In this post, HOW THE LOGIC OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION LEADS TO THE SACRIFICE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, we discussed the DC Court of Appeals’ decision on Obamacare. When Eric the 1/2 Troll commented (here, here, and here), he indicated his disagreement with the post. When I suggested private charity would work better than Obamacare, Eric responded by repeatedly asking some form of the same question.
“You really want to help the uninsured? There is no substitute for honest charity. That involves reaching into your own pocket.”
Tom, and what happens when no charity steps up to help the uninsured heart attack victim who needs triple by-pass surgery or he dies? Are you prepared to let him die (as a matter of policy) so as to preserve your ideal that gov’t has no role in charity? (from here)
When I explained Obamacare would just make things worse for everyone, Eric did not respond to my arguments. He could not get beyond repeating the same question. Why? Well, I think Eric is too focused on the problem to seriously consider whether the proposed solution, Obamacare, will work.
What happens we “think” emotionally? What if we are afraid or worried? Will we give the solution to a problem that frightens or worries us enough thought? Some people will not. Want an example? You see a child drowning. What do you do? Well, here is an example of what someone did, Girl, 9, rescuer drown in Plymouth.
A 9-year-old girl and a 26-year-old man died Monday night after the man jumped into a pool at a Plymouth apartment complex to try to save the girl from drowning. (from here)
Like as not, the guy forgot he could not swim, and that is not uncommon. In fact it happens enough that the problem has actually received some research, Drowning for Love. The Aquatic-Victim-Instead-of-Rescuer (AVIR) Syndrome: Drowning fatalities involving those attempting to rescue a child. Here is the introduction.
Non-intentional child drowning remains a leading cause of child mortality. A related and secondary syndrome is composed of those who drown in impulsive, altruistic attempts to go to the aid of a drowning child. Such ‘rescuers’ who attempt to save a drowning child may themselves drown, a tragic event we term the AVIR syndrome or aquatic victim-instead-of-rescuer.
The article suggests it might help to teach potential rescuers how to conduct such a rescue without inordinate risk to their own lives (The rescuer who drowns provides an “oral” presentation.). So some experts do provide instruction. For example, How To Rescue a Drowning Victim provides recommendations for conducting a rescue. Note that these suggestions are not particularly remarkable. Here is how How To Rescue a Drowning Victim begins.
Drowning victims are probably the most dangerous to try to rescue. In a panic, drowning victims are likely to claw at rescuers and climb to the surface at all costs. NEVER attempt a direct rescue of a conscious drowning victim without proper training.
Remember always: REACH, THROW, but only GO with training and equipment.
Even if you know how to swim well, it is not a good idea to get into the water with a drowning victim. Unfortunately, in a highly emotional, emergency situation, we don’t always stop to think. We take the most direct approach. We head straight for the victim. Without thinking, we risk being pulled under by the person we are trying to rescue.
Unfortunately, the corporate news media does not encourage calm and thoughtful responses to national problems. Instead, journalists urge us to dwell on the health care “crisis”, magnifying the problem and our emotional response. We empathize with the health care problems of the poor, the aged, and those who have exhausted their insurance. We imagine ourselves in the same dilemma. Then we listen with relief and rapt attention to the promises of scheming politicians.
When our leaders boldly promise to solve the problem of health care — to make health care a “right” — we want to believe them. When they offer Obamacare as the most direct approach to fixing our health care system, many cheered the “solution”.
Instead of cheering we first need examine the solution carefully. Because politicians are just people, we must consider whether their proposals will work. Will Obamacare fix the problem or make the situation worse? Has Eric considered that question? If we have good reason to believe Obamacare will worsen our health care problems, further damage our economy, and continue the unraveling of our Constitution, then the question Eric did ask is a non sequitur.