find away to win hearts and minds. To declare war on what you perceive as social ills is a war you not only can’t win, but one you can only make worse.
How’s the war on drugs working out? The war on poverty? The war on the economy? I rest my case.
Naturally I never really rest my case, nor do I ever seem to run out of words, but I just wanted to pause here and speak once more, impotently, shrieking hysterically into cyberspace, but the right side of the aisle, the conservative side of things, simply must get rid of this idea that they are fighting a culture war. Wrong war, wrong King, wrong target.
People wonder why elections are so often lost, why the Left so often seems to gain the moral upper hand. Well, it is simple really, you keep declaring war on people, and people reluctant to serve as your collateral damage, tend to just vote for the other guy.
Needless to say, my futile efforts to try to deliver this message and place it in the hands of those who have a conservative bent, is always graciously received. Goes over like a ton of hot bricks.
They are fighting a war, donja know. I do know. And pretty much everyone who doesn’t serve in your battalion is now the enemy. So the message than becomes, vote for our guy, he’ll perceive you all as the enemy! Americans are not always the sharpest tools in the shed, but that idea does give many of us pause.
I can’t fix it of course or change it or even influence it in any way. Heck, I can’t even convince Mr. Right that his racial epithets and vile comments about women do more harm to his cause than good. It’s true however, there is a symbiosis to the world, a cause and effect at play. We often get the exact government we deserve.
What’s always so maddening, is that even those of us who know better, who do better, must get the government you deserve.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
“People wonder why elections are so often lost, why the Left so often seems to gain the moral upper hand.”
Socialists never gain the moral upper hand. That’s why the resort to Gulags, Ovens, Open Fields, Neatly dug ditches, Guillotines, etc. etc.
Morality is what they preach… not what they seek.
LikeLiked by 3 people
True in a literal sense, Mike, but people who perceive socialists as having the moral upper hand, always usher them into power.
How can so many people in my tiny neck of the woods be doing that precise thing? How can they actually be supporting outright socialism? Well, while there certainly is something odd in the water about these parts, they take one look at the right with all it’s harshness and hypocrisy, and decide they’d rather just go in another direction.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s because the right ‘right’ and the ‘left’ are simply two ends of the Socialist spectrum.
The spectrum works everywhere in the world except in the United States. We were founded applying Enlightenment Reason. The Individual is supreme (certainly over government) according to the constitution. It’s that whole Bill of Rights things. And it is the only thing that makes America ‘exceptional’.
Draw a line on a sheet of paper. On the right side print ‘right’. On the left side print ‘Left’.
Now draw a circle about three inches below your line… right in the middle there… sure, center it. Perfect!
That’s how this country was founded.
It is only our ceding of language and education to the left which allows for the left-right terminology to survive here. It’s long past time to take it back.
As far as your neck of the woods, we will always be looked upon as being “harsh”. Personal Responsibility and realizing the consequences of one’s actions can be a bitter taste indeed. But it is moral.
Of course they want to go in the other direction. It’s easier. But what amazes me is once Socialism inevitably devolves to it’s natural state, that being of Force, they do everything they can to flee it… only to try it again where ever they land.
I agree we are at war. It’s a war against institutionalized nepotism, power and force supported by the foolish and lazy. It is a war we may never win. But we were close once.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I was at a forum recently at which the speaker stated that capitalism would never allow us to address global climate change. He presented a definition of “capitalism” that was equivalent to “greed.” Once I pointed that out, he had little to say.
I am sorry, Mike, but you are engaged in the same kind of slip-shod sociology. “Socialism” in many parts of the world does not result in the effects you enumerate. Nor are those effects limited to socialist states. Nor would the original socialists have seen the Jacobins or Nazis or Pol Pot or American slave-traders as their fellow travelers.
LikeLike
Brian, please name for me the last Capitalist Dictator. I’ll wait.
LikeLike
No,Mike, I’m not going to engage in your labelling game. You applied the label “socialist” to a whole collection of people that were never socialists. You owe us a retraction.
LikeLike
I do not. Socialism and all of it’s variants are easy to understand. It is a Governing Theory of Force over others via Mob or Elitist. And in true Capitalist form I “owe” you nothing.
