Who Would Jesus Bitch Slap?

Ronald McDonald IS Jesus!

The problem with being dead for 2000 years is you have no control over how people abuse your memory. It’s time for the Second Coming of Christ, but only for him to come back and smack some fundies and Libertarians around.

Jesus advocated kindness to others and looking out for the well being of humanity as a whole. There are certainly many ways to accomplish this goal. To fundies, apparently, if they don’t like one proposed route, then they give up on the destination completely.

OneNeuronNow has been reading blogs over at the Cato Institute (motto: “It’s good to be selfish!”). They’ve summarized one that especially reinforces their biases: “‘WWJD’ – About Healthcare Reform?”.

A health policy expert at the Cato Institute believes Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan provides insight into why a new government health insurance program is a poor idea.

Actually, it provides more insight into how people will twist positive moral parables into justifications for their own greed.

Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute’s director of health policy studies, recently published a blog post on the think tank’s website titled “Health Care Reform: What Would Jesus Do?” The post, written by Cannon’s father—a Catholic theologian in Northern Virginia—took the familiar story in the Book of Luke about a man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho who “fell among thieves” and was “left half dead,” and applied that to the current debate in America over healthcare reform.

There’s a more modern version of this story. Forty-six million Americans have fallen among thieves, and many of them are being left completely dead.

Cannon says while everyone has an obligation to help those who are less fortunate, it is important how that duty is fulfilled. He contends President Obama’s desire for the government to carry out that responsibility is misguided because Jesus did not instruct his followers to form a polity or put their charity to a majority vote before acting to help those in need.

OK, then. How many uninsured Americans’ doctor bills has Cannon personally paid for?

“If you remember the Parable of the Good Samaritan, there’s a priest and a Levite who use their freedom in different ways than the Samaritan did. They chose not to help the man who was lying by the side of the road,” he points out.

So this Libertarian is telling us not to be Libertarians, who leave everybody lying by the side of the road.

“But the Samaritan used his freedom, and Jesus encouraged his followers to use their freedom to help the poor and the sick.…”

Christians make up 80% of the population. Where the hell are they? It’s easy to be a Christian when all you have to do is babble endlessly about how you’ve accepted Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior. It’s an entirely different thing when it comes to living the values, especially if those values are going to cost money.

“…And when you do that, the care that they receive ends up being better.”

Oh, yes. The health care the uninsured get is so fantastic these days! Thank you, Christians! Thank you!

Cannon argues the government’s effort to provide medical care to the poor is “an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare” because of the all the politicking and litigation involved.

All of that “politicking and litigation” comes from conservatives who don’t want to pay for end of life planning (“death panels!”) or reproductive services (“murdering babies!”) or saving the life of somebody who snuck into this country (“they aren’t humans if they aren’t Americans!”).

He and his father believe turning the duty of caring for the poor over to the government loses the “human touch” and compassion that should accompany such charity.

Then it’s a good thing that nobody is proposing turning over the health care of the poor, or anybody for that matter, to the government. It’s going to be handled by the same doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals who are providing it today.

37 Responses to “Who Would Jesus Bitch Slap?”

  1. ericsan Says:

    Or those good christians who yell “heil hitler” at jews, like the lovely Pamela Pilger
    http://www.pamelapilger.com/

  2. Kevin Says:

    Really Ron, by now you should know not to expect them to follow their own teachings. Have you learned nothing?

    Personally, I’m going to start using “Who Would Jesus Bitch Slap” in everyday conversation.

  3. sue blue Says:

    Somehow the “christian” opinion on the healthcare issue reminds me more of Cain’s snotty response to god right after he ices Abel – “Am I my brother’s keeper?” – than the “suffer the children to come unto me” attitude of Jesus. But then, the fundagelicals do seem more Old Testament-oriented anyway, what with their stance against gays, abortion, sex, etc. They are the ultimate in In-group mentality. Jesus would bitch slap them just as hard as he did the money-changers in the temple if he were real, and around today.

  4. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Cannon argues the government’s effort to provide medical care to the poor is “an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare” because of the all the politicking and litigation involved.

    Awesome. Then I’m guessing all these conservatives are ready to turn over their medicare? Somehow, I’m thinking no…

  5. arkonbey Says:

    Wait, this guy is actually saying that in the parable of the good Samaritan, the two who did not help were the good guys? That what the parable teaches us is that you don’t have to do the right thing if you don’t want to?

    another bit of silliness. That government-run healthcare would be “an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare”. Has this guy ever even heard of an HMO?

