Friday, August 7, 2009

Democrats: A Party for the Risk Averse

Growing up we all knew one of those over-protected kids: the 12 year-old left standing on the other side of street because his mom wouldn't trust him to cross the street by himself; the kid wearing the ski hat with earflaps in 50 degree weather. Remember that kid? He grew up to become the Democratic Party voter.

Everything about the Democratic Party (probably since FDR) is about limiting risk for helpless and stupid American voters. Terrified that your retirement might tank? Don't worry, mama's here with your Social Security blanket. Afraid that shiny new condom might fail? Papa will dump that fetus in the garbage pail. Worrying your shares in GM might crash? Daddy Tim's here with some bailout cash. Fear you might get sick and your insurance won't pay? Berry's gonna take all the fear away.

Life's full of risk. That's why we have insurance in the first place. Something horrible may happen to you, and it may be expensive. So smart consumers buy insurance for — as the ads go — "Justin Case."

Health insurance isn't healthcare. It's a hedge against the risk of costs associated with becoming unhealthy. The fact that health insurance has become too expensive, or that some people can't get it, doesn't mean they will get sick. Or even that if they do get sick, they won't get treatment. Nobody in this country can be turned away for lifesaving treatment.

So really the whole healthcare debate ( and frankly the entire agenda of the DNC ) is about nothing more than the cushy, feel-good coddling of the American electorate. If Joe Voter is so sheltered from risk and harm that he can't contemplate the idea of crossing the street without holding Harry Reid's hand, he'll never vote to remove Reid from political office. This strategy is depressingly effective.

Imagine if the founding fathers had wanted someone to protect them from the risks of revolt against the King. We'd still be sipping over-taxed British tea on the docks of Boston Harbor.

As Benjamin Franklin might say, "He that's secure is not safe."

1 comment:

  1. Good post. I'm all for offering gov't sponsored health insurance to those who NEED it (recently layed off, disabled war vets, illness or medical condition that prevents full-time work, etc...). In fact...upgrade it to be on par with what most companies offer. I've been layed off, and believe me, COBRA and unemployment benefits SUCK! I felt I deserved better support for my prior contributions to society that I had payed up to that point.

    That said, gov't assistance (health insurance) MUST have VERY STRICT eligibility guidelines and incentives (expiration date?) to force those who receive it return to work.

    Will that happen in a Dem sponsored health-care bill? Very likely NOT! Like you said, they base their re-election on free handouts and keeping people dependent on programs supported by their re-election.

    ReplyDelete