Kicked back to the top from last Ocotober. –GSS
I don’t go to the doctor very often. I don’t get sick much, and, even when I do, I’m not always willing to make time to do anything about it. I work very hard, and all I want to do is work, and I don’t want to have to take time to slow down even when my body really needs to slow down.
In consequence, I am the perfect stooge for the ObamaCare scheme that Americans seem hell-bent on ramming down each other’s throats. Welfare scams only work when there are people willing to produce wealth long after it has become obvious that working hard is for suckers — when all the clued-in people have already jumped on the gravy train.
In the case of socialized medicine, the clued-in people will discover more and more things wrong with their health. Why not? It will be people like me — who don’t get sick and who refuse to let illness keep us from working — who will be footing the bill.
And that’s just the way things are in the welfare-state we have made of this once-free country. Working women defer motherhood so welfare moms can pop out kid after kid, each one endowed at birth with a tax-funded sinecure. Conscientious parents pay twice for their children’s education, once in taxes to pay for useless public schools and once again in tuition for the private schools their children actually attend. If you refuse to live on the dole, you have to save for two retirements: One that you won’t take and one that you will have to guard, night and day, so it won’t be taken from you.
That’s what we are, by now. Suckers on one side of the room, proud but tight-lipped. And blood-suckers on the other side, belligerent and bellicose, constantly demanding more and more largesse from the stoical, stolid suckers.
Fine. It is what it is, and nothing is going to change any time soon — except for the worse. But as much as I might be in this mess, as much as I might be the stooge who makes the welfare state possible, I refuse to be a part of it. I refuse to be a parasite. I’ll be a sucker if I have to, but I refuse to be a blood-sucker.
Socialized medicine must be universal. How can the voluntary victims of freelance pharmacy go to rehab again and again if they have to pay their own health insurance premiums? How can we buy aromatherapy for the addlepated when they already don’t have sense enough to buy their own scents? The clued-in people who will be consuming the lion’s share of the “free” health care are already lousy at producing wealth. How much worse are they going to be at paying their own way once they start spending all their time in the hospital?
So in order to have socialized medicine, the state is going to have to socialize me — and you, and everyone. The system can’t work without suckers. But the larger agenda is to turn all of us into blood-suckers, into parasites, into belligerent, bellicose beggars. You might plan to go along with this, but I will not.
Why? It’s not because of the confiscation of my earnings. I’m already putting up with that. But once the entire health care system is socialized, I won’t be permitted to pay my own way. I won’t just be a sucker, I’ll be a blood-sucker, living at the involuntary expense of every other hard-working sucker in America.
This I will not do. President Obama and his minions can fine me if they like. They can jail me if they choose. But I have never been a beggar, a parasite, and I never will.
So come and get me, Coppers! In a nation where self-reliance is a crime, we are all criminals now. This is what we have done to what was once the greatest country on earth.
In the meantime, I suppose I’ll have to find a way to get back-alley chest X-rays and contraband antibiotics. That’s what I get for working for a living…
Timothy G Theiss says:
I am soooo glad to be a subscriber to BloodhoundBlog.com.
I just hope may trips to Mexico for pharmaceuticals and yard art doesn’t become restricted or forbidden.
Thanks for writing the thoughts of so many of us.
Cheers,
Tim
October 4, 2009 — 9:40 am
Jake Planton says:
This is what is wrong with this country..it is all about me, me, me. We already pay for those ‘blood sucker,’ in higher premiums, and ER room visits.
October 4, 2009 — 11:30 am
Greg Swann says:
> This is what is wrong with this country..it is all about me, me, me. We already pay for those ‘blood sucker,’ in higher premiums, and ER room visits.
I will be happy to stop paying for the blood-suckers. I refuse to become one of them.
October 4, 2009 — 2:15 pm
Tim Shepard says:
Socialization is a covert bail-out. Nothing Else.
The bail-out of GM and Chrysler was a cover-up to socialize the obligations owed to the United Autoworkers Union. No other debtor came close to getting what the UAW got.
Socialized Health Care is a cover-up to socialize the current and future losses of the State of California. After years and years of increasing social programs, the State is near bankruptcy.
The re-financing of option arms. I’m not sure who the primary beneficiary is but its not the homeowner. Statistics show that many will default anyway. Everytime one of these option arms are refinanced, the new mortgage is on the books of the United States. The pension funds, hedge funds, etc. that underwrote the risky mortage in the first place, are now off the hook.
You aren’t a sucker unless you voluntarily drink the kool-aid.
