Post #208 Who Killed Stephen Hawking?, Pt. II

One complaint against my writing -- but not the only complaint, by the way -- is that I'm too short. Guilty. I happen to think that anybody who is smart enough to connect to the 'net is smart enough to get a point in one sentence -- no need to beat 'em over the head.

However, I'm forgetting the tip from freshman English 25 years ago: If something is important, repeat it. If something is important, repeat it. By repeating the same something a third time in a different way shows that it is really important.

So, I'm going to expand my Post #200, "Who Killed Stephen Hawking?"

* * *

Well, he is not dead. Stephen Hawking, the renowned British theoretical physicist with a neuro muscular dystrophy, is alive -- just on TV getting the "Presidential Medal of Freedom."

So, the question really is: "Who is keeping Stephen Hawking alive?" The answer: Government, BIG, s-l-o-w and inefficient government. I'm sure that his health care is expensive, probably too expensive for Hawking to handle by himself/

It seems ironic to me that the same peeps who rant about government' theoretical future role in life and death decisions have nothing to say regarding private insurers' real current role. Tho the government is keeping Stephen Hawking alive, they want to cite Hawking -- ignoring the fact that he is not dead. But at least government will respond and change its ways. If we, the people, don't want 'death panels,' there won't be 'death panels' deciding the value of life and when to pull the plug on Hawking or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma.

"Who would kill Stephen Hawking?" Private insurers.

It is private insurers who make life and death decisions every day. If ya can't afford insurance, too bad. If Stephen Hawking had to rely on a private insurer....

Or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma. A private company will resist any change that may affect its bottom-line. Their 'death panels' -- which consist of accountants reading balance sheets -- are OK with them.

In 1995, Taiwan wanted to have universal health care -- they scoured the world for the best-run government health care to copy and choose the United States' Medicare. Taiwan of course opened their Medicare to everybody. Why can't we do that? Isn't it the best strategy to copy an already-existing program? That is why the search for an "uniquely American" solution makes no sense -- our "uniquely American" solution is under our noses.

Universal health care is a pro-business stance -- leveling the playing field of the world market. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless." What is good for General Motors is good for America, and government-run healh care is good for General Motors.

Universal health care is also pro-workers. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "It [private insurance thro employers] makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness." -- government-run health care would mean nobody to be held hostage to a job because of the health benefits.

"Socialism" is the cry -- ignoring last November's election results. That is the same crowd who slurps at the troughs of Medicare and Social Security, Ignore 'em, I say -- they had their chance to be heard.

* * *

Better?