Back to 'the rich deserve better health care'.
Only a brainwashed lemming can have a problem with this statement. 'Health Care' is just a namby-pamby way of saying 'medical goods and services'. Your great-grand pappy and mine lived their entire lives with little to no 'health care' expenses. They were delivered by a mid-wife, when they got sick their moms did the best they could to nurse them back to health, when they broke a bone they had it set by someone who had done it before. Their medical bills were cheap because medical science was almost completely useless, so there were no medical services to buy. Life expectancy was what, 55 years? A century later, there have been major medical advances, life expentancies are up to 75+ years. Those new medical services, be they drugs, surgery, whatever, cost money, as do all goods and services.
The rich have more money, that's what rich means. People with more money can buy more, and better, goods and services.
If you think that Rush was saying 'the rich deserve better health care because they are more important than the poor' you may as well crawl up Hillary's skirt and die, you are already brain dead. Rush was obviously going against the PC grain by pointing out that medical services are not some God-given right that our benevolent politicians distribute to us. We pay for it, one way or the other.
You pay for all the health care you can afford, anything more you receive above and beyond what you can afford is, in effect, charity. In countries with socialised health care a healthy person pays more into the system than he receives, an unhealthy person receives more from the system than he pays in (charity). No socialized system would continue to function unless some people went to their graves having paid more into the system than they drew out.
Here's an analogy for those of you too brainwashed to see health care as a product you must pay for: The devolpment of the entire automobile industry was, is, and will continue to be motivated by the desires of the rich for better cars. An average guy can afford a car with air conditioning, automatic transmission, radio/cd, power windows, and many other luxuries that were developed over the decades purely for the rich. A 1930's socialist may have looked at a Hollywood movie star and said "20 workers could have bought Model T's for the money that rich fart spent on that one Dusenburg". But socialists are idiots, and he would have missed the fact that the rich fart was priming a pump which would make better and better cars available to everyone later down the road. In fact, automobiles themselves were originally impractical toys for the rich hobbyist.
Medical science requires the same kind of money pump, rich people like Michael Jackson throwing money at some quack to butcher his face yet again. This money makes more kids want go to medical school, keeps pharmacuetical companies experimenting with new drugs, keeps food producers looking for a fat-free chili dog. Almost all medical breakthroughs come from the rich countries, were the medical industry receives an injection of cash by the rich. You don't see too many new drugs or procedures coming out of Ghana. My dirt-poor neighbor had a heart attack and required a triple-bypass. He got it, I doubt very much he paid for most of it. In any socialist country he would have been put in a 2-meter hole.
Arguing of the 'equitable distribution' of any resource or product is just rusty old socialism. It only makes politicians more powerful, the common man gets shafted in the long run.
ra