October 4, 2009 — 6:13 pm
Sean Purcell says:
With you all the way Greg, except for this line:
Americans seem hell-bent on ramming down each others’ throats
I don’t see where the source of this problem is a generalized “Americans”. Polling and town hall meetings, in fact, reflect an America up in arms. No, this fraud belongs on the doorstep of a very loud, very “belligerent and bellicose” minority of elitist neo-pro’s. “Americans,” as a general group, are to blame only in so far as they have unwittingly become socialist parasites trained to elect whomever promises the most crap with the least pain… Obama’s people perfected that as high art and made McCain’s people look like kindergarten doodlers. Unfortunately, now people are beginning to realize the cost of “free” gifts from a socialist Federal Government and I don’t think they like it. I certainly don’t see them clamoring to “(ram) it down each others’ throats.”
October 5, 2009 — 8:08 am
Al Lorenz says:
Greg,
There is some hope. There is a lawsuit against forced enrollment into medicare and even a lawsuit in Canada that the government in a supposedly free and democratic society cannot prevent folks from buying health care privately.
It seems to come under the rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for me.
http://www.medicarelawsuit.org/
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dick200512200840.asp
October 5, 2009 — 11:49 am
Al Lorenz says:
Greg,
Even Canada is learning that they can’t legislate away people’s ability to buy the health care they need. Something about a Canadian constitution that allows its citizens the right to life and liberty. Google Chaoulli and Canadian Health care. I guess we should have a constitution like that, or leaders who recognize those rights.
There are even Americans have sued to prevent the governement from forcing them to join Medicare. Google medicare lawsuit.
What about the self-insured? They are not really uninsured as the current debate claims. I hope to be one of those at some point.
Maybe, just maybe, there will be a realization that the proposal is illegal, as well as immoral and unjust.
October 5, 2009 — 11:59 am
Elizabeth Evans says:
This is no longer the United States of America. It’s now the Socialist Republic of America.
For those of you too young to remember the 1950’s and the early 1960’s, medical insurance was for major medical issues then. If you or your child got a cold, you could go to the doctor and pay the bill or you could stay home and treat it yourself. Doctors’ offices had doctors and nurses as employees, and an office manager that did the very limited insurance billing. If you were really sick, your doctor called the specialist and sent you right over to that office. The system worked pretty darn well for most people.
The sad part is that more and more of the wealth producers footing the bill are becoming government evaders. They will evade the insurance requirement and next they will evade the taxation that pays for the socialized system they despise. When there is no representation by the government you are paying for, you look for ways not to pay.
I recently read a comment on another blog that struck home. The commentor (over age 50) said this is no longer the America she grew up in and loved. She said America has become just another place to live. Another country could well be a better place to live, something she never would have even considered in the past.
I don’t know about you folks, but my patriotism and sense of social responsibility are rapidly eroding. Even if this set of bums are sent home in November, we are likely to get more of the same, with different rhetoric. Not very encouraging.
March 22, 2010 — 9:10 am
Terry says:
The IRS will merely levy a tax on those who don’t buy insurance – I have heard they will be hiring thousands of new employees to audit and enforce compliance – and then slap people with liens.
Gonna be hard for real estate people to swallow that one.
March 22, 2010 — 9:18 am
Jim Klein says:
“This is what is wrong with this country..it is all about me, me, me.”
Hey, all I wanna know is who’s typing those words and why did you let him near your computer?
For Elizabeth and anyone else who’d like to put this madness into historical context, I very strongly recommend the following essay:
http://mises.org/daily/2726
“Health Care,” which of course is about anything but, is merely denouement. Your lives were spoken for some time ago, largely before you were born, and this is only about how to handle the last trivialities of your illness and death. Read the essay…it was written in 1938, and told this very sad story then. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
OTOH, it’s only humans who get to live more than one life between their birth and death, so I hope Greg’s words don’t fall onto deaf ears. Me, I’m gonna give it my best shot to live at least two!
March 22, 2010 — 10:03 am
jason says:
punish you because you work hard! I feel the same way. I’m not surprised about it passing. How could it have failed? they polled the voters and kept pushing the official vote back until they had enough people for it
March 22, 2010 — 9:53 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Screw health & healthcare! I enjoy reveling in a system that allows us to pay twice the % of our GDP for less coverage than other civilized nations.
March 22, 2010 — 11:34 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I enjoy reveling in a system that allows us to pay twice the % of our GDP for less coverage than other civilized nations.
Why didn’t the health insurance companies fight this, as they did in 1993? Because they’re on the gravy train, too. Nice.
