My Channel

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Gregg Collett -- Idaho Tea Party Candidate with 10 Kids on Medicaid. Hypocrite, right?

**Update** I say he is a candidate, he WAS in 2012 and lost the primary. If he's running 2014 for anything, I don't see any official announcement. Still, this really changes nothing I wrote below. **

Well that's the headline from far-left website Addicting Info. Still, this does seem pretty damning on the surface. While I have little use for hypocrites, I do toss the term on the left quite a bit. Of course we aren't going to give the people we disagree with any slack, human nature. We excuse those we agree with and slaughter those we disagree with. Those that are "not us" are the enemy, as Ace once so eloquently opined.

But I also don't really trust those on the left to be fair minded. I have many times disagreed with Newsbusters in getting real nitpicky about those on the left being .. well leftist. Of course they are. You may not like it, I certainly don't agree with their opinions but we shouldn't be surprised about it. But I've never seen any leftist be anything but cutthroat to those they disagree with.

So that all being said, I take this as an opportunity to test someone who I agree with on a number of issues but may be perceived as a hypocrite for taking government money.

First Addicting Info:

Collett discusses his philosophy regarding health insurance 
A number of sites have highlighted Greg Collett’s story over the past few days. Apparently enough attention has been pointed in his direction that he felt it necessary to respond. His campaign website has a notice on the home page directing the curious to a page containing his response. 
Regarding why he does not carry health insurance: 
If government is properly left out of the equation, individuals are to take responsibility for their own situations. If they cannot meet their obligations, they should turn to their families for support. If families are not able to help, they should go to churches or other charitable organizations for assistance. Government should not be involved, period. 
Collett stresses that he pays his medical bills, and offers the following observation: 
I want to make it very clear that the only reason taxpayers pick up the bill for those that do not pay is strictly due to government mandates to health care providers that violate the proper role of government. 
Is he saying what he seems to be saying? Because what he seems to be saying is that the government should not require that hospitals treat patients who cannot afford their treatment. This echoes the sentiment of the crowd members who yelled “let him die!” at a 2011 Republican debate.
Jeez where do I begin? First off, the "Let him die!" myth. No one ever yelled that:
One problem: No one shouted "Let him die" at the Republican debate televised on CNN and hosted by Wolf Blitzer. As Times Watch reported back on September 23, 2011 after the paper first forwarded this falsity as fact: "It was debate moderator Wolf Blitzer who actually used the words 'let him die,' when asking candidate Ron Paul a loaded question about letting a hypothetical man die for lack of health insurance. There is no auditory evidence anyone at all in the crowd shouted such a thing...."
So this yahoo has to use a lie to make his point. I now treat everything written as suspect information. Let's start with the claim that he wants the government to not require hospitals to treat patients. Here's the expanded quote and his entire rebuttal can be found here.

I want to make it very clear that the only reason taxpayers pick up the bill for those that do not pay is strictly due to government mandates to health care providers that violate the proper role of government. Those who are worried about taxpayers picking up the tab should direct their energies into changing public policy rather than attacking individuals who make the decision to not carry insurance. As much as some might want to believe otherwise, it is the public policy that is absolutely wrong, not the decision of the individual. The public has been socialized into accepting many falsehoods over time, leading to our current mess of government policies regarding health, medicine, health care, and insurance. 
Those who insist that the taxpayer will end up footing the bill have also just inadvertently lost all standing for arguing the need for a public welfare program for health care. If uninsured individuals just end up getting bailed out by taxpayers, why do we need programs like Medicaid or "Obamacare"?

What Gregg is talking about here is not "Health Care" but the payment of services. Is he saying that hospitals should be allowed to turn people away that need care? I don't believe so, he is saying that the system of public programs that have been pushed on to the American people, whether we want them or not has colored our idea of how health care should work. The heart of it is that the left thinks that without the government, hospitals would be some sort of ticket taking, check your credit before you can enter type of place. Instead of the institutionalized, hours long in the waiting room like it is in Canada now.

The best and most long lived charitable and social organizations in this country started in the late 1800's, during a time the left would have you believe the "robber barons" stole everything from this country. The Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army to name but two. You know what? The Salvation Army is still helping people but the EBT program went on the fritz during the shutdown. The government programs are all controlled by people whose primary interest is their political future. The Salvation Army is controlled by people whose primary interest is helping people. So a government charity will always have problems, will always have corruption and will always be less helpful to the people it's supposed to help than to the people that run it.

And that's what I believe Gregg is trying to convey, that the government as a system of charity will always hurt more people than it helps. That it's up to us to do these things on our own. Nature abhors a vacuum. We will as a people try to help whenever we can. These there is always someone who will start philanthropic organizations to help people in a variety of ways. And it's usually those evil rich people who made tons of money who do it. Jerry Lewis with the MDA. Bill Gates has tons of them. Yes, even far left Susan Sarandon has a lot charities she does with the money she made as an actress. Passionate people are always more effective than government.

Now let's talk about the attacks on the man's personal life. He has too many kids and he uses government programs he himself opposes. Let's look at two opinions on the matter:

First off, if you think a person has too many or too few kids, go screw yourself. It is not your business.

Secondly, if you use the government programs to support those kids, you make it everyone's business because taxpayers have to foot the bill.

I would say that both of those statements are true in the current system we live in. The first statement is basic human rights that can't be changed but the second involves tax and spend policies that we can change. If there weren't government programs, the taxes wouldn't be so high. And then a person pursuing his happiness on a software developer's salary would have a much easier time doing so because the government wouldn't be taking so much of his salary.

Now let's follow the dominos as they fall. If everyone was taking care of themselves and had more money in their pockets, the economy would be in better shape. If the economy was in better shape, companies would be expanding. When companies expand, they require more workers. More jobs mean workers are at a premium which means salaries go up. So now Mr. Gregg has more money from a higher salary and from government taking less.

And government would win too since the pie is bigger and more revenue is coming in. But it must restrain itself in creating these well-meaning but ultimately failing programs so that it does not spend more than what comes in. Instead, it helps the organizations like the Salvation Army through tax deductions and such.

Milton Freedman and Adam Smith spoke of the invisible hand going through a free society making everything better as time goes on. Not every single person benefited because those who make bad choices will have consequences happen but facing those consequences reduced the amount of bad choices. If you have government handing out money with no requirements, people can stay on drugs and alcohol without facing those consequences of those bad choice. But the rest of us will find ways to succeed through hard work and innovation. More often than not, everyone benefits from the innovator's success.

I've never worked for Microsoft but I owe a lot to Bill Gates. I have worked hard thanks to his company's products and will be able to support my family and myself comfortably because of it, much better than I ever would living off the government.

Gregg's point is that the system that's in place forces him to take money. I have also adopted two children, I know what he's talking about. I was fortunate in not having to go through the foster system to do it but I do remember what the process was if I had chosen that route and it wasn't pretty. With the way the government has wrecked the economy, how it's keeping people from getting ahead with it's punitive tax system and providing services poorly but at a cost that gives people really NO CHOICE (I thought the left loved choice?) but take those services, Gregg feels trapped in a system that derides him for his choices to try to provide homes for children.

This is a man who wants to adopt and give children a loving home. The government has put him in a no-win situation. If he doesn't take the kids, they get no home but he gets to keep his principles of not taking government money. If he takes the kids, they have set the playing field and the rules so in order to make sure the kids are cared for, he has to take taxpayers money.

So the left rigs the game and then derides those who would like to change it because once forced into it, they realize how bad it is? And now he's a hypocrite?

No. He's not. He appears to me someone who has dealt with the bureaucracy and has had enough. He wants to change it. He freely and openly admits to using what he feels is a bad system. He is transparent and honest about his desire for change.

My advice to Mr Collett: You speak well in various academic tones about the concepts of freedom and government overreach. Make it personal. Show why your desire for change is so fierce. Show how frustrated you are with the system. Show how if the taxes weren't so bad and if the market was running the health care system, how much easier it would be. How you could be free of bureaucrats telling you what forms you have to fill out, what rules you have to follow. How bad the foster care system is to the kids and how much better off the ones you adopted are without it.

Repeat and repeat and repeat some more. Good luck to you sir.

No comments:

Post a Comment