A simple yet extraordinary symbol of freedom, promise, and justice. To this day there is no other place that yields so much opportunity, hope and prosperity, even with the dark tones that are portrayed over its image.America, today, seems to give such terrible light to itself (at least the media does). With continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a shaky economy, it seems to be hard for people to proud of this nation. The liberal contingent of America find little good in America's ways. They lack a respect for the ability of its people and their individuality. Such nonsense of socialized health care, gun control, and welfare all take power and away from the people.
On the note of socialized/nationalized health care, the right chose your medical care and the right for doctors to work at their own terms is crucial to the efficiency and quality of care provided. Doctors in a system of government supported health care have no incentive to do anything beyond that of which is required. Even though it seems nobler to provide the best care because it is a moral obligation, human nature dictates that there should be a reward, per se, for excellent work. And is that morally wrong? Should there be no reward for good work? It would not be fair to give everyone in school the same grades because they met the standards. No one would have the drive to go beyond the norm. It is pretty much like Communism in that sense, and is socialized health care really far from it? The government, not you, controls the care you get. Now that is an impingement on basic human rights, the right of personal choice.
For those who think that nationalizing the health care system will be more effective at providing care are so blissfully ignorant. One should look at Canada perhaps and see how efficient it is for them, while they die waiting on surgery list. Also, has government been know to be efficient at all? Bureaucracies are notorious for squandering funds and loading the pockets of their "friends". It ruins the concept of free markets driven by profitable and competitive companies. Granted the health care system is full of problems and ever increasing costs, but you can still get the care you need. The question that is drawn up of course is, can everyone afford it? The sad truth is no, however, it is better to have financial burden and get the care you need then to wait on care you may never get.
The liberal "agenda" undercuts the ability of Americans to take care of themselves. As you give the government more and more leverage on our lives, the amount of freedom we possess becomes less and less. And as Geralad Ford stated, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have". America was founded on individualism and self-sufficiency and it must be upheld. The people of this nation are still capable to just that. People of this nation must remember to take charge of their lives and government and not let the opposite arise.
"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves''- Thomas Jefferson. Let the people do their part.
Perhaps the other atrocities mentioned, gun control and welfare, can have their own day later.
5 comments:
I don't want to argue, honestly. I want to ask some questions to which I myself don't know the answers. First, what is higher in the moral hierarchy: attempting to give healthcare to every citizen, or letting the market have its way, knowing that many will be left behind, regardless of their own ability to discipline themselves? Second, do you think the Bush administration has increased government presence or decreased government presence? Just curious. Things I think about when reading your post.
First, I find the following remark baseless in its entirety when you state that “[liberals] lack a respect for the ability of its people and their individuality”. I think we should talk a little about the political spectrum and just where individualism falls on such a scale of political ideologies. It certainly does not fall to the right, the same direction as falls fascism. If there is one thing fascism (extreme rightwing ideology) is not, it is most definitely not a movement of individualism. But do not worry; you are not in the minority unfortunately in this country when it comes to people who, though educated, lack understanding of what political ideologies they fall into. Here, I could blame the media, but I think that would be a baseless and easy, yet false, claim. Instead, allow me to blame conservative ideologues that have engendered the environment, with their constant chanting of deregulation, in which such events have been allowed to exist. Notice, I have said nothing critical about the blanket ad hominem attack against liberals, though I find it on some level disturbing. And before you even attempt to argue about how close your ideals are to fascism, I would point you to the statement just made about liberals. Regardless of its veracity, to which it is certainly in question, it reeks of the sort of things that have been said by others who were critical of those that disagreed with fascist ideologies (i.e. Nazis, etc.). All that is left is for you to begin blaming the distress of this country on a small segment of the population. . .