March 23, 2010 — 7:54 am
Robert Worthington says:
I concur Greg! This is ludicrous and health care is not in anyway constitutional, since gov’t is requiring to purchase a certain product.
March 23, 2010 — 6:26 am
Eric Bramlett says:
How about fire protection, school service, and the military? Are those unconstitutional on the same grounds?
Last time I read the constitution, I didn’t see anything explicit about “forcing” or “not forcing” anyone to pay for government services. It has more to do with 51% of the vote, and the ability to vote out a government you’re unhappy with. If you’re unhappy, start campaigning.
March 23, 2010 — 7:36 am
Greg Swann says:
> How about fire protection, school service, and the military?
Literally the fallacy of many questions. Here’s a better way of framing the issue: Under what circumstances should one person be involuntarily expropriated for the benefit of another? My answer would be none, zero, never. If someone reading this should come up with any non-zero answer — e.g., “fire protection, school service, and the military” — the next question would be: Can you offer any principled reason why one person should not be involuntarily expropriated in pursuit of any benefit desired by another person? The creeping socialism we have seen in the United States since 1789 — but especially since 1912 — is the practical answer to the second question: If you’re in for a penny, you’re in for a pound.
> Last time I read the constitution, I didn’t see anything explicit about “forcing” or “not forcing” anyone to pay for government services.
“Government is force.” –George Washington
March 23, 2010 — 7:51 am
Eric Bramlett says:
Okay…if you feel it’s loaded, then I’ll break it down to 3 questions:
1) Is fire protection unconstitutional?
2) Are school services unconstitutional?
3) Is the military unconstitutional?
Robert claims that “forcing someone to purchase a good or service” is unconstitutional, and I pointed out 3 services that we’re forced to purchase, and asked if those are also unconstitutional. Here’s another:
Is it unconstitutional to require drivers to carry liability insurance?
Most people that fall back on constitutional arguments don’t have a strong understanding of the document.
Regarding your George Washington quote: Please remember that our founding fathers are not deities, and verbal quotes are far from written law.
March 23, 2010 — 8:13 am
Greg Swann says:
> Most people that fall back on constitutional arguments don’t have a strong understanding of the document.
And I have exactly the same respect for every religion and its apocrypha. What I’m reading from your response is that you have no principled argument in support of your religion of theft. You’re not alone, alas.
> Regarding your George Washington quote: Please remember that our founding fathers are not deities, and verbal quotes are far from written law.
I’m pretty sure nobody needs George Washington to tell them that government is force.
The interesting thing is that, today, we have actual conservatism in the United States. True political conservatism consists of conserving the powers of the state against the push for individual freedom. The people who call themselves conservatives in the U.S. are really just an alternative flavor of Rotarian Socialists. But all over the country proud apparatchiks of the total state are climbing onto soap boxes to declare their undying fealty to their masters and deriding anyone who wants to keep his own money and control his own destiny. That’s a sight to behold in the land of the formerly-free.
If your response consists of more references to holy writ, you can writ along without me.
March 23, 2010 — 8:58 am
Jim Klein says:
“If you’re unhappy, start campaigning.”
That’s an interesting approach for how to gain happiness. Do you teach your kids that?
Don’t worry if you don’t because those 51% that you trust so much, will!
March 23, 2010 — 9:31 am
Michael Cook says:
The question I have for all the self-insured folks out there is how can you prevent hospitals from treating you? Doctors take an oath to treat sick patients, so if you happen to get ill, would you not call 911? If so, I applaud your conviction and this does not apply to you. But when you go to the ER, how will you instruct the doctor to only treat you for what you can afford?
This seems problematic to me. God forbid it, but if any of the current people in this discussion were to have a heart attack and go to the doctor, the bill even before the bypass would be $100k+. These are the circumstances that increase everyone’s insurance and premiums. What is the difference between you guys and the other folks who are simply uninsured?
Self-insurance rarely works because you simply dont have the saving power or the buying power to cover any kind of reasonably large event. Insurance is simply a collective of individuals that pay for one another’s major events. My premiums go towards someone else’s heart attack. If I happen to get hit by a bus and die instantly, then it was a bad investment. If I happen to fall ill to something that requires expensive treatment, then I am using a disproportionate share of the payouts and it was a good investment. The downside risk outweighs the premium, that is why insurance works.
The “self-insured” out there would have more credibility in my eyes if they were able to only limit their treatment to what they could afford. If you have only saved $30k and you unfortunately have a very bad accident AND there was some way to say, well, it costs $100k to save his/her life, so per their requests we will let them die. That would be true “self-insurance.”
