Recently, I received an e-mail asking me to call my senators to ask them to require insurance companies to cover autism AND to vote for a government-run health care system, since we are all equal and deserve equal health care. I agree with the former, but feel so strongly against the latter, that I decided to write about it here.
I simply can’t agree with a socialist system in which the government takes over health care, essentially forcing those with jobs to work hard, long hours to pay for those who are unwilling or who can’t work. In a perfect world, where there are no lazy people or people whose sense of entitlement makes them feel the world owes them a living, this would work well, but unfortunately, we don’t live in that kind of world.
There are too many who demand housing, health care, cars, etc., but are not willing to work for these benefits, or who are not willing to go to school in order to increase their wages. Thus, everyone isn’t “equal” with regards to working hard, and should not receive equal health care, housing, or other benefits. Of course, I’m not talking about unfortunate or ill people, or people who through no fault of their own do not have a job, but able-bodied people who essentially live off others because they’re lazy and won’t stick with anything. (I have seen too many who fall into this category.) There are also too many executives stealing from the tax coffers, too many politicians with their pet pork projects. This GREATLY reduces the money spent on needed programs. Placing health care in the hands of the government only increases the likelyhood of further misue of funds.
As an American people, we are already being taxed at more than 50%. I only regret that our founding fathers didn’t put a cap of 10% on taxes as they originally intended (they thought 10% was so astronomically high that it would never be an issue). A question I ask myself is what right do I have to punish hardworking people and make them pay for my medical care? Because that is what a government-run health care system means.
Better to cut taxes and let businesses hire more people so those people can pay their own bills. And think of how much good people could do for those less fortunate if only the government would take their hands out of people’s pockets so they have even a little more money to spend. While most Americans currently give only 2% of their wages to charity, I know people who typically give 15% to 20% of their funds to charities every year, even in this day and age. That’s after they’ve already paid huge tax bills. I’m sure they’d do much more if given the chance.
At present about 10% of the top-earning people pay 90% of the taxes. Should we make them pay even more? What right to we have to demand that, whether they obtain the money by working themselves to death, running businesses, or as an inheritance from their families?Historically, government-run health care generally means a basic, no frills system, where the best care is not given to recipients. I know the current system isn’t working well, but I strongly feel government isn’t the answer, except, perhaps, to regulate insurance and drug companies, who I agree are taking advantage of the American people. (And then there’s the whole other claim that there are many cures and promising research that are hidden or cut so that people will remain on expensive medicine their entire lives, which I believe but won’t discuss here.)
Regulation of insurance and drug companies, I heartily endorse, but I believe free, equal coverage for all will only mean a mediocre system for everyone, including those who work three times as hard as everyone else. (IMO, our education system is a good example of this.)
In the end it seems the only certain thing is that we are all born with the equal opportunity to become unequal. What we make of this life is up to us. We must not depend on government to force others to rescue us from our problems. Hard work is the only moral answer.
My heart goes out to all those who are experiencing medical problems and despite their best efforts are unable to pay for them. I hope you get what you need from family and from caring people who give to charities. As someone who donates regularly, you are the type of person I hope my funds will help.
2 Responses to “Government Heath Care Isn’t the Answer”
Rachel Ann Nunes
Please do not put words in my mouth. I NEVER said that all unemployed people were lazy, nor was it my intention to imply such. Yes, indeed, there are hard-working people who cannot find jobs, and they are those I would number among the "unfortunate" who are deserving of help. I would also include single mothers among the unfortunate.
Please see my next blog for clarification.
I wish you the best Anna Maria and I respect your opinion, but on issue this we will have to agree to disagree.
Anna Maria Junus
There are also those people who can't find jobs.
Or how about people who have jobs but someone gets sick in the family and they lose everything.
Sorry I disagree with you. Health care should not just be for the rich. Should a child die from cancer because her parents can't pay the medical bills?
I'm fortunate to live in a country where we do have health care. I don't abuse it. I hate going to the doctor. On the other hand, if I need to I know it's there.
By the way, I'm a single mom who can't find a job. There's a lot of us out there. And at one point the Lord told me not to get a job because He wanted me home with the kids.
Christ would want us to take care of each other. You can't just automatically assume that if someone is unemployed that he's lazy and should therefor deserve to die or have family members suffer.
Even in the bible the people were instructed to leave behind some of their crop so the poor could take it and use it.
One day you too could find yourself without a job. It can happen to anyone.
I haven't heard any of my fellow Canadians complain about having national Health Care. We consider it a blessing.