The King County Elections office held its Take Your Children to Work Day last week. The group project was, you guessed it, a special election. A sample of the questions the kids got to vote on:
What do you think is the most important thing King County Government does?Provide health care? I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that a disproportionate number of children of government employees would turn out to be socialists. The weird thing is that the report says "Ballots Cast - 45". But my sources at the office tell me that only 40 kids participated in the event!*Catches people who break the law – 16
Provides public transportation – 4
Keeps our water clean – 1
Holds elections – 7
Provides health care to people who can’t afford it 15
Provides speedy and fair trials 2
* I was just kidding about the 40 kids. That was just a little bit of innocent "more ballots than voters" humor.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 04, 2005 10:39 PM | Email ThisBut is it possible that maybe, just maybe, there's some wisdom in these kids? That they know what's really important?
Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, the people in every other developed nation in the world have a good idea about something?
I know all the arguments against government-provided healthcare (and I trust some people will now reiterate them for me). Healthcare is a complex issue, way beyond the understanding of schoolkids. But wisecracks about children and government employees and socialism just distract and inflame people.
Posted by: Bruce on May 4, 2005 11:00 PMIt is sad that the young generation thinks it's entitled to everything. And (some) people wonder why there are so many problems. I would hate to see what would happen to those people if they lived 100-150 years ago. They'd be in culture shock, 'take care of myself? You've got to be kidding!'.
Posted by: dad4 on May 4, 2005 11:03 PMDo you think King County should go to a vote by mail election system?
YES – 20
NO – 25
Even the kids know that vote by mail is a bad idea, although I don't have any measure of why these kids thought that it was a bad idea.
Whew boy!
A tyrannist by any other name...
Posted by: Jericho on May 5, 2005 12:02 AMNo, not this. Not when every country that has ever tried it has had it fail miserably on them. Sweden is drowning in debt and it's people can no longer afford a decent living because of the extreme tax burden. Canada's socialized health care, much lauded by the Clintons when they were trying to institute a similar system here, provides abysmal health care and those who can afford it go to private doctors and pay extra on top of what they pay in taxes. In GB, many people wealthy enough to go to private health care do, leaving those who can't afford it with an almost unbearable tax burden for a system that can barely meet their needs. And to make matters worse, illegal immigrants being shuffled under the channel are bringing what systems they have there to their knees. The growth of Europe's collective economy is at the rate ours was IN THE LATE 1970s.
I'm sorry I have to be so blunt, but you people who think government services are so wonderful need to get your heads out of your asses and take a look at the grim realities of what you propose. It all sounds good on paper, but the fact that no government yet has been able to make socialism work should have been a loud and clear wake up call.
Socialism's allure is a siren song, leading people into an entrenched system that drags the entire nation down. It gears the economy and politics of a nation to fit the lowest common denominator and stifles all innovation and entrepeurialship with it's oppressive burden on the people. The very people Socialist ideology claims to help is the class it hurts the most. The only equality it ensures among the people is misery.
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." -Barry Goldwater
The more involved in your life the government becomes, the larger a say they have in how you live it.
Posted by: lunaslide on May 5, 2005 12:42 AMIf you want to defend socialism, you're free to do so, but it's a bit weaselly of you to attack Stefan for calling it by its name.
Yes, the word "socialist" has become a pejorative, but that's due to the failures of socialism, not to the machinations of conservatives.
And I'm not quite sure how one can simultaneously "distract and inflame people." Seems to me to be a case of one or the other--not both.
Posted by: ScottM on May 5, 2005 07:19 AMFigures.
Posted by: Poindexter on May 5, 2005 07:47 AMDoes anyone else find intriguing the possibility into the similarity of expectations of socialists and immature people (children): "The mommy/daddy is supposed to take care of us"?
Posted by: FlyingTigres on May 5, 2005 07:57 AMthere's really only 1 argument you need to remember in the discussion of socialized health care: you do not have a claim on the life or livelihood of anyone else to provide you with ANYTHING. To say otherwise means you believe in slavery.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on May 5, 2005 08:14 AMI was living in England in the early 70's when national health was completely free. Some of my friends' parents were doctors. They said the office was full of people that came in for a prescription because they sneezed. The national health then put in a fee per visit of 2/6, which at the time was equivelent to 60 cents. That drastically cut down the number of visits.
This is just yet another example of when things are free they are treated as if they have no value. The examples of free housing here where the residents treat the property as such. When these poor people (or in PC speak that I heard on NPR this morning - people of lesser means) were given the opportunity to buy their apartment the property was then cared for. I know this goes against the lib doctrine. But it does show that people respect their own property or things they need to buy. Therefore the ownership society works and will be respected.
Posted by: Fred on May 5, 2005 08:15 AMI can't tell you the number of free dinners I've had, featuring wine at 300+ dollars, paid for by pharmaceutical reps.
America should demand the healthcare they already pay for.
Posted by: Doc on May 5, 2005 08:55 AMOH YES ,BY THE WAY ROM SIMMS PICTURE IS SHOWN AS AN EXAMPLE.
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on May 5, 2005 08:59 AMWhere is better health care available than the US? You get what you pay for. All these other idealistic healthcare systems can only survive because of the US healthcare system. Out of all the new drugs developed in the last 10 years what percentage came out of other countries?
These countries then say, after we have developed these drugs, sell them to us for this price or we will violate your patent and produce them here. So the health system you advocate is based on blackmail and piracy. Great!
Posted by: Fred on May 5, 2005 09:16 AMOn the contrary, Americans should stop paying for the health care other people aren't getting.
Medicare is already making my point about socialized health care failure. It's not even a full fledged system, but it's aptly demonstrated the failure of government to provide even an insurance system for health care, much the way Social Security has demonstrated it's failure as a retirement fund.
Fred is correct, the real fleecing that is going on is the price control nonsense imposed in other markets, driving up our prices. If everyone paid their fair share and let the market normalize the prices, we would have both better prices and new drug R&D.
Posted by: lunaslide on May 5, 2005 09:24 AMThe best of both worlds (to the citizen, not the nation's balance sheet) is to be a Canadian with rights to use the AMerican system at Canadian cost...
Posted by: righton on May 5, 2005 09:56 AMSure, it can't cover everything and has gotten expensive. But people who decry it as unacceptable "socialism" are wayyyy outside the mainstream, even in the USA. Shoot, even Bush is expanding Medicare, not contracting it.
So this is not a question of a wacky "socialist" idea from Europe of government-funded (or government-regulated) healthcare. We've already crossed that bridge, and the vast majority of Americans support it heartily, along with Social Security.
Those of you decrying the red tide of "socialism" should immediately put your money where your mouth is and write your Congressperson to abolish Medicare and Social Security (and probably a slew of other government programs too, like federally-backed mortgages, and even the Department of Education -- get the government out of our schools!).
I'd be interested to know how many Congresspeople write back in support of your ideas (Republican, Democrat, or other). Ha ha.
Posted by: Bluebeard on May 5, 2005 10:47 AMThe jury will acquit, using the usual polite Seattle theme: "Well, we all make mistakes. Let's be inclusive, not devisive." Jumpsuit boy will then land a job as a voting reform consultant to the county. Recycling in action.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on May 5, 2005 11:36 AMBy not holding developers to even the minimal levels of mitigation or impact fees, King County's approval of permits makes us liable for future infrastructure costs and lets the developer off the hook forever. A billion here and a billion there eventually adds up to real dollars, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, the growth industry influence crosses the isle to control both major parties in King County, leaving the people who foot the bill without anyone to defend our wallets and our quality of life.
Posted by: Mike on May 5, 2005 11:49 AMDid you consider the massive amount of property taxes the county now brings in, thanks to the developers making the property more expensive? Isn't property tax, at least in part, meant to fund some of the infrastructure? The income stream to KC has been increasing at an incredible rate from the developement and they still over spend!
Posted by: Fred on May 5, 2005 12:04 PMPS - CAO is a perfect example of how KC panders to the developers, allowing them to do anything uncontrolled. NOT!
Posted by: Fred on May 5, 2005 12:05 PMWell, that would be a good start.
You act like the sky would fall if these massive programs were eliminated. Newsflash - there was a time - not so long ago - these programs did not exist. One wonders how we ever, ever, ever got along without them.
Could it be people actually took care of themselves instead of counting on the rest of us - through the federal and state governments - to do it for them?
And I'd just love to hear your rationale on why we need a federal Department of Education when our schools are run by local school boards, and funded by the state. (And just to save you the trouble, the No Child Left Behind law was a Ted Kennedy piece of sludge. It should've never passed Congress, and Bush should've never signed it.)
Posted by: jimg on May 5, 2005 04:01 PMMike says "By not holding developers to even the minimal levels of mitigation or impact fees, King County's approval of permits makes us liable for future infrastructure costs and lets the developer off the hook forever."
Don't those new homeowners also pay property taxes and those peak hour trips result in the payment of gasoline taxes (regardless of whatever happens to the 9.5 cent increase)?
Mike?
(crickets)
I'm sure Bruce would point out that the NHS is authorizing this course only if the patient would get no benefit from the medication, but that raises another question: Are doctors generally required under Britain's socialist health-care scheme to pass out medication that doesn't work? Seems funny that they should have to single out "certain age groups" if that's all they're doing. Wouldn't it make more sense just order doctors not to prescribe medication that won't work?
Posted by: ScottM on May 6, 2005 03:28 PM