"In a country where the sole employer is the state," Leon Trotsky observed "[opposition] means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced with a new one: who does not obey shall not eat." On the one hand, these words, coming from a fanatic who did so much to ensure this situation in the Soviet Union, lack force. On the other hand, coming from one who knows this truth from experience, the words are packled with force.
Trotsky's observation came to mind when the subject of Hillary Clinton's paternalistic health-care scheme arose today. "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," Clinton says in one breath. And in another, she floats the idea of having "to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview--like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination." Not as good of a deceiver as her other half, Hillary Clinton's key words are "at this point." At the point she takes the oath of office, restraint goes out the window.
A talk-radio host in the Boston area described Hillary's plan as "communist." As I noted in an earlier post, I think the word is promiscuously used by conservatives to describe any big-government scheme they view as bad, destructive, and intrusive. It's bad, destructive, and intrusive, but that doesn't make it communist anymore than Western Europe's health-care plans or the proposed health-care plans of several U.S. presidents are communist. Alas, I get lost in semantics. It suffices to say that if you think the U.S. government has done a great job transforming Iraqi Muhammedans into New England-style town-meeting members, serving as a massive emergency-response team to the Katrina Hurricane, or providing quality medical care at veterans' hospitals, the you are going to love HillaryCare II.
Unless a person is insane, suffers from a debilitating addiction or just doesn't care and lives in a cardboard box under an interstate, NOBODY in this relatively rich nation of ours goes without healthcare. The fact that illegal immigrants and the stupid poor use our emergency rooms as pseudo primary care physicians at the expense of all of us with proper medical coverage doesn't change the fact that most people already have some form of plan and that everybody is taken care in some capacity.
But, does the government EVER have a better idea or do anything better than the private sector? We can just imagine what a boondoggle any government run healthcare system would be. And it's no doubt that, although I would stop at calling her a communist, Hitlery IS a socialist and would love force the institution of a government controlled program for every now private service to grow and perpetuate it and so that know it all, power hungry, socialists like herself will have jobs and control for life.
Sounds like it's just another way to confiscate my money. The program will suck, I'll end up having to get some OTHER health insurance, but the government will require me to pay for this damn thing.
Of course the program will be a horror. With no price/profit/loss mechanism to guide resource allocation, providing care will be a complete nightmare. People will needlessly go without care (or with shoddy care) and we will be hooked up to the nanny state in one more way.
Well, we don't let her do it then, do we?
Homer: you could be talking about social security there.
