Connect with us

Healthcare

Briefly, why Medicare-for-All would be a disaster

Published

on

We’ve discussed many times on NOQ Report about how bad the concept of Medicare-for-All is, how it would bankrupt the nation, dramatically raise costs, and reduce quality of healthcare. These ideas shouldn’t need to be reiterated, but somehow the notion of single-payer healthcare just won’t go away.

Thankfully, people like Justin Haskins are out there educating the people about why it would be so disastrous for the nation. As he points out, the government has always had a problem with running things efficiently. We’re not talking about a few things they’ve run poorly, or even most things. Literally everything the government controls is run poorly at the highest levels. There are certain things that require the government to have control such as the military, but even the military is very poorly run from a 30,000-foot view. That’s not to say the military itself is inefficient in its operations; individual units purr like Ferrari engines. But as an overall entity, the waste and economics behind everything the government touches is awful.

The next reason it’s not a good idea is because it has never worked elsewhere. While it’s true the people don’t technically pay directly for their healthcare, their systems prevent their people from having even basic procedures in a timely manner. This cannot be understated. Even if we were somehow able to pay for Medicare-for-All without destroying the entire planet’s economy, we shouldn’t want to based on results from around the world.

If you know someone who’s considering supporting Medicare-for-All, please educate them. If you’re considering it yourself, please do the research first. Radical progressives might feel good by offering it, but Heaven help us if they ever get their way.

 

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

How Alabama’s abortion law sets President Trump up to be a pragmatist

Published

on

How Alabamas abortion law sets President Trump up to be a pragmatist

One of the favorite tactics for both major political parties is to paint opposing candidates as extremists. This is particularly true when it comes to presidential candidates; if you don’t recall, every Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan has been painted as a bigot by Democrats. But whether or not the people fall for the extremism play is usually based, at least to some degree, on reality.

That may not be the case in the 2020 election as both media and the expressions of the people seem to be favoring extremism as a reality rather than just a label. The President is a far-right bigot in the eyes of Democrats while every Democratic candidate (with the possible exception of Joe Biden) is a far-left socialist in the eyes of Republicans. Meanwhile, mainstream media is engaged in confirmation bias to appease their audiences. One need only look at coverage of the Mueller report to see how this is unmistakably true.

On the issue of abortion, the Democratic candidates have made no attempts to appeal to the middle. As each is either asked for or volunteers their perspective on abortion, invariably they are pushing no restrictions whatsoever. This is a far cry from the days when the Clintons thought abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. Today, abortions are to be embraced as far as Democrats are concerned, and any attempt to push for adoption or to fight for the rights of the child in the womb is considered bigoted. One by one, every Democratic candidate is adopting abortion extremism as their stated stance.

But President Trump did something yesterday that makes sense from a political perspective. I may disagree with his stance, but it’s a winning strategy for his reelection campaign. He said he is pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. This stance was once considered to be an extreme position for the right, but with the Alabama abortion bill removing exceptions for rape and incest, the President has the luxury of being closer to the middle than any of his opponents (again, with the possible exception of Biden – we’ll find out soon enough).

Thankfully, the President of the United States has very little they can do when it comes to abortion other than pick pro-life judges and act as the leader of their party. Executive orders on abortion would be certainly struck down regardless of what they say, so it comes down to ideological purity. With Democrats taking on abortion-on-demand as their stated radical stance, it’s hard to argue that the President is the extremist when even he doesn’t directly support the Alabama bill. He didn’t call it out, but by stating his personal position he established that he’s not as far to the right as the Democrats are to the left.

Today, the Democrats must embrace their primary voters, many of whom are the radical progressives “shouting their abortions” and pushing for a socialistic Dystopian future for America. Meanwhile, the President has the luxury of being more pragmatic with his approach since he’s already in general election mode. He doesn’t need to appeal to his base very much because they either stand behind him out of adoration or they fear the Democrats too much to consider going against him. Even most #NeverTrumpers are having a hard time reconciling their hatred for the President with the current batch of hardline hyper-leftists vying for the Democratic nomination.

