Home

 

Bill's Politipalooza

Yesterday at 10:30 AM · 

There are very legitimate arguments against Medicare for All. I am against M4A and am very happy to explain why. However, new government expenses and taxes aren't really among the reasons. It's super hard to see a cancer patient holding a 6-figure bill and then complain about my taxes going up. It's super hard to see the $trillions spent on needless war and then complain about new government spending on its citizens. Lastly, when neither party gives a damn about debt and deficit, I simply cannot talk about the expense of M4A with a straight face. Fiscal sustainability is problematic with M4A, but it is a weak argument for most Americans given the current reality. I believe there are solutions far better than M4A, but let's debate them and stop thinking its a mic-drop moment when you ask to see the price tag. It's not!

~~~

Sure it is. I can hand you a million dollar bill for a dying kid every ten seconds. If you care about these people, you'll pay it, right?

Every person starts with a responsibility to themselves, their immediate family and friends, then their neighborhood, community, politic, and species in that order.

If you place the charity of random strangers above your own immediate circle, you are generous, but also a drain on on your own resources, and you will run out of them in short order.

Not every problem in the world is your problem or my problem. That is a harsh reality.

Is it reasonable to support your immediate circles? Yes, because you will gain similar benefit in response. Is it reasonable to offer some limited support further out, as available? Absolutely. Should you starve your own family to do so? Well, you can, but I won't.

Literally anyone can write a check to the Dept of Health and Human Services, or any other gov't agency, and it will be cashed. Demands for legislative force mean those people want SOMEONE ELSE to be made to donate, not themselves. You can find plenty of news stories about it, too. "I didn't think _my_ taxes would go up!" They voted for SOMEONE ELSE to get screwed out of resources.

If you go to the bank and say, "I need a loan for a new roof," you'll probably get it. The infrastructure helps your family and its economics. If you say, "I need to borrow $10,000 to give to some kid with cancer in Kansas," they're going to refuse, and they should. Taxes, especially deficits, should be going for critical societal needs such as infrastructure and defense. Charity is a luxury a wealthy nation can afford to a certain degree. The nation that mandates it as a non-discretionary entitlement, while considering infrastructure and defense to be discretionary, is on the slope to destruction.

Then there's the reality that the same government that spends $500 on hammers, denies painkillers to cancer patients, and negligently exposed at least 6000 veterans to HIV shouldn't be making ANY health care decisions.