You know, there are various kinds of insurance schemes we participate in, and some of them don't make good sense.
I've worked in the insurance industry, as a computer consultant - and in doing so, I've formed some specific impressions about the range of insurance schemes the public seems to be open to. I have worked for one life insurance company, two casualty companies, two health insurors, and a medicare peer-review organization.
Oh, yeah. Not to mention, a hospital-management/HMO company.
At this point, I have a voice of experience - limited, yet not inconsequential - and strong opinions about our problems with Medicare, and opinions yet stronger, about the fallacy of Social Security.
It simply doesn't make sense (for this, I have the corrobation of Solomon, who wrote this, in his magnificent book of Proverbs) - I say, it doesn't make sense - to "strike hands" (that is, to covenant) with total strangers, in a scheme to secure financial benefits for total strangers - especially if it causes you to excuse yourself from your duty to fulfill reasonable expectations of your personal social responsibilities toward those you know. Especially, family.
This seems to be the biggest thing Liberals can't grasp about the family-values principles of Conservatives.
If there's anybody in my family who gets AIDS (or worse), I ought to do something about it. If there's somebody in your family with AIDS, that's your problem.
Trouble is, Liberal families have more problems. And when Liberals have problems, they redefine their problems into social problems, because they are so typically unwilling to assume personal responsibility for them.Tough truth.
If someone gets AIDS, he suffers the consequences of his personal choices, and he needs to assume his own responsibility for them. If he's in my family, I may be willing to lend a hand, on the basis of the fact that he's known to me personally, and the consequences of his actions are borne as a family responsibility. I have often expressed this personal philosophy in extending my largesse to members of my church "family", and to close friends - but that's as far as I'll go with it.
- at least, willingly.
In my family, of course, AIDS is highly unlikely. I'd be far more likely to apply a similar line of reasoning in providing aid and comfort in response to someone's getting a girl pregnant - but even if it were that, and it were happening to someone on the other side of the continent, someone I've never met - I'd have a hard time feeling personally responsible for it.
So, don't try to make me. I hate that.
If, rather than contracting AIDS, a man's house is blown down by a tornado, I can't always abrogate my personal obligation to help him - certainly, not just because he chose to live somewhere in some "tornado alley". So, casualty insurance is the only reasonable variety of insurance that ever indemnifies strangers. Otherwise, it makes eminent good sense to protect my loved ones with savings, annuities, and/or life insurance - but I wouldn't pay good money to a life insurance company, on a policy whose beneficiary is a total stranger (would that madness our liberals be, next?).
So, why let liberals take money from us, to pay for Medicare? And why should they pay me taxpayer dollars (as they did, once) to work with a peer-review organization formed under the Health Care Finance (Reform) Act, to keep thieving, conniving, greedy, dishonest MEDICAL DOCTORS minimally honest (what's up with that? Why not finance HCFA by FINING every greedy "*(@%$'s, M.D." whose fortune has been funded by cheating us)?
And, why - tell me, WHY - should I pay anything into Social Security? My Dad had 7 kids, who paid $65,000 a year into Social Security, so that Dad could collect his measly 10 Grand. What's up with that, too?
And now, let me go into my really rabid rant: How DARE you tell my kids to pay the 190 percent income tax rate it's going to take to pay for YOUR baby-boomer Social Security, rather than letting them dedicate their resources to taking care of their own mother - when YOU had NO KIDS, selfishly preserving your six-figure career by having those six or seven ABORTIONS? Hmmmm?
Especially, after CLINTON borrowed all that money from Social Security's trust funds?
So, back us up a few decibels, here, and consider this: It's not a legitimate responsibility of the taxpaying public to provide seniors with prescription drug care. If they have children, let the kids assume a bit of the personal responsibility their mother should have taught them a bit about, a long while ago. If they don't have kids, let them bear their responsibility, alone.
But leave my kids out of it. Let my kids take care of their own.
In particular, let them take care of their own mother.
After all, my kids aren't liberals. My kids are good kids.
My kids are personable.
opinions
back home
