Thursday, August 20, 2009

Just Being Social (ist)

Here in the USo’A, we’ve socialized our military. After all, fighting the Brits, or the Krauts, or the Commies, or whoever is in the Enemy of the Month Club is a function so important; we need the juice of the Government to get the job done right.

Do you think Blackwater could do a better job than the US Army? I don’t.

We’ve socialized law enforcement. Catching perps and tossin’ ‘em in the Gray Bar Motel is such an important function that we’ve given the Government-Cheese the task of keeping us safe from the baddies. You know who I’m talkin’ ‘bout: Shopkeepers who sell alcohol to minors, ‘ho’s, stoners, college kids illegally downloading music…you know really bad guys.

Do you think Paul Blart or 21 Jump Street can do a better job than The real PoPo? I don’t.

I t just seems to me that if our safety, our security and our protection is so important to us that we have to trust the government to do it, why isn’t the health of our children that important too? How ‘bout the health and welfare of millions of senior citizens and people living in poverty? How ‘bout our own health? Change the system? The smart ones say HELL YES! The government can't be as bad as private companies. The airheads who spout right-wing talking points say HELL NO! After all, the government wouldn’t do nearly as good a job as big pharma, the health insurance industry or corporate, for-profit hospital chains.

Hell, and I always thought we had a government of the people for the people and by the people. Maybe we could just let big business run the government too? Oh yeah, I forgot…they already do. SHEESH!



David Allen said...

The Constitution (that piece of paper you might have heard about in school, but appearantly never LEARNED anything about) sets the LIMITS for the scope of duties for our government. The guys who wrote it, who were MUCH smarter than any existing politician understood that over time people and governments are prone to tyranny. Only by setting strict limits, divided power/checks and balances could we have any hope of keeping our government from becomming too oppressive.
Control of the Military is one of the few jobs granted to the Federal Government, along with the power to tax and print money.
The tenth ammendment states that those powers not specifically granted to the federal government are given to the state and local governments. There fore - Reno, or any other city has the right under their state or local control to have a police force, schools - or for that matter could have socialized medicine - as they do in Massachusetts and Oregon (both systems are bankrupt) It's the state and local governments which are supposed to have this authority - not the federal government - so if you don't like the laws of one state - you can always move to another one.

For you greater question of why not have nationalized health care? because you think that the abillity of the government to run the armed forces.. (which kicks ass against other millitaries - but is still far less than efficient) I would answer - because the government doesn't have to compete against anyone and make a profit to survive. They are a monopoly and have the power to tax when they want more money. The better answer would be to look and compare a free market system vs. government ran systems. Our doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, technology, medical science is FAR ahead of Canada or the UK. Our cancer survival rates are far higher. Our sports medicine is the best in the world. We're the ones who cure polio, invent pennicilin are finding cures for cancer, aids, parkinson's, and spinal cord traumas.
As much as you want this to be about Corporations, Big Pharma, Big Insurance - it's the OVERWHELMING majority of the US population of ALL political affiliations who DON'T want substandard government ran health care. They're happy with the care they have and don't want the government to screw it up like they have Medicaide, Medicare, and the VA all of which are sub-standard and broke. If this was just about making sure insurance companies can't deny coverage or extending additional coverage to the poor - then do that. There is no need to change the whole system because some people don't have insurance. The people only need to walk into their nearest Post office to see how well government ran agencies do. The people aren't blind and stupid. The post office is a monopoly. The more government involvement -the more abuses and more mmonopolistic it becomes. Pull your head out of your ass and try to look at this objectively.

David Allen said...

The leftist who are trying to force this down our throats wants us to think this is about health care and protecting the poor and unninsured - but that's a smokescreen. They want what all politicians want - which is money and power. Nationalizing health care would give them control over 1/6th of our economy. More chances for waste and fraud - funnelling money to their friends, and handing over millions of workers to the labor unions for dues. Nationalizing health care was one of the first steps that Hitler used to gain power. (That and take the guns away from ordinary citizens).

If this is really about helping the poor and unninsured - then let's make changes to help the poor and unninsured. Fix Medicare and show they actually run that correctly. (Like letting a child first prove he can take care of a gold fish - before graduating to a hamster, cat and then puppy). The government has a lot to prove to us before being trusted with that much power over the people and economy.

Z said...

Who want's dipping sauce with their soylent green?

Anyways; I prefer the survival of the fitest theory over todays Dr. Frankenstien experiments and the take another pill health care that is out there.

pj Connolly said...

Yo Czar-man...survival of the fittest would have us glasses-wearin' weaklings SOL. Gimme Dr. Frankenstein for the pill that grows my wee wee, enlarges my boobies and regrows my hair...All in one pill!