  6. Beb Brand Says:

    From “socialist” Europe: Strangely enough public health insurance (amongst other social programs in European countries) were brought to bear by coalitions between socialist and Christian Democrats, without them it would never had occurred. The CD’s in Europe remain in strong opposition of leaving the poor behind and base this on their beliefs.

    Weird that one sect leans one way, the other … O well

  7. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Wait, this guy is actually saying that in the parable of the good Samaritan, the two who did not help were the good guys? That what the parable teaches us is that you don’t have to do the right thing if you don’t want to?

    In his (very limited) defense, I believe he was saying that the rest of us need to be more like the Samaritan of our own free will (otherwise, you could argue government healthcare IS “being the Samartian”) and not like the other two. And if we all act like that, the uninsured problem will magically go away.

    Let’s do some math…

    U.S. Population: 300,000,000
    Uninsured: 40,000,000
    Average premium: $2500 (this is on the VERY LOW side to account for families costing less per-person than individuals)

    Assuming all uninsured are insurable, doofus Cannon is saying that everybody in the USA need to pony up $333 every year to take care of the uninsured. I would gladly do it, actually, if it were at all possible. How many conservative Christians would?

    another bit of silliness. That government-run healthcare would be “an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare”. Has this guy ever even heard of an HMO?

    Hell, all insurance (including ginormous employer-provided PPOs) are fricking administrative nightmares. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been wrongfully declines coverage and needed to dispute it, only for them to say “oops you’re right!” Those asshats count on people NOT DISPUTING! Then they claim it was a mistake. Yea right!

    Plus, I’m not sure how much worse HMOs are anymore. My PPO has had less coverage, higher premiums, higher deductibles, fewer in-network doctors, and fewer “preferred tier” drugs EVERY YEAR!

  8. Ron Britton Says:

    PL:

    By your rationale, a family of four would have to pay for four “shares” of the total, or $333 × 4 = $1332.

    It would actually be split up by households. There are ~112,000,000 households in the U.S. That would make each family’s share $893 to cover the uninsured.

    That does seem like a lot, but you need to view it as not only insuring other people, but it’s the cost of insuring yourself against bankruptcy if you lose your job. One thing these opponents of universal coverage don’t comprehend is how easily and quickly your world can come crashing down if you lose your job and then a family member has a major medical problem.

  9. OtherRob Says:

    One thing these opponents of universal coverage don’t comprehend is how easily and quickly your world can come crashing down if you lose your job and then a family member has a major medical problem.

    I seriously — seriously — dislike that medical insurance is provided through your employer for the exact reason you mention. And I think that we’d see cheaper rates and more “innovative” plans is the insurance companies had to compete for each individual customer like auto insurance companies do.

    As for rest of your and PL’s last two comments — and I know this is going to sound callous and I don’t believe that it is, but you guys might — I’ve already paid for insurance for four people, why should I have to pay for insurance for more people?

  10. Ron Britton Says:

    OtherRob:

    I’ve already paid for insurance for four people, why should I have to pay for insurance for more people?

    Because then that social safety net is there when you need it.

  11. Jeff Eyges Says:

    I’ve already paid for insurance for four people, why should I have to pay for insurance for more people?

    And this is why Europe works, and America doesn’t.

  12. arkonbey Says:

    I’ve already paid for insurance for four people, why should I have to pay for insurance for more people?

    Well, because those people will also paying for you when you can’t pay for your own four anymore.

  13. Parrotlover77 Says:

    PL:
    By your rationale, a family of four would have to pay for four “shares” of the total, or $333 × 4 = $1332.

    It would actually be split up by households. There are ~112,000,000 households in the U.S. That would make each family’s share $893 to cover the uninsured.

    That does seem like a lot, but you need to view it as not only insuring other people, but it’s the cost of insuring yourself against bankruptcy if you lose your job. One thing these opponents of universal coverage don’t comprehend is how easily and quickly your world can come crashing down if you lose your job and then a family member has a major medical problem.

    First: one big flaw in my math is that I said “per year” when I should have said “per month.”

    Anyway, I Agree. My point was that individuals donating that money is never going to work, as suggested. That’s why I’m for universal government coverage. If it’s a tax, you can’t avoid the responsibility (just like paying into Social Security). Additionally, a government plan will be much cheaper because there’s no administrative overhead to maximize profit and no shareholders to answer to. All that is needed is however much administrative action is necessary to ensure everything is paid and to find and catch those attempting insurance fraud.