LikeLike
Well, it’s clear that we’re not going to build a bridge, Mike. Good luck.
LikeLike
Well thank you, Brian. Indeed there will be no bridge.
LikeLike
All willing are joined in Christ, who is love incarnate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that the war analogy needs to sit on the shelf for a long time before it is used again. I also know that voters generally prefer to know what the candidate is for rather than what the candidate is against. As to culture wars, I am a fan of diversity. Just last night I told the students in my class, “You can have an orchestra of oboes, but it sounds better when you add violins and trumpets and drums.” J.
LikeLiked by 5 people
[That is war and as such, war has no place in domestic matters or socio/political clashes here at home, tucked away safely in the civilian world.]
OK I.B.
I agree with you for almost all of this.
Maybe only except for out & out civil war.
Which may or may not be on its way…
LikeLiked by 1 person
War is about killing people and breaking their things, especially the things they use to fight with. However, how much damage we do and the type of damage we do depends upon our objectives and our resources. Thus, Vikings on a raid, Napoleon’s armies, Hitler’s Brown Shirts, and Attila the Hun each approached war quite differently. That was because they wanted different forms of booty. On the other hand, when the Romans conquer, they most of all wanted their enemy dead and gone.
Today America faces an implacable enemy. These people crave power and wealth. They are many of our own elites.
We would like to neatly label this enemy. We have terms like the Left, Liberal Democrats, Progressives, RINOs and other such things, but I doubt any such label is truly satisfactory. The real problem with these people and the people who vote for them is a lack of principles.
Because we are what we are, those who designed our constitutional republic hoped we could replaced the violent means we normally used to resolve our disputes. That is, we could use ballots instead of sabers, bullets, and cannons. Their plan, however, hinged upon something we call honor. They understood that any people that refuses to honor the rule of law could not hope to make constitutional republic work.
Look at at our politicians. Look at how they keep their oath to the Constitution. What will they do to hold power with no onw respects the rule of law? Won’t they replace it with the rule of men? Won’t they use brute force?
There is a story told about a group of slaves who rebelled during that time when the Roman Empire was still mighty. Spartacus led them, and for a time Spartacus led free men. Eventually, however, the Roman legions conquered them, and thousands suffered crucifixion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus
Will history record such stories about the United States? That’s depends upon the hearts and souls of our people. Will they put on the armor of God or the armor of some else?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you, Tom. There is much wisdom in your words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The armor of God is love. It is for each man to reach out to his fellow with compassionate support. In that compact, government becomes irrelevant, because we are governed by a higher justice than human law. It is the law “written on [our] hearts.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Opus Dei? Really? You Guys still around?
LikeLike
Still with the labels?
LikeLike
Yes. The ability to conceptualize is what separates most of us from the lesser animals.
LikeLike
Then you should be so kind as to provide references to the originators of socialist philosophy and remarks that indicate that they support totalitarian regimes?
But the thing that is most laughable is that you present capitalism as though I am against it. My anecdote was in reference to an exchange with a Marxist who presented a definition of capitalism that was clearly written by the communist propagandists. I force him back to the original ideas, and he surrendered the field to me. I am not against capitalism – I am against corruption of ideas in any form.
LikeLike
And, no, I have no affiliation with that body. I have, rather, been accused of being “a nation of one.”
LikeLike
“People wonder…”
Oh, come off it, IB. The “right” in America holds most of the governorships, most of the state houses, the Congress, and prior to Scalia’s death, had converted the Supreme Court into one of the most activist courts in our history. The only office that the “left” has managed to hold on to over the last eight years is the Presidency.
As I see it, the reason that the “left” gains the high moral ground is because they speak to the interests of the people they represent, rather than the hidden interests of the big money donors. They believe that government is an essential mechanism for negotiating the distribution of power, where the people that control the finances of the Republican party see the free market as the only valid forum for that negotiation. As a result, the candidates put forward by the “right” campaign against the process of government. That makes them look absurd, if not hypocritical.
The Trump campaign is the logical outgrowth of this inconsistency between the interests of the Republican base and the big money donors that control its policies. Polling shows that the base is furious with Washington politics, and simply want a change. Unfortunately, anger – and the fear and hatred it generates – are ugly and immoral, and obviously not Christian principles of action.
