"I would like to say 'This book is written to the glory of God', but nowadays this would be the trick of a cheat, i.e., it would not be correctly understood."--Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Talk to me about the truth of religion, and I'll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I'll listen submissively. But don't come talking to me about the consolation of religion or I shall suspect that you don't understand."--C.S. Lewis
Friday, September 29, 2017
It's Funny What Matters
Sen. Al Franken, in an interview, described the healthcare system in America as follows: if you're on Medicare/Medicaid, you're on the Canadian system (single payer); if you're in the military, you're on the British system (socialized medicine); if you're on employer provided insurance, you're on the German system; and if you aren't in any of those three, you're on the Cambodian system.
For reasons I cannot now recall I was using the "debate" over Graham-Cassiday as an example of...well, something, to my English class. I pointed out the argument for it was it returned control of healthcare to the states, which are closer to the people and will do a better job because government close to the people is better than government in D.C., far from the people. And yet, I said, I'm 62, so the best system for me is one controlled by the state (Texas), for three more years. Once I turn 65, the best healthcare for me will be provided from the hated Washington, D.C. Because apparently once I'm 65, my regional proximity to the seat of government doesn't matter, and I will get medical care coverage that I've yet to hear anyone on Medicare complain about. Medicare coverage that is still so popular no politician in Washington would THINK of changing it.
So, how is this? And why do we think some people deserve to be on the Cambodian system, in this greatest and richest and bestest of all possible countries? Because they are lazy? Because they are darker shades of brown? Both?
And by the way, why is Medicare too expensive for all but the over 65 crowd? Because it's money that matters and people are too damned expensive? If money isn't for people, who is it for? According to classical Christianity, the earth and all that fills it is for humans, who are responsible for maintaining it, not charged with exploiting it. How does that accord with classical economics, which seems to be that money matters for the sake of money (or for the sake of those who have it, and screw those who don't)?
Clearly insurance is too expensive to be wasted on the poor and unemployed and underemployed (employed, but not enough to get insurance coverage), because it's money that matters and people are too damned expensive. Good thing we have our priorities rights and are concerned with who is standing when on football fields during professional football games, and what is has to do with what the President says.
These things that pass for priorities I don't understand.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
What's weird is that Medicare ostensibly covers people who are too expensive to cover as a general rule, being OLD and shit.ReplyDelete