Last Friday I watched the Sean Hannity show, which was a special on Obamacare. It was in a forum format consisting of various liberal and conservative pundits. What never ceases to amaze me is the smug, self-righteous demeanor of these liberal commentators who believe themselves to be morally superior, but in truth are drowning in moral confusion. How can one be morally superior if morality is considered relative with no objective basis? Just whose morality are we supposed to believe? Theirs? I think not. For example, these people defend late-term abortions, but will ask why those who are against abortion largely support the death penalty. When I hear this I think to myself that this person is so stupid they don’t deserve a response. But then I give in to my better nature and explain to them that a child in a mother’s womb is innocent, and has wronged no one, while someone who has murdered a human being is not innocent since they consciously and willfully took someone else’s life. It’s not rocket science. I guess you can say liberals are consistent in the sense that they want to spare the life of a cold-blooded murderer, and then extend that notion to a woman who is consciously taking the life in her womb by reasoning it is not the same as killing a human being. As I said, these people are morally confused and are hardly qualified to masquerade as the moral bastions of society.
On Obamacare, what dumbfounds me is why liberals are so enamored with government programs. They seem to have no problem with the federal government controlling the healthcare industry, with the primary argument that it “solves the problem” of preexisting conditions. Beyond that, they don’t have much to say to defend it. Let’s say that you wanted to buy a car, and the trouble you had with your previous car was that it was a gas guzzler whose driving costs were breaking you financially. The dealer takes your trade in and sells you a car that gets great gas mileage, but you drive it and realize it is a real lemon and its only good attribute is that it gets great gas mileage. Are you going to drive home and tell your spouse or significant other “Hey it is a terrible car and may fall apart at any time, but the gas mileage is so awesome it makes the car great overall!” I can just imagine how that is going to go over. Accordingly, just because a massive law has one or two popular provisions does not mean the whole law is good, and there are far better ways of taking care of preexisting conditions than taking over healthcare. But liberals are so set on their causes, they don’t care a whit about what government programs will cost, where the money is going to come from to fund them, and how effective they will be. All government programs, it appears, are necessarily good because it absolves them of doing anything themselves.
If the only saving grace of the ill-named Affordable Care Act (which does not make care more affordable) is that it covers preexisting conditions, is that reason enough to have a bill that is so complicated no one has read it, politicizes something as personal as healthcare at the federal level, that the IRS is overseeing it when we know the IRS is used to target groups or people the President doesn’t like, that it will add trillions to our debt when we’re already going broke due to Social Security and Medicare, will make insurance more expensive for most, takes from one person’s pocket to subsidize another person’s insurance, and destructs market forces since the government determines what is a good policy or not? I could go on and on about the perverse effects of this law, but I think you get the point. As I’ve written before, Health Savings Accounts, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, providing tax advantages to individuals or small groups that pool just as with big corporations, medical tort reform, and a la carte pricing just as with auto and home insurance would be much better solutions that would not require an overly complex 2000+ page bill with over 10,000 pages of regulations. How can that possibly be expected to create a health care system that will be more efficient than the free market and save money?
Now to my final point about liberals and their moralizing about big government. There is no moral high ground in pushing for big government solutions. The moral high ground is in what you are doing individually to help those in need in your own local community, county, and state in which you live. Liberals seem to think that whatever they want should be solved at the federal level and that if it’s not solved there then the problem can’t be solved. Why on earth could someone feel they are advancing morality by forcing a one-size-fits-all system on the whole country that takes from one person’s pocket and places their hard-earned money into someone else’s? Liberals look to government to solve problems that it was not designed to solve and simply cannot solve. They have this naïve notion of a utopian society that can only be created by an all-powerful central government, and instead of working to make that world a reality themselves, they pass it off on politicians in Washington that are doing this for no other reason than to increase the power of the federal government and get re-elected by increasing dependence on government. Being a champion for big government requires no morals and no sacrifice, but it does require a dogged determination to a cause with little reflection or caring as to what the actual results might be. Being a champion for individual rights, free markets and rule of law is much harder because it requires rational thought, something liberals seek to avoid. Liberals are hell-bent on submerging this country into socialism, and they have no idea what misery awaits us all if they get their wish. These ideas are the same as early 20th century Russia, and we know how that turned out.
Comments on this entry are closed.