LikeLike
Here’s the problem, Brian. The Left thinks the right has been serving big money interests and dominating all aspects of our politics for years, therefore the Right is entirely to blame. The Right however, believes the Left has been in charge for decades, so therefore the Left is to blame. It’s like a bad marriage. So what happens when you point fingers at the other side? You hand all your power away. Nothing is ever our fault, therefore nothing is ever our problem, and so nothing is within our power to change. In fact, the only joy left in our lives now is pointing fingers at the other and blaming them, declaring them the enemy and going to war.
“As I see it, the reason that the “left” gains the high moral ground is because they speak to the interests of the people they represent, rather than the hidden interests of the big money donors. ”
I know you do, but I prefer to pull back and examine the entire system at play, to look at cause and effect, about what we are designing in the world around us. Like it or not, the nature of the problem is not “greedy Republicans just want to represent big money.” Nor is it, “the Left is for the little guy, they’ll rescue us and give us free stuff.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
My comment was entirely about perceptions – foremost your perception that the “left” wins elections.
And I think that I’ve hit the nail squarely on the head in my comments about the mechanisms for negotiating the distribution of power. Religion, economics and government create a triangle that allows the individual latitude for freedom of expression.
So take the Affordable Health Care Act. Why was it formulated? Because innovation in the insurance industry was allowing it to sell insurance only to people that were expected to stay healthy. On the other hand, the medical industry focused on delivering high-profit treatments for those that could not be cured. This created incredible upward pressures on both insurance premiums and health-care costs. The Affordable Health Care Act was intended to restructure health care to focus on OUTCOMES rather than TREATMENTS. At the same time, it brought the chronically ill and uninsured back into the system. This means that, in the short term, insurance premiums for the healthy went up. The structural programs intended to shift the compensation models have not had time to take effect, so the industry is in distress.
The response of the “right” has been to relabel the Act “Obamacare,” and linked it as a slur against both our president and the aims of the legislation. Why? Because the pharmaceutical companies and insurers are having their oxen gored, know that they don’t have any grounds to argue on policy, and so resort to slander and diatribe.
What kills me about this dialog, however, is that the historical precedents for this era are lost on those most damaged by the politics of the right. Read about the McKinley administration and Tammany Hall. It’s all happened before. So I’m not pointing fingers at you. I’m pointing fingers at those about whom Christ said “You cannot love both God and Money.” The Republican Party, I am afraid to say, is a living demonstration of that fact.
LikeLike
Well Brian, I’ll be thinking of your Affordable Care Act while I sit here, our entire family now uninsured, paying fines for not being able to afford insurance.
I work in healthcare, I could tell you absolute horror stories about what has been done to people, but you wouldn’t be able to hear me, you would dismiss the truth of my experiences as nothing more than slander and libel or perhaps a lack of patience because any day now your policies are going to kick in and start working for us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What state do you live in, IB? Did your governor implement that health exchange?
LikeLike
Forget it Brian, I’ve talked about the nightmare that is the Affordable Care Act and it’s impact on real live people until I can talk no more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, if you wish to provide a reference to the source material, I’d be happy to read it, IB.
And believe me, I’d be happy to hear your history working in the Health Care industry. However, if it predates the AHCA, I might interpret it as a motivation for the act, rather than a rebuttal of it.
LikeLike
“Religion, economics and government create a triangle that allows the individual latitude for freedom of expression.”
No Brian… you are an example of all that is wrong with the world. It is the word inalienable that you refuse to recognize, and it is enlightenment that remains just out of your reach. We are not “allowed” latitude and Freedom.
If there was ever a problem, a ‘war’ so to speak that has been launched upon the earth it has come from the Religious Left. (That was directed at you, Brian.)
LikeLike
I am an example of all that is wrong with the world? Wow. OK. Well, I hope that someday you surrender your fear and anger.
LikeLike
Brian: The State I live in rejected Obamacare because it wasn’t Liberal enough. It’s even more corrupt than the federal program. Anybody who thinks that Liberals run society better than Conservatives needs to spend a few years living in the Pacific Coast states. Just yesterday, the local news reported that the salmon harvest is in danger because the levels of illegal and prescription narcotics in the water have reached toxic levels.