  14. Tedlick Badkey Says:

    Personally, as a libertarian, I think the selfish moniker is as short-sighted as calling all liberals socialists.

    Enlightened self interest enforces the idea that in order for oneself to get ahead, those around oneself also must get ahead, and that should be the common goal.

    OneNEURONnow, I can agree, is a hot-bed of fundie angst, but to say all libertarians are selfish is inaccurate.

    Just my two cents.

  15. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I’ve already paid for insurance for four people, why should I have to pay for insurance for more people?

    Under the “universal” scenario we are descrbing, you aren’t paying for more people. You are paying for your share of the entire pool (which is everyone). There will be peaks (very sick people needing expensive treatments) and valleys (those who really never get sick) but everybody pays the averaged out rate. This is the entire concept of insurance. The medical insurance companies have bastardized this process to maximize profit! They want the pools to be as small as possible. This way they have everybody paying at leas the average rate, but if a small pool with a few sick people exists, they charge them the average of that pool only and not everybody.

    Okay that’s a gross overgeneralization, but the concepts are sound.

    All insurance industries are a racket. They take money for as long as they can, but do everything they can to NOT pay out claims. That’s the problem when this industry is for profit. I can deal with the for profit model when people’s lives are not at stake, but medical insurance is too important to trust to an entity whose sole purpose is to get people rich. They don’t care about you!

  16. Ron Britton Says:

    Tedlick Badkey:

    I was wondering how long it would take for someone to object to my characterization of Libertarians. I intentionally capitalized the word, because the Libertarian party is not representative of all Libertarians. The Libertarian party as a whole behaves in a selfish manner, as do the Republicans. They are out to maximize personal wealth, all other members of society be damned.

    I know a couple of small-L libertarians who are generally in favor of small government, low taxes, and minimal government intrusion into our lives who are in favor of regulation where necessary, which is any place where the free market has failed. Right now, that’s just the financial sector and health care. They aren’t in favor, necessarily, of a European-style single-payer health care system, but they consider the current situation of 46 million uninsured Americans (plus the many millions more who don’t get the coverage they think they have when they actually get sick) to be unconscionable. They want to see some sort of reform that solves this problem.

    Finally, I’m a libertarian myself. Look at this chart:

    My political position

    which we discuss here. I’m the most liberal person I know, yet according to this rating system, I’m even more of a libertarian. As you can see, libertarians span the entire left-right spectrum.

    I’ve actually cringed a bit at some of the leftist comments lately. A few people here seem to want the government to run their entire lives. I would not be comfortable in a society like that. I do prefer private industry to handle the things that it has proven itself capable of handling. You really do get more innovation that way, and most efficiency comes through innovation. However, people’s lives should not be put into competition with profit. As the American health insurance system has demonstrated over the last 80 years, that system is deadly.

  17. Tedlick Badkey Says:

    Ron, thanks much for this mini-discussion. I’ve always considered myself a “little-l” libertarian. I do not seek favor from the Libertarian party, for much of the reason’s you pointed out.

    Your views above are very similar to my own. As stated earlier, I believe it all comes down to enlightened self interest… if everyone around you is miserable and suffering, it’s only a matter of time before you will be too.

    I’ve no solution to health care, but I’m just not willing, as you pointed out earlier, to let the government entirely run my life. Wish I did have the answers, but as with most of us, I only contribute to the discussion, I do not formulate the answers.

    For the cynic’s view of where government ruled health care can lead, I offer you F. Paul Wilson’s “Lipidleggin”. (NOTE: I know nothing of this domain, they just happen to host this short story)

    There has to be a successful compromise somewhere.

    Thanks for the great blog and the open mind. The world could use a few more like you, and a lot less fundies.

    All the bliss to you and yours.

  18. Ron Britton Says:

    I just remembered one more matter in regards to the cost of universal health care. I won’t be nearly as bad as those back-of-the-envelope figures I mentioned above. Most of the 46 million uninsured are not chronic deadbeats who would sponge off the system in perpetuity. They can’t afford health insurance right now. If the system is reformed, prices will drop.

    If you can somehow figure out a way to “encourage” people to participate (short of outright compulsion), that 46 million number will drop significantly. Then for those who truly can’t afford it, we could offer subsidized premiums, just like we currently subsidize their food costs via food stamps. That only leaves the totally destitute who need to be subsidized at 100%. As you can see, that would drop the cost the rest of us pay by quite a bit.

    Some will still balk at even paying that, but that’s the cost of a social safety net. That’s the cost of living in a society. That’s the cost of the common good.

