The debate over a nationalized health care program seems to have overrun every aspect of society. Every news outlet is talking about it, every office is talking about it, every family is talking about it. Sometimes I wonder if there is anything else going on in our nation or the world? Yet, just for the record, I will weigh in on this overwhelming subject.
There are definitely improvements that could be made to our current health care system. Choice and competition seem to have become the mantra of the battle cry of liberals fighting for what many affectionately call, "ObamaCare." I agree with them. We do need choice and competition. Allow us to buy health insurance across state lines. Surely that would breed the best form of choice and competition this debate could offer?
Instead, the choice and competition we're being offered will cover illegals, pay for abortions (yesterday afternoon the Senate Finance Committee voted down an amendment to the health care bill proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch ensuring federal funding would not be used for abortions), and force you to buy your own insurance, get on ObamaCare, or be fined. There are your choices and I don't like that competition.
European and other nations with socialized medicine have been hailed by the Obama administration and the main stream media for their effectiveness. I've heard the names of a lot of countries thrown out there, but there's one that, strangely, I haven't heard anyone mention yet.
Before I explain, allow me to quote a paragraph from an article published in the Chicago Tribune yesterday.
- "When an entire major party has excused itself from meaningful debate and a thoughtful U.S. senator like Orrin Hatch no longer finds it important to make sense and an up-and-comer like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty attacks the president for giving a speech telling schoolchildren to work hard in school and get good grades, one starts to wonder if the country wouldn't be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order."
If the government controls health care, the government controls the health care you receive. God forbid the day would come, but if liberals are already suggesting Republicans be "cut out," think of where government run health care could lead...
Religious profiling, you're a Christian, oh, you just get aspirin and hand sanitizer.
Ethnic profiling, you're a Jew, oh, sorry, you just get aspirin and hand sanitizer.
Political profiling, you're a Republican, oh, sorry, you just get aspirin and hand sanitizer.
Age profiling, you're 76, oh, sorry, you're no longer useful to society, you just get aspirin and hand sanitizer.
Which brings me to the country whose nationalized healthcare we haven't been hearing about.
In 1880, this people group accepted socialized medicine as part of an "anti socialization" plan which promoted the thought that a little socialization would prohibit complete socialization of their society. Doctors were no longer employed by individuals, they were employed by their government.
In 1935, this government passed a law calling for forced sterilization which allowed for abortion up to the sixth month of pregnancy. Shortly thereafter, a euthanasia program was implemented in an attempt to remove the remainder of the government's unwanted citizens. This led to experimentation in lethal altitude and ice baths (to name a very few).
You probably know by now that this nation was Nazi Germany.
The ultimate result of nationalized healthcare in Germany: "justified" torture and euthanasia.
To say that this is an extreme example is erroneous. Do you really think that the generation who allowed socialized medicine in 1880 thought that it would be used to justify scientific experimentation with the lives of those it deemed unworthy of life? Do you really think they thought it would turn into a license to kill? I don't.
We are people, just as they were. We are capable of the same evil. Maybe not in the US today, but what about 50 years from now? Are we willing to gamble with the government running health care?
When men like Garrison Keillor, the popular host of a show many of us enjoy (or used to enjoy), Prarie Home Companion, "Where women are strong and men are beautiful," are already suggesting cutting Republicans out, where do you think it will lead?
If government runs our healthcare system, they will have the ultimate choice in the care you receive. Is that the choice and competition you want?
Even if Mr. Keillor was joking, I don't think this is a laughing matter. But in fairness to him, here's the rest of his article:
- "It's time to dump the dead-end issues that have wasted too much time already. Old men shouldn't be allowed to doze off at the switch and muck up the works for the young who will have to repair the damage. Get over yourselves. Your replacements have arrived, and you should think about them now and then. Enough with the shrieking. Pass health-care reform."
By the way, those "dead-end issues" he mentions? "Abortion and prayer in the schools and pornography and gays." Still like the prospect of nationalized healthcare? You can read the rest of his article here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0930keillorsep30,0,1198390.column.
Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. The next time you hear some country lauded for its nationalized (socialized) medicine, ask yourself why they don't talk about its "success" in Nazi Germany.
(For a more detailed look at socialized medicine and its rise in Germany, this is an excellent article on the subject: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/)
No comments:
Post a Comment