Mr. Phillips is well-known for being versed in all manner of issues outside of politics and race as well. Having once been a Hollywood actor (starring as Lt. Martin Kendall on The
Cosby Show), he has a particular taste for movie and television analysis, and being—though perhaps in his own mind—a master chef, he entertains a penchant for sharing recipes. By and large, the evening is sure to be both highly thought-provoking and enjoyable. We invite you, in the words of his website banner, to “take your shoes off and make yourself comfortable… [and] talk some more about movies, television, cooking, books, or politics.”

But Phillips does not just talk and entertain, falling prey to the common temptation of spewing largely vomitous matter in an age of blogs and Twitter. As a man whose eloquence and performance is bolstered by uncommon insight, when Phillips talks, people listen. He has gained wide credibility for his work, especially his moving book, He Talk Like a White Boy, as already mentioned, as a nationally syndicated author of his column, “The Way I See It”, and frequent guest of conservative radio talk shows across the nation, such as News and Notes with Ed Gordon , a popular NPR show. His essays have been published in Newsweek , USA Today, BET.com, and the Indianapolis Recorder, among others.

His deadly combination of skill and credibility make him an ideal candidate to speak at Wabash. Here, we fancy ourselves to demand words backed by substance. We are pleased when speakers display exceptional speaking ability and moral conviction, but our aspirations toward deeper, probing thought empower us to quickly identify pithy words and hollow character when we see it.

And here at the Conservative Union, we’ve done our homework. We’ve found a philosophy rich with authenticity in Phillips’s work, one that strives to approach every topic from an honest, well-researched perspective. We trust that in his lecture he will deliver on a conviction we’ve found as a common thread in his published work. “[Word and deed] must be grounded not in legalese or political correctness, but in the terra firma of moral correctness,” he says in his June 29, 2009, column “Becoming Post Racial”. This is a high statement coming from an actor and merely self-made author, columnist, and activist. We are excited to test Phillips on his word.

Testing our guests is also something we value at Wabash. There is little so invigorating as catching a speaker in some minor contradiction, or in some counterpoint they perchance overlooked. As with every guest lecturer hosted by the Conservative Union, after Phillips’s talk will be an opportunity for the audience to engage him in vigorous discussion. These discussion periods are often the highlight of the event, the chance for Wabash wisecrack (or not so wise-crack) to catch the speaker stumbling and send him out confounded by some brilliant new idea. Opponents of our guest lecturers often attempt to achieve this, and we welcome all audience participation. But be warned: although there is no such thing as a dumb question, there do exist petty interjections that serve only to embarrass the dignity of the entire audience.

Of course, petty or not, Phillips will likely welcome all critique or question with thoughtful consideration. At least in print, Phillips strives to maintain a civil, although at times heated, conversation with his audience, both supporters and critics alike. On his website are listed 265 frequent comments and commonly asked questions, ranging from “What is your opinion on Oprah?” to “I think you are out of touch with the black community”, and “Do you feel that you have contributed to the demise of the Republican Party?” Although Phillips takes these all in stride, giving detailed responses to each, he is very clear about his beliefs and never afraid to defend them.

This is what I find most engaging about Phillips. Beyond his idealism and aim for authenticity, it his willingness to go out on a limb, even if alone, that draws my respect for him. There are too few public thinkers like him willing to broadcast and hold to strong personal convictions on important issues. Consider, for instance, his stance regarding nationalized healthcare. In his October 19 column, “What is Pornographic? What is Hip?”, he likens leftist ambitions to pass a single-payer, universal healthcare bill to the perversion of pornography: “It is the ambition of the left to establish a whole new set of rights – rights not found in nature or revealed by nature’s God,” he says, sentiments which Phoenix staff writer Jason Allen shares also in his piece “How’s This a Right?” But Phillips continues, increasing the volume of his gutsy claim: “Rather, they are theproduct of the anointed and all too ambiguous progressive vision… Certainly there is nothing obscene about the desire to educate children, aid the
poor or ensure that the sick receive care. But to devise laws and policy based on ambitious, ambiguous and often arbitrary descriptives is, well, downright pornographic.” Statements like this are certainly worthy of the highest form of Wabash thought.

