One of Mitt Romney’s sons said his dad was a most reluctant candidate. Well why did he run? He certainly wasn’t drafted by his party. Kind of sounds like sour grapes voiced through his son.
But Romney did ironically get 47 percent of the vote. I say ironically because of course that is the number he declared as being the amount of people who would vote against him. You know, those among us who want handouts from government and to share in everyone else’s wealth.
I feel I got a dose of the mindset of some of the disgruntled voters who feel some of their neighbors might be delusional in their thinking and voted for the wrong guy, in some cases voting against their own interests. A customer in a local business was talking politics:
He was primarily commenting on Obamacare. He said what it means is that the government will be taking over the role of deciding who gets care and who does not and basically if you are elderly then it may well be decided you don’t need certain medical procedures because you are too near death anyway, and I am paraphrasing but that is what he clearly was saying.
He said that if you don’t pay for your health care but the government does it will make all the decisions. Now of course Obamacare does not directly provide for universal health care but its intention is to make health care insurance coverage available to everyone, partly through government-sponsored or administrated health care exchanges, but private enterprise is still supposed to be involved, except in cases where people have no means to pay at all.
But here is some anecdotal evidence I am aware of, and it is second hand, but I did hear it from someone I know (the incident was several years ago). She took a mentally handicapped person in for I believe a bone fracture of some kind and this someone was covered under some type of Medicaid coverage (government insurance). The doctor told the caregiver that it was not worth it to do the necessary things for a complete healing due to this handicapped person’s already existing quality of life. Okay, second hand, sounds far fetched. But probably anyone who has been around these situations knows there is truth here. And by the way, this person did get a full recovery and has full use of limbs, thanks to the insistence of the caregiver.
A doctor once pointed out to me that much of the money spent in medical care is for people late in life. We spend one heck of a lot of money to help people live marginally longer than they would otherwise in many cases (I certainly am not saying this is wrong, just relaying an observation) .
Whatever, it probably is best to have medical coverage you pay for yourself, but not everyone can afford that. With the government taking a larger role it is conceivable that private insurance could be forced out of the market.
Meanwhile the premium on the company health insurance where I work has gone up again this year and as usual the coverage has been reduced. Somehow I don’t see the magic of the free market working here and this state of affairs has been going on long before Obamacare.
It seems that the health care business defies free market rules.
The man I was talking about also despaired that possibly his own neighbors were among the culprits who voted for the wrong guy (and he had a harsher description than “wrong“).
There is really no central point to this post. I was just commenting on some things I heard or read:
A man who supposedly did not want to be president did not become president — big surprise. Everyone complains about health care coverage but no one knows how to fix it. Neighbors are suspicious that the idiots next door voted for the wrong person (that could go two ways).
I think much of the support for not raising taxes under any circumstances on anyone in the current fiscal cliff standoff comes from the notion that raising taxes just means a more vigorous redistribution of wealth from those who work for it (or live off the earnings of others before them who did) to those who either do not or are less inclined to. Again, I am not stating my opinion here, just making an observation. I am a moderate who can see that a concentration of wealth in an ever smaller segment of society leads to grave problems for society as a whole. For one thing it threatens the existence of a middle class and the middle class is what brought us the kind of democracy we enjoy today (even if I do personally get tired of all the hand wringing over saving the middle class, as if they should not be taxed one cent more). And I believe strongly in social programs, but am just as strongly against socialism as a form of government. I read a line in a story about modern Cuba (the Castro brothers’ socialist state) where the majority of the people work for the government. A worker was quoted as saying: “We pretend to work and the government pretends to pay us”. I’d ask: “how’s that socialism working out for you?” (of course a multi-decades long embargo by the U.S. has skewed things and interfered a lot with the Cuban economy). Cuba used to be self sufficient but these days has to import most of its food, according to the article.