A few nights ago Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly had former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on his program discussing the similarities and differences between the recently enacted national health care reform law and the universal health care available in the latter’s state, particularly how the federal government assumes a chunk of the financial cost in both cases.
As you know, I believe ‘sink or swim’ to be the basic tenet of Republican/conservative philosophy, so I was not surprised to hear O’Reilly repeatedly emphasize how “folks in Idaho” would find themselves subsidizing with their taxes something they may not want to contribute to.
But what really irked me about O’Reilly’s position on this particular point is his failure to address how federal taxes from all over the country are pooled and distributed according to necessity. More importantly, he overlooked how states like Massachusetts contribute the most in federal taxes; yet receive a much lower percentage in return from the federal government.
So, does O’Reilly suggest that each state receive federal funds in accordance to how much they contribute in federal tax revenue? I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want to bring up how some of the poorer states in the nation get so much more than some of the big, bad blue states that fund many of their public works, right? That wouldn’t be a good Fox talking point, now, would it?
Once again, this kinda talk brings me back to why health care reform should’ve been a state-by-state choice. In other words, the idea would be to let those of us who want it to find a way to obtain it in our own states; those who choose to continue under the draconian practices of the health insurance companies could remain with the status quo. Maybe that would shut up these selfish, egotistical fucks for good.