who pays?

  Universal health care. It's a topic of discussion and contention. The debate really centers around whether I should have to pay for your healthcare. That's the real discussion. Should the government mandate that? I have to pay for your healthcare and pay for my own as well? Beyond any moral or ethical obligations I may feel, should I have to pay? We are talking about legislated charity. When there are no restrictions placed upon eligibility or entitlement, it is just straight up charity. Is charity a human right. I don't believe it is. Charity is exactly what it says it is, a gift. 

  Here in the United States we do have a few forms of universal health care. Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare function as a form of universal health care. Other nations in the world have similar programs. But when we hear universal health care people are thinking about getting any and all medical procedures provided for free to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for those services. The government will decide how much the provider gets paid for those services. Those fees will be set, universally. Everyone gets paid the same.

  If the government is going to operate as a charitable organization shouldn't that charity extend to other things as well? Shouldn't I have a home equal to yours, even though I can't pay for that? Shouldn't I be able to eat at any fine dining establishment I want without having to pay for that? If we are going to say the government should provide equally for all, doesn't that mean all? I don't work but I want that new car, I should be given that car, you should buy it for me and pay for the insurance, gas, maintenance and car washes, it's only fair. Just because I can't afford it, is no reason for me not to have that. 

  If we are going to provide universal health care then everyone, regardless of their ability to pay, should be provided with exactly the same care. Obama care was widely touted as a great step forward. But what did it actually do? It forced insurance companies to accept otherwise ineligible people into their systems. It forced the taxpayers to pay for more services. It tried, and failed , to impose a universal fee on every taxpayer in the country! That fee was for failure to purchase insurance! Well, unless you couldn't afford that insurance that is. Then a one time fee was to be imposed. The plan being to take some of your other free stuff instead. The whole plan is just a shell game. It does force the taxpayers to pay for those that can not pay, to a degree. A great deal of the shell game involves programs/schemes to prevent the insurance companies from simply folding up shop and getting out of the business. Yeah, it is called the "affordable care act" in an effect to make it sound good. The key word is still, affordable. It isn't free! And that is the bottom line no matter how you look at it. 

  Universal health care. Who pays for that? Should you be forced to pay for those that are unable or unwilling to purchase their own insurance? If I can get it for free, why would I pay for it? That's the bottom line in the discussion. Or we are we really going to say it is need based. If you can afford insurance, you have to buy insurance. But we can't even tell those receiving free benefits for food what food they can purchase. They have a right to potato chips, sugary drinks and anything else they want. If they want to buy lobster it's their right! Can we really tell them they can't have the very finest medical team in the country. The hospitals and drug manufacturers must provide everything, for free to whoever comes in the door, no questions asked. 

  Why don't we call it what it is, socialized medicine. Well, because here in the United states we are anti-socialism aren't we? We have a constitutional republic, a form of representative government where all men are created equally. My opinion is just as important as yours! Socialism dictates PUBLIC ownership of property and natural resources. Private ownership is forbidden. Well, unless you're Bernie Sanders then you call yourself a democratic socialist. You're not really a socialist, but you still control everything, no private ownership. Property and business will be controlled "democratically" by a vote from the ruling class, who aren't communists or socialists, they're democrats! They will decide how much you get, when you get it, and how much you can have. 

  It is all a matter of creating dependence. That's the entire plan in a nutshell. When you can make the population dependent upon your charity you can control that population. You may have to deny them certain things, like the right to self defense or control of the food supply, but as long as you provide the "free" stuff most will comply. The biggest problem to overcome is getting the wealth away from those that earned it. People sure are touchy about that. Funny how just because it is their wealth they think they don't have to give it away, you know, when they have enough. And that is the specialty of those socialist democrats. They know when you have enough! It's anytime you have more than they do.