Universal health care does not work! I have always said that giving someone something for nothing will only lead to greed and laziness. Guess what? I was proven right by the state of Hawaii! The state of Hawaii ended the only state run universal health care in the U.S. after only 7 months! It turned out that people who could afford health care stopped paying for it so they could get it for free or at a major discount through the state. Gee? What is that? Greed? Laziness? Actually it is common sense. Why should one citizen pay for something that is being given free to another? Of course universal health care will not work. It will lead to government corruption and private sector greed. Everyone of Barack Obama's plans has been proven not to work in the real world. They work in the fantasy world that most Dems dream about but that world is not this world!
"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."
To be fair, Obama's plan is for universal health
insurance but the similarities are there. His plan will fail for the same reason the Hawaii health care plan did...universal social plans do not work!
1 comment:
Again I think we have to distinguish between the rhetoric of extreme positions versus the nuance of what the debate should actually be about (as in the socialism/capitalism debate).
Clearly most of us would agree that the government should do some things. Very few would argue that the government should not operate a military or organize the police force, so it is not all government programs that you are against. We could make the cut at government social programs but this to would be a hazy line. For instance what about roads? public transportation? utilities? I think most of us would agree that infrastructure is a good thing for the government to do, even if this is a social program as it fosters economic growth.
So again we are left arguing about what social programs are good and which are bad. Now we can have this discussion on several levels. We could argue on a philosophic/ethical level. For instance suggesting that irrespective of consequences the government should not run a social programs whose benefits are unequally allocated (i.e. any programs for which not everyone gets equal benefit), essentially taking a hard line individualist approach. This would be one type of debate. A means centered argument.
Or, we could look at this from a utilitarian perspective and argue that the government should run all social programs which produce a net gain to the society, even if the initial cost is unequally allocated. In this case we would override individual desire for net social gain. This would be an ends centered argument. This second case is a bit more complicated, for while we might agree with the idea that government ought to promote gain, but disagree about the best way to do this. Some would argue that any government program limits growth while others would point out that is not the case, that some social programs have been highly effective and benefited the society at large.
Again the debate is in the details, it is not an all or nothing case. Communist (hard line communist) argue that the government should run everything, an ultimately untenable an less than productive position, one driven by ideology rather than complex policy analysis. The other side of this coin thought is equally as dogmatic and ideological, that government ought to run nothing. Both positions strike me as naive.
Post a Comment