Thursday, July 08, 2004

"We survived Carter and we'd survive Kerry (though it will be a long, hard slog!). I plan to vote for him because I think

a) we need to take a time out from Bush's strident public global terror war in order to prevent it from becoming a damaging, lifelong West vs. Islam clash--in order to "rebrand" America and digest the hard-won gains we've made in Iraq and Afghanistan (if they even remain gains by next January). Plus,

b) it would be nice to make some progress on national health care, even if it's only dialectical "try a solution and find out it doesn't work" progress."

Mickey Kaus, the Kausfiles

I was quite surprised to read the above and find out that Mickey Kaus, who's blog, The Kausfiles, has been so disappointed in the choice of Kerry as the Democrat nominee, is intending to vote for for Kerry anyway. I somehow can't imagine anyone taking position "A" just one election away from Pearl Harbor... and it was mostly service men killed at Pearl Harbor, not office workers. Also, Pearl Harbor was 6000 miles away from Washington, D.C. while on 9/11 the actual Pentagon was attacked. Kaus has apparently not watched any 9/11 tapes recently and seen the look of fear on the eyes of those fleeing the White House before that last plane went down in a field. Kaus has apparently not watched that al-Zarqawi video or listened to the latest terrorists threats against America. In fact, our enemies long ago accepted that this is, for them, "a lifelong West vs. Islam clash." If we choose not to call it that, if we choose to ignore the life our enemies have chosen, if we choose to "take a break", from it, this has no effect on those who are fighting us unless it is to make them believe they are winning.

As far as Kaus's "B" (Health Care), I just heard this morning that Pfizer will be deeply discounting their drugs for Americans who have no health care. Who will applaud this charitable move by Pfizer? It seems, so often, that many people think the drug companies are horrible, but through their profits they design the drugs people are clamoring to be given. How much will the drug costs of the insured increase to offset this move? What about the fact that President Bush pushed through prescription drug benefits for medicare? Kaus seems silent on these things.

Update: Why don't those who want National health care just set up their own fund for it, some kind of national group insurance plan for the uninsured, and dump donations into it? What is stopping John Kerry or John Edwards from starting that, they're both mega-millionaires. Is it just that it's unfair for some to pay and others not? But isn't that what we have anyway, about half the country pays federal taxes and the other half doesn't? Is it that those who want National Health Care couldn't gather enough money to put it in place? But all Kaus is seeking is a start, yes? Even if it's a false start... Nothing is stopping those who want National Health Care from putting it in place. Unless, of course, they just like complaining about the whole issue and don't really want it solved.

For my part, I don't want National Health Care. Just go into the license branch... is that how you want your Health Care to be run? Do I want people to be ill, to not have their drugs, to have to choose between their health and their food? Well, I think some of that is just a fact of life on earth... you can't have everything you want, you can't even have everything you need... no matter how much care you provide, that care will fall short. The government spends billions and billions on protecting us but _still_ people died on 9/11. If the government spends billions and billions on health care, people will _still_ get sick and die. Those in need have avenues for seeking help and solace, from friends, from family, from charities, from churches, from the local community... and some people, whether through their own choices or God's plan, are beyond help.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

powered by FreeFind