    Why should our taxes go to pay for ambulance service? I’ve never used an ambulance, and I resent having to pay for other people’s rides. (Or maybe I can’t predict the future, and want that system to be in place in case I ever do need it?)

  19. Lindsay Says:

    I’m somewhat familiar with the NHS (the UK’s system). It is far from perfect, but it does work. My husband was born with some very serious conditions that required surgery immediately after his birth and he spent the first several months of his life and intermittedly the next 3 years in the hospital. His parents both worked but they were by no means wealthy…just solid working class folk. If he had been born in the US his family would have likely been bankrupted as I doubt anyone has insurance that would cover extensive post natal care and the dozen odd surgeries he had in the first 3 years of his life.

    My best friend cannot get any health care insurance whatsoever due to a pre-existing condition. Although I have insurance, it is a complete joke and covers next to nothing (despite the fact my premiums go up every year my coverage seems to go down). One of my good friends who works as a trauma nurse is actually scared of losing her job as people aren’t coming in unless they are in dire conditions.

    I really don’t understand what people are so afraid of. Socialism is such a sad excuse…should we get rid of public schools or shall we get rid of fire and police because those are all tax supported institutions as well that benefit everyone. The death panels are a laugh…in the UK old people are not put to death, but if there is a child that needs a surgery and an older person that needs the same surgery done the child goes to the head of the line. And here I thought the fundies were all about “teh children.”

    The obesity epidemic is growing (pun not intended) and the healthcare system we have now seems to not be doing enough. The only organization that has enough power and money to make a dent at all is the government. McDonald’s and Burger King aren’t going to be working in the best interest of the people on this problem.

    Healthy people = more productive people to rev the capitalist engine. Sometimes it is worth the investment because the return is greater. Personally, I don’t think Obama & Co. are doing a very good job with the promotion. Honestly, I wouldn’t know where to start on this. But I think they need to get a PR team and devise an easy to understand strategy to get the majority of the people of this country on board with it.

  20. OtherRob Says:

    In response to my comment: “I’ve already paid for insurance for four people, why should I have to pay for insurance for more people?” Ron said:

    Because then that social safety net is there when you need it.

    and arkonbey said:

    Well, because those people will also paying for you when you can’t pay for your own four anymore.

    Believe it or not, I would not necessarily oppose a true “safety net” that would help people who are truly in desperate straights, depending on how it was set up. But this is not what is being proposed — any more than the post office is a safety net for people who can’t afford FedEx. The current “public option” is being set up as a competitor to private health insurance. A competitor that may, I believe, very well eventually drive the private insurance firms out of business, leaving the public plan as the only “option.”

    I am not saying that there aren’t problems with private insurance companies and the healthcare industry in general. I mentioned before that I believe that having employer-provided health insurance is a big part of the problem. I just don’t believe that the proposed solutions are the right ones.

    And, arkonbey, the problem with mandating that we all pay for people without insurance — with the idea that they’ll pay for us — is that this gives no incentive for those who aren’t paying for insurance to do so. The $893/year figure that Ron’s back-of-the-envelope-calculations provided is far less than I’m paying now. So it would make more financial sense for me to stop paying for my own insurance and let “those people” pay for my health insurance. And when everyone else has done that it won’t be 40 million uninsured, it will be 300 million. That $893/year suddenly becomes $6,700/year — considerably more than I’m paying now.

    And in response to my comment, Jeff Eyges said:

    And this is why Europe works, and America doesn’t.

    Jeff, I don’t know if you’re American or European (or from elsewhere), but instead of just making a snarky comment about how much better Europe is than America, how about telling me why you think the European system is better. From the other comments on this post and others, I think it’s pretty clear than Ron and PL have very different points of view about this than I do. And yet we are having a civil conversation and sharing ideas. We may never change each other’s minds (though I always try to keep an open mind), but we are engaging in an actual conversation about the issues.

    I’ve got more to say, but I’ve already run on for a while and my lunch hour is drawing to a close.

  21. Parrotlover77 Says:

    …few people here seem to want the government to run their entire lives.

    That’s a bit of a strawman, Ron. Who here has indicated wanting the government to “run their lives?”

