Why don't Liberals Think?

You’ll have to forgive me I’m making a generalization, I should have titled this “Why Don’t Democrats Think”, but I have trouble telling the difference between Liberals and Democrats, and there are too many RINOs that are liberal to exclude. Then again, maybe I should have titled this “Liberals are Like Helicopter Parents.”

To a liberal, if it sounds good do it, don’t think about what the consequences. They want to sweep away all the obstacles that keep everybody in the country from having the best health care in the available, they don’t think about the cost. As politicians they don’t have to, they don’t suffer the costs or take any risks because they exempt themselves from their mandates, so it’s even easier for them to not think about what they are doing.

Liberals tend to act like mommies; they want to make sure everybody is safe and happy, and make sure everything is “fair”. They don’t want to see their children (or any other child) suffer, or feel uncomfortable, even from the consequences of their own choices. Not to be sexist, since there are a lot of liberal men, it would be fairer to compare them to helicopter parents than mommies. It doesn’t matter that the kid didn’t do the work, give a helicopter parent’s kid a bad grade, or take away his cell phone for texting in class, and the helicopter parent is at the school ranting and raving that it’s un-fair, yada yada yada. Liberals, like helicopter parents don’t think. They want results for their kid and don’t care if the kid didn’t earn them, or if their kid caused the problem; they won’t tolerate their kid suffering for any reason, even his own actions. They weasel their way into every part of their child’s life seeking to remove all obstacles from their child’s path, and are risk averse to the extreme. Like Helicopter parents liberals want to constantly supervise their “children.” They have extreme risk aversion and a disproportionate paranoia about risks; such as allowing corporations to buy political ads. The “Nanny-ism” that is liberal thought, has lead to the stupidity we now see in government.

If you choose to have a baby without a partner to help you support and raise that baby, the associated cost is paying for child support; the associated risk is a possible lower standard of living for both you and the baby. If you choose not to take advantage of all the education you can, the associated cost is less employment opportunities, and the associated risk is having lower wages or unemployment. All our choices have risks and costs associated with them. If you choose to not exercise, the cost is poor health and you risk increased medical bills. If you choose not to purchase health insurance, the cost is paying all of your personal medical bills and risk being denied medical services you cannot afford. Liberals like most mommies don’t want their “children” to have choices that may put them at risk, so seek to take away choices because their “children” might choose something that has a higher risk. Go Wiki “Helicopter Parent” and see if it doesn’t describe liberals.

Consider health care, and the President’s attack on the insurance companies. The liberals attack insurance companies as outlandish profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up." On Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 Obama said Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now." The problem is they make around 2.2% profit, hardly immoral or obscene profits. In fact 2.2% profit is kind of anemic compared to other industries. Coke-a-Cola makes around 28% nobody is attacking them as outlandish profiteers.

Liberals also claim that if the government runs health care they won't heartlessly reject claims the way private insurance companies reject them. The problem is that the government has a history of doing just that. The American Medical Association found that that Medicare's claim denial rate is higher than that of any other private insurer, and almost 70% higher overall than the private insurers' average denial rate.

Now let’s actually think about this. Why aren't insurance companies currently covering the conditions and people that the government wants to force them to cover? Answer: Costs, what the government wants to do will mean additional costs. At 2.2% profit insurance companies can’t absorb those additional costs so will be force to pass those costs on to customers. Insurance companies don't think we are willing to pay for those particular additional costs for those particular conditions. If insurance companies choose to cover everybody, and not exclude certain pre-existing conditions the cost would be higher premiums and the risk would be less customers willing to purchase their service. They are not willing to take this risk, and risk assessment is their business. They are correct, if we as consumers were willing to pay for additional coverages then the insurance companies would be selling them to us. In a free society individuals have a right to pick and choose with whom they do business and what services they purchase, and assume the costs and risks associated with our choices.

Costs associated with choices are a problem. They are our problem not Obama’s or any politician’s problem. It doesn’t cost anything for a politician to mandate more insurance coverage for more people. Those costs exist, they don’t go away, and aren’t magically absorbed by somebody else, they must be paid. When a politician mandates some insurance coverage it forces both the companies that sell insurance and the consumers of insurance to pay, whether they want to or not, whether it benefits them or not. The shinny eloquent words of Obama or any liberal politician leave out the dirty little secret of cost. They don’t expect people to think, because they are liberals, and they don’t think.

Liberals they don’t think about the costs to liberty the policies they want to force upon everybody to mitigate perceived risk. Freedom and liberty are not in the thoughts of liberals.