The problem in American politics today is that there is NO Conservative Party. There hasn’t been a Conservative in power since Reagan. As you pointed out, the GOP had power for 8 years and didn’t do anything. Repealing Abortion has been on the GOP Platform since 1974. The first governors to legalize homo ‘marriage’ were Mitt Romney and Chris Christie. New York has the toughest anti-gun laws—courtesy of Gov. George Pataki.
And the Liberals are just as bad. Look at George Soros’ profiteering off military adventurism, for example. All during the Bush Junior years, we saw protestors every weekend shouting ‘No Blood for Oil’. Not a peep out of these scum about Obama’s skullduggery in Libya, Ukraine, and Syria—ALL of which are about stealing oil. At the same time, they import Moslems and punish Americans for ‘Islamophobia’ while ignoring genocide and ethnic cleansing of Christians and won’t even give Christians refugee status—so much for Liberal ‘compassion’!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read that article, Eric. There are so many drugs in our eco-system that even the salmon can’t pass a drug test. For a long time I’ve been saying, “there’s something in the water, ” as if that explains people’s bizarre behavior. Apparently there is some truth to that “conspiracy theory,” of mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB:
That’s one reason why I haven’t been enthusiastic about any of the candidates. Besides the drug problem, it also illustrates how bad our infrastructure is—lacking adequate water treatment for example; as well as a failing agricultural/fishing infrastructure. None of them are addressing things like these. Education, agriculture, infrastructure, research & development; it’s been since 70s and 80s that anything has been addressed about any of these things. Everybody instead wants quick fixes without disturbing the status quo too much.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a really good point, Eric. I was thinking something similar, the way everybody always promises to fix problems, but they never address the root cause of the problem in the first place. That’s politics for you
LikeLiked by 1 person
The ‘Third Rail’ none of them really want to touch is Personal Responsibility, which is at the root of 90% of the problems. The government can do some proactive changes on the surface, but it doesn’t touch the core issue. Why isn’t healthcare affordable? It used to be. True, greedy trial lawyers; the insurance cartels; and conniving bureaucrats contribute to the problem and government can do some reforms. But healthcare costs really soared in the 1990s with the increase of drug abuse and when public schools eliminated President Kennedy’s physical education programs. When we have 1/4 of the population on dope and 1/3 chronically obese, it’s no mystery as to why there’s a healthcare crisis.
The same can be said for other infrastructure problems. How does a politician address something like the breakdown of the family? The government can institute some incentives—like Putin did effectively in Russia—but people are going to have to be willing to commit to marriage and family. Education reform, the same, and so on….
LikeLiked by 2 people
All true, Eric. You sound like my husband, he often speaks of PE no longer being in schools, people no longer being home to cook, and so many people on drugs, both the legal kind and the illegal. So of course we have a health care crisis, a diabetes epidemic, and a spiritual famine too.
It’s the heart of this country that worries me, because fixing all that requires some major leadership and I don’t think that can happen on a political level. Spiritual leadership, cultural, men’s leadership really. We need a revival of men.
The problem with a lack of personal responsibility is that it always leads to powerlessness. You do not want a bunch of powerless people in a country such as ours, because that just makes us ripe for the plucking.
LikeLike
Brian, you’re making the common mistake that the “Affordable” Care Act was brought in to law to actually benefit people when it’s main purpose was to transfer even more power to the federal government while making those that created it look compassionate. The Left has been trying to do something like this for 70+ years and whether or not it worked was really secondary.
If you realistically look at the bare bones structure of the act, it’s easy to see an unworkable system of poor incentives designed to collapse and, in my opinion, provide cover for a full government takeover of the remaining 40% private healthcare market.
It’s biggest success no doubt was getting more people covered, but this was done mostly through subpar Medicaid programs which have been shown to provide very poor levels of care and actually reduce mortality. As others have stated, it also caused many premiums to shoot through the roof with worse coverage levels.
