@Pinochet73,
The fact is that there are a number of reasons, none of them ?unchristian? or ?selfish? to be opposed to the idea of a national healthcare system. The fact is that our nation has a long history of social programs, which time and again have been demonstrable failures.
Our current welfare system can be traced to the social programs instituted under FDR in the 30?s. However, they really took off, and began to take their present shape under the ?Great Society? initiatives started under Johnson in the 60?s. His idea was to ?level the playing field? by taking from those who had and giving to those who had not, in order to give the have nots a boost up, ultimately making them self-sufficient. Since the initiation of these programs, huge amounts of our tax dollars have gone to ?giving them a boost.?
Unfortunately, these programs had exactly the opposite effect than intended. Welfare and other social programs created a class in the society wholly dependent upon the government, and by extension, the taxpayer, for their living. There were even those who claimed welfare was ?their job,? feeling no responsibility to do any work whatsoever. And each new program, each dollar spent in welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, etc, served only to increase dependence on the government, which is what the socialists intended anyway. Just as you don?t bite the hand that feeds you, you don?t vote for the politician who wants to reduce your ?entitlements.? Sort of a voter insurance policy, particularly for the Democrats.
Worse, the US government has proved to be particularly inefficient at the administration of social programs (which a healthcare program would be). The last figures I read stated that for each dollar taken in taxes for welfare and other social programs, 40 to 60 cents was used in program administration. Think about that for a minute. That means that government run social programs carry a 40% to 60% overhead cost. Any charitable foundation that showed the same overhead would quickly find itself out of business for a lack of donors, if not shut down by the government. Yet we meekly accept this as the best our government can do. Worse, we want to turn the responsibility for our health care over to this inefficient entity.
In the end, what it boils down to is this: As we increase the number of things our government pays for, we increase our dependence on that government. Sooner or later, this dependence will be our undoing. We must stand on our own two feet. We cannot continue to penalize people for hard work. A 75-year experiment was conducted in the old Soviet Union based on just these principles. As I recall, that didn?t work out so well.
I do have a question, one that I have asked elsewhere before: When is it enough? When am I allowed to say that you are taking enough of what I make to ?better others? lives,? I want to keep the rest to better the lives of my family? Aaronssongs, when can I say this and not have you accuse me of being evil, or unchristian? Does that point ever come? Or should I continue to meekly accept every social program you think is necessary in order to ?level the field,? to be more ?Christlike? until my entire paycheck goes to helping others, yet leaving me destitute? After all, no matter how much is taken from me by the government, I still make way too much to qualify for any aid from the government.
Another question: Why is it unreasonable of me to say I want to stand on my own? Why is it unreasonable for me to expect that others who are fully capable of doing so to stand on their own as well?
And I have yet to have one proponent of a national healthcare proposal show me any other program or institution that covers 85% of our population that is still considered to be a failure.
