Wow! What was supposed to just be an update on how I was doing has turned into the potential for a nasty flame war! I don't think that
anyone expected that! Nor do I think that anyone here wants to see things escalate further. However, I think it would be a good idea for me to
try to explain my thoughts and opinions regarding this very sensitive political issue.
For nearly all my life, I've been a VERY conservative person, politically speaking. Even now, I strongly feel that the vast majority of Humanity is being over-governed, and I firmly believe in the axiom, "That government is best which governs least."
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no anarchist. There have to be
some rules, mostly pertaining to how we behave toward each other. Otherwise, we'd be constantly at each other's throats.
But government should only deter the "bad" side of Human Nature; NOT enforce the "good" side. That particular job doesn't belong to those we choose to govern over us, but resides elsewhere. Primarily, the role of encouraging our more loving & nurturing natures belongs with our religious communities and secular benevolent agencies/charities (e.g. The Red Cross, Goodwill, etc.). Many of you see me as poor, and by a great many standards, I certainly am; but I still try my very best to give what I can, as often as I can, to help those who are in much worse shape than myself (and there are a LOT). I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I don't think it's the government's job to enforce charity. Maybe I would feel different about the issue if we Americans had a better track record with choosing those who would lead us, because we seem to be doing a crappy job of it.
When our country was first formed, our founding fathers intended for our elected officials to govern PART TIME! Once elected, they would set aside their personal businesses for four to six months, attend to the matters of government, and then step down, returning to their own endeavours. Somewhere along the way, that changed, and we now have "Career Politicians", who spend 15, 20, even THIRTY YEARS or MORE in office, building their power bases, enacting legislation that serves to benefit only themselves and their colleagues, and becoming ever more corrupt as the years go by. Now many of these Career Politicians started out TRYING to change things; to "Shake things up", as it were, but ended up becoming a slave to the "machine", and rather than making things better for the rest of us, only served to make things worse. Now we have these people running the country who know nothing but politics, and they're running the government as a GOVERNMENT, rather than as a business.
Everywhere you care to look (with the exception of SOME governments), individuals, families, small businesses, large corporations, and monstrously huge conglomerates all have something in common: they ALL have to operate within the "means" available to them. In other words, they're cash outflow cannot exceed their cash income, or they quickly begin to have problems, and will soon be unable to function. This applies to you, to me, and even to Apple Computers. It's a VERY simple concept, that even a grade-school student can grasp. Does this seem to apply to the U.S. government? Nope! When our legislators exceed the country's budget, they either want to "shuffle" the money around, to make things look good, or "borrow" the money from other countries with promises that "we'll make it up, soon". Ladies and Gentlemen, here's a news flash:
BORROWING YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT NEVER WORKS!!! It only ends up getting you DEEPER in debt!
Wait a minute! Wasn't I supposed to be explaining how I feel about national health care? How did I get on the subject of deficit spending? Oops? sorry!
Listen, what it boils down to is that I don't feel that it's my government's job to provide my health care unless it's a "quid pro quo" thing. For example, I set aside two years of my life to serve my country in the U.S. Coast Guard, helping to protect people, and helping to keep my little corner of the U.S.A. safe. In exchange for that service, I don't see a problem with having certain limited health care benefits, and had I served longer, or had I been injured and/or disabled in the line of duty, I could accept receiving perhaps full medical benefits. This is only fair, in my eyes. I can also accept someone receiving certain health care benefits in the case of the indigent, yet able-bodied, who put in a few hours per day/week doing public improvement works projects, such as picking up litter along a road, or helping to remove gang graffiti, or something of that nature, that benefits us all. Where I'm torn is how to handle someone who is truly unable to care for themselves. As I get older, I'm finding it harder to justify my older feelings that the government has no place caring for these folks. Now those who are capable, but unwilling, of caring for themselves can still piss up a rope. I have no use at all for deadbeats and slackers. But those who just can't do for themselves? I just don't know anymore.
Anyway, that's basically my take on the issue (and more, obviously). I could literally go on for DAYS about what's wrong with the government of the United States, but I'll refrain, for now.
{steps off the soap box, and walks back into the crowd}
