The problem with “Progressives”
September 24, 2011 § Leave a comment
I read an article in the Huffington Post this morning called “Ron Paul’s good old days” by some doctor/bleeding heart named Bob Crittenden. He flat out claims that Ron Paul is “wrong” about medicine before the federal government created Medicare and Medicaid. According to Dr. Crittenden, before Medicare, there were crumbling churches filled to the brim with “writhing” elderly who were frequently “talking to themselves”. Then came God’s gift to American society, Medicare, which swooped down from heaven, grabbed all the poor and elderly, and saved them from the torturous hell that is private charity.
Thank God for Medicare. I mean, who would’ve guessed that the federal government could prevent old people from mumbling themselves to sleep. Hallelujah!
As if his word wasn’t enough to convince you of the perils of private charity, Dr. Crittenden actually looked for a second opinion(indeed!)!
I asked James Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, whether his 33,000 congregations could step up and fill that gap. His reply? “A great many of these churches struggle simply to pay the health care premiums of the pastor. It is inconceivable that local churches in the United States could possibly cover the medical expenses of the uninsured. They do not do so now and could not do so if the Medicare program were terminated.”
Well that settles it. Socialized healthcare for all. If James Winkler says so, then it must be. Never mind the fact that health care premiums are so high because of government involvement.
Finally, the good Dr. Crittenden leaves us with the most damning evidence of all:
So, can and would churches care for everyone who fell through the cracks now — like Ron Paul’s own campaign manager who had the bad fortune to have a pre-existing condition and, therefore, was unable to buy affordable insurance. He had to raise $400,000 to cover the cost of his care
Wow, Ron Paul, what a hypocrite he is. Doesn’t he realize that high insurance costs kill people? What a heartless, old fashioned, and immoral man.
In all seriousness, this just goes to show the incredible amount of arrogance that these so called “progressives” espouse. Everything about progressivism strikes me as arrogant. I mean, what a pompous name for any ideology. How does one define “progressive”? Don’t libertarians and conservatives consider their own ideas a “progressive”? Essentially, the term “progressive” insinuates that if I believe in free markets and individual liberty as the guide to societal progress, then I must be , by definition, regressive.
These so called progressives fall victim to the myth “if government doesn’t do it, no one will”. This entire concept makes no sense– and obviously, the facts tell us the contrary is true. When you get down to it, progressives are nothing more than individuals who feel so strongly about helping the needy, that they throw reason out the window and ignore the idea that anyone besides the state could provide for those in need. This is the essential difference between a libertarian and a liberal. Both groups care for the needy and hope to provide the most for every individual, but the progressives take the reactionary, and seemingly obvious stance that the state must provide these services. On the other hand, libertarians look harder. They see the same issue, but they strive to find the real solution.
A couple weeks back at the Republican presidential debates at the Reagan Library, Ron Paul made a pretty strong point:
“We talk so much about the Obama mandate which is very important, but what about Medicare, isn’t that a mandate? Everything we do is a mandate.”
Like usual, Ron was dead on. Libertarians don’t oppose government help merely because it’s inefficient and almost never does what it intended. Libertarians oppose government action because, by it’s very nature, the state must use force to justify the means by which it enacts any policy. In other words– there is no choice. In theory, I could care less if a large swath of the American public wants to waste it’s time on some ponzi scheme like social security–just leave me out. But of course, such systems would never work without a government mandate. The coercive force of government monopoly is always justified by so called progressives by using arbitrary terms like “the public good.”
In the end, central planning of any industry will always fail, and “socialization” always inevitably requires such planning. But hey, anything for the “good of the people”, right?