Hypocritical Opposition to Government Health Care
I read the Times-Picayune's article on Sen. Mary Landrieu's health care town hall meeting today. I came across this gem from an opponent to the idea of a government-sponsored health care option:
"I just think we're losing a little bit more of our freedoms every day," Nicholas del Giudice of LaPlace said afterward. He said Landrieu should vote against any health care bill and fight against government intrusion. He is insured by Medicare and a supplemental private policy, del Giudice said. [Emphasis added.]Of course, this is nothing new. Many folks who directly benefit from a government plan think that this is something good, believe that they're entitled to it, are loathe to give it up for themselves, and yet don't want to share it with others who desperately need it. But I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy it entails. The unmitigated selfishness of it really ticks me off. And in my seething anger at such hypocrisy and selfishness, disguised under a sickening self-righteousness, I came to this conclusion: Anyone who opposes "government intrusion" in health care, should be completely cut off from any government healthcare plan. Including Medicare. I'm unwilling to continuing paying a penny of my taxes to keep selfish folks like Mr. del Giudice healthy, alive, and medicated. Cut the sucker off. In fact, I would hope he would thank me for my position, since I would be restoring a little bit more of his freedoms to him. In fact, anyone who is eligible for Medicare should be asked one question before anything else when they go to apply for the program: Do you support, in principle, the idea of government-run healthcare? If that person answers "No," then they should instantly be turned around, shown the door, and wished the best of luck. As a consolation, they should be given a little card that says: "Congratulations! You've just preserved your freedom!" And so as not to give the impression that the government that is turning them away is uncaring or unfriendly, they should also be given a list of charity health care providers who don't receive any government subsidies at all whom they may turn to in the event that they are unable to afford healthcare for themselves or even to simply secure private health insurance. [And if such people paid into the system, maybe we can even cut them a check in the amount of the "cash-out" value of their investment, interest included, minus the value of whatever benefits they would have already received through the program. I'm sure there are actuarials that could be employed for such a thing. And given what I know about the differences between what Medicare recipients cost the taxpayer for their healthcare versus what they paid into the system, I know we would end up with a fairly substantial net long-term savings to the taxpayer.]
It sounds harsh; but it's no more harsh than the message they are sending to all those millions of people whose "freedoms" leave them uninsured.
And, besides, being cut off from government health care appears to be what these people want.
I say let them have it.
Posts
10 comments:
I think you have a great idea here, Huck! Now, just expand that same thinking to also let people opt out of social security and get all the money back they've paid into that system... and you'll have a platform I can support!
Thanks, Eric. And, honestly, I'm more than happy to let anyone who thinks Social Security is "government intrusion" into their freedoms to get out.
I should point out, though, that it seems I am being even more of a hardass than you are!
I wouldn't give folks the "option" to sign up for Medicare or Social Security, even if they wanted to, if they believe that such programs represent "government intrusion" into freedoms such that they wouldn't want ALL American citizens to have the "option" to take advantage of the same practical benefit. If they think on principle that providing a government-funded healthcare program is an intrusion into freedoms, and if they oppose such programs, then Medicare isn't even on the table for them as an option. Same thing for Social Security.
They don't get to opt out. They don't even get to opt in. And if they are already in, they get kicked out.
And one other thing, Eric, that I think probably really does differentiate us (and it's a big thing that I can't believe I overlooked) ...
My position is still predicated on the fact that there IS a public option for both retirement and healthcare. I just want folks who despise the government and think that some of its services represent an intrustion into their freedoms, to be exclusded from having to pay for and being able to benefit from such services. Then they can see how much they like it and how well that choice works out for them.
"I should point out, though, that it seems I am being even more of a hardass than you are!"
I will never allow that to happen, my friend. ;-)
"Then they can see how much they like it and how well that choice works out for them."
That sounds amazingly like a free market! While I appreciate the integrity of your argument, I think the thing you overlook is that these types of government programs only work (if you consider financial insolvency to be a sign of a 'working' system) by forcing everybody to contribute to pay for them. If you start kicking people out based on their poitical beliefs, you suddenly don't have enough money to keep the system going, or else you have to hike taxes on (i.e., impose on the freedom of) those who are stil in the system, which will drive even more people out.
To me, the thing that really differentiates us is our respective belief about what the outcome of such an exclusionary policy would be.
Also, I think I've known you long enough to say that once these people got kicked out of medicare and many of them becaume unable to afford healthcare, you would be one of the first people lining up to let them back in the system rather than see them suffer (because, all claims to the contrary aside, liberalism is ultimately the antithesis of being a hardass)!
While I appreciate the integrity of your argument, I think the thing you overlook is that these types of government programs only work (if you consider financial insolvency to be a sign of a 'working' system) by forcing everybody to contribute to pay for them.
