Want To Die? Vote Democrat
Well, one way or another.
You won’t get a choice, but not all forms of death come via bullets, decapitation, having a stick (or red-hot poker) rammed up your butt or explosions. Those (ok, excepting the poker and stick) tend to be fast and (mostly) painless.
The really bad forms are slow and hurt like hell. They come from things like Hepatitis C, for which there is now a cure and, if you are willing to fly to India, you can have it for about $900 (plus the cost of the airplane ride, passport, visa if you need one and a 90 day stay in a hotel.) Those “pluses” sound expensive and they are, right up until you consider that the very same drug, made by the same company, costs $90,000 right here in America — and it’s illegal to fly the drug from India to here, so if you want it for the $900, you must go there.
It this was a singular instance it would be able to be written off as an anomaly. But it’s not. Scorpion anti-venom and similar drugs used for snakebites can cost $50,000 or more here in the United States for treatment, but are a literally $100 in Mexico, just a few miles south. Again, if you get bit or stung I hope you can get to Mexico to buy them before you die because it’s a criminal offense to have someone fly them here to you.
Then there are things that almost-certainly won’t kill you — like toenail fungus. That’s just nasty — but the drug used to treat it could cost you $11 — or more than $500. What’s worse is that one bottle isn’t enough; oh no, you’re going to need about a dozen or so, meaning you’re out close to $10,000. Oh, and the odds of a cure? About one in six. The money is gone whether you win or lose.
Last night Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and O’Malley “duked it out” for the Democrat nomination in a so-called “debate.” None of them managed to explain how any of their policies would address any of this problem, nor that of Obamacare selling what amounts to worthless insurance policies that are only good for evading fines. Yes, it is true (as the Obama administration says) that if you’re under the median income you can buy a policy for about $50 a month — after “subsidies.” But if you’re of modest means you can’t afford to use it because the deductibles are typically in the $6,000 range and you probably don’t have $6,000!
For those of us who are not sick and don’t believe we’ll become sick it’s probably worth it to have what amounts to a catastrophic policy for $500 a year. The problem is that’s exactly what it is, which is worthless to someone who actually needs ongoing medical treatment.
Clinton had exactly zero in strategy to offer against Daesh, except what Obama is doing right now plus a no-fly zone. That’s nice when we’ve probably allowed anywhere from a thousand to ten thousand or more Daesh radicals into our country already and we know there have been thousands of Visas that have been revoked for terrorism concerns but we don’t know where any of those people are. Sanders and O’Malley were no better and arguably worse; all three want to get rid of the vestiges of the Second Amendment.
Now about that cutting-head-off thing….. oh, that’s not politically correct so we’ll leave that one on the table. Your head, that is.
None of these clowns wants to do a thing that’s positive about the cost of college. Oh sure, Clinton wants “debt-free” college and Sanders just wants to give it away, but none of them said a thing about the outrageous increase in administrative staff compared to professors (none of whom teach of course) over the last 30 years, nor the gilded football stadiums and similar edifices, all of which are expensive as hell to maintain. The market would take of this immediately were student debt able to be discharged in bankruptcy like a credit card; nobody in their right mind would loan you a nickel unless they were convinced you’d find it better to pay than walk off, and that means you graduated and have something lose if you go bankrupt. Ah, look at that, we could solve the problem by letting the market price risk like it’s supposed to! Nope.
Now as for O’Malley all he’s done is grab guns. Has he increased safety?
Shootings in Baltimore are up 82% in the last year alone while O’Malley has “clamped down” on guns in Maryland.
If that’s an “increase” in safety I think I’d like the opposite, thank you very little you pugnacious jackass — the only people who your “laws” prevented from getting guns are those who need them to stop the bad guys!
I’m sure you can trust that O’Malley’s government will be happy to send a body bag along in 20 minutes or so to collect your unarmed remains after the jackwad who doesn’t give a good damn about his “laws” shoots you.
Applying these policies nationally would be an utter disaster. It would simply embolden both criminals and terrorists, which is exactly what we can expect if any of these fools winds up in office.
I hope we’re not that dumb, but it won’t shock me one bit if we are.
Guest post courtesy of Market Ticker.