Wednesday, May 10, 2017

The Inescapable Responsibility of Choice

May 10, 2017

Sent to Texas Monthly Magazine - a response to their March 2017 edition that included an article on the "Faces of Obamacare".

I write to comment (for publication) on the “Faces of Obamacare”; scribed by: Mr. Michael Hall, March 2017 edition.  I am (currently) a subscriber to Texas Monthly.  The article includes several presumptive conclusions, numerous omissions, and a perfidious premise; promulgated profoundly and explicitly to engender an obligatory sympathy.  Individually, and conjoined, these items are relevant to the health insurance topic.  Unfortunately, the article’s content belayed through omission, the onerous, life altering consequences of Obamacare experienced by a majority of Texans & Americans.

Consider: If a homeowner's dwelling catches fire and burns to the ground, is the homeowner entitled to purchase insurance, after the fire - to recover his loses? Conventional logic and fiscal solvency say no.  An insurance policy, defined, is an instrument designed to abrogate misfortune, which is purchased, BEFORE the misfortune occurs.  Insurance is a hedge purchased in anticipation of a disaster.  The idiom cannot function if a person is permitted to purchase coverage to recover their losses - after the misfortune occurs.  Insurance mandates a person pay to join the insurance collective - if offsetting the costs of misfortune is their objective. People who never bought insurance, regardless of their motivations, who later developed an illness, are not entitled to the benefits of insurance - by virtue of their existence.

Perfidious Progressive Premise:
By virtue of birth, a person existing within the borders of the United States is entitled to make claims upon the property, time, and effort of his fellow countrymen.  No logic, or rational argument, enjoins this gratuitous assertion.  It is a pretentious petard with perverse purpose, hoisted by Progressive politicians upon the body politic – the citizenry.  Religious morality (as a potential causality) is  “Strang Verboten”.  Ergo, an alternative causality must be operative.  Oppressive and insidious language is introduced to compel compliance from the feeble minded - as a dull wit often improperly digests the language in a religious context: “Good Intentions”.  American compassion, based upon a historical anecdote, is bludgeoned and tortured for use in the diabolical narrative.  The Little Guy… the Under Dog… is a popular and compelling emotional solvent unique to Traditional America, where an everyman by using his wits, efforts, and persistence overcomes adversity.  The premise promulgated is not that.    

So who are the people whose birth entitles them to make claims upon his fellowman’s property, time, and efforts?  The English language has a word for them – Ne’er-do-wells.  Ne’er-do-well is another “N” word Progressives despise and fervently work to remove from the lexicon.  They’ve been moderately successful. The term worthless, is one Progressives do not recognize when describing their supporters – irrespective of the appropriateness, and/or accuracy of, the term. 

Dictionary dot com renders the following definition for Ne’er-do-well:  Adjective; “…an idle, worthless person; a person who is ineffectual, unsuccessful, or completely lacking in merit; good-for-nothing”.  Feckless is an alternative adjective.  Whenever a person is unwilling to heed the advice for success in life; advice honed and proofed over millennia, and uses their free will to choose the behaviors of sloth and self indulgence, to the exclusion of all the opportunities presented to every American – school, employment, and goodwill, at some juncture they are responsible for their plight in life.  This analysis runs afoul of Progressive pontification which asserts every life is owed subsidy, regardless of the choices exercised to obtain ignominy.  These choices and outcomes are often additionally burdened  when a woman chooses to bring another life into the failed existence.  In America, she is rewarded for that choice with additional money and other subsidies that are misapplied and squandered to gratify the sloth and self indulgent behaviors.  Compounding misfortune, some Ne’er-so-well employ crime and drug abuse to abet their misfortunes – after calculating the gains they are certain to access from the short-sighted indulgence.  Immediate gratification ignites and sustains these choices.  Long-term considerations and the sacrifices inherent in that planning option seldom materialize. A lifetime of simplistic, egocentric, dilatory decision taking typically renders its due – poverty and misfortune. 

The Progressive Premise indulges these behaviors and choices, and more – they superciliously obligate others (Tax Payers) whenever prescribing policies to confiscate their property, time and efforts, for the purpose of mitigating the disaster forged from Ne’er-do-well behaviors.  These behaviors are chronic, they’ve endured since the dawn of mankind, but recently they are sanctioned and sacrosanct.  A political purpose drives these actions.  The Progressive political aspirations are exclusively tailored to addict the irresponsible to government policies and programs.  Once addicted, their votes are secured.  The exchange of benefits for a favor/vote has a name – Bribery.  Lexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman opined on the matter after touring America in 1831: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” This observation precisely defines modern Progressive policy making.

Every “THING” of value has a price, and ancillary costs. When a benefit is not earned, its value evaporates.

The implementation of Obamacare was costly, and literally included Democrat deliberations behind locked doors. It ended the careers of several Democrat Senators and Representatives. Obamacare ultimately resulted in Democrats losing control of both chambers of the US Congress, and State offices; too numerous to list. Apparently, voters did not appreciate, or attach the same value to, Obamacare - as Mr. Hall did in his endorsement.  Hall’s endorsement was echoed by TM - when they published the article.