Until then, it would be great if you “self-insured” got off your high horses and took your blood sucking teeth out of my wallet. I pay more because doctors and medical professionals choose to save your life whether you can afford it or not. The “self-insured” are no better than the “uninsured,” despite how they might feel. Its only appropriate that they pay for their privelage to leech off the rest of us.
This does not apply to you if you can somehow prevent doctors from treating you if you dont have the money. And I dont care whether or not you plan to work a lifetime to pay back the money, because more than likely you wont be able to. Its coming from me and your insured neighbor.
March 23, 2010 — 12:46 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Until then, it would be great if you “self-insured” got off your high horses and took your blood sucking teeth out of my wallet.
I doubt that anyone reading here is self-insured. We’re all business people, most of us parents.
Right now, I have 80/20 catastrophic with a $2,500 deductible — which means that I pay 100% of my medical expenses out of pocket. This policy will be outlawed by ObamaCare. When it is, the federal government can go f*uck itself. They can fine me if they can find a way to get their mitts on my money, but I will not be coerced into buying a product I don’t want when I’m already paying for the product I do want. If I end up costing you a fortune as I age — “Brother, you asked for it.”
The truth is, I’ll end up paying my own way, no matter what. I refuse to live as a parasite, and I would rather die than steal from other people. But the American idea will be crushed under the weight of everyone who does not share my scruples. Good going, Americans.
March 23, 2010 — 1:10 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Great comment Michael.
Then why appeal to his authority?
Greg, you’re arguing that all government is force & government programs are forced theft (robbery.) It follows logically that any government program is wrong (if you agree that robbery is wrong.) This is argument for anarchy. Are you intentionally arguing for anarchy?
March 23, 2010 — 1:08 pm
Greg Swann says:
> It follows logically that any government program is wrong (if you agree that robbery is wrong.)
Check.
> This is argument for anarchy.
Quite right.
> Are you intentionally arguing for anarchy?
Only for the past 30 years, most recently right here.
Government is not just force, not just theft. Government is an elaborate camouflage for crime. The 1776 rebellion was a very proud attempt to create a government that was not a predator — a servant of the people, as Washington would have had it, and not their master. By now it is obvious that even this this singular attempt has failed.
Government is always and everywhere a criminal gang loudly insisting that some document or another justifies what is never anything other than a criminal conspiracy of theft and brutality.
If Americans are waking up to this fact, they should make an effort to wake up entirely. There is no safe government, no manageable government, no caged or contained government. There are only legally-sanctioned criminals looking for their next score. They will not be contained, and so their power to prey upon innocents must be stripped away completely. This is by now well beyond obvious.
March 23, 2010 — 1:25 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Greg –
Can you please source your claim that your catastrophic insurance won’t meet the minimum requirement set by the new legislation? My policy will definitely cover the requirement, but I know some of my “self insured” friends will want to know.
March 23, 2010 — 1:17 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Can you please source your claim that your catastrophic insurance won’t meet the minimum requirement set by the new legislation? My policy will definitely cover the requirement, but I know some of my “self insured” friends will want to know.
20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms.
Home for lunch. Tums for the road. Gotta run.
March 23, 2010 — 1:30 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
Thanks for the source – I really appreciate it.
I respect the anarchist position, though I don’t agree with it. I didn’t realize that you are an anarchist. One of my favorite political commentators is also an anarchist, though holds very different opinions than you (social anarchist.)
March 23, 2010 — 1:34 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Thanks for the source – I really appreciate it.
Your a much nicer man than I am, Eric.
March 23, 2010 — 1:37 pm
Michael Cook says:
“Right now, I have 80/20 catastrophic with a $2,500 deductible — which means that I pay 100% of my medical expenses out of pocket.”
How does this mean you pay 100% of your medical expenses out of pocket? Your 80/20 means you still must pay 20% of catastrophic illness correct? That 20% you are required to pay could be surprisingly daunting in the case of a serious health event. I am not taking a position on what insurance you should and should not have, but I am taking issue with the “under-insured” and “un-insured”, who increase my premiums in the ER and then turn around and tell me the Big, Bad government is forcing them to carry their own weight. In my opinion, the $750/year the uninsured/underinsured will have to pay will simply offset the subsidy that they already receive from the insured.
Your 80/20 simply means that I get to pay 20% for your major life event. Looks like Obama is not the only bloodsucker in America. Until you have a way to prevent you and others from increasing my premiums by skirting the system, I dont think your objections have a leg to stand on with regards to the government charging the uninsured a penalty.
March 23, 2010 — 1:54 pm
Greg Swann says:
> How does this mean you pay 100% of your medical expenses out of pocket?