We can argue the nuances of being pro-life and having exceptions, but as long as the Democrats are all onboard for on-demand abortions, the President’s less extreme stance on abortion will help him next November.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why Tomi Lahren’s abortion view harms American conservatism

Published

on

Why Tomi Lahrens abortion view harms American conservatism

Democrats are unambiguous and united in their view of abortion. It wasn’t always this way. As recently as a decade ago, there were a good number of pro-life Democrats winning elections and expressing their views as pundits.

Today, they don’t exist.

Republicans aren’t so repulsed by the pro-abortion people in their midst. It’s understandable that as a party that’s less focused on individual issues, one can be a Republican without checking off all the various boxes. This is fine. What’s not fine is for breaks in the ranks of conservatives. There are certain things that must remain universal among those who claim to embrace conservatism, especially among those who speak for conservatives.

Fox Nation’s Tomi Lahren is one of them. She claims to be a conservative, but she’s pro-choice. That fact, by itself, is understandable because the issue is a polarizing one in which people can be swayed to one side based on personal experience. It’s not like taxes which warrant universal scorn from conservatives. There are gun-toting, tax-hating, pro-choice conservatives.

But there’s a bigger problem with Lahren’s perspective. She’s not just attacking the Alabama abortion bill and pro-life perspectives in general. She’s doing so with an argument that flies in the face of reality.

Do we think government is the answer? No. In fact, one of the most appealing parts about the Alabama abortion bill is that it represents the first true opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. When it reaches the Supreme Court (and it almost certainly will) it gives us the first glimpse of how the current makeup of the court will react. In fact, the makeup of the court could actually be better if one of the left-leaning Justices retires soon.

Once Roe v. Wade is out of the way, we can finally express the truly conservative aspect of federalism that should have never been taken away – the states’ rights to determine their own healthcare laws.

If Tomi Lahren doesn’t like the abortion ban, that’s fine. Her choice. But to defend her choice by insinuating a challenge to Roe v. Wade is somehow an attack on limited-government tenets is false and harms conservatism.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

President Trump affirms abortion exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother

Published

on

President Trump affirms abortion exceptions for rape incest and life of the mother

Following last week’s fury over the Alabama abortion bill that essentially bans abortion in all cases other than a threat to the life of mother, President Trump has weighed in. While not addressing the bill directly, he still declared his stance on abortion and called for voters to stand with him to protect life.

Opinion

Our EIC noted a couple of days ago that belief that life begins at conception means being an abortion absolutist that backs the Alabama law. I tend to agree, which is why I believe we have to classify the President’s remarks as a secular belief in the sanctity of life. When we insert our human morality into the equation, it becomes a moral issue to want exceptions.

That’s fine. There may be bickering over who may actually be pro-choice based on their perspectives, but from a political perspective we need to make sure we keep our eyes on the big picture. We want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. Then, the states can decide how they want to handle the “healthcare” issue of abortion.

The rest is part of the cultural battle against abortions. This is why I’ve said many times in the past that we have to view this as a multi-front battle. We have the political front, and that’s going to be ever-changing. But we also have the cultural front in which we have to make decisions about how we view the life within the mother, whether from a religious or moral perspective. The third front is the scientific arena which has been quickly shifting away from the pro-abortion world to vindicating past claims pro-lifers have been making for decades.

The President’s stance, while not perfectly aligned with mine, is still exponentially better than anything the entirety of the Democratic Party is putting forth. What’s worse is that their candidates are pushing radical abortion ideas.

Quote

“If we believe the miracle of life begins when a human is conceived, then we must defend that life as a fellow creation of God regardless of the circumstances. Then, we must do everything in our power to aid the mother through the challenges she and her child will face.” – JD Rucker

Final Thoughts

We can bicker over the extent that pro-life laws should block abortions, but the general direction of overturning Roe v. Wade should allow conservatives to walk along the same path. We can discuss details afterwards.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending