Half-baked liberal morality

Interesting.... when the dems run out of logic and reason, they go for morality. Or try to. But it's a kind of nonsensical morality, like putting a Band-Aid on an amputation. It never works really well and in the end, they kill the patient.

The pro-socialized medicine argument-of-the-week from dems is that socialized medicine is the "right" thing to do. What a load of garbage.

• Socialized medicine eliminates peoples' choices of health care providers and therapies;
• Socialized medicine eliminates physicians' choices of therapy and patients;
• Socialized medicine generates shortages and rationing;
• Socialized medicine reduces the likelihood of medical innovation and research;
• Socialized medicine relieves health care providers of liability for what they do;
• Socialized medicine is bankrupting several nations now, and so is Medicare in the USA;
• Socialized medicine swamps medical facilities with trivial complaints -- what the hell, you're paying for it whether you want to or not, might as well take advantage;
• Socialized medicine eliminates the incentives of income and status for health care providers;
• Socialized medicine will cost much more than privately-funded care because it includes no incentives for cost-savings or efficiency;
• etc.

See anything "good" about any of the above?

Socialized medicine does not raise the availability or the standard of care for anyone. It does just the opposite: it reduces availalibility and standard of care to its lowest common denominator, spreads availability and care very wide and dismally thin over the entire population.

In addition, if health care is a matter of government policy, social engineering becomes an imperative, because we'll all be paying for fat peoples' heart attacks and for skinny peoples' anorexia. We'll be compelled -- by law and burdensome taxation -- to strive for some kind of plain-vanilla somewhere-in-the-middle "healthy" behavior. 'Course, the standard of healthy behavior changes every few years and according to every published study. So we'll all just be pushed and pulled in every direction, mindless lumps of flesh for the Health Care Czar to experiment with.

Eat a pound of broccoli every day. No! Too much vitamin K. Do 50 crunches before work every morning. And die of cardiac arrest. Medicine isn't an exact science. I think standardization and best practices would be very hard to come by without trial-and-error on hundreds of thousands of patients.

Like, some people thought thalidomide was really cool for pregnant women. Unti there was an epidemic of babies born with two or three heads. And estrogen-replacement therapy? Estrogen makes things grow -- including cancers. 

So what's right and wrong here?

Do you "help" people by making them dependent? By taking away their right to make their own decisions and live their own lives? By eliminating their incentive for acting on their own behalf? By divorcing actions from consequences?

Those in favor of socialized medicine regard the American public as 300 millions toddlers who don't know what they're doing and are incapable of running their own lives and making their own decisions. Personally, I find that very insulting. And the thought of an Anthony Weiner making my meal choices is sort of revolting.

So we're too stupid to manage our own health care, but the ultimately we have to make enough money to pay truckloads of taxes for this socialized health care scheme. Funny how we're bright and able enough to pay for other peoples' government-dictated insurance, but not our own. What's wrong with this picture?

Or, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money."

Then no one gets health care and you can't even pay your rent.

Sound like a "good" plan?

As an added bonus, the free market in health care is destroyed. Or goes underground. That may be the best outcome of socialized medicine -- it promotes the development of an unregulated black market. But that only means tougher decisions for citizens, who would be dealing with largely unreliable information about providers and services.

So tell me again, is socialized medicine a "good" thing? Now tell me what your reasoning is based on except for what's come to be known as "liberal guilt" and its up-side: self-serving liberal totalitarianism, or what Mark Levin calls "soft tyranny."

"Good" for who?