First, I'd like to know how it is exactly that churches "take care of" those who are uninsured and sick. Do they use magical Jesus dollars? Do they skip the health care system altogether by performing miracles? No. They use cash that has been tithed by their congregations. A sort of "church tax," if you will. One way or another, cash money is required to provide for those who are in need.
It simply does not make sense to deride the risks taken by someone like the man in Wolf Blitzer's example and say that the government shouldn't take care of them...but churches should. Ron Paul usually has the courage of his convictions, which in this case would dictate an answer of "Yes, he should be left to die." It is the only intellectually consistent position to take. Either fellow citizens should pick up the tab for those who can't or we should not. Churches, governments, whatever. Live free or die. Right?
So let's say you want to take that respectably consistent, hard-line position. There's still a problem: It just doesn't make economic sense, even if it comports with your deepest convictions about liberty. The U.S. now ranks 36th in life expectancy. For that distinction, we pay a whole lot more than countries with higher life expectancies.
Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010), "OECD Health Data", OECD Health Statistics (database). doi: 10.1787/data-00350-en (Accessed on 14 February 2011).EVERY country on that chart ranks ahead of us in life expectancy. EVERY country on that chart has a universal health care system of one sort or another. The first four (those who spend the least per capita) have single payer systems. Seven out of the fourteen have single payer systems. So while I understand the foundational principles that form the basis of your ideology on this issue, I cannot understand your willingness to let every single American throw away thousands of dollars each year to uphold those principles.
Then again, maybe I do understand it. Those voices shouting "Yeah!" in response to Blitzer's question about letting the uninsured man die explain everything. The Tea Party movement is not so much about freedom as it is about making sure that no one gets anything they haven't earned through blood, sweat, and tears. They can't stand the thought that anyone is getting anything for "free" - especially people who don't go to their church. In order to make sure that no freeloading son-of-a-bitch ever sees a dime of their hard-earned money, they are actually willing to pay a premium. They would rather go on paying almost three times more for health care than the Japanese, for example, just to guarantee that some downtrodden waste-of-life doesn't get emergency care for free. In a sense, they are willing to pay the health care industry to let needy people die. Their steadfastness would be admirable if it wasn't so fucking stupid and self-defeating.
No comments:
Post a Comment