Typical Leftists. Or: Oh Man! This Is Gonna Be Fun!

Well, I was wondering how long it would take before a socialist/statist/liberal type responded to my article "How To Compare Health Care Systems For Dummies".

---

In fact, truth be told, I was hoping for it! It's so easy and so much fun to debunk leftist rhetoric! A smile crossed my face as, sure enough, "Jeff" responded. For those of you reading this and have not read my previous article yet, please do so before continuing, so you'll know what this rant is all about. It's archived here at Canada Free Press. You can also read Jeff's unedited comments in the appropriate section at the end of the original piece. Then come back here and we'll go for a ride! Now, I'm sure Jeff is a very nice guy personally. Very altruistic and caring of his fellow man, I'm sure, at least on the surface. But like all leftists, he's also, provably, if you dig a little bit, a complete hypocrite and completely ignorant of the way things in society work. Jeff is sadly typical of clearly uninformed (at best) leftists who see things emotionally, rather than logically or rationally, and speak completely in platitudes while ignoring genuine substance and fact. Sorta like Obama. What I want to do here is break his feedback down bit by bit and respond in kind, but in my case, completely within context, or, at least, the context as best I can judge based on that which he wrote. That's something leftists are incapable of doing, because their "philosophy" is based purely on emotional reaction, distortion, taking things out of context and comparing reality to an impossible to achieve utopian fantasy. Therefore they speak in platitudes and are either too stupid to see things clearly, or, deliberately obfuscate the true meaning and intent of the argument in order to propagate their unachievable ideals. So, here we go: "Jim, an amusing article however comparing automobiles to health care is really an apples and oranges comparison and allows us to ignore profound complications by reducing the issue to something that is purely optional for our survival." First of all, I did indicate it was simplistic. I admit, deliberately so. It was written in that analogous way to prove a point. Nearly everyone has a car. Not everyone uses hospitals or visits the doctor regularly as they use their cars. But I wanted to show a way to make the point of "need" and "want" and "availability" in a way that most people could relate to. But for the better part of the article if you substitute "car" for "health care" and the brand names for the type of treatment you desire or need, you can pretty much have the article continue to make perfect sense, at least broadly speaking if not in every single instance. Obviously an understanding of the relevance of the transposition is needed. In other words, you have to WANT to understand rather than simply look for a way to dismiss the argument! "The fundamental difference between automobile ownership and health care is that one is optional and one is not." Well then, that's quite true! And with that statement you help make my point! Health care is obviously an option that is not as necessary as automobile ownership... according to you! Why? Because with health care you think you should be able to call on your neighbors to provide it when you need it, but most people (you too if you own a car) are perfectly willing to pay for the car with their own hard-earned funds! So, what seems to be more important? The cars that people are willing and able to pay for, or health care which apparently, according to leftist invective, they are not? Hmmmmmm? Now, you would likely say, "Well, you can't prepare for health care because you don't know when you're going to need it!" or some such thing. Really? Well, then, why not save up for that eventuality by buying it in advance! You can finance a car, why not finance your health care? Oh yeah! That's right! The free market (where it exists in this case) already provides for that! It's called "Health insurance"! Now, is the health insurance perfect? Of course not! But the dirty little secret is, neither is "universal health care". In fact, as I already explained in my previous column, it's worse. "But the poor can't afford health insurance!" you might say. Ah! Good point! (Interesting how I can anticipate your questions before you ask them, eh?) I'll cover that a bit later... read on please.... "Also you rarely get to choose your health care requirements." In a free country with a capitalist health care system, you can! That's the point! If you have a sniffle and you want to see a doctor about it, you can pay him to look at you so he can tell you you have a cold. If you don't want to pay him for that and simply recognize the symptoms yourself, you can just go buy some Contac-C and reduce the effects. But in a single payer system, there are people who will go to the doctor because it's "free" and make YOU pay for it, even though they don't REALLY NEED to. That's called abuse, something you seem to understand in one of your upcoming comments. Oh, and believe me, that abuse happens a LOT more often than you might think! The individuals requesting the care and paying for it themselves completely eliminates that abuse. Completely. When people have to pay for it themselves, the abuse simply does not exist, because it's financially wasteful for the would-be abusers. People don't waste their own money as they would waste other people's funds! (There's a lesson in that even more profound that this debate!) Nevertheless, you'd likely still say, "But that's not what I mean! I mean you never know what kind of sickness you're going to get! You could get a sniffle, sure, but what if you have a car accident and you need emergency surgery and you can't afford it?" Again I cover that a bit further on. Bear with me here. I can't explain it all at once. But here's a hint... instead of getting a Smart car or other eco-wacko-mobile, get a big SUV. You'll be less likely to get injured in the crash... but I digress... "You don't get to say, 'no I don't feel like receiving my cancer treatments today, I think I'll walk instead!'