Of course it’s socialized medicine! And that’s a good thing.

I don’t normally follow film critics to get my political information, so I missed what Roger Ebert wrote back in August to explain why Obama Care is a good thing.  Had I read it then, I would have learned that of course it’s socialized medicine — and that’s a good thing.  In a lengthy post responding to critics who whine about how un-American Obama Care is, Ebert offered a careful point-by-point rebuttal, including to the contention that Obama Care is socialized medicine:

¶ It is “socialized medicine.” Yes, it is. The entire society shares the cost. It does not replace private medicine. Just as in the UK and Canada, for example, we would remain free to choose our own insurance policies and private physicians. But it is the safety net for everyone.

¶ It is “socialism.” Again, yes. The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which “socialism” is generally thought of in negative terms. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close.

I feel much better now, don’t you?  Now I understand that socialism is just charity on broader terms.  So what if it’s forced charity?  And really, it’s silly to worry about the government using the IRS and its penalties to force this “charity” on everybody.  ‘Cause really, life in socialized countries is fine.  Just ask the citizens of the former Soviet Union, the former National Socialistic Party Germany (better known as Nazi Germany), the former Czechoslovakia, the former Poland, the former Romania, the former Albania, the current China, the current North Korea, the current Venezuela, the current Cuba . . . and on and on.

But those are extreme examples of a good thing run amok, I can hear Ebert saying.  Things are just great in semi-socialized countries.    Well, Mr. Ebert, I guess they’re okay if you don’t mind the government conspiring to change a whole nation’s social order, or the complete control of speech and thought (my example is in England, but check out speech codes and prosecutions in every other semi-socialized country in the world), or the fact that European countries have completely ceded their sovereignty to the EU (that is, whatever is left over after the UN has taken its cut).   And so on.  You get my point.

Socialism is great if your goal is perpetual childhood, free from the responsibility of caring for yourself.  If a minimal level of comfort and irresponsibility is your goal, who really cares if you give up your freedom to act, speak  or think.  At least the government will ensure that there is food on your plate and, provided you’re not to old or sick (see the second video at this link), some type of injection in your arm.  But I wonder, Mr. Ebert, just how many Americans, raised on a 233 year history of liberty are ready to walk quite so quietly into that socialist night.

(By the way, what’s really funny about the above is that it resulted from a conversation with a liberal during which I politely asked him to explain to me the support for his contention that health care is a “right.”  Once he realized that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution gave any authority for this government power grab, he sent me this link with the bald statement that this would address the whole “rights” argument.  And I guess it does.  In liberal land, we have no rights.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. suek says

    >>Once he realized that neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution gave any authority for this government power grab, he sent me this link with the bald statement that this would address the whole “rights” argument. And I guess it does. In liberal land, we have no rights.)>>

    The thing that galls me is that we _could_. That is…we could amend the Constitution to allow socialism. But to do that, we’d have to have agreement of the majority of the people, and that just isn’t going to happen. So the socialism is going to be thrust upon us inch by inch. Millimeter by millimeter. And the will of the people is ignored.

    While I would agree that in a sense they – we – deserve it because we haven’t stayed alert, at the same time, people are busy living their lives. They aren’t political animals for the most part. Elections come every 2 yrs or 4 years – depending – and we expect people will live up to the oath they take – To Support and Defend the Constitution – not undermine it. So the citizens have been fools. And may pay the penalty.

    Or seeing no other alternative, they may awake to find their nation plundered, take up weapons of self-defense and throw the bums out. Of course, they (our new rulers) expect that they have control – they have the military and the police…right?

    I’m not so sure about that. And becoming less sure every day.

    How many libs do you know who will be willing to serve in their private army, using – OMG!! – _GUNS_!! I wonder.

    I’m not sure I want to live in “interesting times”, but I’m not so sure I want to miss it either! All you unbelievers – you better revise your ideas about an afterlife … you’re going to want to see how this one comes out!

  2. says

    The entire society shares the cost.

    How does he think 30% of Americans that don’t pay income taxes, can ‘share in the cost’? It’s redistribution, not cost shares across the entirety. These people can’t isolate even easily defined concepts.

    Just as in the UK and Canada, for example, we would remain free to choose our own insurance policies and private physicians.

    That’s like saying savages are free to fly, absent any technology for them to utilize.

    America is the only nation in the free world in which “socialism” is generally thought of in negative terms.

    They’re scared to be alone. They need a group therapy and hug, you see. Otherwise, they get the shakes, anxiety attacks, and need to be medicated.

  3. says

    <B.“Now you can go into the back country and take a risk you might not normally have taken,” says Matt Scharper, who coordinates a rescue every day in a state with wilderness so rugged even crashed planes can take decades to find. “With the Yuppie 911, you send a message to a satellite and the government pulls your butt out of something you shouldn’t have been in in the first place.”

    The way the Freehold handled this was to make the ones being rescued pay the entire cost/salaries of the rescue attempt, including any equipment lost, fuel used, or lives endangered.

    The cost would exceed most people’s bank accounts, thus forced indenture would be employed.

  4. highlander says

    @suek — Good comment. Have you heard the recipe for how to boil a frog? If you put him in hot water, he’ll jump right out, but if you put him in cold water and heat it gradually, you can cook him to well done. We need to fight creeping socialism at every turn or we’ll all wind up as boiled frogs.

  5. highlander says

    America is the only nation in the free world in which “socialism” is generally thought of in negative terms.

    This, of course, is completely untrue.

    My wife and I have a number of friends who came here from Russia and from other countries that were behind the Iron Curtain. Not a single one favors socialism. They are all warning us — passionately — that America is headed for disaster. They all say in one way or another, “You just don’t know what it’s like. If you did, you’d be fighting much harder to stop it.”

    And all it takes is a cursory review of blogs hosted by Canadians, Brits, Aussies or Kiwis to see how well they like socialism in their countries: They hate it.

    There may be a number of countries where socialism is officially seen as good, but it seems to me that the only people who like socialism are the ones who are in power or the ones who just enjoy being on the dole.

  6. heather says

    My mother and her brothers (all Americans) just inherited their mother’s old house in France. They had thought of keeping it as a rental, but inheritance taxes are 55%, so it will have to sold. My mother informed her brother (a liberal) of this, and he was shocked and horrified. She said, “Well, ___, it IS a socialized country.” He didn’t say much after that. I hope that it gives him cause to really think. Socialism doesn’t sound quite so good when it’s hitting your own wallet!

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply