Comments on: Take who’s power away? http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2007/12/29/take-whos-power-away/ Robert Fischer and Brian Hurt on Punditry, Programming Languages, and Other Religious Issues Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:27:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Robert Fischer http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2007/12/29/take-whos-power-away/#comment-32247 Robert Fischer Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:02:00 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2007/12/29/take-whos-power-away/#comment-32247 Of course, the Democrats have their own vested interests, and so when they offer their spin on how great the federal government is, that needs a grain of salt, too. After all, as you alluded to, they have as much to gain as the Republicans have to lose: federal politics is effectively a zero-sum game between the Democrats and Republicans (and this is part of the reason I hate it). An example of this is Hillary Clinton's assertion that "nobody would be at the back of the line" for health care. That's just blatant nonsense -- the reality is that health care is a limited resource, and so (like any limited resource) it can only be doled out in certain portions. Sooner or later, someone is going to have to go without care so that someone else can get it: there's got to be some way of prioritizing who gets care, and that means someone is behind someone else in line. Socialized health care is a huge gamble for the Democrats: as big a gamble as the War in Iraq was for the Republicans. Imagine a world in which Bush ordered our soldiers into Iraq, and the result <em>was</em> a stable democracy which positively influenced the Middle East and became a Muslim state that was as loyal an ally as Israel. Imagine how immense a win that would have been for the Republican party, and how that would have solidified the neoconservative majority. But that's not what happened. The gamble backfired, and it's turned into a huge mess, which we're unsure of how to fix and unable to morally retreat from. That's the same way I view federally socialized helath care. If it works, it'll be a huge win for the Democrats, and a great thing for the country. But if it goes wrong, it's a quagmire that we'll never escape from. Of course, the Democrats have their own vested interests, and so when they offer their spin on how great the federal government is, that needs a grain of salt, too. After all, as you alluded to, they have as much to gain as the Republicans have to lose: federal politics is effectively a zero-sum game between the Democrats and Republicans (and this is part of the reason I hate it).

An example of this is Hillary Clinton’s assertion that “nobody would be at the back of the line” for health care. That’s just blatant nonsense — the reality is that health care is a limited resource, and so (like any limited resource) it can only be doled out in certain portions. Sooner or later, someone is going to have to go without care so that someone else can get it: there’s got to be some way of prioritizing who gets care, and that means someone is behind someone else in line.

Socialized health care is a huge gamble for the Democrats: as big a gamble as the War in Iraq was for the Republicans. Imagine a world in which Bush ordered our soldiers into Iraq, and the result was a stable democracy which positively influenced the Middle East and became a Muslim state that was as loyal an ally as Israel. Imagine how immense a win that would have been for the Republican party, and how that would have solidified the neoconservative majority.

But that’s not what happened. The gamble backfired, and it’s turned into a huge mess, which we’re unsure of how to fix and unable to morally retreat from.

That’s the same way I view federally socialized helath care. If it works, it’ll be a huge win for the Democrats, and a great thing for the country. But if it goes wrong, it’s a quagmire that we’ll never escape from.

]]>