Not everybody, at least not in terms of a special "stand-alone Medicare tax," only those who seek to benefit from it or who don't mind paying into the system to support others who need to benefit from it. If you're talking about a generic income tax to support government programs, then you have a point; but I'd say that this applies to most of government services. I have to pay for programs that if, given the choice in a free market, I would forego (such as certain types of military expenditures, border walls, subsidies for big agro or big steel or big banks, or "bridges to nowhere," etc.) I would prefer to pay for food stamp welfare programs, unemployment benefits, and healthcare. It is a question of what each of us thinks is the appropriate task of government and what we consider to be an appropriate expenditure of tax dollars. When you reference "these types" of government programs, that implies a contrast with "other types" of government programs that don't involve forcing other people to pay for them in order for them to work. That makes no sense: ALL government programs require forcing everybody to pay for them to work.
To me, the thing that really differentiates us is our respective belief about what the outcome of such an exclusionary policy would be.
What is your belief about the outcome of such an exclusionary policy? I believe it would not only be disastrous for many folks who would choose on some point of principle to opt out of Medicare or who would be forced out; but I also believe most people, when forced to live their "convictions" would cry foul and would cling desperately to their "entitlement."
you would be one of the first people lining up to let them back in the system rather than see them suffer
Yes, I would let them back into the system. But only if they were chastened enough to believe that if a government health program is good enough for them, then it is good enough for anyone; and only if they believe that if they have access to such a program, every citizen should have access to such a program. Maybe it's because I'm in a sour mood about these Medicare hypocrites, but if they really want to give the big middle finger to government health care programs, making the ludicrous argument that it represents an intrusion into their freedom all the while they enjoy the benefit of a government health care program, they should be forced out of participating in government health care programs. It's not a question of being mean, but just having folks who claim to be principled actually LIVE up to their beliefs.
"ALL government programs require forcing everybody to pay for them to work."
But in your original post you are advocating a program that would work differently: only the people who think it is a good idea would benefit from it or be required to pay for it. I don't think you can do that with every government program, but it would be relatively easy to do with Medicare or Social Security, which have cost-to-benefit ratios that can be tracked down to the penny.
"What is your belief about the outcome of such an exclusionary policy?"
If you gave old people back all the money they had paid into Medicare throughout their lives, I think you'd have a lot of insurance companies and health providers coming up with incredibly innovative ways to get their hands on it, and that would make the system better for everyone. Ultimately I think it would lead to the end of Medicare a decadre or so sooner than it is currently set to implode (it is a demographically unsustainable program either way).
"folks who claim to be principled [should] actually LIVE up to their beliefs."
I agree, but I also think you have to take into account that people are never given a choice about participating in these programs. From your very first paycheck, you are signed up and wages are withdrawn to pay for it. So, while it may be hypocritical to critisize a system that benefits you, that is tempered by the fact that you were never given another choice. A slave whose master feeds him enough to keep him fat still has a right to complain about the food.
I don't think you can do that with every government program
Why not? Why can't you calculate the cost-benefit ratio of every government program? If you're suggesting that we can't place a value on the benefit of common defense, I'd argue the same reason you might make this claim applies to Medicare or any other health care program. What's the value on the benefit of a healthier population (or a less healty population, for that matter)? On defense spending, I can certainly argue that the marginal (and I'd say non-existent) utility of yet another nuclear warhead, given that we have enough warheads to destroy the earth dozens of times over, justifies not spending another penny to make it.
Seems to me that what you are saying is that someone gets to decide for me what is in my (and this country's best) interests in one area of life, but not in another. If you dispute that health care is the government's business with the people, I dispute that providing for one's defense is the government's business with the people. What makes you right and me wrong? The answer to that is a value judgment on what government should be doing for its people and thus has a right to extract funds to pay for it. And we differ on that fundamental point.
If you gave old people back all the money they had paid into Medicare throughout their lives, I think you'd have a lot of insurance companies and health providers coming up with incredibly innovative ways to get their hands on it, and that would make the system better for everyone.
Two things: First, the goal is to get their hands on it, not to make people healthier for it. Economics dictates that if a company will lose money on a person then they won't take that person's money in premiums. Period. And I will guarantee you that old people are cashing in on health care that is many times more expensive than what they could have ever afforded on the measly contributions they have individually made over the years, even if you calculate it with interest, into the system.
Second: It's not like such companies aren't already coming up with creative ways to get their hands on it. Medicare contributions and disbursements are going in someone's pockets. Mostly doctors and pharmacists pockets, if I had to guess.
"Why can't you calculate the cost-benefit ratio of every government program?"
Surely you see the difference. When somebody gets sick, it is easy to look and see if they have paid into Medicare, and if they haven't, then the government wouldn't give them money or coverage.
If an invading army was attacking, how is the government supposed to sort out who has paid for national defense vs. who hasn't? I can see Hillary Clinton delivering the message now, "You terrorists can attack Boulder and San Fransisco, but anywhere else and we're gonna have to retaliate."
"On defense spending, I can certainly argue that the marginal (and I'd say non-existent) utility of yet another nuclear warhead, given that we have enough warheads to destroy the earth dozens of times over, justifies not spending another penny to make it."
That's a fair point, but a moot one considering we haven't built any new nuclear warheads since the 80's.
"Seems to me that what you are saying is that someone gets to decide for me what is in my (and this country's best) interests in one area of life, but not in another."
