atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#454: Other Stuff.

Here we have a comparison of "universal health care" which discusses what would happen if food service were socialized in the United States.

He nails it.

Unfortunately, there are too many people in the US who think that they have a right to all sorts of things, including health care, because "it's a necessity".

Where does that stop? As the article contends, we all need food. But not just food; we need water, shelter, and clothing, too. And after five decades plus of government control over zoning of property, we need transportation to get the things we need.

But it goes even farther than that. Businesses need workers--nothing gets done without labor!--and raw materials. Labor and supplies are essential to business.

If we are going to mandate that things which are necessities are "civil rights", why just stop at health care?

People need clothing. We need a governemnt program to ensure that everyone has the clothing they need! We need ClothingCare! People need water. WaterCare! And FoodCare, as the article mentions. And HomeCare!

...oh, wait. They've tried that. They're called housing projects and they end up being ghettos full of drugs and crime. The people who live there don't take care of their homes and don't do anything but sponge off the system, and they tend to have short lives with short generations as the latest crop of teenage girls start squeezing out podlings as soon as they're fertile.

And education is an entitlement, and look at how well that works--the US education system is the worst in the industrialized world. It consistently ranks at or near the bottom in just about every way, except funding; we spend tens of thousands per student, and every year the school boards clamor for more money. "We don't have enough funding! We need more money!" Cries the administrator from his richly-paneled, all-real-wood furnished, air-conditioned office, while the teachers have to make photocopies of copyrighted materials on their own dime just to teach Jonny why global warming is all his fault. (The "three R's" are bourgeois, racist, and too hard for Jonny to grasp.)

PDB, who emigrated to the US from Canada, hits the nail on the head with his post regarding "universal health care":

"Know that government interference always results in higher prices and shortages. It is not a matter of opinion, it is as much a physical reality as gravity or evolution. If your proposed solution involves government interference and promises lower prices or greater availability, you have just proven yourself to be an idiot who has no understanding of how the world works."

All you need to do, to see how socialized medicine would work here, is to look at Canada and England. People who want to socialize medicine in the US don't seem to care that all they would do is ruin health care in the US--it would not be cheaper or easier, and it would be even more unfair to the poor than the current system is.

Why do I say that?

Let me ask you: do you think Tony Blair, who was--until yesterday--the Prime Minister of England--had to wait 24 hours to see a doctor when he got sick? Do you think the rich in England, who can afford private doctors and hospitals, have to wait?

How about Canada? Do the rich-and-powerful have to wait at all?

Hell no.

Canadians who can pay the frieght just come to the USA if they need something done. But the run-of-the-mill people, the hoi polloi, the peones...if they have to wait 8 months to see an oncologist, well, that's just too bad! That poor person's cancer may have been treatable when it was first detected; it's a darn shame that he had to wait 8 months for an oncologist to see him. Well, at least his family can console themselves, at his funeral, with platitudes about how "fair" and "equitable" the "universal health care" system is.


EDIT: Check this out. This is what Michael Moore and the Democrats want for us.

* * *

Guess what? If you have sex in a public place, and someone videotapes you having sex in a public place, you don't have a right to privacy!

I am so goddamned sick of this kind of crap. Celebrities get naked or have sex in public places, where other people can film or photograph them, and then get upset when the tapes and pics are published. In this case, a Brazilian supermodel was upset that she and her boyfriend were filmed having sex on a public beach.

You know what? There's a really easy way to keep your sex life off of YouTube. It's really simple: Don't screw in public. If you simply must have sex, get a room. If you cannot wait, or you want to have an exciting time being an exhibitionist, you had better expect that people are going to WATCH, FILM, PHOTOGRAPH, and SHARE.

The same theory applies to everyone. If I drive my car around town, I can't expect people not to photograph it, and I cannot expect people to pay me for the privelege--and I can't sue someone for taking a picture of my car in a public place.

On the other hand, if I am dancing around in my underwear (like Tom Cruise in Risky Business, only hairier and less good-looking) in my home, with the curtains drawn, and someone videotapes me on the sly and puts it on YouTube--then I have cause to sue for violation of privacy. (What possible reason(s) anyone would want to see me dance in my underwear is left as an exercise for the student.)

* * *

I have read two versions of this apple juice tantrum story. In the linked article it's a child's tantrum; in a similar story on FoxNews it's an adult man. Either way, the plane was forced to make an unscheduled landing.

"Authorities said there would be no charges filed in the incident."

You know what? There goddamned well should be. An entire planeload of people was inconvenienced over a fucking cup of apple juice. Jesus H. Christ! At what point are people finally going to say, "What the fuck is this shit? I'm pissed off! Everyone booze up and riot!"

If I were in charge of that airline, I would pointedly tell the parents of that waste of protoplasm (in the case of the kid, or I'd tell the man himself) that they were no longer welcome to fly on that airline. "Kindly take your business elsewhere from now on," I would say. I would boot them off the airplane right there, and refund the price of their ticket(s); and then I would make sure they were f-ing blacklisted from then on.

If I got any argument about it, I would then present them with the bill for the unscheduled landing and the other costs that descended from it. (I expect that bill would total tens of thousands of dollars. This shit ain't cheap.) "This is what you [your child's] temper tantrum cost this airline. If you wish to continue your flight, kindly remit this amount."

There really have to start being consequences for this kind of shit. There really do. I'm sick and tired of the assholes of the world getting away with making life hell for everyone else.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.