Second, in what way does “socialized health care, gun control, and welfare all take power and away from the people”? I’m not even going to touch gun control at the moment, other than to wonder if you advocate total freedom for the possession of guns. Perhaps, everyone should be allowed to own any weapon that they chose so long as they could afford it? After all, in what context is a missile not an “arm”? Perhaps, rather you prefer “gun control” and simply disagree with the amount? That’s interesting, because I happen to disagree with “the amount” of healthcare received by the citizenry under our current healthcare. And before we get into ridiculous platitudes about “personal choice”, let me say that those that cannot afford healthcare have no choice about the care they receive. Further, those that can afford HMOs have no “choice” about the care they receive. That “choice” is placed squarely into a corporation’s hands and its decision making process does not take into account its dependant’s needs. Rather, that HMO is solely concerned with its bottom line and if it can “reasonably” deny your “unnecessary” procedures like chemotherapy, transplants, etc. then it will. Make no mistake, you have no “choice” with HMOs. If choice is the reason you are against socialized medicine, perhaps you should rethink your position. And allow me to question, as I can already see the wheels beginning to turn, the criticism of socialized medicine that states that healthcare from countries without socialized medicine is better than those with. Perhaps then you should check the infant mortality rates of the United States as it compares to countries like the UK, Norway, Canada, Cuba (you do cite Canada later on. . . do you have an understanding of the mortality rates in Canada as opposed to here?)? Perhaps you should check as well the mortality rates of the adult citizens as well as their expected ages at death? If the United States’ medicinal capabilities are so great, how come its people are not reaping those benefits like increases in lifespan, lower infant mortality rates, etc.? And finally, what choice is welfare limiting? The choice to go out and get a job in this crumbling economy (which has been crumbling for many years since the loss of the industrial sector in this country and which has yet to be replaced)? Or perhaps you are referring to the “choice” to be poor (ridiculous and baseless)?
Third, this idea that “Doctors in a system of government supported health care have no incentive to do anything beyond that of which is required” would mean that the system we currently has would do the opposite by comparison. Note that I have shown above that this is not the case and that those responsible for healthcare currently do “less” than what most would consider “required”.
Fourth, on the idea that “human nature dictates that there should be a reward, per se, for excellent work”, what are you even trying to say? Are you implying that doctors that do “excellent work” should receive rewards. And yet, doing “excellent work” is not on the grounds that a lot of doctors receive their rewards. Doctors, in fact, get paid by HMOs to not do work at all sometimes. I guess “not work” must be “excellent work” as they are getting rewarded. Let me also state that doctors in countries with socialized medicine are certainly “rewarded” for their work. If they were not, there would be no doctors in Britain, Norway, etc. as the market would dictate that only the most kindly soul would do such work for next to nothing. I am not for a lack of compensation for doctors. Rather, I am against the middleman who is taking the lion-share of the compensation for themselves: the HMO.
Fifth, you state that, “it would not be fair to give everyone in school the same grades because they met the standards”. Rather, is that not the goal of grading? If someone met the standard, they deserve the marks? Is that not what an “A” stands for as opposed to a “B”? Does not the “A” denote that higher standards were met? Further, in what way is “ [i]t is pretty much like Communism in that sense”? The idea is flawed in the earlier statement. I have no idea what this is trying to say.
Sixth, in what way does “[t]he liberal "agenda" undercut[s] the ability of Americans to take care of themselves”? I think it prudent to speak a little on this idea. The liberal “agenda” if such a thing exists beyond being the brainchild of conservative pundits, would involve in some measure the people seizing for themselves the capability to “take care” of themselves. If the people choose to have socialized medicine and support candidates in the republic that support such things, the people have “chosen” to create a system that takes care of its citizenry. How does that undercut the citizenry’s abilities? You quote Gerald Ford with the following: “ [a]nd as Geralad Ford stated, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have". Allow me in turn to quote the People: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. Last time I checked, things like mortality rates should fall into an area that encapsulates general welfare, justice, etc. This document that I just quoted is what the United States is about, not your bastardized “individualism and self-sufficiency”. Were do you get self-sufficiency as a goal of the Constitution? At least it can be argued that individualism falls under the banner of Liberty, though it most certainly can be argued that those two things have separate meanings and are not synonymous. You should perhaps be careful and instead use the word liberty rather than individualism as the two have different connotations.
As these ideas are posted in a public blog format, I can only assume that you are open to a debate of such ideas. After all, if you did not want your ideas to be in the public domain, you most likely wouldn't have posted them on the web for free access by people you do not know and further allowed others to comment on them. But in case I have made a mistake, I apologize. On some level though, it is always good to have a dialogue about such things. It is through such conflict of ideas that understanding of greater truths can be reached.
Post a Comment