I frequently read articles written by (probably for) certain “civic” minded folks saying things like “..obesity is a national problem and we must all do our part, for the good of society, to stay fit and trim…”…or something like that. Or, substitute, “smoking” for “obesity” in the above sentence. Let’s break this down and translate what is just below the surface of statements like this.
Family “A” is parented by a man and woman each working hard. Taxes at all levels take about 40% of their earnings and they pay them because they don’t want to go to jail or lose their home. They are saving diligently for their three children’s college. They have a mortgage and pay their bills. Mom gives a lot of thought to keeping the family meals healthy and dad has made outside play and regular sports and exercise a routine for his children.
Family “B” is hopelessly dysfunctional and mostly eats snack foods from convenience stores. All of the members of this family are ridiculously fat and sedentary.
Now the questions: why is family “B’s” obesity and poor health family “A’s” problem? Why can family “B” claim part of family “A’s” income to treat the consequences of their poor health, their diabetes, heart disease and hypertension, for instance? Why does family “B’s” poor health take precedence over family “A’s” college savings plan? Why are family “B’s” problems, family “A’s” problems? By what right can family “B” withdraw from family “A’s” checking account, money they want to treat their issues? Why do the nightmares that await family “B” have to represent an open ended financial liability for family “A?”
Have you answered? Did you answer, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?” Did you answer, “we are all obligated to provide a social safety net for our fellow citizens?”
If you are inclined to believe that we should help our fellow man, I am in agreement with you. If you believe that a goon with a gun and a badge, rather than a representative of a charity should collect your “contribution,” I am firmly opposed to you and that preference.
Failure to expose the false premise (“health care is a right and therefore if I get sick, what’s yours is mine”) allows very silly and time-wasting subsequent discussions to take place. Whatever happened to the concept of freedom? How about this: ”if you want to smoke, go for it.” ”If you develop chronic lung disease or cancer, that is your problem, not mine.” Or,”if you choose to lead a high calorie, sedentary existence and develop any and every problem that we all know is inevitable, that is your problem, not mine.” ”If I choose to donate to a charity that helps take care of folks like you, that is my decision, not yours.”
Is this too free for you? Can you imagine what people in this country 100 years ago would think about how eroded the freedoms are that they took for granted? I would challenge you to try to think of national health care as government as an even larger agent of theft, robbing family “A” for the benefit of family “B.” 40 million more family “B’s.”
G. Keith Smith, M.D.
Here’s an answer to the question posed in the fourth paragraph. Family A has 2 adults and 3 children, so five potential votes. Family B has 2 adults and 5 children, so seven potential votes (This is not a difficult statistic to find). Also, there are 40 million more family Bs. Only taking the two mentioned generations in to account, by pillaging the coffers of family A and giving the loot to family B(s) the party in power has now generated an 80 million vote advantage.
Comment by Alex — December 11, 2011 @ 8:48 pm