Idiots want people to have health care, but want others to pay for it

I might have found the person who most strongly represents the kind of thinking that leads people to support really bad government action. Cindy Vinson is a San Jose, Calif., woman who calls herself a big supporter of ObamaCare. But after she found out what it’s going to cost her money, she whined about it to a newspaper.

Although she wants other people to have health care, she found out last week that changes brought about by the law mean her policy will cost $1,800 more per year than before.

“I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

Seriously. She said that. It’s not satire.

And that is the idiocy and the hypocrisy of supporters of these “social programs.” People such as Vinson are happy to vote for benefits for certain people — as long as they can demand that other people pay for their “generosity.”

This is the core moral problem with the system we have today. People can consider themselves kind-hearted and generous, but demand that “the rich” pay for what they want other people to have.

Let’s be honest. We’d all like for everyone to have a perfect life. And even if people can’t have perfect lives, we would at least like them to have minimally acceptable lives. Some of us are willing to give to others when we have money to give. (I’ve certainly given a lot of money — voluntarily — to help others when I’ve been able to afford it.) But certain people are willing to insist that government force be used to give other people what they want. They’re frequently surprised, though, when the barrel of a government gun is metaphorically pointed at them.

Some people tell me that they don’t see the gun, but it seems obvious to me. Government is nothing but force or threat of force. If you pass legislation demanding that people turn over money in taxes — or that they must buy a certain product, such as insurance — you have only one ultimate way of enforcing that demand. You have to be willing to arrest people who disobey.

The threat of force is why people obey unjust laws that steal their money.

If you want to give money to help poor people buy health insurance, you don’t need to pass legislation to do that. You only need to pass legislation when you are demanding that other people pay what you want them to pay, against their will. And the threat of force is the only reason those other people obey your will. That’s where the gun is.

If a mafia goon comes to your business and demands money, you pay him the money. Why? It’s not because you have a moral obligation. It’s not because you want to pay. He doesn’t have to wave a gun in your face. The threat is implied. The threat is real. That’s what government is.

Cindy Vinson is the prototypical “compassionate” voter. She wants other people to have what they want and need, but she doesn’t want to give it to them. She wants other people to pay for her “compassion.” She’s unhappy when she finds out that she has to pay for what she said she wanted.

This isn’t a political issue. It’s a moral issue.

You either understand that theft is wrong or you don’t. If it’s wrong for me to take your money by threat of force and give it to someone else, it’s just as wrong for you to empower government goons to do the same for you.

Until people understand that theft is immoral and forcing other people to obey their will is slavery, we’re going to continue to be a sick society.