Well, national defense has been the job of governments for as long as there have been governments, and is a responsibility clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Making them responsible for healthcare and retirement and tucking you in at night... that's only been around for about 50 years, and there is no clear Constitutional mandate for such programs, so you'll have a much harder time convincing me there is the same type of precedent for them as with national defense. At any rate, an overwhelming majority of people want the government to be responsible for defending the country, whereas the nation is much more split on the idea of cradle-to-grave government sponsored butt wiping services.
But I do find it necessary to ask, do you really oppose the government being in charge of the defense of our nation? I find that to be a pretty remarkable position, and I say that as a person who holds many fringe positions!
"What makes you right and me wrong? The answer to that is a value judgment on what government should be doing for its people and thus has a right to extract funds to pay for it. And we differ on that fundamental point."
But we don't on Medicare, not if you are saying that people who don't want it should be excluded from coverage and relieved of the obligation to pay for it. If that's what you are saying, then we are in a rare state of agreement.
"Why can't you calculate the cost-benefit ratio of every government program?"
Surely you see the difference. When somebody gets sick, it is easy to look and see if they have paid into Medicare, and if they haven't, then the government wouldn't give them money or coverage.
If an invading army was attacking, how is the government supposed to sort out who has paid for national defense vs. who hasn't? I can see Hillary Clinton delivering the message now, "You terrorists can attack Boulder and San Fransisco, but anywhere else and we're gonna have to retaliate."
"On defense spending, I can certainly argue that the marginal (and I'd say non-existent) utility of yet another nuclear warhead, given that we have enough warheads to destroy the earth dozens of times over, justifies not spending another penny to make it."
That's a fair point, but a moot one considering we haven't built any new nuclear warheads since the 80's.
"Seems to me that what you are saying is that someone gets to decide for me what is in my (and this country's best) interests in one area of life, but not in another."
Well, national defense has been the job of governments for as long as there have been governments, and is a responsibility clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Making them responsible for healthcare and retirement and tucking you in at night... that's only been around for about 50 years, and there is no clear Constitutional mandate for such programs, so you'll have a much harder time convincing me there is the same type of precedent for them as with national defense. At any rate, an overwhelming majority of people want the government to be responsible for defending the country, whereas the nation is much more split on the idea of cradle-to-grave government sponsored butt wiping services.
But I do find it necessary to ask, do you really oppose the government being in charge of the defense of our nation? I find that to be a pretty remarkable position, and I say that as a person who holds many fringe positions!
"What makes you right and me wrong? The answer to that is a value judgment on what government should be doing for its people and thus has a right to extract funds to pay for it. And we differ on that fundamental point."
But we don't on Medicare, not if you are saying that people who don't want it should be excluded from coverage and relieved of the obligation to pay for it. If that's what you are saying, then we are in a rare state of agreement.
Surely you see the difference. When somebody gets sick, it is easy to look and see if they have paid into Medicare, and if they haven't, then the government wouldn't give them money or coverage.
Yes, I see the difference. But that difference is because we made it such in terms of how we identify taxation for Medicare. It seems to me that if we wanted to make tax collection for Defense (or Education, or Space Exploration, or Highway Construction, etc.) a detailed line item on our paycheck stubs, and distinct from general operating budget expenses, we could do that. Take defense spending as an example. (And let me say that I do think we should all pay for the common defense, but I also think we should have more control over what kinds of defense measures we pay for. I support paying salaries to have a standing army, but I do not support paying for a Star Wars program.) There is really nothing preventing a specifically defined "defense levy" on our incomes (and on our paycheck stubs) like we do for Medicare.
Back to the concept of government being in charge of defense. No, I'm not for privatizing defense and I see defense as government's proper role. I was just using that as an example since it's really the only thing I can think of that you might think government should control. But let's probe even military expenditures further. Within that category, do you support the Government providing taxpayer subsidized healthcare for Veterans? Or taxpayer subsidized college education for Veterans? Where do you draw the line between expenses that really provide for the common defense (i.e. soldier salaries and weapons systems) and those that simply are essentially welfare handouts to soldiers long after they stop defending this country? Would you support cutting out such things from defense budgets (such as VA hospitals and the GI bill) and ask our soldiers to pay for their healthcare, education, etc., out of their salaries? Or do they form part of the "constitutional requirements" of the government to provide for the common defense?
But we don't on Medicare, not if you are saying that people who don't want it should be excluded from coverage and relieved of the obligation to pay for it. If that's what you are saying, then we are in a rare state of agreement.
True. But I'd reiterate again that my gripe (and my policy recommendation) is a bit different than just allowing people to opt out of both the expense and the benefits of Medicare. I'm primarily saying to those people that do want Medicare, but oppose giving other people the option to choose buy in to a government healthcare program like Medicare, that they no longer even have the choice to opt in to Medicare, even if they're willing to continuing paying their pittance into this heavily subsidized and regulated system. It's addressing the hypocrisy of those who rail on government health programs as an intrusion on personal freedom, all the while benefitting precisely from a government-run health program.
Post a Comment