<$BlogRSDURL$>

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

I was reading the comment thread associated with a post at JustOneMinute, in which a poster complained (hypothetically, it turns out) that she could not retire because of four drugs costing $40 a month and health costs of $360 a month.

I'm curious as to how it is so very acceptable for an able-bodied 65 year old to bandy about ideas for other folks to pay for her drugs (either taxpayers or drug companies) so she can retire, while everyone agrees an able-bodied 25 year old who won't work for his food and housing is a bum?

When did it become a rule that at 65 you get to stop working and live off the state? Oh, that's right -- when America became a socialist country. Free health care, four week vacations, multi-year unemployment allowances, and retire at 65. Don't worry, someone will pay for it. America has only one of those socialist aspects, but Americans are as wedded to it as the English are to free health care, independent of whether it is economically feasable.

I'm steeped in socialism enough to accept that a modern state can afford low-cost drugs for the poor and infirm, but I think it was an AARP magazine where I saw an article on low cost drugs right up next to an article or ad hawking exotic vacations.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Site Meter