  22. Parrotlover77 Says:

    If you can somehow figure out a way to “encourage” people to participate (short of outright compulsion)…

    Thomm Hartmann, who I greatly respect and admire (man crush), offered up a true “medicare for all” proposal that offered essentially exactly what you are describing. There’s no “free lunch” for anybody and health insurance still exist, but instead of there being this phantom undescribed “public option” the restrictions of entering medicare are changed such that if you are under 65, you can buy into it and pay premiums, just like any other health plan. Premiums for well-to-do members are adjusted such that those who are truly in need can enter the program at reduced or no-cost. It’s basically what you described up there, Ron, but using the already existing Medicare program. To top it off, his proposal is 100% budget-neutral.

    http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/08/16/dear-president-obama/

    That’s a public option I can have confidence in! Plus the glibs don’t have to pay one dime toward the poor people they so desperately don’t want to be helped via government. (I’m looking at you, John Stossel.)

  23. Parrotlover77 Says:

    OtherRob – The figures were a bit off becuase of a typo in my original post that they were based on. That’s $893/month, not year.

    Anyway, I believe the problem is that this whole thing is being oversimplified. Nobody is going to quit their life to get free health care while achieving nothing anymore than the “producers” of the world are all going to “Go Galt” once the top marginal tax rate exceeds a certain amount.

    Yes, you are correct that the public option is being proposed to be an actual competitor and not a social safety net. But this conversation is derailing a bit in many different ways, so I’m not entirely sure that it was implied that it would be a “Medicaid” program only for those who can’t afford it.

    The fact of the matter is that private insurance has failed. In many other economic sectors, this might not be bad. You have a recession, but then it ends and somebody else fills the niche.

    But this is life and death here. It’s not something I want decisions made based on profit!

    If we were talking about nationalizing all the doctors and nurses and hospitals a la NHS, I think there are good arguments to be made not to do so (and good arguments also on the flip side) and serious debate would need to happen over a long period of time.

    However, all we are talking about is how we pay for health care. And for the most part, simply how we provide basic care and soften the blow when the rare strikes and expensive treatments are the only option.

    I really do have a hard time understanding how anybody can be against nationalizing the payment (ie, insurance) methods. The insurance companies, left to their own accord, have done an absolutely terrible job.

  24. Ron Britton Says:

    PL:

    That’s a bit of a strawman, Ron. Who here has indicated wanting the government to “run their lives?”

    I’ve spent the last 15 minutes scouring the comments. I distinctly remember my feeling that several of you were advocating more government interference than I would like.

    This is the only comment I found, and it’s from Jeff Eyges:

    I’m pretty much a socialist. Ideally, I’d like more government, not less (although we don’t seem to do that well here, either).

    I’d say that qualifies. True socialism = much more government interference in our lives than we have now.

  25. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Yes, but as I’ve said – we’d screw that up, too.

    (The reason I want government to run all of your lives is because I’m too busy!)

  26. ericsan Says:

    Jeff, I don’t know if you’re American or European (or from elsewhere), but instead of just making a snarky comment about how much better Europe is than America, how about telling me why you think the European system is better.

    Just follow the money: the only people pissing and moaning about “ObamaCare” are either people with vested interest in its failure (insurance companies and pharmas), or ignorant dittoheads whipped up into a frenzy by the radical right mouthpieces on talk radio.

    Also, I don’t understand the argument about how government run insurance would drive the poor private insurance carriers out of business, especially when the same people who make it also complain that the government botches everything it does: if this was the case, then obviously it would be no competition to private insurance and therefore would only help them to thrive! So, which is it?

  27. Jeff Eyges Says:

    For the record – I live in godless liberal Boston (which is neither as godless nor as liberal as it used to be, but what is?). If my young cousins, whom I think of as my children, weren’t here in the US, and if my health were better, I’d be off to Europe in a heartbeat, like a rat deserting a sinking ship.

  28. OtherRob Says:

    Just follow the money: the only people pissing and moaning about “ObamaCare” are either people with vested interest in its failure (insurance companies and pharmas), or ignorant dittoheads whipped up into a frenzy by the radical right mouthpieces on talk radio.

    ericsan, I do not believe that I am either pissing or moaning about “ObamaCare”, nor have I ever used that phrase. I do not have a vested interest in either insurance companies or pharmaceutical interests. I’m certainly not a “dittohead”. I think the influence Limbaugh has on the Republican party is just terrible. He may be the worst thing to happen to it in a long time.

    And you can “follow the money” in may case pretty easily. It doesn’t go far. In fact, PL’s figure of an additional $893 a month (!) that I would have to pay would land me in bankruptcy in no time.

    That said, I have serious reservations about the proposed solutions, particularly the rush to get it done. That set off huge alarm bells in my mind. Why is everyone in such a hurry?

    Also, I don’t understand the argument about how government run insurance would drive the poor private insurance carriers out of business, especially when the same people who make it also complain that the government botches everything it does: if this was the case, then obviously it would be no competition to private insurance and therefore would only help them to thrive! So, which is it?

    I’m not going to say that the government botches *everything* it does, but it does seem to botch an awful lot. One of the problems with not having to answer to shareholders is that there is no incentive to be efficient or follow cost-effective practices. And that is one of the ways that a government-run plan could run a private company out of business. A government plan can operate for years and years and years without turning a profit. It can offer plans that charge below its actual costs because it is subsidized by the taxpayer. A private company can’t do that.

    Another way that it might happen is that as I understand it (and please correct me if I’m wrong) a company that currently offers health insurance to its employees can choose to stop offering coverage by paying a small fine to the government. Especially in these tough economic times, I expect a lot of companies would do this. It would only make economic sense for them. This would also have the effect of removing the choice of a lot of employees and forcing them to take the public option. And since private insurance companies only sell to employees, if enough companies dropped their plans, they would be out of business.

  29. OtherRob Says:

    I wasn’t going to do it, I really wasn’t, but my snark got the better of me.

    If my young cousins, whom I think of as my children, weren’t here in the US, and if my health were better, I’d be off to Europe in a heartbeat, like a rat deserting a sinking ship.

    If the healthcare system is so much better in Europe, how come you’re staying the U.S. in part because of your poor health?

  30. Jeff Eyges Says:

    No, because I have Chronic Fatigue, and moving would involve a colossal effort. Also, as I said, the main reason is that my kids are here.

    I mean, it was right there in the quote, Rob.

  31. OtherRob Says:

    Jeff, I would like to apologize for my last post. I shouldn’t have gotten snarky with you. It added nothing to the debate we’re having here. And I am truly sorry that your health is not better.

  32. Jeff Eyges Says:

    It’s okay; don’t worry about it.

  33. ericsan Says:

    @OtherRob: you should re-read your own posts, they’re quite enlightening.
    - turning up a profit: I fail to understand why that should be anywhere on the list of requirements for a healthcare organization. That is the very flaw of the current system, where insurance companies pay bonuses to adjusters who turn down the most claims. I’ve had a coworker with extremely serious and debilitating heart disease (we’re talking about 3 open heart surgeries here, the last one almost killed him) being denied disability coverage from his private insurance company and finding out the hard way that they do this systematically because they can get away with it. They’re essentially playing the odds that you’ll run out of money or die before you can get a lawyer to do anything about it (by the way, you can’t even take them to court)
    And recent history has shown that these big for-profit businesses are far from being the examples of efficiency and profitability the Republicans wanted us to believe: instead, they’re a complete mess where the top brass siphons away the cash while letting the company rot away.
    I mean, all it takes is a brain and a pair of eyes. It’s not that hard to figure out.

  34. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The “move if you don’t like it” argument is an interesting one. I would actually love to move to Europe, but don’t for several reasons. And I think it’s worth actually answering this question because it does come up a lot.

    A. I have a lot of family here and that’s a long distance to be from them.

    B. Immigration policies in Europe are generally very strict. I can visit there as much as I want and provide money into their economy and they are happy to have me. But if I wanted to get a job (which I would need to do) it would be a very large undertaking and a lot of red tape. If you think U.S. immigration policies have a lot of red tape, you haven’t tried to expat to Europe!

    C. The cost is very expensive to relocate to another country if you plan to keep your stuff and ship it.

    D. I would no longer be allowed to participate in local, state, and regional politics (at best) and possibly federal politics in the U.S. I have a great desire to change the system through my vote, advocacy, money, and participation in a way that I believe is best for the country. It’s my patriotic duty, I suppose. :-)

    All that said, I have yet to see an expat regret moving overseas. But I guess if you make that big of a commitment, you are pretty sure you are doing what you want to do.

  35. OtherRob Says:

    @OtherRob: you should re-read your own posts, they’re quite enlightening.
    - turning up a profit: I fail to understand why that should be anywhere on the list of requirements for a healthcare organization.

    I mean, all it takes is a brain and a pair of eyes. It’s not that hard to figure out.

    ericsan, I never said that there aren’t serious problems with the insurance and healthcare industries. I just don’t think the solutions currently being proposed — particularly the “public option” — are the solutions to those problems.

  36. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Libertarian house pets

    (From Amptoons.)
  37. Parrotlover77 Says:

    The first and last one are clearly glibby attitudes, but the middle one…? That sounds more like a republican attitude than a glib.