I can see how you might go about reconciling these positions, and it's not a pretty picture. You see, you don't really care about the people of a community "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". You care about your own personal ideals of forcing all to accept gays and getting free or cheaper healthcare paid for by those younger and healthier than yourself. You don't care about the rule of law, the sanctity of property, or the freedom of local, dispersed governance. "To Each Their Own" isn't a part of your vocabulary. Old School Conservatives and libertarians actually care about gays who want to marry and support their right to do so, even if we don't agree with the morality. Modern liberals, progressives, or whatever you want to call them can't say the same for those who wish to speak against gay marriage. People who care only to push their own ideals tend abolish your right to speak if they don't agree with what you are saying instead of defending it, and you consistently fall into their basket. Do you get my drift? You won't stand up, politically, for those who want, for whatever reason, to live in a gay free community, ever, and that is to your detriment.
We pay for NIH and the universities to invent drugs which are then licensed to pharmaceutical companies. We pay for hospitals to be built, schools to teach, and studies to be done. And we also allow these people to use us as Guinea pigs, granted in hopes we will benefit- but the point is that these are not people who are creating a product out of their own resources and then selling it to us at a price the market will bear. This system is subsidized over and over through a patchwork of taxes, charity, and volunteers.
The net result is that we are paying more per person than countries with Single Payer. The whole time there is this propaganda machine out there saying that we're getting more for our money, and winking at people like you and me saying "And you know that because you have insurance, you get to go to the head of the line." It's a lie.
A woman called Neal Boortz yesterday and put it in a nutshell. She said, "I don't want to pay for the brood mare on the couch diabetes medication... but a child would be another matter." I see this as being the charity shibboleth. To say that you don't want to be part of a Single Payer system because charity can take care of the poor, but then you want to pick and choose who the deserving poor are. Imagine how crazy it would be if that woman also opposes abortion (she didn't say if she did) but she doesn't want to pay for life saving medication for someone because she thinks she's useless? Does that make sense?
And the crazy part is this: she would be paying for that woman either way, assuming that she actually pays for anything. Yes, your taxes go to provide medical care to indigent people, but your money also went to my very expensive surgery on my left leg, because you buy gasoline and I worked for an oil company.
It all comes out in the wash. So why are we paying premiums to insurance companies all of our working lives, only to go into Medicare when we need care? It doesn't make sense.
Why shouldn't this "right" be extended on the basis of living arrangements instead of on the basis of sexual relations? Why does the same-sex lobby fight against this idea?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|