I know many others that receive subsidies and pay very little for premiums but who have been through hellish experiences navigating the swampland of bureaucracy known as ObamaCare, dealing with inept and dangerous doctors and who a $5,000 deductible renders going to the doctor completely unaffordable.
The problem with today’s Democrats is that it’s leaders and too many voters readily believe that the name of a program (i.e. Affordable Care Act) actually defines it’s outcome. This is not at all the case and and not at all the compassionate thing to do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You can attribute that to the Act Tricia, but my comments support the assertion that our health care system, which is the most expensive in the developed world and maintains our health at a far lower standard, relegated a whole cohort of people in chronic illness that escalated into emergency room care that the hospitals were covering through increased insurance premiums. Bringing those people into the system has created enormous stress on health care delivery. I know people who are indeed unable to get quality care, because reputable doctors simply refused to accept patients insured under the exchanges.
Another segment of the “aggrieved” is now arising: the large insurers are claiming billion-dollar losses due to the AHCA. However, recognizing the burden of bringing the uninsured into the system, the Act included government subsidies over the interim. Congress refused to fund those subsidies this year, which has created the hole that the insurers are using to deride its implementation.
So the formulators of the act knew that there would be birthing pains, and planned for them. But the goal was never to create a national health care system – it was to bring the uninsured into the system so that they could get routine care to prevent a descent into serious illness. It was to keep people healthy, and is now saddled by the burden of a system that did not serve that goal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahh, but Brian, there in is the rub. There were plenty of ways to expand insurance coverage that didn’t involve a command and control system of government defined benefit levels and penalizing those that didn’t meet them. I completely agree that what we had before was broken (although technology wise more innovative than anywhere else in the world) and change was needed but Obamacare was not at all the solution. It took an already heavily government reliant system (about 40%) and put its inefficiencies (coverage mandates, inability to cross state lines, etc…) on steroids plus added known cost exploders like pre existing conditions requirements and allowing people to sign up at any time (i.e. after they are sick) and boom, you get an explosion of costs, rationing of care and a disgruntled public paying more for services they don’t want or need.
Of course the insurers are claiming billion dollar losses, anyone paying attention saw this coming. The law is unsustainable and the last thing anyone should want is for tax payers to be on the hook for it. Those carriers agreed to be wined and dined with the politicians that designed it and had stars in their eyes with all the new customers this bill would bring. They should have known all along they would eventually be the the main course and I don’t feel for them at all except for the fact that so many people now are suffering because of this collusion.
A better solution in my opinion would be to allow those who don’t get insurance through their employer to get the same tax benefit on premiums as businesses do and also allow them to purchase from any state whereas now you are limited so stupidly to the one you live in. Increase the health savings account amount and allow catastrophic coverage plans and let people choose what coverage they want as opposed to the government along with serious tort reform. Pre existing conditions allow for special consideration and I would not be against setting up a government pool of insurers and subsidies to meet the needs of these people.
The important takeaway is lets go in the direction of giving more power to the people and trust they know what’s best for themselves and their families as opposed to an all encompassing federal government.
Not such a bad concept, eh?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Coverage mandates: the lack of regulation was the central defect of the open-market system. This allowed insurers to slice-and-dice the market to focus on those most likely to be healthy. When it became impossible to get insurance, people lied on their applications, and the cost of policy administration exploded as insurers hired floors of people whose only job was to deny claims. Coverage mandates maximize the size of the insurance pool, and therefore distribute risk most effectively.
Heavily government reliant – only as a payer. The service providers – the pharmaceutical and medical industries – have hamstrung its ability to bargain for lower prices.
Sign up only when sick – You and IB need to get together. The program requires that every adult carry health insurance. It subsidizes coverage to the poor with tax breaks, but otherwise does not impose fines. So nobody can get out of paying.
Out of state insurance – I believe that this is a states’ rights issue. It has nothing to do with federal law. However, I do stick with Kaiser, which is a interstate non-profit, costs my employer far less in premiums, and has an aggressive health maintenance program.
Trust that they know what’s best for them – I’m a Ph.D. physicist. I tried reading a health care coverage plan once. I surrendered. To assess the terms, you need detailed information regarding average cost of specific procedures. That isn’t provided.
