[Warning:  3:00 A.M. incoherent rant regarding the Bolshevik Healthcare Plot on America of 2010.  Reader discretion is advised]

Here is Socialist Propaganda:

 “researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage”

“Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance” Reuters.com

Let’s run through this… but first, our Marxist propaganda friends didn’t qualify much of anything here.  So for this entire discussion, we’re assuming a health person, no pre-conditions, and both can afford health insurance, only one chooses not to purchase it.

Person A [an adult] is [64 or younger] + [NO Health Insurance] = Chance of death is 1.4 chances

Person B [an adult] is [64 or younger] + [Health Insurance] = Chance of death is 1.0

First inquiry… Why?

If [Person A] & [Person B] are involved in a nasty car accident, let’s even say the same accident, and both need to be taken to the emergency room, and both need immediate surgery upon arrival or they will die. 

[Doctor 1] has an excellent reputation and twenty years experience.

[Doctor 2] has been licensed & doing surgery for three years, but he’s lucky to still be practicing with his malpractice record.

[Doctor 1] operates on [Person A]

[Doctor 2] operates on [Person B]

Observation #1:  The emergency room will not refuse to treat [Person A] because he doesn’t have insurance.  In fact, if he needs emergency surgery they won’t even ask until after.

Observation #2:  [Person A] actually got the luck of the draw (if you can call anything about surgery “luck”) and has the more experienced surgeon.

Observation #3:  [Person B], who has insurance, has somehow managed to arrive in the same life threatening scenario, simultaneously mind you, with [Person A], who as we are all well aware does not have health insurance.  How can this be?  According to Socialist logic, insurance is practically the equivalent of a four leaf clover, for without it… a person is, allegedly, forty percent more likely to die, for no other reason, we are led to believe like the sheeple we are, than lack of health insurance.

Next. 

Both [Person A & B] live & [Person A] gets a huge medical bill that he has to pay now… but he’s alive.  [Person B] is thanking his lucky stars that he purchased health insurance after he hears [Person A] talk about the bill, but [Person B] got the worst of it & was paralyzed from the waist down.  The two persons become good friends after they were able to leave the hospital.

[Person A] never bothered to try & get insurance afterwards.

A few months later [Person A] is depressed about his medical bill & is contemplating suicide… (the guy could have bought health insurance, no problems, no preconditions, but chose not to, so he’s not the brightest bulb in the room).

[Person B] he’s susceptible to being influenced very easily & agrees to play Russian roulette with [Person A].

Thought #1:  Yes, these two are idiots.

Thought #2:  How will the fact that [Person B] has health insurance factor into his chances of surviving the first round?

Thought #3:  According to our Socialist propagandists… [Person A] has a forty percent higher chance of being shot in the game of Russian roulette, for no other reason… than he chose not to purchase health insurance.

Point #1:  Lack of Health Insurance does not kill people.

Point #2:  Lack of Health Insurance does not increase anyone’s ‘chance’ of dying on any specific day.

Point #3:  Lack of Health Insurance does not increase anyone’s ‘chance’ of dying by participating in any specific activity, any more than if he had the health insurance.

The socialists would have us believe that 45,000 people die each year because the Grim Reaper plays Gestapo asking for people’s “papers” (proof of insurance).

That there are people dying is not in question, but that those deaths are directly linked to a lack of health insurance presupposes that had they bought insurance a week prior, or even a day prior, according to this study, at least 40% of them would have lived longer.

Here’s the point:  Health Insurance doesn’t decrease anybody’s chances of dying on any particular day or while participating in any specific activity.    This can be analogous to saying that people who choose not to buy a car, for any reason: maybe they don’t need one, they can’t afford one, their license has been revoked indefinitely, etc., are 40% more likely to find themselves injured in a car accident!

The mere concept of ownership (or lack thereof) of the tangible matter that is a car, like the intangible concept that is insurance, has no more influence over a specific individual’s chances of life or death while participating in some event  than that of a rabbit’s foot.

The argument will be made that insurance allows for preventative health care, this is true, but that’s not what our socialist propagandists are talking about with this 40% increased chance of death nonsense.  Besides, if [person A] has had the opportunity all his life, could have afforded it, and did not buy insurance for no other reason than he wanted, instead, to use his money for cable & internet… his lack of preventative care his entire life was and is his own conscious decision & who am I (or you, or the Bolsheviks in Washington) to order or impose upon [Person A] a mandate to spend his money on Health Care instead of Cable & Internet? 

What people aren’t understanding, is threefold:  (1) By allowing government to become involved in our health care, the health of all Americans becomes the business of the government who are charged with using confiscated tax dollars to operate the government & when that tax money is connected to the government’s new role in Health care, well that opens the door for government to intrude where in areas not only previously unprecedented, but those which are completely outrageous.  Your body, diet, health, becomes the business of & eventually a burden on government.  (2) This is a bridge to single payer, Dennis Kucinich’s recent change of vote should have highlighted that for you, this is a bridge to a single-payer health care system & once this bill passes it will be too late to reverse it, this Bill lays the foundation for single-payer at some point in the future; and (3) Whether one wants to believe it or not, the concept of rationing care to those who “have already lived a full life” so that the resources might benefit someone younger and ultimately the collective as a whole, is quite real and can readily be observed by seeking stories from those countries who are already ahead of us in this regard.  Anyone who questions this, even remotely, is clearly not aware of the world around which he lives.  There will be rationing, it will be inefficient, it will not be logical, and because you allowed this come about (or worse supported it) the only emotion or sympathy that you or your loved one will receive from your new masters will be that of  bureaucratic compassion.  How does that sound? 

I am not against health care reform and nobody who is against this Bill is real “health care reform”.  The system is broken, and only the naive would believe that a system that is broken because of unnecessary complexity & regulation will somehow be fixed by an even more comprehensive, complex, system.  The winners will be the revolutionaries in Washington who will be the recipients of the power, that you handed to them, and that this law will bring them.

Your freedom is yours to exhange for low-quality (at best) health care should you choose to do so…  But how dare you sell the freedom of your own posterity!

That’s all.

Jason Bradley