It seems to me that some of the people who are screaming for "Free" and "Universal" Health care in the United States are usually the same people who preach that mankind is destroying the planet with his pollution and his carbon footprints, dooming us all to a painful and destructive future of skin cancers, rising sea levels, buried up to our waists in dead polar bears.
It's really hard to square their motivations, at first. I mean, they actually want something that will keep evil people alive (we're all evil by virtue of the fact that we exhale carbon dioxide, after all)? If human beings are destroying the world, then who-oh-why would you want to advocate for something that ensures that they'll be around longer to do ever-more environMENTAL damage, with their wanton mass consumption and thoughtless litter, and did we mention evil, disgusting breathing?
And I'm talking about YOU Al Gore, specifically, and the rest of your brain-dead minions in general.
I think the reason they're in favor of something so obviously in opposition to their main concern is that the idea of central control appeals to them more than the idea of a cleaner, greener world. I think they secretly believe that if ObamaCare were to be made the law of the land in the United States, that the higher-than-a-kite tax rates needed to support it are, in effect, environMENTAL-ly beneficial; if people are having their money confiscated to pay for breast implants for pre-op, undocumented Nicaraguan transexuals, then they don't have any money to buy meat. Or gasoline. Or pay their electric bills. Or engage in any economic activity at all.
And then we'll all be back, by necessity, in the circumstances which Mother Nature so-obviously intended for us; living in a "sustainable" partnership with the land, at which point, the smug enviironMENTAList will find some other panty-bunched nonsense to annoy us with, if we haven't killed and eaten them all first.
All you need to realize that ObamaCare is all about control of your income, your choices and your activities is to take a good look at the people that democrats drag out as examples of people who would be helped by their policies (and to be fair, they do this with every policy initiative, not just the squishy, touchy-feely ones).
For Al Gore back in 1999, it was the 200-year old woman with high blood pressure, diabetes, scabies, Athlete's tongue, leprosy, consumption and probably an ingrown pubic hair, who was "forced" to "decide between buying food and paying for her medications".
The other day, it was Barack Obama's leukemia victim who had to decide between paying the mortgage on the ancestral home, or getting medical treatment. My, a decade certainly makes a difference; the economic factor back then ('99) was a matter of simple survival -- medicine or starvation -- now the formulation is medicine or real estate. But perhaps that woman was just a convenient combination of themes: Obama will not only give her free medical insurance, he'll also get her out from under her mortgage. She's a victim of both the "Predatory" Insurance Companies AND the "Predatory" Mortgage Lenders!
In both cases, it later turns out that both "victims" were already eligible for some form of existing federal or state subsidy, including Medicare.
If this was REALLY about reform, then Obambi would be out to generally change the way the system delivers care, and the manner in which it tabulates rates of compensation. Instead, what he's aiming at is taking the free market element out of the equation altogether, while leaving the worst abuses in place -- so that now they can be committed by highly-paid, unionized, government employees, who will vote and contribute money to the democrats until the crack of Doomsday.
In the meantime, the huge transfer of wealth and services that all of this entails, from the exorbitant taxation, to the creation of multiple, intrusive and often-contradictory bureaucracies, will do something which Socialists have long dreamed of doing; it will, if not bring true economic equality to all mankind, it will at least make certain they're all suffering in the same horrible way, without the need for violent revolution and bad PR for the Socialist cause.
And so now you can see just where environMENTALists and ObamaCare supporters come to an agreement. They don't necessarily care about saving the planet or saving anyone's life, they simply wish to be able to exert control over others and generally feel themselves superior. If they manage to make a good living off it, so much the better.
If you truly wanted to reform the American health care system, you do the following four things:
1. Bust the unions.
2. Kill the lawyers.
3. Change the laws to allow real competition amongst insurance carriers, hospitals and doctors.
4. Dismantle the Medicare system and give everyone a voucher to purchase their own insurance, instead.
but, there I go applying logic. If the government actually did any of these things, there wouldn't be multiple layers of federal bureaucracy to fund, and no opportunity for graft.
The advocates are not so noble as they appear.
UPDATE: You know that old expression about how when one finds one's self in a deep hole, it behooves The Won to stop digging? Apparently BHO has never heard that one before. Brett Baier of FoxNews kicked his ass in a special interview on the subject of "Healthcare" this evening. It's long, but worth the view, and thanks to JammieWearingFool for posting it. It wasn't that long ago that BHO and his cronies considered FoxNews as the enemy, and simply a republican/conservative mouthpiece, but now Fox is their last resort when it comes to getting the Mengele Plan passed. Go figure.
What's plain to see in this interview is that after 15 months of drama, this asshole still doesn't get it, is still convinced that he's entitled to it, and doesn;t like answering direct questions. Without a teleprompter, this guy can't speak coherently at all.