Schooled by Me

Another transcript of a discussion had in the world of Facebook. This time, health care. I've cut most of the naive and patently untrue comments, leaving the thrust of the argument that I just HAD to put down. Edited for spelling.

"America's government probably does not pay for our health care system because our government holds us all responsible for our actions and for our health. Government, as I believe, is not designed to baby and minister to the people, ... I, as a future taxpayer, will not have to pay for the operation when I don't know, Timmy the crack dealer gets shot. I have to pay only for my medical expenses, and that is the way I like it to be. Absolute personal responsibility is a wonderful system because it frees the government from a foolish burden, i.e. shelling out tax dollars to pay for Timmy, and allows the people of America to positively govern ourselves.

"I also agree with Cody in that competition, in almost all industries, is a good thing because it does tend to weed out weaknesses in the system. ... Anyway, I agree that perhaps the system Canada uses for governing its people is good, I simply disagree about the seeming lack of personal obligation and responsibility in the system" (H. Clarke; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 24 April 2007).

More frequently than Timmy getting shot, there's a malnourished kid somewhere in middle America that needs a blood transfusion his parents can't afford because they're small business owners; or an elderly couple who need prescriptions but got bilked out of their Social Security by Enron; or the 24 year-old mother of two who is diagnosed with cancer and can't afford treatment because 36 years ago the nuclear power plant in her hometown cut costs by skipping the containment domes. Sure, survival of the fittest may work for young, healthy all-Americans -- there are fewer and fewer young, healthy all-Americans.

In the interest of competition and driving down costs, big businesses crush small ones, big businesses exploit their power over people, and big businesses cut corners to save costs. In health care, another big business, substandard care is given while costs skyrocket. Demand for care is the economic basis for rising costs -- even when demand is caused by "uncontrollable" factors such as environment. Basically, the system supports itself by making things worse for everyone but the system.

It's true, there's no good reason for a government to catch an individual every time he or she falls. Everyone must be responsible for him/herself. BUT, the greatest resource any nation has is its people, especially its children. The health of a nation is in the health of its people; both mentally and physically. Healthcare and education are the core values to maintaining national strength. Supporting these core values IS in the national interest and should be a national responsibility.

The "bad apples" justification for adopting a "survival of the fittest" stance holds about as little water here as it did when Bush was glossing over white-collar criminals at Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen in 2002; and the entire administration covered for the defense department and torture techniques at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and countless secret prisons. Besides, if Timmy was dealing enough crack to get shot, he'd probably pay his own hospital bill in cash, skip out on reporting the shooting to the cops with a bribe, and be back on the street the next day. You wouldn't have to pay a cent.

Harry replied, "On Big Business. You are forgetting that Big Businesses compete with each other..."

And...

"... so what if freaking terrorists, [rhetoric] are being tortured in the best interest of the free world[?] [Lots more FOX-news-induced rhetoric] What happens if America falls? [Doomsayer-ing] SO next time you think a stupid terrorist is "suffering", think about how the rest of the world gets to sleep another night safely" (H. Clarke; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 27 April 2007).

Big businesses competing with each other is fiscal mutual masturbation. Economic policy, then, is "join the circle-jerk or get nothing." If you honestly believe that just because there are three choices instead of one that you're getting a good deal, you must need a refresher in freedom and democracy. Three IMMENSE corporations competing with each other closes the market to everyone else. Instead of an actual monopoly, there is a virtual one. Quoting myself: "In the interest of competition and driving down costs, big businesses crush small ones, big businesses exploit their power over people, and big businesses cut corners to save costs." Believing that you have a choice where, really, there is none is a sign that you've bought the doublespeak. True competition would permit new players into the arena and would present real challenges to the big players, real risks to their supremacy.

**

I know YOU don't care about the "terrorists" being held at Guantanmo Bay. I know many Americans don't care about them. In fact, MOST Americans would rather that they stay there and rot -- in a stress position in 130 degree heat -- until they die and go to a worse Hell than the one they're already in. Sound about right?

Problem is, for all your talk of democracy and freedom, you would choose those to whom you would deny the inalienable rights that you hold so dear. Not only that, but, you would do so without due process of law, placing yourself above the laws you seek to institute as justice. Furthermore, you exalt the fact that your tortures are justified because they are the convenient punching bags you have been searching the world for. And finally, you repeat the rhetoric of the FOX news types extraordinarily well; "enemies of democracy and freedom," "best interests of the free world." Are you so certain that these catch-phrases and talking points are so accurate?

Try it this way: (paraphrasing you)

So what if free-thinking individuals, enemies of our Brand America military-enforced democracy and our selective freedoms... are being tortured in the best interest of the parts of the free world we like. Those people are different than we are and want to destroy everything we love in America by making it slightly different, possibly more Canadian. [OUR MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!!!]

Any person who disagrees with America may, one day, be called a terrorist. Any person who thinks about actively contesting American military superiority, presently, IS called a Terrorist. It seems that ideas, themselves, are dangerous. Hence, massive surveillance and the USA PATRIOT ACT. Welcome to the age of Thoughtcrime.

A "terrorist" is not a Terrorist just because you say he is. Just like you're not an imbecile just because you write like one.

Harry wrote: "They are not little innocent victims, they are evil malignant turmors on the world who serve not purpose other than to disrupt, kill, torture, murder, and destroy everything we hold sacred. Secret prisons are used to protect America's security."

--- Check it out: What if what you hold sacred is a malignant tumour to everyone else in the world? What if America has proven its capacity to disrupt governments and nations? What if America kills, tortures, and murders (or at least recommends or promotes it)? What if America destroys everything that anyone who isn't in line with America holds sacred?

Harry wrote: "What happens if America falls? The world's economy will crash, millions will be unemployed, the world will fall into civic disorder, and millions will die."

--- Check it out: Hate to burst your bubble, but America isn't the World. If America falls, the world's economy MIGHT crash, but -- almost certainly -- it won't. Money knows no nationality. If America falls, the money will leave and settle in other markets.

--- America owes more money than it has -- that Iraq War is MY-TEE expensive -- so, the people to whom America owes money will take over. That's India, China, and faceless multinational corporations. Since India and China, combined, make up about 1/3 of the global population and incredible economic booms happening right now, all the power and money will shift away from America and move toward European and Asian markets, leaving America to rot. Africa and South America -- already in massive poverty -- will probably improve as more investment dollars freed for investment.

--- The upper crust of America will be OK, captains of industry and celebrities and other multi-multi-millionaires. They'll emigrate abroad, they'll buy citizenship in the New-New World, they'll forget America. Only middle and under-class America will suffer, the bottom 90%. Tens of millions of Americans will be unemployed; and a stupid fence won't separate America from looking like Mexico -- but whiter.

--- If you're even starting to think that America could win a war against China, let alone India and China combined, think again. If the world, or China alone, cuts America off -- no more money, no more cheap consumer goods, no more inexpensive electronics, and, most importantly no more cheap oil imports -- America would have only two choices: accept it and change or destroy the whole world. Short of the nuclear arsenal, this is the same position the empire of Japan was placed in, by America, between 1939 and 1941. Japan chose fight the world. Japan lost.