In related news, stray cats love it when you leave a bowl of food out for them.
Scott Rasmussen is reporting the results of a phone suvey on the subject of health insurance. Not surprisingly, it shows that the less successful among us are highly supportive of the proposition that the government seize yet more property from the successful people in order to subsidize their own lifestyles. Before you start pulling 0ut the President’s numbers, debunked long ago, check out these brand new statistics from the US Census Bureau (Hat Tip to Mark Perry at Carpe Diem):
What these numbers show is that a significant percentage of the “uninsured” are without insurance because they feel that they have better things to do with their money. My position has always been that if you “cannot afford” health insurance then you should a non-smoker/non-drinker, should be driving a 10+ year old car, carrying a bottom-of-the-line cell phone, and watching a small set of channels on an old tube-style television. We all know that is not the case – most of these people simply do not want to spend their money on health insurance. This is not unlike the person in line at the grocery store who segregates their groceries into two piles, one with approved foods that the WIC program covers and the other pile things like beer and cigarettes – things that they are willing to spend their money on.
Perry quotes Professor Thomas Sowell on the issue of affordability and the uninsured:
As for those uninsured Americans who are supposedly the reason for all this sound and fury, there is remarkably little interest in why they are uninsured, despite the incessant repetition of the fact that they are. The endless repetition serves a political purpose but digging into the underlying facts might undermine that purpose. Many find it sufficient to say that the uninsured cannot “afford” medical insurance. But what you can afford depends not only on how much money you have but also on what your priorities are. Many people who are uninsured have incomes from which medical insurance premiums could readily be paid without any undue strain (see chart above).
I am curious as to whether anyone has done a real study of income and tax paying as it relates to political affiliation. This simple chart, taken from Rasmussen’s data, shows what I think that most of us know: that the least ambitious in America reliably support the party of redistribution.
Proof once again that the unsuccessful stick with the party of class warfare and collectivism. They never seem to realize (or care) that they are just parasites living on the Democrat plantation.
One commenter on the Carpe Diem blog entry to which I linked above put it perfectly:
This health care bill is not about reform. It is about government interference and control. Strange that the US Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade that abortion is a matter between doctor and patient. However, according to the Democrats, the rest of the doctor-patient relationship is negotiable.
If the bill was simply about government insurance that was voluntary and available to people who paid premiums, that would be one thing. But it’s not. It’s about government’s complete control of the doctor-patient relationahip. The government decides, not patients. How did the human race survive the last 10,000 years without Obama and Company???
Indeed. The entire Democrat position on this is a massive straw man argument with the statists painting an unattainable utopia and then trashing the current system because it does not measure up to their technicolor fantasy.