Notable Omissions in Hall’s analysis:
A majority of responsible people purchased health insurance - prior to Obamacare's implementation. The statistical reality for insurance coverage in America at that time (which was distorted for political advantage) showed the majority of Americans liked their health care. It was affordable and functioned as they expected. Conversely, the people promoted as not having health care were, and remain, a small minority - Ne'er-do-wells.  The fact they too received medical treatment/healthcare – if not in the manner they preferred, was ignored, or suppressed.  Importantly, they refused to purchase, or contribute to their health insurance.  Inexplicably, even after Obamacare’s implementation, some people do not have their children inoculated. They use the emergency room for treatment. Their focus is not on healthcare, unless and until, disaster strikes – the precise analogy articulated above.  Frankly, these same people are irresponsible.  They have difficulty negotiating their lives.  Democrats condescendingly lecture us all - irresponsible people must never suffer or be denied Free Stuff – to augment their irresponsibility, or the often disastrous consequences of their poor decision taking. 

Responsible people, (count me as one) who reliably purchased health insurance before, and after Obamacare, have seen their insurance premiums skyrocket. Mine increased two and one-half fold. I'm also a business owner who offered health insurance to my employees for twenty years.  They could tailor their policies to fit their lifestyle and medical profile.  The regulations imposed and premium increases, mandated by Obamacare, precluded my offering that benefit... so much for my employees keeping their doctor and policy as Mr. Obama promised.  Apparently, the impact of Obamacare upon over one-hundred million responsible people, who continually carried an insurance policy, do not fit the presumptions or bolster the political message Mr. Hall and TM conspired to produce.  Moreover, these same responsible people often made the choice to purchase insurance knowing that decision would negatively impact their lifestyle and discretionary spending.  True to form, these same people have seen their (Post Obamacare) discretionary spending egregiously reduced.  Their lives are depreciated and endangered accordingly.  However, these self-reliant people proudly refuse to burden others with their troubles.  They anonymously marshal on; desperately negotiating the unavoidable, and unconscionable, hardships foisted upon them.  

Purposely disregarding the billons spent, and the sacrifices made, Progressives openly target responsible people and insultingly label them: “part of the problem” for partisan political purposes.  The responsible are slimed with derisive terms, and openly criticized for wanting their pre-Obamacare lives and incomes returned.  In this narrative, they are not compassionate and have no heart.  The implications are they are nefariously selfish and mean spirited.  Self-reliant, and not burdening society, are never included to describe them.  The responsible and self-reliant must set the bar too high for Progressive comparisons. They must be labeled, libeled, and neglected - whenever possible, or a political narrative needs a villain.   Progressives attack and slander the very people who pay the taxes confiscated to bribe the support and affections of the Ne’er-do-well class they rely upon for votes.  They additionally promote policies that preclude the Constitutional rights of many self-reliant people who ran afoul of Progressive policy goals by virtue of their race, sex, and/or religious preferences. 

Hall's commentary featured an adjunct professor who subjectively chose to NOT purchase insurance coverage, even though the article stated she had a young child. No mention was made of the child’e father who is legally and morally obligated to provide for his daughter.  The mother’s choice invites a variety of negative consequences.  Mr. Hall omitted how and where the adjunct professor spent her erstwhile health insurance dollars. Did the university not offer a group health insurance option?  Mr. Hall noted Ms. Hernandez had Type 1 diabetes.  An adjunct professor should realize the dangers inherent in that type of diabetes.  Moreover, it’s a heritable condition. The age of onset varies. Her daughter could face the same dangers the disease produces.  Ms. Hernandez's age informs the reader she pursues her degree - willfully knowing her condition, her income, and her daughter’s potential exposure to the disease mentioned.  Including alternative life choices, that directly impact the choice options available, choices that act to assure income is available for health insurance, was not documented in the article.  

My children were always covered.  Even when my wife and I were poor, priorities mandated health insurance for our family.  Our careers were forged negotiating the costs of health care.  Personal sacrifice was an ever omnipresent factor deployed in the decisions we made.

Mr. Halls inferential summary: Entitlement and victimhood preclude and excuse  responsible decision taking.  I.E. Bad decisions must be rewarded and abrogated.

Counter: When some “THING” is offered free - the number of takers always increases until the free thing is exhausted.  This outcome occurs inevitably. Better management will not change the outcome.   Like many diseases - It's Terminal – a dangerous political folly ostensibly designed by advocates of the equality of redistribution – Free Stuff.  Karl Marx is the recognized policy author.  Historically, Socialism, Marxism has claimed the lives of over one hundred million people. When demand exceeds supply, demand must be reduced – starvation and execution were the solutions preferred by the advocates of Free Stuff.  BTW… the one-hundred million dead had Free health insurance!

No comments:

Post a Comment