ObamaCare and Sex
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, is the federal government’s latest foray into the medical field. Actually the intrusion is into the field of medical insurance and pharmaceuticals. The field of medicine is only indirectly affected. Generally the purpose seems to be one of allowing or requiring as many people as possible to have some sort of medical insurance which, as is obvious, has to do with making medical care available universally.
Why Congress has concerned itself about this is beyond me. Why President Obama has involved himself is beyond me. Certainly there are some benefits to the insurance companies and so their support was at hand. Other industries were not so pleased with the idea, although some of the unions seemed rather supportive. That could have been political payback for Obama and friends, though; since ratification, a number of unions have asked for waivers and have received them. In all 1,040 waivers have been issued at this writing. Where was/is the great groundswell of support? But again, why are we in this business?
There seems to be some political, emotional, certainly it is not intellectual, belief that people have a right to medical care. Why else would we have Medicare and Medicaid? Each of these programs has as its basis the idea that the taxpayers, through government, should provide medical care for others. Concurrent with this is the belief people have a right to medical care. Very honestly it is difficult to know which came first, the taxpayer paid for medical care or the belief in everyone having access and the less well off having subsidized access.
In all it is another liberal/progressive ideal which sounds good in the lounge over a few drinks, but is difficult to manage and administer and, as we have found, extremely costly. In fact, knowing the penchant of doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, tort lawyers, and last, but hardly least, legislators, judges and bureaucrats penchant for spending and taking other people’s money, the programs had no option but to become more expensive than the taxpayers can afford.
But back to the question of why we are even in this business. What is it about medical help that makes it the responsibility of government to distribute it to all comers?
Man has certain basic needs: food, clothing, shelter and sex. Without those he will not survive, individually or as a species. Medical help is not on the list, yet mankind survived and did exceedingly well without modern medicine for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, because of the nature of natural selection, man improved as a species over the years, although slowly. But with the help of modern medicine, man as a species will decline. This is the simple result of keeping alive those of weak constitution and allowing them to procreate where prior to modern medicine they would have died from natural causes without procreating. But I digress. Why, if medical help is not a basic need, does government feel an obligation to supply such to all?
One reason is the simple one of “wants.” People want it. Everyone wants to live forever and since the liberal/progressives are working hard to diminish religion as an avenue to life everlasting, people are left with life on earth as the only life they know. Then, since medical help has become relatively expensive, some people don’t or can’t pay for it yet desiring it all the same, cry out to government to help them. This group includes hospitals and doctors that ply their trade on the indigent, then bill the government for their efforts. But the question remains: Why?
If medical help is not a basic need, why are we involved in it and not the other basic needs? Why is there not a government program to supply food? It turns out there is: Welfare and food stamps, but those are only for poor people. Why not housing? There is: Section 8, group homes, public housing and jails all exist to supply housing, but again, only for the poor and criminal. That leaves out clothing and sex. Now why would we, the taxpayers, pay for medical help and not for clothing and sex? Clothing and sex are basic needs, medical help is not. It doesn’t make sense to me. Shouldn’t we all be dressed well and taken care of sexually? Now I suppose welfare checks can be spent on clothes, but that is for the poor person. The average taxpayer doesn’t have his food, clothing, shelter or sex, humanities basic needs, taken care of, but he’s going to have his medical help subsidized at the point of a gun. (Government is force – see George Washington). Typical government, getting priorities backwards and charging others for the experience.
And while I’m on this tirade: Notice how the press enjoys pointing out that some public person is getting taken care of sexually. It has to be envy, because they sure don’t report on how well they’re dressed.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=6434