." You can indeed decide to receive cancer treatment or not. In both systems. The difference is, in the single payer system, you get what the government allows you to have as treatment, and you have to be satisfied with that which they allow you to have. You're not allowed to get better or different treatment if you want it. But that's also a matter of personal choice, and that's the whole point. Like the "Yugo" example in my previous article. If you want something more, you're SOL. In the free market system, usually there are things set up all over the place whereby you can get at least minimal treatment at little or no cost. In fact, in the USA, the Pharmaceutical companies have entire departments set up to provide help to those who cannot afford the treatment or the drugs. They collectively spend billions of dollars on such programs for the needy. The point is, they happily volunteer. You don't need to have the heavy hand of government forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. And, that's the entire principle behind a conservative, free market based system. Something leftists need to learn, but for whatever reason, refuse to. It's not a coincidence that the most capitalist country in the world is also the most generous. But the leftist media, sensationalistic and propagandistic, only report the bad side of the equation. Again, not a coincidence. "Free enterprise is great but it offers nothing to individuals who are unable to work due to disabilities." Ladies and Gentlemen, let me break away here for a second and elaborate on this obvious and reckless tactic. This is the way the leftists work. They cannot actually attack conservative principles on merit, so they instead take you completely out of context and throw something in there that's irrelevant to your argument by moving it to the extreme. By doing so they throw the discussion off track to say that you're a cad because you don't want to help people who genuinely need it. Allow me to re-rail the context thus... No-one has ever said that in order to keep the free market system alive that you ignore those who are INCAPABLE of providing for themselves. There is not one conservative person I know who would deny anyone any help who actually needs it and cannot provide for themselves. In the old days, that's what churches were for. People supported their churches and local community charities and donated to them in order for these entities to help the indigent and the incapacitated. Nevertheless, all conservative thinking people I know have no problems with the government collecting funds to help those who are absolutely destitute and unable to provide for themselves. The key word, though is unable. What we do NOT want is for EVERYONE to be forced into that same system. We want the freedom to be independent of others if we are capable of doing so, and choosing the kind of services we want for ourselves through the free market. "I agree that there are many who will abuse the system and that costs everyone money." Yes, that's true. Continuing the thought though, there are far too many people who are simply indolent, and take advantage of our forced "generosity". So on that point, we seem to agree, BUT you're simply wrong about your "solution". The potential for abuse of generosity is precisely why charitable services need to be done on a local level rather than by a federal or even state/provincial governments. Leave it up to the community where things like that can be more fairly handled and at a more direct level. Government bureaucracies are notoriously inefficient when it comes to that sort of thing. I've seen far too many examples of that personally. "In fact 'I have heard' that some people don't even claim their actual incomes on their tax returns!" Isn't that illegal? How does a universal health care system stop that from happening? How does ANY increase in government stop that from happening? All the more reason, in fact, to lower taxes and reduce people's dependency on government wouldn't you say? If people didn't have to throw more than half of their income to the government to be completely wasted on unnecessary spending, maybe people would be a lot less likely to cheat! People cheat more when they have more to lose by not cheating! Remove that burden from them and they won't be as likely to cheat! In fact, I've heard that some tax lawyers have admitted that because the tax system is so convoluted and complex, there are so many self-contradictory laws and regulations that it's literally impossible for anyone NOT to cheat, at least technically! Time to crawl it all back I'd say. How about the "Fair Tax"? (Google it) "Governments are a necessary evil, there is no perfect model." Correct! But there are systems a lot more perfect that others! The less the government controls, the more perfect it becomes (up to a point of course, I'm not advocating anarchy!) . Therefore, doesn't it make sense to reduce the size of government to be able to only do that which is absolutely necessary or that which is impossible or impractical to do in the private sector? Roads are a good example of