I found this John Hawkins column that I would like to use as the foundation to a discussion on socialized medicine. Here is the introduction:
It takes a lot more integrity, character, and courage to be a conservative than it does to be a liberal. That's because at its most basic level, liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.
Going to war is mean, so we shouldn't do it. That person is poor and it would be nice to give him money, so the government should do it. Somebody wants to have an abortion, have a gay marriage, or wants to come into the U.S. illegally and it would be mean to say, "no," so we should let them. I am nice because I care about global warming! Those people want to kill us? But, don't they know we're nice? If they did, they would like us! Bill has more
toys,money than Harry, so take half of Bill's money and give it to Harry.The only exception to this rule is for people who aren't liberals. They're racists, bigots, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc., etc., etc. They might as well just say that conservatives have "cooties" for disagreeing with them, because there really isn't any more thought or reasoning that goes into it than that.
Now, that's not to say that conservatives never make emotion based arguments or that emotion based arguments are always wrong. But, when you try to deal with complex, real world issues, using little more than simplistic emotionalism that's primarily designed to make the people advocating it feel good rather than to deal with problems, it can, and often has had disastrous consequences. Liberals never seem to learn from this.
The column goes on to relate this to the Iraq War issue. It is worth reading. But instead I would like to take this to the universal health care issue. Bob Ellis has been discussing this on his Dakota Voice blog. This not to be confused with his Dakota Voice web site, which I have as one of my "Links". He has a link to his blog there. I have also added a link to his blog in my blog roll. Go there often, he has been doing some great posts, such as his recent posts on health care.
On February 13, the Rapid City Journal ran Bob’s column on South Dakota’s interest in the "Zaniya Project":
There are rumblings from within the Legislature of major changes in health care for South Dakota.
While the exact nature of what is being planned has been kept under wraps so far, more of that picture may have been revealed by the time this is published. SB131, a shell of a bill that is empty of specifics, was scheduled for a committee hearing Monday.
The bill does state that it would "require that all state residents obtain health insurance, to provide assistance to those who cannot afford health insurance, and to provide penalties for those who can afford health insurance but do not have health insurance."
I don’t know about you, but that language makes me very concerned. Did I mention that I was very concerned?
Several health care experts testified before the House and Senate Health and Human Services Committees on Jan. 24 regarding what is being called the "Zaniya Project."When considering our options, we should remember the examples of countries such as Canada and England where nationalized health care has proven to be a disaster.
Canadian wait times for treatment can be double or more what we see in the U.S. In 2003, the average wait time was 17.7 weeks.
Having lived under the military model of health care and a nationalized health system in England, I’ve seen first hand the gross inefficiency of such systems.
Once, when I had food poisoning, I sat in the waiting room for hours before seeing a British doctor. I’ve also seen people waste hours going to the doctor just to get free cough syrup that could have been bought in a few minutes for a handful of dollars over the counter.
Government involvement is the kiss of death to efficiency. And when you make something "free," or reduce the cost so as to make it financially painless to use, it will quickly become over-used. Insurance has already made this a problem, and has undermined the close scrutiny that once fought waste and over-billing.
The legislators and people of South Dakota need to be very wary when monkeying with our health care system.
The current model is a mess, but with the seductive idea of "free" health care, and the current societal tendency to throw fuel on the fire with more socialism, there is always the threat that things could go from bad to worse.
Ellis posts a letter to the editor that responded to his column. Here is an excerpt:
Can't these right-wing Republicans be honest (just once) about where they're really at? They believe it's a dog-eat-dog world and as long as they get theirs, to hell with everyone else. Instead, they cloak their selfishness in flowery phrases about the 'free market,' while attacking the poor and working poor as too stupid to take care of themselves.
This is the typical far-left emotional crap that the Hawkins column addressed at the top of this post. Ellis exposes the hypocrisy of the lying left with this response:
Oh, and it's socialists who think people are too stupid to take care of themselves. People doing for themselves, rather than relying on government to do it for them, is exactly what I advocated in my column. This lady can't even manage to stay consistent in her hatred for the free market.
Yes, Bob Ellis knows how to respond by not playing defense, but to instead point out the truth. In this case, it is the socialists who are attacking the poor with the thought that they are incapable of taking care of themselves.
Later Bob posts an email he received from Todd Epp regarding the issue. Epp actually provided this reasoned and rational response:
I think that national health care will invigorate capitalism not harm it. If every person is covered, either by a national plan or private insurance, then we will be a healthier nation. There will be cost savings because people won't wait to go to the doctor or the E.R. until they are in a very bad way, when it is most expensive to treat them.
Nice try Todd, but Bob explains why you are wrong:
Todd's scenario on a NHS might work in a perfect world (the one socialists want), but then socialist ideals always work well in their minds, but never do in the real world.
The reason it won't work is because of the very thing Todd said: "...people won't wait to go to the doctor or the E.R. until they are in a very bad way..." No, they'll go anytime they feel the slightest sniffle or headache, just like they do in countries that have a NHS (England, Canada, etc). That will make costs go into orbit, not to mention the time you have to wait for treatment.
These statements I make aren't just based on a guess about human nature and how socialism "might work." There are all the examples we need in the two countries I mentioned above. Statistics show it, and I've seen it first hand. Bloated, bureaucratic systems that suck money light a black hole and inefficiencies that frustrate people and leave some to die waiting for treatment.
Todd Epp did a post on this exchange, but instead of offering a meaningful response as a rebuttal or instead admit that his socialist idea is wrong, her refers to Bob as his "favorite dark side lower companion" because:
Unlike some Rightwing bloggers, after Bob calls me a socialist, he smiles.
So Epp’s response is exactly what Hawkins said about the emotional left. They can’t accept that fact that their socialist ideas are wrong. Instead Epp resorts to the childlike argument that the name calling hurts feelings and is not civil. So go tell mommy Todd. (FYI: I smiled when I wrote that.)
Recent Comments