LikeLike
“The program requires that every adult carry health insurance. It subsidizes coverage to the poor with tax breaks, but otherwise does not impose fines.”
Brian, the poor hardly pay any taxes, so tell me, what good is tax break to a poor person?
As to subsidizing coverage for the poor, well, there are quite a few of us that are not poor enough, meaning that even if we could afford our subsidized premiums, the deductables alone completely exceed our income. Meaning, we have no chance of ever meeting our deductables and actually accessing this insurance.
Also, I and many others seem to be paying those fines that are allegedly not imposed. You see, we are boxed into a corner, the fines we must pay are affordable, while the Affordable Insurance is not. Now I suppose we could always quit our jobs, making ourselves qualify for medicaid, but I’m reluctant to go live in my car. We could contribute our entire income to subsidized healthcare and insurance premiums, but again, same problem, we are reluctant to go live in our car.
It’s all good, I don’t call it a fine either, I just call the fee we have to pay to not live in our car. The tax that is not a tax on poverty. The fine for being so willfully, uh, underemployed? Too stupid to know how to double our income? Too defiant to just comply and go live in the car? I’m not really sure what the non fine, non tax we now pay is really all about, but I try to be chipper about it, cheerful. I just call it the, “fine for not living in our car tax.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
My position on your situation, IB, is that something must change. My understanding, which you are to a certain degree disabusing me of, is that tax system was structured so that those living below the poverty line would actually collect money from the IRS, regardless of taxes paid. If the system does not work that way, it should. If you took your case to the proposers of the legislation, I am certain that they would be sympathetic to your cause. While I am opposed to the idea, it is part of what drives Bernie Sanders to insist that we should have universal health care as a federal program. I prefer a regulated private system with subsidies for the poor.
LikeLike
“If you took your case to the proposers of the legislation, I am certain that they would be sympathetic to your cause.”
You waht…I..uh?! Oh Brian, it takes quite a bit to render me speechless. You have managed the impossible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And if you wonder where all this comes from: I saw the AHCA as a major shift in our social contract, and so watched the hearings. The Republicans on the panel raised all of your complaints at the time of passage, and they were systematically rebutted by the Democrats. This is not a new debate, and the issues you raise were considered at the time the Act was formulated. I’m surprised that they are still common currency.
One last issue that was raised at that time: the lack of health care coverage in the service industries imposes an enormous hidden cost on our society. These are people that cannot afford not to work. They prepare our food, clean our lavatories and (when untreated) incubate virulent communicable disease. We leave them untreated at our own risk, and the cost is high.
LikeLike
@brianbalke
Most of Trump’s supporters just see the The Donald as telling it like it is. I suspect they consider that principle worth respecting.
I noticed you defended Obamacare. What is the Christian position on how we should make our health care system work? One message that comes from the Bible is that no man is good, not one, and the People who wrote our Constitution designed our government with that understanding. Because it forces us to accept the involvement of politicians and bureaucrats in our health care, Obamacare outrageously violates that understanding. Because Obamacare is blatantly unconstitutional, we know from the get-go these people cannot be trusted. The majority of Americans don’t even want Obamacare. So the notion our leader are doing this for our good is silly.
Do I have a solution for all our health care woes? Yes. Don’t get old. Don’t get sick. Don’t have accidents. Failing that, rob a bank and spend someone else’s money. Seriously, isn’t that all the silly politicians are promising.
When our government takes money from one person and gives it to another “needy” person, that is stealing. Even if it were not, our Constitution does not charter Congress to redistribute the wealth. When judges say that it does, they have to use convoluted arguments. For example, what is a “living Constitution”? Isn’t that a Constitution that doesn’t mean what it says?
How does free market health care work? It will never work perfectly, but does anything we can devise? When we get sick, it is too late to go shopping for healthcare, but people will always do that. Some people will always be poor, unable to afford a doctor. And some will always be sickly at birth, so that insurance is impractical. Nevertheless, most of us want insurance, and we can afford it.
What does insurance do for us? When we have a catastrophe, our insurance helps us to pay the bills. In addition, because insurers have market clout and can hire people with the appropriate skills, they can negotiate affordable doctor and hospital fees. The main thing we need our government to do is prosecute fraud.