infrastructure that government MUST be responsible for. It's impossible for each person to build his own road to wherever he might want to travel, so we all contribute to the roads that we all use, even though we pay individually for our preferred method of transportation (bus, car, bicycle, SUV, whatever) to use them. Even people who never leave their homes benefit from roads, because needed goods are delivered to them through their use. The military is also a good expenditure of taxpayer's funds, because the military protects our liberty from outside aggressors that may wish to disrupt or discontinue our well being. Same for the Police and Fire brigades and other emergency services, held in reserve until they are needed by anyone in the community. Those things are simply not practical to pay for on an individual basis, so we support government funding of these necessities through taxation. (Gosh, you really have to start at grade school level to explain things to leftists, don't you?) Health care, however, is entirely an INDIVIDUAL need. Not everyone gets catastrophically sick. Some people do more than others. Therefore, to force the healthy, who take care of themselves and live life healthily, to pay for the slothful obese alcoholic smoker is a little unfair, don't you think? "So, tax the slothful obese alcoholic smoker more then!" you'll no doubt say. Why? Doesn't he have the same freedom to live his life as he wishes? Why is it your business to tell him how he should live? "Yeah, well, he costs the health care system more" you'd retort. EXACTLY! So, get rid of the single payer system and let everyone pay for themselves instead of burdening everyone! I mean, after all, not all smokers die of lung cancer. Some alcoholics die from car accidents, maybe even when they're sober! So, statistics aren't always right! The free market, however, usually is! "How we treat the less fortunate is a measure of our humanity but we kid ourselves if we think we are that evolved." Now, here's where the leftist hypocrisy really kicks in! (Oh, I knew I'd have fun with this! I love it when leftists use that "less fortunate" term, as if life is a lottery and individuals have no control over their own destiny!) By your undeniable estimation, those who have any measure of wealth are obligated to provide for those who have little or nothing therefore begs you answer to the following.... I'm sure you have a television set like most people. Why don't you sell your TV and give the money to a homeless person, or one of those "less fortunate" people you talk about? You don't need the TV as much as the "less fortunate" need care, do you? Do you have a car? I'm willing to bet that one of those people you're talking about who are suffering does not have a car. Why not sell your car and use the money to care for a person who is in need? What's that? You need your car? I'm sure those "less fortunate" people you're talking about need care a lot more! Do you have a home? If you do, why not invite a "less fortunate" homeless person to stay at your house or apartment? I'm sure you must have a corner in your basement or a couch in your apartment you're not using. If you don't, heck put him in your garage if you have one. Better than the street! In fact, if you have the room, why don't you just allow him to live there for free and feed him? If "the less fortunate" are suffering so terribly, why don't you make him MORE fortunate by taking care of him yourself? If all you leftists did THAT, there'd be no homeless people at all! I know for a fact that there are a lot more leftists in this country than there are homeless people! Do you have any other items in your possession that you enjoy but are not absolutely necessary for your survival? Why not sell all those items... easy to do on EBay nowadays, since you obviously have access to a computer... and use the money to care for all those people who are "less fortunate" than you are? You won't do that, though, will you? That's because you value YOUR belongings and comfort more than you value those people you profess to be so concerned about. According to you, we must all contribute. Well, why not start with yourself? Put your money where your mouth is! Lead by example! But, like all leftists, you're a hypocrite. Leftists say that they care about all those "less fortunate" more than those greedy conservatives do. Yet your "solution" is instead of owning up yourself or going door to door and asking people for money to donate to your cause, you'd rather hire a thug to do it for you. That thug is government. That way, you get to feel good about yourself for "caring" without actually having to do your own dirty work. That's what leftists are all about. Hypocrisy and feeling good about themselves without actually having to make any real, immediate sacrifices. "Now wait!" the leftist will say. "If I vote for higher taxes, I'll be affected myself!" Really? Prove it now. Send the government a check. Not a charity, the government, since you seem to think they do such a great job. When you do your taxes next year, don't take any of the deductions you're allowed as a result of your income bracket. Pay the full amount based on your gross income, NO deductions. I dare you. In fact, leftists are constantly whining that we don't tax people enough. Especially the evil and hated rich. They must be saying that because they are always raising our taxes at every level. What wasn't enough ten years ago isn't enough even today because taxes keep going up. So, why don't you pay EVEN MORE in taxes than you're required to? Write a check for a thousand dollars more and send it to the IRS