Typically we spend less than $500 a year for doctor’s visits and prescription drugs.
> I am not taking a position on what insurance you should and should not have
Ahem.
> but I am taking issue with the “under-insured” and “un-insured”, who increase my premiums in the ER and then turn around and tell me the Big, Bad government is forcing them to carry their own weight.
This doesn’t even make sense. I have cost you nothing. You have my word I never will.
Meanwhile, you actual objection is with collectivism. When you get around to fighting the right enemy, you will discover that you have been free-riding on my intellectual effort for your entire life. Quite a bit longer, still, I would expect, judging from where you are now.
March 23, 2010 — 3:33 pm
Eric Bramlett says:
@Greg – on a side note, I’m defending healthcare on my new macbook!
March 23, 2010 — 3:35 pm
Greg Swann says:
> on a side note, I’m defending healthcare on my new macbook!
Oh, good on ya. Hope you’re enjoying it.
March 23, 2010 — 5:40 pm
Michael Cook says:
“Typically we spend less than $500 a year for doctor’s visits and prescription drugs.”
Until you have some kind of health event, in which case you will spend more and I will spend more defacto to cover your uninsured costs. You cannot avoid the obvious because you have been blessed with good health.
“This doesn’t even make sense. I have cost you nothing.”
You and your under-insured family most certainly will cost me. Your very existence costs me in higher premiums and higher costs for services.
My issue is not with collectivism at all. In fact, I would have it no other way. I expect a hospital to be a community good, available to all regardless of ability to pay. I understand that you feel you should have the right to opt out of the collective, but unless you can opt out of the benefits, you should not be able to opt out of the costs. Unless you dont plan on call the EMTs when you get really sick, I really cant see your position as being anything but hypocritical.
My issue is with you and your kind, leeching off me and mine and then somehow telling me I am robbing you when you are asked to pay your fair share.
If you were able to live in your own city, where doctors had the power to treat you solely based on what you could pay, then I would have no problem with your stance. In fact, I would encourage it (certainly would not join you, but would be happy to see you go).
“Meanwhile, you actual objection is with collectivism. When you get around to fighting the right enemy, you will discover that you have been free-riding on my intellectual effort for your entire life.”
I find this one quite amusing. It actually reminds me of a section of the book “Outliers.” Given the amount of taxes I pay and what I paid for my own education (money, time and energy), I really dont think free-loading would be appropriate. However, feel free to get that triple bypass on me if you ever need it… I dont really mind that much.
March 24, 2010 — 3:12 pm
Greg Swann says:
Michael: Your reply is not just ad hominem, it seems to me to be completely hysterical. You are unhappy with the ugly consequences of collectivism, and, just like the rest of the thoughtless people in this benighted country, your “solution” to the market perversions caused by government interference is to afflict yourself with still more government. I like you enough that I am willing to hope that you either come to your senses or expire before your house of cards collapses around you — as it must. In any case, you have my assurance that I will never live on the dole. That is the point of this essay — that I will not be coerced into being a welfare slave. Now please stop embarrassing yourself.
March 24, 2010 — 5:07 pm
Michael Cook says:
“Now please stop embarrassing yourself.”
I find that an interesting response. In no debate does one embarrass themself. They either teach or learn, they are either right or wrong.
To be sure, I think I am 100% correct and you are dodging the very obvious point that I am making. It should be obvious that I am more than happy to live in a collective society and I would feel no malice if you or anyone else for that matter needed medical care they couldnt afford.
Additionally, you have still yet to prove to me how you can avoid receiving more healthcare than you can afford. Good luck with that plan.
March 26, 2010 — 12:38 pm
Greg Swann says:
> how you can avoid receiving more healthcare than you can afford.
By being dead. The purpose of ObamaCare is to turn every remaining self-reliant American into a welfare slave. I refuse to participate. Yet again, that is the entire point of this essay.
March 26, 2010 — 4:59 pm
Michael McClure says:
Greg,
I LOVE your post, and I agree with it 100%.
Atlas Shrugged, anyone?
As a small biz owner, I just – today, not an hour ago – received an email from the company that does our employee benefits consulting. The email explains how the new health care bill will impact my cost of doing business.
I’m still in shock.
The bottom line: it will place even more of a burden on me and probably drive me to make decisions that, in the long run, will do more harm than good from the perspective of those whom the bill was intended to help!
When the entitlement minded gain a political majority, we are done. As a culture…as a society…as a country.
Keep on blogging!
Best,
Michael
April 1, 2010 — 10:50 am