The Alabama Moderate

Painting the Red State Purple.

  • Hit Counter

    • 41,253 hits
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • May 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « Apr   Jun »
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031
  • Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

    Yahoo! Avatars

A Moderate Proposal

Posted by ALmod on May 12, 2009

Given the opposition to any form of govenrment-sponsored healthcare, I’d like to propose my own solution to the problem.

We should allow women to get pregnant and sell their children, born or otherwise, as a form of income.

Completely free capitalism is good.  We know this to be true.  In a market where healthcare is a privillege and not a right, we believe that the right to live or die should be determined by the free market and corporations. What this means is that we are more than willing to place a dollar value on a human life.  And why not take advantage of this as the money-making opportunity that it is by actually buying and selling human lives?

Those who have no young children to offer need not worry.  There are perfectly good opportunities involving older inventory, such as family members who are desperate to insure the well-being of their loved ones and the next-door neighbor’s son, who has a nasty habit of playing his car radio too loudly at all hours.  Those who can afford a new heart will pay top dollar to those who are in need of money and are willing to sell.  In fact, those who cannot afford better healthcare are surely going to die anyway, so we can “kill two birds with one stone” by saving on the cost of their healthcare and discontinuing their drain on the system and in fact making money for others.

This new human life market will undoubtedly save our economy as well.  As poor women who can’t afford birth control are able to sell off their unborn children, they will bring in more personal disposable income– turning them into valuable consumers.  As they spend, corporations will make money and hire new workers.

The government would save billions of dollars on entitlement programs.  There would be no need to argue over government funding of abortions, as the practice would obviously pay for itself.  We could then focus on paying down debt or “liberating” some random country– whatever comes first.  (I hear that New Zealand is still trying to break off from British rule.  I say it’s time the Kiwis had “democracy.”)

We as upstanding, moral Americans believe that nobody should have the ability to play God and decide if a sick person has the right to live or die– unless it is a corporation.  Dollar amounts are assigned to individuals every day.  Why not use this as the opportunity that it is?

Advertisements

7 Responses to “A Moderate Proposal”

  1. Brian said

    That is a poor attempt to dismiss market based health care. A market transaction is one in which two consenting parties trade goods or services. The “goods or services” cannot include another human due to basic human rights (think slavery). People are not property, which you would have to believe for your argument to hold water. It is entirely different than the argument of whether a person should be able to sell a kidney to another person who wants a kidney. No third party stands to be harmed there.

  2. ALmod said

    Oh, but it’s exactly the same. Let’s break this down, shall we?

    “A market transaction is one in which two consenting parties trade goods or services. The ‘goods or services’ cannot include another human due to basic human rights (think slavery).”

    The “goods or services” of healthcare are a necessity of human life, not a luxury. When the absence of healthcare determines that a person dies, you are essentially trading a human life as “goods or services.” And as you yourself have argued before, we are placing a price on the worth of a human life. We are determining whether or not someone deserves to live or die based on what their salary is or their mother’s medical history. It has been done, it can be done, and it is done every day.

    “People are not property, which you would have to believe for your argument to hold water. It is entirely different than the argument of whether a person should be able to sell a kidney to another person who wants a kidney. No third party stands to be harmed there.”

    Are you really arguing in your last sentence that the denial of healthcare hurts nobody? In fact, in order to believe that the private system should continue to handle heathcare, you must believe that a human life is a commodity– in which it is just as fair game as any other commodity.

    It comes down to one of two possibilities:

    1. Either human life is too precious and too valuable to be determined as a thing of profit, or

    2. It is not.

    You can’t pick and choose. Sometimes we just tend to overcomplicate things. Is it any wonder why we spend more on healthcare than any other country but rank a whopping #37 in quality of care? Is it any wonder why Americans live shorter lives and are less healthy than people in other civilized countries?

  3. Brian said

    You’re argument assumes an infinite supply of resources to deliver an unlimited supply of health care. That is unrealistic. Health care must be rationed. The question is how is the rationing determined: by the market or by a bureaucrat?

  4. ALmod said

    How about we start with what works elsewhere and go from there? Seems to me that if you want to be rich, you would do what a rich person does. If you want to have the best healthcare in the world, then you might want to take a look at what France and Italy (ranked #1 and #2) are doing.

  5. Ben said

    ALmod,

    Your argument is ridiculous. Food, water, and housing are also necessary to human life. Maybe the government should provide those to everyone, too. Hello, Comrade!

    As for the European healthcare systems and their supposed successes, you conveniently ignore several inconvenient facts:

    1) We provide the security umbrella which allows the Europeans to generously fund their nanny states. Thus, the EUniks are not actually paying the full bill for their “generosity.”

    2) Another way these systems fudge the math is that they currently benefit from freeloading off the American system. By cutting out almost all profits, the investment capital required to make new medical advancements comes almost entirely from the U.S. If we go socialist, who will pay the bill then?

    3) Rankings of healthcare systems are entirely dependent on what metrics one uses. Looking merely at mortality rates, etc. is bogus, because a nation’s “health” depends as much on lifestyle choices and culture as anything else. No doctor, socialized or not, can make you quit smoking and eat your veggies.

    4) Socialized medicine does not work. Just ask the thousands of Canadians who come to the U.S. every year to pay out-of-pocket for life-saving procedures that their government cannot or will not provide in a timely fashion. Furthermore, take a look at Britain’s crumbling hospital system or the fact that almost half of Europe’s doctors now have to be imported from the Third World because almost no native-born Europeans want to do that job anymore due to poor pay and low job satisfaction.

    But here’s the thing that really gets me about these kind of liberal arguments: Behind all the emotional bloviating, there is a determined effort to utterly ignore economic facts. We already have “government healthcare” in Medicare, and the program is almost insolvent. You can bitch and moan all you want about the inhumanity of not having a healthcare entitlement, but you can’t magically conjure up the money to pay for it.

    So how good do you think our healthcare system will be if the U.S. goes bankrupt? And don’t think it can’t happen.

  6. Andrew said

    Health care is not and should not be a right. A right implies that no one can deprive you of something. To make something a right you must make sure you are not imposing on someone else. Our Bill of Rights does not have a single right that requires someone to do something in order for someone else to exercise a right. You can speak without someone else. You can believe a religion without someone else. You can own a gun, not incriminate yourself and have due process without someone else. You cannot have health care without doctors, nurses, technicians and other people who must provide these services. To declare health care a right is to declare these people slaves. Maybe not exactly like slavery was in the USA 150 years ago, but they must work whether they want or not. If you say they will be paid an amount that no one would turn down, then those of us producing that wealth to pay them are slaves. I would be required to work so many hours to benefit someone else before I could benefit myself. This is a form of slavery or perhaps indentured service. Either way it is wrong.

    This is not an argument for or against national health care. Merely an argument that it should not be considered a right.

  7. PB said

    That is a poor attempt to dismiss market based health care. A market transaction is one in which two consenting parties trade goods or services. The "goods or services" cannot include another human due to basic human rights (think slavery). People are not property, which you would have to believe for your argument to hold water. It is entirely different than the argument of whether a person should be able to sell a kidney to another person who wants a kidney. No third party stands to be harmed there.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: