On Jun 29, 4:48 am, Paul Wharton <paulwhar...@comcast.net
> In observing attempts to gain support for a graduated repeal of
> medical welfare, I have seen the age-defined, "benefits" reduction
> doom the efforts because there is no objectively definable principle
> of when to cut off the government health care.
There was no objectively definable principle of how it should have
been started. The big difference between a privately operated charity
or a commercial insurer's package is that the customers or the clients
are not able to vote out the board of directors if they cut benefits.
There's an old saying that Social Security is the 3rd Rail of
politics. Touch it and you die.
> The following are my own ideas, and, as far as I know, not in
> accordance with the official Objectivist position.
> First, observe the following facts of mankind's condition:
> (1) Every human being *will* die.
> (2) If an individual cannot: gain value from productive work, obtain
> credit as a loan, and/or live from charity, that person will soon die.
> (3) A human being, about to die, without means of obtaining
> voluntarily achieved, life sustaining values who is offered the values
> of others obtained by force is living an artificial life.
I think most people reject this particular point of view, as witness
the line from Ebineezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol." "If people
are going to die, let them do it, and decrease the surplus
population." Even Scrooge later hears his own words quoted back to
him and realizes how horrible it sounds when you're looking at real
people with real problems who are human beings.
With the government having basically destroyed the ability for
charities to pick up the slack, unless something is done to fix the
problem first, cutting off benefits and providing no means of
replacement means a lot of people see that they've been abandoned to
die. And one thing you don't want is to have a bunch of really angry
people who realize *they've got nothing to lose* deciding to start
rioting or worse, a civil war.
> The argument that I have heard for adhering to the graduated model of
> welfare reduction has rested on the premise that, "immediately putting
> people out into the street is *wrong*". However, I ask is it not
> wrong to extend the extortions of the young, healthy, and productive
> out of some revulsion that evolved because medical welfare was allowed
> to suspend lives into states of more and more dependence?
Isn't it funny how a government's promises through collection of taxes
in a social insurance scheme can be discarded and causing the poor,
the disabled, and the elderly with nothing is fine and dandy by some
people, but for a government to decide to discard its promises to pay
back its investors by defaulting on its debt is a horrible thing that
can't be countenanced?
So apparently it's okay for a government to cheat the poor and weak,
but it's wrong for a government to cheat the rich and powerful.
It would be one thing if the situation were a pure welfare system,
where people are just getting benefits where they didn't have to pay
anything, but it's not. People had money taken from them by distraint
supposedly for a benefit they would be entitled to have at some point
in the future. And it would be dangerous to change this because of
the bad precedent it sets. If the government will break its promise
here, what might it do in the future? No politician wants to be the
one in the dock when an angry mob decides to hold them responsible
when the game of musical chairs - or musical benefits in this case -
stops and there aren't enough chairs (benefits) for everyone.
> I see the moral course as simple. Draft a legal bill that ends all
> Government Health Care NOW: totally and immediately. The fact that
> Obama and the Democrat Senate will not let it pass has created a
> metaphysical, built-in, grandfathering mechanism that gives the
> artificially suspended time to: finalize their affairs, reminisce on
> their lives and accomplishments, and have the opportunity to plan how they will die.
I can hardly believe that a large number of elderly voters would put
up with this. If the changes become seriously onerous for them, the
politicians in office will soon find themselves out of office - either
at the next election or at the nationwide riots - and the new
politicians would restore the benefits.
> No other model has been able to rest on a time frame principle. Mine
> is the only one.
> Grandfathering Government Health Care Starts Now!
No, you're not talking about grandfathering. Grandfathering would be
to retain benefits of those currently eligible and, say, the next ten
years, and change the system for those who have more than 10 years
before they'd have retirement eligibility, possibly by reducing
benefits, changing the system to offer incentives to exit the system,
or increasing taxes to pay for it. An immediate cut off with no
replacement is a curtailment, not a 'grandfathering' and it would not
Because if you change the currently existing system without resolving
those who currently inured to it and leave them without an
alternative, they'll start looting gun stores and make a march on
Washington with a resulting bloodbath like you wouldn't believe. Push
someone to the wall and leave them in a position where they've got
nothing to lose - for example, if they're going to starve they'll riot
to get food - and they'll respond. And nobody will like the results