Conservatives have a Better Argument for Obamacare than Liberals Do and Here's Why

Liberals would argue that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are popular and people "like" them. Okay, but I think we'd all agree that they are broke, yes?

Left and right would all also agree that the USPS is broke. Like it or hate it, it's broke. I know it's not in the strictest sense of the word a "government" program, but, functionally, philosophically, it is, and I think we could all agree on that.

Everybody hates the IRS. Everybody agrees that you'll get a 10 different answers to the same question from 10 different IRS employees if they actually bother to pick up the phone and bother to answer you and not put you on hold permanently or transfer you to nowhere. So the IRS, as a government agency, is also crappy.

Okay, so let's look at the list of crappy and or broke government agencies:

Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
USPS
IRS

Conservatives would argue that the only government agency that works is the Military. Liberals hate the military and believe the "military industrial complex" is evil and corrupt and should be eliminated. What we're supposed to do with our fannies hanging out there with no defense against attack is a bothersome detail libs shoo away like a fly, but that's another discussion.

So, if liberals would argue that even the Military s-cks, exactly which government agency can you point to as a model of efficacy to bolster your argument that the government should take over 1/6th of our economy by managing health care and credibly assert that it will "save money" or be "deficit neutral?"

It strikes me as ironic that CONSERVATIVES have a stronger argument for government take over of healthcare than liberals do because at least we can point to the Military as a government agency we can be proud of.

Without support of the one agency that breaks things and kills people like it should, liberals have their fannies hanging out there undefended.

How Health Care will Lead to a Clothing Allowance

Elevating health care to a right, while laudable morally, is untenable legally, and here's why:  Everything will eligible to be health related.  Just one scenario off the top of my head:

Naked, filthy, homeless guy sits on a park bench in the tonier section of Central Park in Manhattan where Katie Couric or Mika Brzezinski is playing frisbee with their kids.  They want to sit down and sip some Fiji water.  Only place to sit is on a bench just vacated by naked, filthy, homeless guy.

Ewwwww.

Presto.  Clothing becomes an inaleanable right guaranteed under the Constitution.

Don't think for a second that it couldn't happen.  Two years ago everyone was sure Hillary Clinton would be the next president.

Ten years ago it was unthinkable that we could be attacked by Islamic terrorists in the homeland.

One year ago, it was unthinkable that our nations debts/deficits could be "unsustainable," our unemployment rate would be holding steady at +/- 10%, our President would be presiding over the takeover of banks, insurance companies, and car companies, outlawing privately issued school loans and centralizing them all federally in exchange for politically preferred public service, the criminal prosecution of our intelligence agents for giving a "black eye" to a known Islamic terrorist while providing Constitutional rights to KSM... Need I go on?


The framers, our founders, specified that our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were endowed by our "Creator" for a reason... Any society that has ever held that the source of those rights was Man had failed, because if Man can give, Man can take away.  Those rights endowed by the Creator are inalienable, thus intractable.


Those dead white guys knew what they were doing.  Just because they are dead, and white, doesn't make them wrong.