This image has been popping up on social media frequently the past few days. I thought I’d critique the hell out of it, because its content is as foul as the language it uses:
Let’s take this emotional-tirade-pretending-to-be-an-argument one falsehood at a time so as not to cause ourselves permanent brain damage.
What .. is wrong with Americans who aren’t on board with free healthcare.
- You’ve already committed the fallacy of equivocation.
- There is no such thing as free healthcare.
- Presuming you are actually referring to a system where the government taxes its citizens and pays hospitals directly or funds universal health insurance, there are economic, moral, and practical reasons to oppose.
I’m Canadian and I don’t care that I pay extra taxes…
- Is this an argument?
- Why do your preferences constitute objective moral law for everyone?
- You probably don’t pay taxes in the first place. If you did, you’d probably care.
… so a little boy in Alberta can have open heart surgery or an elderly man in Nova Scotia can get the heart medication he desperately needs.
- This is sentimentalism, which is not an argument. Feelings do not constitute an argument.
- I bet heart surgery is covered by private insurance. So is heart medication.
- Government subsidized college in the US has increased in cost by magnitudes in only a couple decades. Do you suppose medical costs might parallel this? Do you simply not care about these implications, or have you never taken a course in basic economics?
- Even if it is noble for these people to receive money to cover their needs, why is it noble to take that money from people by a government backed by military force? Charity is one thing. Taking money by force and redistributing it is not charity.
- Do you donate money to such causes?
- Are you aware that scarcity exists whether the state pays for something or not? A market can easily get goods and services to where they are needed most by price increases and decreases. Your system devolves into rationing to people the government picks. They probably won’t pick that elderly guy in Nova Scotia.
It’s called taking care of people.
- It’s called socialized medicine. Whether it more effectively “cares for people” than a free market is a dubious claim.
- Your tax dollars being whisked away by an unseen government, put into a giant pot, and then that same government spending money on drugs or surgery is not “care” any more than a machine “cares” when you press buttons on it and it makes you coffee.
I’m glad I pay so that people can have a good quality of life.
- You probably don’t pay. I suspect you are a leech on the system. What you mean to say is that it makes you feel good that other people are forced to pay because you vote for liberals to take their money.
- Did people not have good quality of life before bleeding edge medicine? If not, how can you make bleeding edge medicine a prerequisite for good quality of life?
- Are you sure the system increases quality of life in the first place? Are you sure everyone’s quality of life might not be enhanced without government theft?
It’s called being a decent *** human being.
- It’s called socialized medicine.
- Your childish moral superiority complex does not constitute an objective moral standard by which you can bash everyone else.
- People who oppose socialized medicine have good reasons for it. You don’t have good reasons to ignore them.
- You’ve equated being a decent human being with being a socialist. Are you sure you want to do that? Are you really really sure? Because I can think of some people you might not consider decent who were socialist demagogues and who maybe, just maybe, murdered hundreds of millions of people. It was for a good cause, though.
- You are a pompous ass, not a decent human being.
The most irritating thing about all of this that you know the woman who wrote it is convinced she is better than you because she votes to take away people’s money to give to others. She’s never thought about any potential flaws in the system (rationing, cost increases, inefficiencies causing death because of no market corrections to fix them). But it doesn’t matter.
On second thought, the most irritating thing about it all is that her vote is equal to the vote of an economic scholar.