What about those who don’t have insurance? The solution is charity. Charity is something politicians did not invent and NEVER provides. Politicians just take money from some people so they can buy the votes of other people.
When we let our leaders redistribute the wealth, there is nothing Christian about it. We just corrupt our government and wreck havoc on free market solutions that work quite well for the vast majority of people.
One other thing. Supposedly, the United States spends too much money on health care. Really! If I want to buy an expensive car or house, would you have the right to stop me? With respect to my health care, you are claiming that right.
We as a nation don’t buy health care for the “People.” We buy health care for ourselves, family members, and individuals we care about. That’s why government should not have a large role. Politicians should just be buying health care for themselves, family members, and people they care about; and it is a cinch that few politicians care all that much about the “People.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, Tom, It’s not Obamacare, it’s the Affordable Health Care Act, and its constitutionality was assessed by the Supreme Court and not found wanting.
Look, I’m going to bow out at this point, because this is the dynamic I see myself facing here: I am offering my understanding of policy, and what is being returned are conservative talk-show-host talking points. Karl Rove famously stated “A lie, told enough times, eventually becomes the truth.” Wake up!
I see myself facing a group of people that have substituted a prejudicial dialectic of personal irresponsibility for attentiveness to the practice of helping others carry the burdens of misfortune that Jesus celebrated so famously in the parable of the Good Samaritan. This was the original compact of health insurance. I deal with the corruptoin of this compact in my latest blog post.
As for your comment on Trump: we are in agreement. I believe that Trump is bringing home to roost the hypocrisy of the Republican establishment.
LikeLike
@Brian
Well, I will happily seize the last word for what it is worth.
1. First of all our judges are political appointees, not the final arbiters of Truth. We now fight fiercely over the appointment of judges BECAUSE the decisions of judges are no longer formulaic. If judges based their decisions strictly upon the law and precedents, the only issue would be their competence. Unfortunately, politics matters. When you arrive in the next life, check it out with Roger B. Taney. This problem has cropped up before.
2. You just accused those who disagree with you of repeating lies. No wonder you are cutting and running. Courageous, that.
3. I specifically said there is no such thing a government charity. Your refutation? Something related to mind-numbed robots and not being Christian enough. What is Christian about using force to seize other people’s money and spending it?
4. If Trump gets the nomination, I will vote for him. The worst of the Republicans is still better than someone who belongs in jail and an avowed Socialist.
Go back and read that first comment of mine. Look again at IB’s post. You want big government? To redistribute the wealth? Because it is Christian? Hogwash! And you actually think government charity is in our Constitution? Of course, you don’t, but you still have the gall to speak of hypocrisy. Shame on you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When Obama ran in 2008, the GOP criticized him because he lacked political experience; may not have been born in the US; and had family with connections to Communist Party activists. In 2016, the top three Republicans are:
1. Trump—-no political experience
2. Cruz—-born in Canada
3. Rubio—family came from Castro’s Cuba
Go figure…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump had no political experience and should not be running. No one outside of Camp Trump Fanatic however questions Cruz’s legality to run for President. Also, are you equating Rubio’s parents fleeing Cuba as being sympathetic to the Castro Regime? You might want to read up on that further if so, as the truth is pretty much opposite of what you are implying. It’s late and my eyes are tired and my apologies if I’m reading your comment wrong.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No—I was just pointing out the irony.
