Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Redefining Rights

Now I've never been a big fan of Michael Savage, or of the sound and fury that is the Wiener Nation.  I will say that I've been listening a little more, because his perpetual anger has more frequently matched my post-death-of-healthcare mood.  Either way, it brings me to an oft-dropped saying of his:

"Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Now I'm not going to go to such ridiculousness, although there is some credence in the statement based on the convoluted bullshit required to justify the government enslavement of health care.  But I do take away the though that far too many people get caught up in the mindless emotionalism and insipid desire to see everyone taken care of because of an ass-backwards sense of "morality" in the form of the "we know what's better for you than you do" attitude that seems to permeate the powers of Washington.  And the result is that we begin to equate giving people stuff from other people as a good and proper function of government.

So that brings me to this article, filled mostly with inane babble about how the right is all about hate and liberal killing (hint, we want to see you dead politically, and THAT'S IT! you silly bastards), the standard meme employed (and enhanced with bullshit stories) whenever too many Americans are calling BS on their plans for change.  But it was this line that infuriates me (and is well worth printing for its utter stupidity):
By extending what has been a privilege of only those who work or can pay independently to roughly 40 million "others" as a right, the health care reform law has flattened out a social hierarchy that enables some Americans to feel and behave as though they are superior to others or that they have done something, other than merely being alive, that earns them the privilege of proper health care. Those who feel superior may say, "I or my company can pay for health care, therefore I am." But now that the reform bill has become law, many more Americans can say, "I am, therefore I have the right to affordable health care.  By making health care available to more people, those who believe it's a privilege they've earned are now placed on the same hierarchical rung as others who they believe don't deserve or haven't earned it.
Okay, let's deal with this line by line.

By extending what has been a privilege... By this, I assume they mean the privilege of having someone else pay for your health care?  It brings us back to what entails a right.  In short, a right extends only as far as the rights of another, but does not give us license to take the rights of another.  Only the government can do that, through due process, and only in limited circumstances.  In fact, the only reason the Constitution takes the rights of individuals is for the purpose of judging cases of criminal activity, where the rights of another are in peril.  In other words, people have always had a right to seek health care.  And we have ironed out problems with access.  The issue had always been affordability.  And yes, there is a difference.

Access simply means that there are no barriers imposed from without to prevent a person from going to a doctor (or anything for that matter) to get what they want.  Affordability is separate in this sense:  If someone needed something, and could come up with the money, there is no barrier to the access.  

...the health care reform law has flattened out a social hierarchy that enables some Americans to feel and behave as though they are superior to others...  So... this is all about saying "fuck the rich?"

I hate to break out the phrase "code word," but I'm feeling the icy grip of soulless collectivism (note, that encompasses all the fun -isms, like socialism and the like), which seeks to make everyone evil, and as a result, deemphasizes the individual (no matter what sunny idealism may be offered to blow up your ass).  The fact is that humanity has always, and likely will always have some kind of "social hierarchy" no matter how much attempted equalizing or loving and benevolent Imperial Federal Government tries to impose.  Because there will always be men who rise to greatness and power in any society.  In a republic of limited government, that falls to the trades, industries, and if we're lucky, enlightened leadership (what was referred to back then as a "natural aristocracy").  And as you shift to a more intrusive and Imperial government, said aristocracy coagulates in the halls of government, either directly, or through influence.

In other words, the people that the class-manipulating bunch (Democrats) purport to punish won't really be punished.  They'll just go where they can get the superior stuff they've earned, mainly through their own hard work.  But a lot of people who could afford better, but not the absolute best get to be part of the Big Government solution.  And more power and control flow to the government aristocracy, who can leave their country for heart surgery if they need to.

Wait, this ain't Canada.  I think we'll wish we had their health care one day though....

But now that the reform bill has become law, many more Americans can say, "I am, therefore I have the right to affordable health care.  Ok, so it's about affordable health care.  I thought it was all about government-supplied health care.  (Oh, and I'TS NOT A RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!)

