July 2, 2012

Powerless: a rambling vent that will not make sense to any of you but makes me feel better. Or worse.

After a weekend, I am more pissed about the politics in this nation than ever. I think I may be out of step. I am all for helping out my fellow man. But it is not charity when it is forced by threat of law.

People make bad choices. I have made more than a few myself, believe me. Bad things happen to very good people. We all have a duty to help those who most need it.  For instance, I have no issue with unemployment benefits. I have lost more than one job.  I know that unemployment would have saved my family had I not been lucky enough to land new employment right away.

As much as it pains me, we cannot provide a safety net for everyone.  This realization is what puts me out of step, I guess. Every politician, regardless of party, needs a big sign, lit in changing neon colors, flashing these words above his desk: "That is someone else's money you are spending".

I am lost.  Cannot the powers-that-be see the end result of the progressive game we are playing? ObamCare costs will spiral out of control very quickly as people make bad life choices. The People will call for restraint. Just as the anti-smoking lobby has pinned their attacks on the increased cost to the rest of us in healthcare, the anti-fat, anti-meat anti-whatevers will bring their "I know better than you" attitude into the fray. Soon the Government will not only decree what size soda you can drink, but what you need to eat as well. In a few decades the McDonald's and Burger Kings of today will be relics of a nostalgic bygone age like drive-ins and the general store. And why not, if I am paying for your everyday living expenses I have a right to dictate how you spend that money. Haven't we all decried the food stamp (yes I know debit card) user at the grocery buying steak and name brand stuff while we are counting quarters to buy hot dogs? Aren't we all pissed to see them buying cigarretts and beer with the cash they did not have to use for foodstuff? I will be just as pissed to see you eating Big Macs and large fries while I am buying your Metformin and Lipitor.

Trust me, today it is healthcare, tommorrow it will be long-term care for the elderly. Our grandkids will know only a government that  provides for their every need. The individual you will have to sacrifice for the collective us. Already the battle cry is faint in the distance, but drawing nearer: "the rich do not pay their fair share, who needs all that money, why do they have all of those cars..." How far off are government mandated salaries and wages?

I don't know. When you lose every battle is it realistic to think you can win the war?

9 comments:

Erin O'Brien said...

Soon the Government will not only decree what size soda you can drink, but what you need to eat as well.

No, Joe. The private sector is doing if for them. At University Hospitals here in CLE, you cannot buy a sugary drink anywhere but in the food court. An employee's food discount does not apply to "unhealthy" choices such as pizza in the cafeteria. And if you smoke, they won't even consider hiring you. Of course the smoking ban goes for just about all hospitals around here. If you use test positive for tobacco because you used a totally legal product in your own home on your own time, they won't hire you. Period. And Obama has nothing to do with it. It's all about the actuary tables.

We already have tons of GOV healthcare, Joe. A nonsmoking vet doesn't pay any more than a smoking one for his coverage. Weight and age are not issues for them with their coverage.

Is one Medicare recipient charged differently from another? No.

You go on and price a private policy and see how smoking and age effect the price.

You wait until your company brings in a "Wellness program" and starts asking you if you tan or how many eggs you eat a week. That's the private sector, baby, and it was going on LOOOOOONG before Robomneycare was born.

Joe said...

Two things which may be contradictory:

At least with teh state of things today, there is a degree of personal choice. If I want to smoke, I don't have to work. If I do not like thepolicy terms I can buy my own or pay my own way. With the Nanny State controlling everything their is no choice. That is why you see thousands of Canadians and Brits coming here for health care.

2. You are right, paying for poor life choices is unsustainable. It is not right we all share the burden of a few. That is why the private industry prices policies like they do. The government cannot charge more for a 600 lb medicare patient's bad life choices, so we will all have to pay more.

Erin O'Brien said...

Joe, so what does this mean? You are or are not in favor of paying for lung cancer treatments for a Vet who smoked for 40 years? You do or do not want to limit an overweight senior citizen's access to sugary drinks because you pay their medicare?

huh? I really don't understand your outrage.

I don't see thousands of Canadians and Brits coming here for health care. I do, however, know of thousands of Americans traveling to Mexico for "dental vacations" because they can't afford the care here. They even have "Mexican dental vacations."

When Canadians do come here for care, it's usually for a good reason and their GOV is usually picking up the tab.

Why are you so up-in-arms over what you think might happen? Get the facts, Joe.

Joe said...

EOB

1. See the post title. I know it makes no sense.

2. I'm not sure 'outrage' is the proper term, frustration is more accurate.

3. My fundamental objection arises more from this sort of Big Government is directly opposed to what the framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. Despite what the SCOTUS has ruled in the years since FDR, a reading of the Federalist Papers and writinmgs of Madison and Jefferson are clear. Even a proponent of 'strong' Federal Control like Hamilton and Jackson would, I believe, blanch at the current state of affairs. But we are where we are.

You may argue that times are different than at the founding. Then we should use the provided method for changing the Constitution, not ignore the limiting provisions upon the federal government.

4. The problem with letting the Government take charge of healthcare (completely) is there is no going back. All as citizens we can expect is more Government intrusion into our daily lives. Once the Government controls your health, they are only a short step from controlling your home, your car, your food, your wages. I am not talking in a 'black helicopter' way, but under the guise of cost control, fairness, etc.

You point out that employers and private insurance already are exerting control over our lives and lifestyle choices, but we do have a choice to opt out. We do not have to buy that insurance or work for that employer.

When the Feds get involved there is no recourse. And the bureaucracy gets out of control. Look at the outrages done by the EPA in the name of the Clean Water Act on private land owned by private citizens as exhibit A.

We have long been on a slippery slope to unsustainable spending. We can call it socialism or whatever name you choose, but that slope is quickly becoming a cliff.

We can never, ever forget that every dollar the Government spends it had to borrow or forceably take from a person. Too many Americans are unable or unwilling to understand that fact.

The cost of all this "Government" is more than just dollars we don't have, can't borrow, and shouldn't print -- it is in individual freedom. For me, that cost is just too high.

Woodman said...

Entering into a contract with an employer allows either party to put forward any conditions they would like to. An employer can require that I not curse in the workplace, that I wear a belt with trousers, and that I join a gym and work out at least 20 minutes a day.

This is a voluntary act on my part. I can still smoke, curse, eat fatty food, and sit on the couch all day, I just can't be employed there and do those things.

But, the government can actually make it impossible, or at least illegal or horribly expensive, for me to drink sugary soda, smoke, or get too fat.

Being able to tell the difference between a voluntary contract and governmental fiat is important.

Medicare does adjust for sicker individuals, it assumes there are enough healthy people to pay for the sicker ones, but the gov't has it's thumb on that scale and the true price of medicare is not passed on.

But, what I don't get is. If the private sector is already doing this, then why should the government? It's already been proven a million times that the private sector is much more efficient and cheaper.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Woodman. You said it do much better than I could

Joe

Ed Bonderenka said...

You both said it well.
Erin sounds reasonable, outside the lights of the Constitution and Liberty.

CnC said...

well said ! most of you anyway.

Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

I just look at this and sigh.

Franklin D. Roosevelt should have been strangled in his crib.

Consider everything here that is of original content copyrighted as of March 2005