"We can fight for ourselves, thank you."

“We can fight for ourselves, thank you.”

If ObamaCare is trying to emulate the European style of health care, perhaps we should look at those systems to see how well they’re doing in providing quality health care. It’s easy to give access to it, but how good is it?

And it may be that the controversy over the Washington Redskins football team name might be going out with a whimper. That is, if the Social Justice Warriors fighting for the cause will listen to those whom they are ostensibly fighting for. (But hold not thy breath.)

Mentioned links:

NHS: UK now has one of the worst healthcare systems in the developed world, according to OECD report

Poll: Native Americans’ attitudes toward the Washington Redskins team name

I’m dropping my protest of Washington’s football team name

Activists criticize recent poll on offensiveness of Redskins’ name

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm.

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

People who are for ObamaCare have often pointed to countries in Europe where coverage is universal and suggested we need to be more like them. ObamaCare was, allegedly, a good way to do that. So how is the health care there?

A report of Britain’s National Health Service paints a picture that perhaps those advocates may want to hide in the closet. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – the OECD – their health care system ranks right up there with those stalwarts of medical mastery, Poland and Chile. While access to care is “generally good”, the quality of care in the UK is “poor to mediocre” across several key health areas. Oddly enough, that’s exactly how ObamaCare proponents sold that particular fix. More people are covered by insurance! Well fine, but how well has that worked out for the folks in the UK?

They have fewer doctors and nurses per capita than countries like Greece and Italy. Oh yes, they have access, but to whom? And the government, in an attempt to keep costs down, kept funding “static” to the NHS from 2009-2013. Turns out that making heath care spending a political football, and trying to keep up with demand when you’ve artificially lowered out-of-pocket costs, has not been kind to the people actually trying to use the system. A system that is supposed to give people more for less, because of the magic of volume discounts and a single-payer system, is letting those people down. Sure, the report says that some aspects of health care are getting better, but you’d think that a system that’s been in place for 68 years, and that is supposed to be a better alternative to a private system, would be light years ahead.

It’s not. But, as some Democrats said during the ObamaCare debate, single-payer was the ultimate goal. Goal for whom? It sounds like once they score that goal, we all lose.


For many liberals, erasing all vestiges of racism in our country is one of their main concerns. Actually, for many conservatives, that’s also a priority, but there’s a difference in how the two come at the issue. In many cases, liberals manufacture racism when it isn’t there, so that they can “do something about it”, and feel good about themselves afterwards.

A finer example you’ll not find anywhere than with the issue of getting the Washington Redskins football team to change their name. This has been fought for quite some time, at least 2 years, with some sports writers even refusing to write the name in their columns. It’s clearly a racist term that offends Native Americans, and we should be past all that, right?

Well, do you want to know who’s already past all that? Native Americans. A recent poll by the Washington Post shows just how true that is. The question was this: The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn’t it bother you? The results? 90% of those polled said that it did not bother them. This includes tribe members (90%), football fans (90%), college graduates (85%), and conservatives (96%). In fact, the subgroup you’d expect to be most outraged over this – liberal Native Americans – still didn’t get their dander up. 80% of them were not bothered by the name.

This went so far against what liberals expected, that Robert McCartney, the senior regional correspondent and associate editor at The Washington Post, wrote an article about it. After explaining his “high-minded desire” to help them, he realized they didn’t actually want help.

[N]on-Indian critics like me can’t ignore the poll results or pretend they make no difference. Those who have opposed the team name include more than a quarter of Washington-area residents, along with President Obama, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser and 50 Democratic U.S. senators. Many of us thought we were defending a group that needed support. But it feels presumptuous for us to say we know Indians’ interests better than they do. We can’t credibly claim that 9 out of 10 Indians somehow just don’t realize they’re being insulted. Some Indians told The Post that they actively support the name, because its use means Native Americans haven’t been forgotten.

In light of the new facts, we non-Indian critics should stop pressing the team to change its name. We should drop the cause, even if we privately dislike the moniker.

Now, this ought to cause some soul-searching among such activists, and apparently it did for McCartney. But unfortunately, for others it was a cause to attack the messenger, because certainly they couldn’t be wrong. Their cause is righteous, and no reasonable person can possibly disagree. So they called the poll “immoral”, and said, “This issue is not about polling. This issue is about human rights.” That’s right, they’ll fight for your human rights whether you want them fighting or not, or whether or not you even think this is actually a human rights issue.e

Yes, the Left wants you to be able to speak your mind, and speak truth to power, but only as long as you’re saying what they want you to say.

Filed under: GovernmentHealth CareRace Issues