I wonder if the angry minority knows it is indeed a minority? I also wonder
why so many of them are so quick to think of violence as being a legitimate
response to the reality that election results have consequences?
I have another interesting question: (to me, anyway)
If everyone who currently pays for health care insurance - directly or
indirectly - were assured that for the same money they could cover
everyone in the country with the same or improved levels of health
care, would they still be opposed to a Canadian/Aussie type health
care system? Or is that simply too much socialism for their psyches
Here's a parallel question:
If you were assured that all your needs: Food, shelter, clothing,
medicine, love, sex, and perpetual happiness were guaranteed, would
you give up your liberty? Because that's more-or-less what the ruling
class wanabees ALWAYS promise (and never deliver) in order to become
the ruling class. The healthcare business is just another sideshow in
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
I wonder how many of the people who curse the "socialism" of various other
national health care systems even know how they actually work? Is a system
where people are free to choose their doctors etc. and where doctors work
for themselves or a hospital actually "socialist" just because payment comes
through govt.-administered insurance? Is the govt. requiring private
insurance companies to offer at least one policy meeting a minimum level of
coverage "socialism"? Or is "socialism" largely the preferred bogeyman of
those who don't know how the rest of the world does it, they just know they
don't like whatever it is?
Sure. Socialism is not defined by the actions of the consumer - it is
defined by control over the means of production or service rendered.
Um, not exactly. It IS over-regulation, though. An insurance policy is a
contract and the government should certainly have the means to enforce
contracts. But an agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller
should be, in the main, sacrosanct.
In your example, I have no problem with the government requiring an
insurance company to OFFER specific, minimum, coverage, but it doesn't stop
there. The government also wants to set the PRICE the insurance company can
charge - and that's the problem.
Anyone can get health coverage in the U.S. - they just can't get it at a
price they're willing to pay.
Uh, the "Tea Party" types are not violent.
This may come as a shock to progressives who, in their own lives, equate
anger with death and destruction (and that's perhaps why they oppose such
things as concealed handgun laws), but it is possible to be angry, irate, or
even mimic the antics of the third monkey on Noah's gangplank, without
coming to blows. Really.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.