Tuesday, September 25, 2012

"I Want Your Money..."

ObamaCare- the term sends shivers down the spines of so many Americans... and for many different reasons.

Some see the Affordable Care Act as the panacea for the disaster our health care system has become.

Others see it as one more violation against the Constitution, one more tax added to the list of taxes Obama promised to NOT implement.

I don't like state-managed anything.. state assistance/state welfare, public education, and yes- healthcare.... Not because I think everyone shouldn't support themselves.. although I do. There are people whose situations simply don't allow that. Some disabilities simply make it impossible for a person to support themselves.

My objections to state assistance are with the "state" part, not the "assistance" part.

See, there are basically two kinds of people who are on government support/assistance.

1- Those who truly need it. Those whose disabilities are prohibitive to supporting themselves. These people really do need it. Without outside help, these people would most likely be dead, unable to work to feed, clothe, and house themselves... let alone be able to afford their own health care for said disability.

Their disability isn't something they chose, or something they caused to come upon themselves. They don't want to be on welfare, but they have no other options. I don't begrudge these people the support they desperately need.

2- Those who see state benefits and support as the ideal to which they aspire. Women who bring in their pregnant daughters, celebrating that Little Miss can now qualify for benefits- Yay! Career and generational welfare recipients who really could support themselves. These people rub me wrong in so many ways, there are words to describe how I feel, but they're not used in polite society.

Anyway, back to the original topic-
My problem with state assistance programs is with the idea that the government should be doing it.

See, there are 3 basic kinds of spending:

First-party spending is when I spend my own money on something I will use. I'm interested in value because it's my money. I'm interested in quality because I will be using it.

Second-party spending is when I spend my money on something someone else will use. I'm interested in value because it's my money.. but I'm not so worried about quality b/c I won't be using it.

Third-party spending is when I spend someone else's money on something I won't be using. I'm not too worried about value because it's not my money... and I'm not too worried about quality because I won't be using it.

By definition, all government spending is third-party. Legislators are using tax money (not money from their own pockets) on things they may or may not be using.. like infrastructure, education, health care. They're not too worried about value because it's not money from legislators' pockets. And they aren't as bothered by quality because they aren't home as much to use the infrastructure, they can afford to put their kids in private schools, and they're exempted from ObamaCare.

Do you see where I'm coming from? I, as a tax payer would like my taxes to go to those who actually need it.. not the girls who have been slutting it up so they could get pregnant and can finally join the family business of living on the dole.

I've never had a problem with those receiving help who truly need need it. I don't like those who abuse the system. I don't like other people deciding where and how my hard-earned money is spent.


3 comments:

  1. I think you hit it right on the head. Its true that those who don't need the funds from the state should not be able to have them readily available to them. Those who really do need it I understand their plight. I was raised to work hard for what I want and need and if I don't need it leave it alone. What makes me mad is that when they do get like a food card they blow it on junk and not whats for the kids that its supposed to be for. Nicely written I like your style.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you understand the Bible at all? Did you miss the part where Jesus talks about casting the first stone . . .Where Jesus hung out with those society would throw away?
    You seem incredibly judgemental for someone who claims to follow Christ.
    Don't like government involvement? Then don't ever use the fire department, an ambulance, don't use roads that were made by government employees, stay out of the library (which I suspect won't be much of an issue), don't mail letters,
    you do understand right that millions of Americans cannot see a doctor and treat their medical conditions because they can't afford insurance? You get that right?
    And those 'sluts' you talk about - really? really? What would Jesus say to these 'sluts'?
    You are disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reality is that there is a difference between true charity (both the act and the motivating feeling) and tax-funded state-managed benefits. Force, something Jesus lived and gave His life (His whole life, not just His death) to stand against. His sacrifice was about protecting everyone's choices and making it possible to recover from even the worst of choices.

      This (force vs choice) is also the difference between "making love" and rape, between robbery and a gift freely given.

      Clearly, you haven't done your homework. Having spoken with actual benefits case workers, I am well aware that there are those who see state-funded benefits as a "career option," rather than an option of last resort-- a lazy mindset at best.

      If you can't contribute more than vile childish name-calling, please don't come back.

      Delete