As far as Cruz goes though, I think it’s an issue that needs to be addressed; he didn’t even become naturalized until 2014, I think. The Constitution is pretty specific about a native-born requirement although it’s not really ever been challenged. Technically speaking, eight out of our first nine presidents were born British citizens—before American independence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok, that’s kind of what I thought after I responded to you so glad you clarified. Sorry for the misinterpretation. I disagree with you on Ted Cruz though because I don’t think the Constitution is clear at all on what a “naturalized citizen” is and his Mom being American makes him a U.S. citizen. I certainly could be wrong and I guess the only way we will find out for sure about Cruz is if he becomes the nominee, a big IF these days…
LikeLike
Pingback: My Article Read (2-26-2016) – My Daily Musing
Certainly a lively discussion. A word from someone who has been in over 100 countries including the old USSR. The secret of our county’s success has been the ability to function as a balanced unit – one that incorporates the best of predominantly free and planned economies. The naked truth is when we get to the point we loose our vision that our country functions best when we operate … “somewhere between lust and watchin’ TV,” we diminish ourselves. Those countries who succumb to monolithic ideals simply perish. Freedom is the very best way to maintain the balance. There is no silver bullet. The last twenty-plus years have been a study in political division and the cesspool DC has become is the result. This division is simply a power grab – if someone is doing this, they want to force us to conform to THEIR NARROW POLITICAL VIEWS. More reason and less blather is the medicine. We need more Ben Carson’s and Joe Manchin’s. We’d better start concentrating on what we have in common and, NO MATTER HOW HARD IT IS, and de-emphasize our differences or we’ll end up as so many great counties have – on history’s scrap heap. There are some serious folks out there that WILL destroy us if they can. Listen to what people say … when you hear, “my way or the highway,” tune them out.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A lively discussion is always a good thing, in my view anyway. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I am a simple guy, all my friends know that.
Rubio all the way.
Why? He said the following, paraphrased…”I won’t change my view on the sanctity of life just to get elected.”
Which means he never will get elected, but he has integrity at least to risk it all. He may never get the nomination, but I will sure sleep good at night, and pray with a clear conscience too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: TED CRUZ WOULD REPEAL EVERY WORD OF OBAMACARE – Citizen Tom
IB, we are at war. Politics is war by other means. At least since the 60s, the soul of this country is under contestation. The Right did not fire the first shots; the Left did. The narrative we’re the aggressors/the oppressors, i.e. sexist, bigoted, racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, classist, xenophobic, tribalist, etc., and the Left is speaking truth to power is Orwellian mendacity. For example, most people regardless of race just want to live their lives and do so, but when whites do this, according to those of the likes of Black Lives Matter, it actually is cultural domination and subjugation of black people. That, demographic disparity of wealth is tantamount exploitation and racism against black people. That’s lunacy.
Like most conservatives, you’re entirely too decent and civil. This is not a patronizing sneer but an acknowledgment of your superlative character. It’s been my experience that it’s not likely this virtue exists in the average social justice warrior, as civility is a norm that consolidates your power and advantage against the downtrodden. That explains why 40% of Millennials believe hateful or offensive speech against minorities should be outlawed and conservative speakers at college campuses should not be allowed to speak on the premises. Deep down, they believe First Amendment/free expression only serves your white, Christian bourgeoisie interests and is a bankrupt value. It’s this sort of extremism that flippantly dismisses classical liberalism as a sham that evidences our civilization is threatened from within.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a great comment and there are some truths behind what you say. There is still the nagging problem however, of what happens when you declare war on your ownself? Then there is the problem of accelerate and amplify, where those who are falsely called racists, homophobes, etc, actually decide to double down and become exactly what they are accused of being. The alt right is very good at this, but I wonder if they understand that you can win a battle but go on to lose the whole war?
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree the alt right does have an image problem and revels in its anti-establishment anger. It unleashes this rage on anyone who, for instance, is appropriately critical of it or Trump. He’s not good news and is an absolute gamble.
I still maintain that in dealing with agents of our nemesis, the Left, that you can’t be squeamish about fighting fire with fire. Civility is for the civil. So, I’m in agreement with Ben Shapiro: If you’re slandered as a bigot or homophobe or whatever, the correct response is not to attempt showing you’re not the actually the scum of the earth but to retort that they’re actually the evil ones for smearing you. Take the moral high ground away from ’em. That’s all they have. They’re of course an art to doing this that does make you look like a livid reactionary — something I haven’t mastered — but the biggest issue with conservative politics is that too many of us are ashamed to be what we are. Political correctness has made us too timid to say, “Hey, gay marriage is a bad idea and homosexuality is wrong.” Until we grow a backbone, we’ll continue to become pariahs in our countries equivalent to the KKK for simply being principled moral realists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*There of course is an art…
LikeLike
Pingback: Does Society Still Value Freedom? | Freedom Through Empowerment