I think you are making some assumptions and generalizations that may not be
I do agree with you on the corporate welfare argument. I doubt that you will
find a true conservative that supports corporate welfare.
I'll make some rebuttals and comments:
a) Redistribution: Using your example, I think what people are referring to
is in addition to the 100 people that have the insurance pay for their
houses that burn, we pay for an additional 100 homes that burned for people
that never paid any insurance premium. Insurance is a voluntary pooling of
risk. Your example and subsequent suggestion that I would cancel my
insurance is a false argument made on an incorrect premise.
b) Social Security: This is nothing more than an elaborate Ponzi scheme gone
bad (courtesy of politicians). Yes, you can make anything appear to work by
changing the terms. SS is not actuarially sound. When you increase the
retirement age, you are lowering costs. If your employer pays you $1,000
every two weeks then changes it to $1,000 twice a month, you have lost
money. It's the same argument. Keep the amount the same and change the
terms. Google Galveston/Social Security. This was the last municipality that
opted out of SS before the law changed. See how they did after 25 years.
c) 50 million uninsured: I have heard a more realistic number is 12 million.
I guess it depends on who is spinning the plates.
d) Death Panels: This sounds pretty ominous, but what do you call it when a
bureaucrat decides that the treatment is not worth the cost given your age?
Oregon has this now. Is Pres. Bush or Ted Kennedy going to be subject to
this? How about our members of congress? They are all way to arrogant. I'll
quote Marie Antoinette when the peasants were starving, her response - "Let
them eat cake" Then the French revolution ensued. Want a public option, make
every member of congress the first subjects. Lead by example.
Fred, I really enjoy sparring with you.
Have a good day, all the best.