Or consider his words regarding the present situation of race in America, as featured in his August 24 column, “Town Halls on Race”: “No, we are not fearful of race; what we are is reluctant to move our discussions of race beyond the narrow confines of black grievance and white guilt… In the pursuit of a magical “level playing field” this generation continues to lay the veneer of race over every discussion of policy. The result is a continuing dialogue filled with terms like disparate impact and psycho-historical effect. These are all just variations on the same misguided attempt to assign worth to skin color. We talk all the time but never learn the lesson that before men can be equal men must first be free – free of judgments based on their race or ethnicity.”

In light of such outspokenness, it is easy to imagine sharp criticism from the left, the right, and the black community everywhere in between. Americans in black communities of all camps have at times been taken aback by his sometimes traitorously-seeming work, as in his October 14 column, “Racial Schizophrenia”: “I am only surprised that it took the left the better part of a year before they began to play the race game in earnest… Race provides them with a sense of security; they believe that through race they are able to keep their emotional and moral equilibrium. And because the left is emotionally tied to race it is a potent political weapon the use of which power seekers and power keepers will not soon relinquish.” Phillips pulls no punches, writing as he sees things no matter what the issue, and no matter who the audience.

However, it is this disregard for his audience that has some critics questioning his effectiveness to persuade and hold weight in the political arena. Publishers Weekly writes of his book and column, “[Phillips is] acute on the absurdity of racial perceptions, as when he gets scripts that call for “an African-American neurosurgeon with street smarts.” But his political essays often read like blog entries, heavy on outrage and rhetoric (the latter
sometimes snappy), and feather-light on nuance and evidence (the latter sometimes dubious). They may draw cheers from those who share his faith in G.W. Bush, but won’t persuade those who don’t.” I humbly agree. Though his remarks reflect considerable insight, it is a warranted critique that Phillips’s aggressive attitude on occasion clouds his meaning. But though his vigorous form of debate can be problematic for a confused audience, it can be rallying to those eager to be inspired critical engagement and wrestling with truth. Indeed, Phillips’s approach would fit well with the type of spirited parliamentary debate which staff writer Alex Robbins discusses in his article, “You Lie! The Case for Politically Incorrect Debate”.

Yet where he alienates, Phillips resolves, consistently returning to values shared by all members of his audience. He Talk Like a White Boy, his most prominent work thus far, reveals a down-to-earth author struggling with the same conflicts present across the entire spectrum of humanity. He addresses a highly personal struggle with identity, faith, and purpose. This is evident as a common thread all throughout his work, as Publishers Weekly states further on in their review, “Phillips’s opinions (e.g., on faith, character and the pitfalls of affirmative action) may be the driving force behind his writing, but it’s his lived experience that is likely to persuade readers of all colors—black, white, red or blue—that he has something to say.”

Yes, he is outspoken, and yes, he holds strong—if not polarizing— convictions. But above
all else, Joseph Phillips strives in his work and daily life to maintain a genuine authenticity with those around him. As any Rhetoric major might attest, this is the defining quality of a dynamic speaker. And as any member of the Wabash community might agree, it is authenticity and a common drive towards a common purpose—figuring out the complex
puzzles of this complex life—that holds Wabash together.

The Wabash Conservative Union therefore warmly invites you to join with us and Mr. Phillips for what promises to be a stirring and thought provoking probe into a few of these
puzzles.

Related posts:

1. Joseph Phillips to Speak at Wabash
2. Joseph Phillips Enthralls Crowd
3. Race, Conservatism, and the GOP: An Interview with Joseph C. Phillips

First, for those who don’t know, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) is a Russian novelist who immigrated to America in 1926. She wrote several novels dealing with Communist Russia in her early years, but later in life began to concentrate on her own political philosophy. Atlas Shrugged is commonly referred to as her magnum opus, as it sums up her thoughts on capitalism, socialism, government and the individual. While her book takes place in a fictional United States in what was then modern day (circa 1954), her characters certainly can describe people who exist today, with their thoughts and words still retaining meaning.

In recent years the common perception of just what a right is has changed significantly. While we all still agree that we have, to name a few, rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as freedoms (or rights to) speech, religion and trial by jury, some Americans would also add rights to education, healthcare, food, a job and shelter. I think even conservatives would say such things are necessary and therefore good. However, a good question to ask about such entitlements would be—Are education, healthcare, food, work and shelter truly basic rights?

To answer this, we must first answer, what is a right? In Atlas Shrugged, Rand shows us that these things, though good, cannot possibly be basic rights. Through her characters and their dire situation, she shows that these entitlements are not so easily secured because they must be provided by someone. In her novel, it becomes increasingly hard to ensure everyone has a job when the majority of the greedy capitalist pigs who created the jobs have disappeared. It becomes impossible to feed, clothe and house everyone when even the richest have trouble finding a few morsels of food. How then can we equate a right like the freedom of speech to healthcare? The answer is we cannot. On one side of the equation we have something like the right of free speech. This right is a condition of existence for all men and women; it is not given by anyone but comes from ourselves-this is clearly evidenced by the fact that you are able to speak unless someone forces you to be quiet. On the other side of the equation we have the right to healthcare. Is a person born with his or her own personal physician? The answer is clearly no; how then does a person acquire healthcare? He or she must trade with someone able to give healthcare. For one to force a doctor to provide him or her with healthcare is to become a tyrant and partially enslave the doctor. On this point Rand and I are of the same mind: a right is something that exists intrinsically; anything that can or must be bought or sold is not a right; but something else—a good.

At this point, dear reader, you are likely either seeing some validity to my argument or can’t believe I would be so heartless to suggest that humanity isn’t entitled to education, healthcare, food, clothing and shelter (how can the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights be wrong?!) However, we must realize that no matter how necessary healthcare or food is to human existence, it must be created using human effort. What effort created our right to free speech? What effort created our right to assemble peaceably? The answer is that no effort was required; that is what makes those freedoms basic rights. When a government tries to mandate that a good is also a basic human right to which every person is entitled, the consequences are never good and are at their worst, disastrous.

Let’s look at an example from Rand’s novel that shows the government’s handling of the distribution of an ‘essential commodity’, in this case, a metal stronger and cheaper than steel.

“Nobody had known how that [Fair Share] Law was to be observed…He [Rearden] had not known how to give every consumer who demanded it an equal share of Rearden Metal…They were not orders any longer, in that old, honorable sense of trade; they were demands. The law provided that he could be sued by any consumer who failed to receive his fair share [500 tons] of Rearden Metal…Five hundred tons of Rearden Metal could not lay three miles of rail…it could not provide the bracing for one coal mine…He said nothing. Everybody had a right to his Metal, except himself.” Now mentally insert, in the place of Rearden Metal, the word healthcare. Doesn’t this sound an awful lot like the current debate on healthcare reform? However, the elephant in the room is the question ‘Who will provide the healthcare?’ The answer, as far as I have found, is “Don’t worry, the doctors won’t go anywhere. They’ll always be willing to provide us with healthcare.”

However, is it reasonable to assume that doctors will always be available and willing to practice? To quote Representative Shelley Berkley, (Democrat of Nevada) “We don’t have enough doctors in primary care or in any specialty.” Already we are faced with a shortage of physicians, how much longer can we continue to pile on regulations and red tape and expect to have healthcare at all? The shortage of people willing to provide perceived ‘rights’ is not limited to healthcare but also extends to education. An article in the April 7, 2009 New York times cites a study published by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) as follows, “’The traditional teaching career is collapsing at both ends,’ the report says. ‘Beginners are being driven away’ by low pay and frustrating working conditions, and ‘accomplished veterans who still have much to contribute are being separated from their schools by obsolete retirement systems’ that encourage teachers to move from paycheck to pension when they are still in their mid-50s….”

To me it is no small wonder that the two sectors which have seen the most government intervention and regulation in the name of the public good are now the ones in crisis and in ‘need’ of even more government and regulation. By labeling healthcare and education “rights” we are claiming that physicians and educators are obligated, whether they wish to or not, to provide us with their services. I ask again, how much longer can we expect them to labor as public slaves?

While the term ‘public slave’ is admittedly harsh, what is the situation when the government orders that some person perform his or her job, even for pay? The government, which is our representative, uses its force to require a person to, without consent, work and give away the fruit of his or her labor. The question of pay doesn’t enter in to this situation; if any individual tried to do this, he would be denounced for enslaving his fellow man, but if the government enslaves a person in the name of the public welfare, it is lauded as noble and honorable. I find this directly opposed to our nation’s founding platforms. One of the foundations of our constitution is that a man has the right to his life and the right to sustain his life. According to Rand, “Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.”

I understand that for many, the ideas of Ayn Rand may seem a bit strange, if not outright unworkable; however, her basic premise is that a person has the right to his or her life and the fruits of it. Only a capitalist system also affirms this basic right, socialism and government restrained “capitalism” do not; they hold that a person’s labor and effort are the property of society and to be disposed of by the government. The individual is lucky to keep what is left over after the “public good” is accomplished.

The final point to be made, especially in regard to the healthcare debate, is that a capitalist solution does not preclude providing healthcare or any other basic service to those who cannot afford to purchase them. I know I am not allowing in donating of my time and my money to the less fortunate in society and I ‘profit’ from doing so in the sense that I feel rewarded for doing good. This is a capitalist phenomenon: I ‘paid’ my time or money and received a value—the contentment that comes only from charitable behavior. To claim, as Ralph Nader did in 2000, that “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity”, is absurd. A society that takes, using government force, money from those that have and give to those that need is not more, but less just. A society that gives willingly of its excess to those most in need is not only more just but more compassionate. As the debate on healthcare, education and other issues continues to rage, we cannot forget that support of a congressional bill or political candidate does not help the sick and unfortunate unless the bill is passed or the candidate is elected. Our efforts would be better spent doing what we claim we want to do: help the needy.

I sign off, leaving a list of some of my favorite healthcare charities in hopes that while we await some resolution on America’s issues, we won’t forget those we are trying to help.

Mayo Clinic
New Rochester, MN 55905
507-284-8540
200 First Street SW

The Children’s Health Fund
215 West 125th Street Suite 301
New York, NY 10027
(212) 535-9400

Shriners Hospitals for Children
2900 Rocky Point Dr.
Tampa, FL 33607
813.281.0300

City of Hope
1500 East Duarte Road
Duarte, California 91010
626-256-HOPE (4673)

Related posts:

1. The Healthcare Debate Simplified
2. A Glimmer of Hope: Taking the Last Stand to Really Fix Healthcare
3. You Lie! The Case for Politically Incorrect Debate

However, on September 10, no one was talking about the President’s words; instead, the focus was on Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) and his two-word comment that sent the chamber into a frenzy that sounded more like Wabash students shouting their opinion of the school located 25 miles to the south, rather than a convening of Congress. “You lie!” shouted Wilson, a fierce opponent of the healthcare reform bill, after Obama stated that the bill would not cover illegal immigrants.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s jaw almost hit the floor and House and Senate Democrats alike quickly began to let their feelings on the outburst be known. And so it began; the Liberals came out of the pits of the earth to start making every claim imaginable. They demanded that Congress punish Wilson. (Apparently they had forgotten that the First Amendment allows Republicans to speak freely, as well.) They asked for the Republicans in Congress to reprimand Wilson, after prominent members of the GOP had already made public statements denouncing his actions. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed Wilson was “totally disrespectful” for his choice words.

3,000 words on what is arguably the most important legislation the nation has seen in the past several decades, and one two-word statement steals the spotlight. This got me thinking, “Were Joe Wilson’s actions actually wrong? Or were Democrats simply upset because someone had had the guts to call out their Chosen One?” The answers to both are debatable.

There once was a time when Congressional debate was not so necessarily politically correct. Historically, American political debate was modeled off of that used in British Parliament. The British idea of acceptable Parliamentary behavior is fundamentally different from what exists in today’s American Congress. Although originally the American version closely resembled Parliament, since those early days modern political correctness has greatly affected the seriousness of United States Congressional debate. When a proposition is brought to Parliament or a speaker is on the floor, Members will boo, hiss, shout in approval, clap, and even yell such insults as “For Shame!” at the speaker, forcing speakers to know carefully the merit of their words. When Wilson spoke up during the address, then, he could easily have been confused for a Member of Parliament.

“Why doesn’t this come to the United States?” you may ask. Well, in a way, it has.
Intercollegiate Parliamentary Debate, for example, has been a phenomenon on college campuses all across the country for quite some time. The American Parliamentary Debate Association hosts tournaments all across the country for college students to show off their skills and to promote the Parliamentary Debate format. Also, many colleges, including Wabash, offer a course on Parliamentary Debate (Rhetoric 143 at Wabash, taught by Prof. Motter).

So, if this style has worked in Britain and is so popular around the nation in the arena of academia, why did it cause such a commotion when Wilson blurted out during Obama’s speech? And an aside: How does it differ from when George W. Bush was booed during his state of the union address in 2005? The answer to these questions is quite simple: Because a Republican called out a Democrat. Is it politically incorrect to shout in front of Congress and a national television audience that the president of the United States is a liar? Unquestionably. But is political incorrectness exactly what it will take to get that message across? Probably.

Shortly after the conclusion of Obama’s speech, Wilson released a statement apologizing for his actions. “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the healthcare bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.” But, neither Democrats nor the media could let it end there, continuing to hound Wilson. Eventually, the Democrats forced Wilson to apologize on the House floor.

For shame! I guess we’ll have to wait for a Republican to be booed or called out for such behavior to be acceptable again.

Related posts:

1. How is this a Right? “Atlas Shrugged” and the Healthcare Debate
2. The Healthcare Debate Simplified
3. The Case of the Federal Reserve

At present, we are in the middle of an unprecedented financial crisis. Our outstanding public debt, currently accelerating past $10 trillion, doesn’t even begin to compare to our unfunded liabilities to the entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Nevertheless, in 2008 we spent about $2.4 trillion (about 16% of our Gross Domestic Product) on healthcare. Therefore, when the President and Congress are talking about destroying one-sixth of our economy with a single act, some attention is required.

Before moving onto the issues and the facts that led this author to his humble suggestion for reform, let’s make one more thing quite clear: everything you have heard during this debate about the efficiency of government programs is a lie. We are told that Medicare and such are far more honest because there is almost no overhead to the programs (whereas the big, nasty insurance companies are robbing you blind!). This is, in fact, technically true; but what the public option proponents don’t want you to know is that this so-called “efficiency” is the product of a rigid, bureaucratic rule that pays hospitals and doctors far less than they need to recover the real costs of care.

The sad truth is that, while 33% of Americans receive their healthcare coverage from the government, spending on their behalf exceeds 53% of those $2.4 trillion! The 59% of us (which includes some of those also on government programs) who are covered privately account for only 42% of healthcare spending. Why aren’t people paying attention to these startling facts? Again, the answer is a sad truth: the story has been changed.

During the 2008 primary season, the debate raged between Senators Obama and Clinton over how they would achieve “healthcare reform.” During the general election campaign, Senator Obama continued to stress his plan for “healthcare reform.” Evidently, the Democratic Party no longer believes that “healthcare reform” is a worthwhile goal, because now the President and his loony liberal lackeys in Congress speak only of “health insurance reform.” This, more than anything else, demonstrates how the problem shifted from the high costs of healthcare with lackluster results to the liberal plan to destroy health insurance companies and institute a single-payer medical system. Not convinced by this conspiracy theory? Go watch some videos of healthcare town halls- not the videos with the crazy people screaming about the evils of socialism, but the videos of leftist Members of Congress who are wildly cheered at the mere suggestion of single-payer. These people don’t care about covering the uninsured; they just want to punish insurance providers. If you don’t believe that there are people in this country who honestly think that the system that has bankrupted every country it has touched while simultaneously destroying their medical results is the miracle we need, then I have some sad truths for you my friend.

For these reasons (both the legitimate problems of the healthcare industry and the partisan desires of some to destroy our insurance industry), it is clear that the future of healthcare in America is bleak; but you were promised a plan to fix it, and a plan you shall receive. First, though, let’s understand the real facts of American healthcare. Let’s begin with the issue of the uninsured. To create a foundation for his “health insurance reform,” the President makes frequent references to the fact that 47 million Americans are uninsured. Now, the number that I have (from the National Survey of America’s Families, an academic poll without any ideological biases) is 45-49 million, so I will grant him this number. But do not be deceived by this statistic. This is merely a cold number of people who do not have health insurance.

37% of “uninsured” people have an annual household income over $50,000, with a full 7.3 million earning over $84k a year but choosing not to purchase insurance. Another 9.1 million are only temporarily uninsured, as they move from job to job in this poor economy. A further twelve million are actually eligible for government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, but do not use them! And 9.5 million are not citizens of this country (I am not speaking of illegal aliens, but of the people living legally in this country without being affected by a government health program). Add these all together, and we can understand that the real number of uninsured living in this country is between 7.1 and 11.1 million, not fifty million. So since only about 2.5% of people living in the U.S. are genuinely uninsured (instead of the 15% lie), why should our government be asking us to shoulder a trillion-dollar health insurance program?

Let’s make another thing clear: single-payer ultimately means government healthcare. Don’t be deceived by people pointing to the United Kingdom or France as examples of government health done right. These countries are currently mired in financial woes directly caused by their inefficient health systems (and their people experience significantly poorer results than Americans). Don’t be led astray by promoters of a Canadian-style system. The Canadian Supreme Court recently struck down the law prohibiting private health providers in Canada on the basis that single-payer directly makes healthcare worse. The court said that, “Single-payer without waiting lines is a contradiction in terms.” We all saw how horribly the government was treating our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed; do we want that standard of care for our parents or our children?

Finally, let’s clear up the myth that U.S. government insurance programs have been efficient and reduced cost. As I wrote earlier, the lower costs are the result of paying doctors and hospitals nowhere near what they need to actually perform a procedure. This engenders the cheating and waste that makes Medicare and Medicaid cost 35% MORE than private insurance! Also, according to a new study by PriceWaterhouse Coopers, any public option will cause the insurance premiums of people with private insurance to skyrocket! This is because hospitals will start charging their better- that is to say privately- insured patients more to make up the losses from treating those on the government option. So basically, majority of Americans, the government has decided to screw you in the name of covering seven million more people.

So now, after finding out that basically everything you’re hearing from the White House, Congress, and the media is a lie, you’re feeling a little depressed about our chances to fix health care. But have hope! There is a plan to reduce the waste in the industry and help all Americans get coverage! You can remember this brave, new plan with three simple words: taxes, cooperation, and common sense.

We should begin with a cut in the taxes of everyone who currently has private health insurance. What this means is making every penny you spend on healthcare tax-deductible. This will greatly lower costs for companies and individuals, especially those who are self-insured. This will encourage some of those who currently choose not to pay for insurance to do so.

Next, we need to force the government to stop fueling the cycle of waste, reducing the costs of healthcare for everyone while simultaneously making the system more efficient. If our existing government health programs reimbursed hospitals and doctors honestly and fairly, many needless operations would not occur, saving millions. State governments can then feel better about encouraging cooperation amongst the insurance providers. Already, states like Montana are bringing all the different providers to the same table to work out deals and cover more lives. This process works, and involves only private insurance.

Finally, the government and insurers can start using some common sense. For insurers, this means accepting the fact that all Americans deserve health insurance, regardless of what diseases they have. No one should be abandoned in a hospital bed just because he’s already there. For the government, this means cracking down on medical malpractice. Dramatically reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits will not only save the industry millions in trial costs, but it will also free doctors from the bondage of defensive medicine- which, similarly to the unfair reimbursement system of the government- has decreased quality while increasing costs. Take Texas as an example here, where a serious limitation on what qualifies as medical malpractice has costs way down and has created a surplus of doctors wishing to practice in the state.

Demand the truth from your lawmakers and leaders! Do not accept rhetoric when your life and livelihood are at risk! We need better tax policy, government cooperation with insurers (and vice versa), and some real common sense to lower the waste in healthcare that has created our present crisis. Above all, recognize that healthcare is a personal issue first, and that you owe it to yourself to push for the best system possible. So support a plan that will make healthcare better, not just make us feel better. After all, that’s not a cure, it’s just a hallucination.

Related posts:

1. The Healthcare Debate Simplified
2. Thoughts on Healthcare
3. How is this a Right? “Atlas Shrugged” and the Healthcare Debate

A.) Hello. My name is Adam Current and I hate America. I believe healthcare should be left up to those who can afford it, meaning only the rich deserve medical attention. However, since I am not employed full-time, I am an ignorant fool who works against my own best interest. I voted for McCain.

B.) Hello. My name is Adam Current and I love America. I believe that is healthcare is a fundamental right, as covered by the Preamble to the Constitution, and every American should have equal access to it. I think that huge CEO profits are wrong, and the government should regulate how much they make. After all, it’s not fair that they’re rich and I’m not! However, as those simpleminded wingnuts tell it, since I want everyone to have equal benefits, I support communism. I voted for Obama.

