I don’t have food

In any conflict, the most important thing is to understand exactly what it is that’s conflicting with what. If you can’t define the opposition, or even name it, you can’t fight it. Worse yet is to fail to understand what it is you’re fight FOR.

Even those ostensibly opposed to ObamaCare are often heard conflating medical insurance with medical treatment, as though one equals the other– If you don’t have insurance, you have no “health care”. They are the same thing.

By that standard, since I do not pay into a common financial pool designed to insure against starvation, I have no food. Period. I do not eat. I’m already dead. I died back in 1958 or ’59 as soon as my mother ran out of milk. I’m a ghost. Boo!

The notion that I might simply pay directly for my food, as I wish, and choose my own food provider, with no middle man, no money pool and no qualifications (or, heaven forbid; I might even grow some of it myself) is apparently a foreign concept to those who claim to favor a free market. It simply doesn’t even enter their minds.

If those who are opposed to a nationalized starvation insurance program are telling me I have no food, or if those opposed to ObamaCare are talking about people who have no healthcare, they are insane. They are not on my side. They have been co-opted by the enemy. They are blind, blithering, gibbering idiots, or zombies, who can’t even understand their own words, and yet we tolerate and entertain this insanity. Liberty isn’t even on the table for discussion. We can’t even speak of it, or even define it, and so how can we claim to fight for it?

What’s wrong with us?

9 thoughts on “I don’t have food

  1. I wonder whether the suspicion that this might be true is why the kelptocrats pushing national medical payment pooling — government single payor, whatever — keep pedaling so furiously. They dare not let it be known that, in the vast majority of cases, most Americans would be better off without “health insurance” altogether or with a high-deductible major medical policy, paying cash for most goods and services. It would — or could — mean the end of their gravy train — the disintermediation of the government and the return to the independence of We the People.

    To paraphrase Mel Brooks, it would be the end of their phony baloney jobs.

    M

    • I think that most people would be better off with high-deductible catastrophic-only insurance. That would tent to give an incentive to acting prudently. The only additional FedGov regulation of the insurance industry I could support would be requiring that insurers post in easily discoverable / searchable form their reimbursement rates and outcomes, and all medical providers post all fees and charges and outcome rates, so it’s easy for the average consumer to compare and shop around. As it is, it’s virtually impossible, and far to much information is hidden from the actual consumer of the medical attention.

      • “…requiring that insurers post in easily discoverable / searchable form their reimbursement rates and outcomes, and all medical providers post all fees and charges and outcome rates, so it’s easy for the average consumer to compare and shop around.”

        I think that the various consumer advocate groups, like “Consumer Reports”, Clark Howard, et al could, in a free society, take care of that bit plenty well enough. As it is, we have coercive monopolies of sorts in the insurance “regulation” by government, barriers to entry into the marketplace and so on. For one thing, shopping nation-wide for medical insurance is pretty much verboten if I’m not mistaken. Government Unions get together and purchase huge, complicated and expensive blocks of “insurance” on behalf of their members… You can hardly even call it “insurance” anymore, it’s gotten so corrupted. You go and get a couple stitches for cut now, and you aren’t paying the doctor so much as you’re paying a thousand paper-pushers, the politically connected, and some slip-and-fall jackpot lawyers (The American Bar Association is a huge contributor to political parties and campaigns).

    • Mark; Bingo! You have hit the nail on the head. I just told my daughter on the way to school this morning, that most of the .gov types live in perpetual fear of Americans waking up and realizing that, not only do we not need them, they’re also very much in the way.

  2. The analogy fails in some ways. A catastrophic food requirement where you need $10,000/day worth of food for a couple weeks isn’t going to happen.

    But you are correct that for some reason people think of health insurance much differently than car and home insurance.

    • Well hunger, on the global scale at least, is a big problem. If you can afford $10,000 a day then it’s not a problem, and if you can not afford 10 dollars a day for food, it is a problem. Price verses income, then, is a separate issue, apart from the unspoken assumption (which Republicans have been perpetrating through their use of the language) that insurance and the actual care are exactly the same thing.

      And while we’re on the subject of price and what people can afford; the extreme levels of government interference in the medical industry (including litigation) over the last several decades has driven prices up beyond what the market can bear in many cases, and it is my thesis that this price escallation has been fully intentional. For just some recent evidence I point out Obama’s infamous statement regarding energy; “Prices must necessarily sky-rocket [so the government can use a false, or manufactured, crisis to grab more control over energy]”

      Nationalized medicine has been a dream of the Progressives for 100 years or more.

      Now imagine how expensive your food would be if you had to fill out applications and forms every time you went to the supermarket or a restaurant, if the vendor had to bill your insurance company every time you got food, there were a million middle-men and secrataries involved, and the vendors, all had to buy extremely expensive mal-practive insurance…

      There is a lot of government interference with our food supply chain already, but they’ve only scratched the surface compared to what they’re doing to medicine.

  3. The fundamental error in your logic is that it’s logical.
    The libtards are incapable of following a logical argument because it lacks emotional underpinnings, demonizing of the other party, and all of the stupid illogical requirements for a liberal social policy.
    They simply will never understand, because they are incapable.

  4. I come back now, after much wrangling over details, to the point, which is that you must be able to define a problem before you can set out to fix it.

    In this case the problem is government meddling, usurpation and obfuscation. Once we’ve agreed on that, we can see that the fix is simplicity itself (which any good solution is)– just get government the hell out of it and keep it as far away from it as possible.

    The founders of this country didn’t spill their blood so we could have government twits and “Levelers” meddling with every aspect of our medical care.

    By contrast; take a look at the price and access speed of a Terabyte of computer data storage now, compared to 20 years ago. That’s what’ll happen to medical care (and everything else) if we can pry the fucking Progressives away from it and keep them at bay.

Comments are closed.