Kimmel Feels and The Unnatural State Of Being

Kimmel Cried. Obama tweeted. Women and effete men sniffled.

Who could be unmoved by Kimmel's story about his newborn son? And who, WHO could be so cold and heartless as to disagree with Kimmel on "no parent ought..." commentary? Feels for everyone!

Look, this is an unnatural world we live in. Take a look at the Planet Earth documentaries and you will note that there are no "rights" in the natural world. There is live or die. That is all. There is no right to healthcare. There is no right to water. There is no right to shelter or food. Indeed each day may well be your last. This is the world into which homo sapiens sapiens was thrust into. Our ancestors understood this rule quite well. As the apex predator (due to intelligence rather than brute strength) we were able to change our environment in order to survive and "prosper". So long as we were still in that natural world, we had a daily reminder that life is fleeting. Indeed so long as we ate by the fruits of our labour (that being hunting and gathering), it was always abundantly clear that nothing at all was promised to any of us.

Alas we, that is most of us living in high technology societies are very well insulated from the brutal nature of nature. Today we can speak of rights that do not exist anywhere but in our fevered imaginations and wishes. We think water is a right. We do not even stop to consider how the water that we consume is delivered to us. We do not consider the pipes, processing plants, etc. that goes into having that water in our homes. All we want is the water.

This brings us to Kimmel's tears. Is it sad that there are people who cannot afford certain medical care? certainly. Would I or anyone else suddenly afflicted with an illness wish to be cured whether we could pay or not? MOST certainly. To say otherwise would be dishonest. It's always easy to say "no one should have to pay..." When one is not the one doing the paying. You'll note that neither Kimmel or anyone else that is boo-hoo-ing about the state of healthcare is volunteering to pay for the medical attention of the millions of people that cannot afford it. After all, where do you draw the line of "no one should have to?" Why should it be limited to "parents"? Why should it be limited to "children"? The logical end point of the "why should" argument is that everyone and anyone should be able to get whatever it is they want/need regardless of the cost.

No problem then. Who pays for it? Now, I'm on record as thinking that this unnatural society should have a single payer medical insurance policy. Medical bills are paid for by the government and funded by general tax revenue. Anything short of that means that someone, a lot of someones are not going to get care. Period. Why?

Because everyone involved in healthcare has a right to be paid for their efforts. Free to you doesn't mean "without cost". When YOU do not pay for the products and services rendered to you, that cost doesn't magically disappear. Someone is going to pay for it. When the uninsured get treatment at the hospital, the insured pay. You can't be mad about your premiums (within reason) and also desire that everyone get treatment. You didn't think YOUR premium only covered YOU did you?

The doctor(s) get paid. Should they not get paid? The nurses get paid. Should they not get paid? Everyone down the the guy who delivers the toilet paper has to get paid. Trust me, there are a LOT of people on that chain. That nice hospital building has to be maintained by people who are not even medical professionals. They gotta get paid too. The electric company. The gas company. I could go on and on.

Is anyone suggesting that these people be forced to work without compensation? That's slavery. Maybe you think they should be paid less than they are. Who gets to decide what their compensation should be? You? Me? A government body?

A common answer is that the rich should pay. Well, the rich already pay a vast majority of taxes and relative to their population, underuse services. This doesn't include the various charitable contributions, including to hospitals that the rich make. How much more should they pay? Who gets to determine that? You? Me? A government body? And at what point is enough? Should the rich be taxed to the point that they are no longer "rich"?

Also, do most Americans, well hell, those in technologically advanced countries, realize that they ARE the 1% of the 1% of the 1% relative to most of the world's population? You may be making "only" $50k but to a cattle herder in Somaliland, you are Bill Gates rich? Should the cattle herders in Somaliland be able to confiscate your "wealth" and "income"? Why not?

So generally speaking, I'm not disposed to taking anyone who suggests that "no parent should..." until or unless they are willing to put up their own finances to back up their mouths. Jimmy Kimmel can afford a LOT of medical services, he should visit a few California hospital billing centers and start paying bills for people who make less than he does. After all, no one should have to worry about paying...