Welcome, komrades, to the beginning of the new USA, the Union of Socialist America. Now, I hate to have to move my precious daughters down in the blog to do another article, but I felt this topic was of absolute importance. It seems that our president and those who hypnotically follow him are well on their way to converting our once-glorious democratic society into a socialist state, one step away from their version of American Communism. On today's sad occasion we witnessed Mr. Obama sign into law a totalitarian expansion of the SCHIP, reducing the role of private insurance in our country. In his own words he said, "This is only the first step. 'Cause the way I see it, providing coverage to 11 million children through CHIP is a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American." He doesn't even hide the fact that wants socialized medicine! Currently, about 46% of total health care spending is controlled by the government, but with the passing of SCHIP expansion this will greatly increase.
For those of you who don't know, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was meant to give children, who's families made to much for Medicaid, the benefit of health insurance. It was meant to cover up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, 0r $44,000 for a family of four, though only 9 states are still at that level with most having already expanded the coverage (more at Heritage.org). That's not too shabby of a sum, and our family of five had learned to live on much less than that, as I'm sure many of you have as well. I agree that children deserve proper health care, however, giving government-run insurance to people who should be able to afford it (instead of buying the new sportscar!) is ridiculous. I think that the idea of universal health care is quite admirable and very Christian, but the little economist inside me yells out loud that this just cannot be. Giving everyone health care in lieu of fixing our highways or providing a national defense just doesn't seem right.
While this issue is at the top of the list of wrongs that this bill establishes, the other at the top is the idea that we, as citizens, are soon going to be under complete government control. Our beloved Consitution (read more about it here) states that we the people are in charge of the country, not those in charge, as would be if Mr. Obama's aspirations come to fruition. Communism always starts with the government acting the the helping hand, taking control in the midst of presumed chaos, maybe a financial institution that is having trouble with loans, or health care that doesn't cover enough people. Or maybe that same government will exert control over things it has no business in, such as marriage? Maybe that government will begin to limit the people's rights in matters such as religion or guns. Does any of this sound familiar? Every communist regime begins sliding citizens rights to government control, then all of a sudden they go too far and people finally notice, but they already have so much control that no one can resist anymore, and Voila! a Communist state.
I know I rambled a bit, but just giving you food for thought, people. know your rights and hold as tight to them as possible lest you miss them when they're gone. And now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
Lincon,
ReplyDeleteYou have a very interesting post and the topic is one near and dear to my heart. Please remember that the things I am about to say are not meant as a personal attack on your beliefs, however it is directly to identify the fallacy of your logic.
1. You refer to SCHIP bill as being "totalitarian." As the name denotes this program is "STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE." States are not required to participate - totalitarian connotates power through force. Who is forcing your state to participate in the program other than it's constiuents? SCHIP was originally proposed by Ted Kennedy AND Orrin Hatch. States must match funds to participate. U.S. voters elected Obama - who is being forced other than those who DON'T agree with democracy and majority rule?
2.You use the logical fallacy of "slippery slope," when you state :"This is only the first step. 'Cause the way I see it, providing coverage to 11 million children through CHIP is a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American." Because SCHIP is passed it does not mean Universal Health Care or "socialized" health care will be passed. Because SCHIP is passed it doesn't mean that the constitution will be altered or basic civil rights will be taken. The promotion of the belief that passing a health care subsidy will lead to eventually enslavement of the United States population is pure conservative propaganda and rhetoric. It's the same ideal of McCartheistic politics that has left a festering sore on the constitution.
3. You speak of the "little economist" inside of you and how it is telling you that SCHIP is not a good idea. According to research done by BYU and Arizona state, removal of SCHIP programs would lead to more expenses because underprivileged individuals would take their children in for emergency care vs. clinical help. The United States currently spends an estimated 15% of the GDP on health care, which is greater than any other country WITH socialized health care. Maybe the little economist just needs bigger ears?
4. You state that "Giving everyone health care in lieu of fixing our highways or providing a national defense just doesn't seem right." I missed the part of the SCHIP initiative that said we were no longer engaging in highway repairs or national defense?
In conclusion I agree in a non-interventionist policy from government, however Republicans and Democrats alike do not engage in it. Most libertarians in Universal Health Care countries actually prefer it because of the reduction in expenses for individuals.
Research twice, speak once.
Live well
First off, I appreciate the comments because it means people actually care about what's happening in our country, and as well it makes me think more about my positions. Second, please tell me who you are so that I know to whom I am responding. I'll take each comment in turn.
ReplyDelete1. I'm fine with the original SCHIP because it does work well, but that this recent expansion is unnecessary and excessive. I also don't believe any state would turn down this free money, and I feel it's somewhat totalitarian in that the state can either go bankrupt paying for their state health care costs or take money from the federal gov't and be told how to use it.
2. I've never been compared to McCarthy before, but I don't believe the passing of this one bill leads down the road to socialism, if it were the only signpost. However, teamed with the successive overtaking of various parts of the free market system by the Fed is what leads me to the fear that our current leadership would be happier if gov't was in control of every aspect and capitalism had no part. I hope I am wrong. And by the way, that quote was from Mr. Obama's own mouth as he signed the bill.
3. Again, I agree that SCHIP works fine as it is, maybe I should have made that more plain in my original post, but the expansion just signed gives money to families who should be able to afford it. While the number may be 15% now (I've seen papers with higher estimates), in receiving my recent MPH I saw many reports by liberals in favor of socialized medicine that health care expenditures are increasing more rapidly than GDP growth, and at the current rate may surpass total GDP.
4. I didn't infer that SCHIP will stop those other programs, but if we continue to increase health care spending, than something else has to stop if we are to have a balanced budget, and those were just the most flamboyent examples I though of. I understand that socialized medicine does work fairly well in some countries, but would likely not work here because Americans want everything now and will not wait, and I've also never been impressed with the governments ability to be efficient in any large expenditure.
Well, that was a mouthful. Again, thanks for the response. Let's keep the discussion open, and stay tuned for more outspoken, yet heartfelt political commentary!