Why the Republican objections and talking points are nonsense

[fpb]

One: there already are death panels in American health care provision. They are the accountants who decide how long the companies can afford to give healthcare to customers who have chronic or expensive conditions.

Two: the Republican notion that the current system can be tweaked or bullied to remedy such problems is nonsense. It is positively crazy. If seriously pursued, it will lead to a situation where corporations have to deficit spend to keep patients with chronic and expensive conditions alive, which will eat into their budgets and threaten the rise of a Fannie May and Freddie Mac situation.

Three: in order to deal with chronic, expensive or long-term cases, there is need of a body which is not only capable of but allowed to deficit spend. There is only one such body: the State. The State routinely deficit spends on such things as the police and the military, the courts and the jails, which never will bring in an income but which are indispensable for society. Indeed, Adam Smith's classic definition of the "expenses of the sovereign", by which he meant the public sector, is: all those expenses which are necessary for society but which the private sector cannot profitably pursue.

Four: it is an atrocious lie that people who demand a right to health care are "inventing new rights". The denial of health care to anyone is the denial of the three basic rights: life, because it places the person in the immediate and evident danger of death; liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, because it reduces what is left of life to a despairing struggle to be allowed to draw a few more breaths. If you think this is what the Founders meant, you are not only a fanatic, but a sadist.

Comments

Re: One must, then, either be a sadist or a statist?

[fellmama.livejournal.com]

Imitating eighteenth-century shorthand in livejournal comments makes you come across as an enormous tool, regardless of the actual content of said comments. FYI.

Re: One must, then, either be a sadist or a statist?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I am not sure which of the two of us you are criticizing - we both tend to err towards an ornate neoclassical kind of prose.

Re: One must, then, either be a sadist or a statist?

[fellmama.livejournal.com]

Yr friend above.

Not recognising standard British abbreviations, however -

[wemyss.livejournal.com]

- is the sort of thing that frustrates those of us who urge people not to be reflexively anti-American.

Re: Not recognising standard British abbreviations, however -

[fpb.livejournal.com]

OK. Pax, everyone. fellmama, you might consider that wemyss has paid me an implicit compliment by assuming I could deal with his brand of elaborate English. (The fact that I did not understand one or two of the things he said seems to hint that the compliment was excessive.) And I have to tell you that, for private reasons, he would find the description "an enormous tool" rather less displeasing than you think. 8-)