or Revenue Canada or whatever, and say "Please give this extra money to those who need it more than I do". Then you get to feel even better about yourself for having done well for the "less fortunate". Yeah, like that'll happen! Leftist hypocrisy on parade. "Oh yeah? Well how much do YOU contribute to charity, you right-wing blowhard!" you might say. (See? I can anticipate the leftist's responses before they even say them! Geez, they're SO predictable!) First of all, that's none of your business. It's not the government's business either. Let's just say there are many ways to contribute to society, and it doesn't always require a lot of money. Leftists love to contribute to something and then announce it as a propaganda tool to indicate to people how wonderful they are. True generosity is done when no-one else is looking and you don't scream for credit. Leftists only feel good about their good deed when they can show it off. Just go a few days without food and see how it changes your thinking. Try it and let me know how it goes Oh, yes, the old "if you don't experience it, you don't know what it's like, therefore you have to agree with me" trick, combined with the "take the outrageous extreme and turn it into commonplace" tactic. Typical programmed leftist talking point that has no merit whatsoever. The simple answer is, I didn't have to fly to the Moon to know it's not made of green cheese. In other words, the real answer is that I don't have to starve myself to know that food is important, and the fact is, neither does anyone else in a free, capitalist country. I challenge you to show me ANYONE who's going without food for days and days like you said through no fault of their own in North America, unless there's some sort of freak accident or unusual occurrence that deprives them of it. It rarely happens, plain and simple. And when it does, there are plenty of avenues for help that require no government involvement. You know where you WILL find those starving people? You'll find them in Africa, Cuba, Zimbabwe and other countries that are run by dictatorial leftist governments. "But we're not proposing that!" say the leftists. No, of course not, not right away, but that's where it will ultimately lead. It's called incrementalism. It may not happen in our lifetimes, but it may during our children's lifetimes or our grandchildren's lifetimes. We're certainly saddling them with the debts for our irresponsible actions of allowing governments to overspend for our delusions today. History proves it out. We're seeing it now with environmental laws and policy based on junk "science". We're seeing it with gun control laws that have nothing to do with crime. We're seeing it with government run health care systems where doctors actually promote early terminations with abortions for possible down's syndrome children and euthanasia for the elderly. Hitler, accredited universally as the most evil man of the last hundred years is constantly referred to by the media and the left as a fascist "right-winger". The fact is, Hitler was a hard core leftist. He was a radical socialist, he was also an environmentalist nut job. The fact is, Hitler had a lot more in common with the modern liberal than he ever had with the most vocal right winger in the media today. ("How dare you compare us to Hitler!" you'd say. Really? Never stopped the leftist from comparing us conservatives to Nazis, has it? Difference is, the leftists are wrong. Nazis were SOCIALISTS! That's what the name means!) Same with Stalin and Lenin, two of the most despicable murderers to ever inhabit the planet. Hard left, all of them. In fact, throughout history, and today, all despots and tyrants around the world are by definition (being that government has ultimate power over the individual), leftists, socialists and statists. Whatever you want to call them, they're always for big government, and more government control. Once the government can control so much of our lives, they will control all of US and our deaths. And the freedoms you enjoy today will evaporate tomorrow. It happens every day, every time the government passes a new law, a little more freedom is lost. I could tell you how I've been personally affected by it. You have too, if you're honest enough to recognize it. For laws cannot grant freedom because all human beings are born with freedom given by God. Man can only remove another man's freedom. And he does so only when he's acquired enough power to be able to promise safety and peace for all, and you grant control of your life, for better or worse, to him. The gilded cage continues to shed it's paint, revealing the rusty iron bars. So, leftists, socialists, liberals and statists! Keep it coming! You're SO easy to debate, and, indeed, debunk! And I'll continue to do so until the government forces me to stop. Go ahead, ask Canadians Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant what I mean by that! E. James Small currently lives near Truro, Nova Scotia. James was born in Montreal in 1965. James’ parents were both independent commercial artists, but they were English and were therefore boycotted by French businesses in the 1970’s so they opted to retire and move to Apple River, Nova Scotia in 1980 (there’s a whole story to that one!). Since then I have also lived in several towns in NS, such as Springhill, Amherst and also lived in Oshawa, Ontario and Brandon, Manitoba, but Nova Scotia, unfortunately, keeps dragging me back. I currently earn a living as a modelmaker, my primary passion, building models for everyone from individuals to businesses. James can be reached at: jim@smallartworks.ca

---