Hell's Macadam: National Health Care

The concept of national health care is tough to attack due to the good intentions inspiring it. Arguing against the theory of universal (read as: government sponsored) health coverage often leaves the idealogical assailant in a morally defenseless position. How could someone not wish for such basic oversight for his/her neighbor and fellow American? It seems right up there with food, clothing, and shelter on the survival scale. However this system is one of the most dangerous ideas ever proposed in American political forum.

I attack the practicality of such a system without a mention of monetary cost. After all, money (surprisingly) seems to be the fulcrum of the moral dilemma but is still ultimately irrelevant. The real problem is the societally volatile potential the new system brings without herald, a new breed of domestic terrorism. Equal access to health care means lines. Those 'waiting' in such lines may not have equal worth/use to society (an engineer compared to a welfare bum) but have equal access to that spot in the line (assuming they had an ailment of the same nature). With this in mind, I'd like to create a scenario. Say an engineer's father isn't able to be treated because of his spot in line behind said welfare bum. Unfortunately, the lack/delay of care is fatal. The engineer would no doubt grieve the loss of his father. He is a robbed of the typical comfort that distracts us into containing our more brutal pursuits (faith in the justness of the system at the price of our promised civility). After all, familiar death is more than bread and circuses. In the process of grief, it is not illogical to assume his anger. It is not enough to understand the presence of anger, but the direction of it. Introspectively, he begins to blame the system that allowed his circumstances to appear and question its necessity. Why would it happen to him? He was a man who worked his life to the mantra of work hard, get ahead, and good things will happen. Yet, at the very core of our lives, our health, he is rewarded not. He is a man betrayed. As is the nature of anger, it seeks to manifest on to a target. Now, society has a man with resources (money and skills) and motive to be released from the comfort and controls offered to him by what he perceives as a failure of government and society. Predicting his next move is tough. Does he choose to lash out at the hospital, the political party/people responsible for the legislation, or even the man who was treated instead of his father? Are there other individuals who share his sentiments towards the extremes of the faults of government? The problem with this scenario is that it could snowball into an epidemic of domestic terrorism which could only be countered by strict government safety regulations (a steroided variety of what America saw post 9.11) or an equal reaction of a vigilante movement (which would still require an increase of government control). It's not hard to form an idea of 1984 style government (which I see both major parties being quite guilty of) if it continues to take a furthered role in our lives.



Note*
I've personally developed this idea further on a more detailed scale. I just laid a rough outline to promote questioning (and to save my time, because I'll probably be the only one reading this). If anyone is interested this type of thing, let me know. We'll see where we can go from there.

Opening Words

I have no particular message for anyone, nor any consistent base of topics. Every post I make will be on the fringe of rationality. I have a very distinct philosophy based on an analysis of details as they serve the whole. It's not really a sense of a road less traveled. It's more like just getting lost in the woods. At that point, you can either do your best to find civilization or you can enjoy your unfound place.

At the very least, you'll be entertained by (whether comically or tragically) the rantings of a crazy person.