C.) Hello. My name is Adam Current and I love America. I believe as Americans, we possess the fundamental right to control our own destiny; whether that means we fail by hard work, succeed by hard work, fail by being lazy, or succeed via inheritance. With this right comes the recognition that life is not fair, and that the government should not make up for its inequities. If there are some that cannot afford healthcare, I truly feel for them, but it our job to keep the government alive; NOT the other way around!

A1.) Don’t you just hate how those darned liberals want to control everything? With global warming they can tell us what we can build, what we can eat, and how much our cows can fart. And now, with healthcare, they want to tell us what doctors we can see! Crazy left wing loons! I want to keep my gun and current doctor. If those illegals are sick, tell them to go to the stinking ER! Besides, people from countries with universal healthcare come here for care. How is our system broken again? I’ll tell you. The system is not broken: The liberals simply want to control our lives. Too bad the Baracktards—I mean, the majority—is ignorant of this fact. Dipwads.

B1.) Why does the GOP hate America? It’s one thing to deny Global Warming so big corporations can flourish, but to deny their fellow countrymen healthcare?! Those bigots are happily handing out death sentences! If they truly loved our country, they would fight so it’s sick citizens could see the doctor. But all they care about is hating gays and boning Palin. If they had a brain at all, they would make darned sure that even illegal immigrants have equal access to a doctor. Our system IS in a state of crisis. Darn them to hell! (But in a metaphorical sense, because I’m tolerant of everyone.)

C1.)  <sarcasm> Clearly Town Hall protesters are planted by big businesses. No one in their right mind would disagree with our Dear Leader! </sarcasm> Here come the insults.

A2.) Liberals: Apologizing for America while bringing the crappiness of Europe to the States. What’s next? Legalized marijuana to help California get out its budget crisis? I bet that would be an Amsterdam good time! Oh wait…

B2.) Conservatives: Lowering taxes only to complain when their roads crumble. What’s next? Complaining that government is the problem so they can be reelected? Next thing you know, one of them will be resigning from office because they hate the government, only to run for the Presidency in 2012. Only Palin would be stupid enough to do that. Oh wait…

C2.) Wait, aren’t both parties corrupt? I bet those attacks are leading into something bigger…

B3.) I got it! An ad campaign linking a rich insurance executive with the average, poor, stupid, misinformed, redneck Rethug! Brilliant! Our base will eat it up! Just like those ads in Florida during the election, trying to tell the Hispanics that Rush Limbaugh hates them. Can you say Huff Po piece?

C3.) Commercials. I hate it when I’m right.

A3.) THIS JUST IN! CANADA’S SOCIALISTIC HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS COMING SOUTH! LIBERALS ARE TRYING TO EXPAND ABORTION COVERAGE! GRAB THE TIN FOIL!

C4.) Oh brother. Now they’re actually going to think about their bogus attacks.

A4.) Hold on a second: What does the insurance executive have to do with my mother? My mother voted McCain but isn’t rich! She just works really really hard to pay for her insurance. Why do those darn liberals keep attacking success? I’m beginning to think they hate anyone who makes a lot of money… except for themselves!

B4.) Hold on a second: We distinctly said that healthcare reform would be a distinctly American solution. We are NOT advocating for exclusively European or Canadian Socialism. The next thing you know those darn Jesus-loving gay-haters will be singing “Blame Canada!” and standing up for the rich man.

C5.) Hey! What happened to the debate?

B5.) Darn those intolerant Cro-Magnon racist bigoted gay hating Conservatives!

A5.) Retarded reverse-racist hypocritical intolerant Liberals!

C6.) And I thought we were actually going to discuss this. If only those no good politicians could be paid minimum wage and put on the very healthcare they are advocating. THEN we might see some real change.

“I lift up my eyes to the hills—where does my help come from? My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth.” Psalm 121:1-2

Sounds simple enough...

Related posts:

1. How is this a Right? “Atlas Shrugged” and the Healthcare Debate
2. Thoughts on Healthcare
3. A Glimmer of Hope: Taking the Last Stand to Really Fix Healthcare