As I stated above, the real problem over the last 50 years has always been affordability.  And the primary reason for affordability to go out the window is the tendency of prices to go up any time you introduce a third-party payer.  Whether that be foolishly generous health "insurance" plans, free clinic care, or government welfare largess, when a person can go somewhere and doesn't have to write a check or shell out cash, it's easy to overspend.  We see the same thing in college tuition, which is largely borne by loans and grants, and not by individual savings.  And we see a similar insanity in the credit mess.  When you can pass costs onto others (even if its temporary, in the case of credit), the tendency is to spend more than you think.  And when it's "free" then why not take advantage of it while you can?

By the way, THAT's the biggest side effect we will see from the health care takeover (for more side effects, Heritage has some nice posts).  We continue moving in the direction where no one has to actually shell out cash when they go to the doctor, because everybody has to get insurance that covers annual ball-fondling and shit (note, if your family has a history of problems detectable by ball-fondling, it might be a good idea whether you're covered or not), even if you're a woman and lack such equipment (ridiculous example, but that's only because I don't have the energy to look up what the government will mandate for "insurance").

By making health care available to more people, those who believe it's a privilege they've earned are now placed on the same hierarchical rung as others who they believe don't deserve or haven't earned it.  Again, it seems to me this is all about equalizing outcomes, not opportunities (among with the prior stated sentiment toward the rich).

We've gotten so hung up on looking to the government to "fix" the health care system that we've forgotten a few things.  First of all, health care itself wasn't broke.  The health insurance market, on the other hand, was, because it was long past the time when they fit the definition of insurance.  And the continued addition of mandate and regulation (and the failure to address insane things like the rescission problem (exacerbated by trying to make a profit when the government is continually making it harder to do so daily)), as well as the price spike driven by both the third-party payer problem, and the rampant price fixing caused by Medicare and Medicaid, has only created problem upon problem (again, it's all about affordability).

And had we taken steps that would allow the market to fix the ridiculous price levels, and then considered the ways to help those who were never going to afford health care apart from the people who could pay, then we might have found a reasonable solution.

Instead, we keep finding "rights" where they don't exist, which means we get to pay for these pseudo-rights (hello VAT).  Next, we'll get a right to healthy food (tax McDonalds), the right to TV (free digital boxes (wait, already got that)), the right to retirement (got it, Social Security (unless you're under 45, in which case it's now in the red,, and will be dead before you (and I) retire)), the right to transportation (maybe if they get the tube travel thing going), a college education (because they couldn't get the job done in the first couple of decades in the government schools), and whatever other thing that they can come up with.  I'm looking for a right to sex myself (free government whores (other than Barney Frank)), because I'll find it easier to watch the country die if I'm getting laid.

2 comments:

Satyavati devi dasi said...

If someone needed something, and could come up with the money, there is no barrier to the access.

And if someone needed something, and couldn't come up with the money, there is a huge barrier to access.

So your argument is theoretical, because in REALITY, people can't come up with the money, and in REALITY, there is a huge barrier to access.

That's been your whole problem with this all along, Patrick, you're operating on theoretical lines, instead of in the real world, attempting to get real world solutions.

If you didn't have Medicare or Medicaid or whatever it is for your kids, and one of them ruptured their appendix tomorrow, you'd be bankrupt for the rest of your natural life. Your credit would be ruined. You would have no option. You'd be choosing between medical bills and your ISP, or worse.

You don't function in reality when it comes to this stuff. You work off nebulous arguments about 'psychology' and somehow dismantling the entire system overnight to somehow circumvent the entire insurance industry, and you deride and belittle any other solution as a 'government takeover'.

When you can move into the actual world of pragmatic, attainable solutions (or even attempts at solutions), I'll have a little more respect for your arguments. But in the meantime you're arguing theories and nonsense.

Anonymous said...

This blog is Dead. Why don't you let it RIP and go away?