At church today, we listened to a heartwarming story. One that may not be heard in the future. It went something like this. People in Uganda, at a certain refugee hospital, were dying like flies. Despite the efforts of the doctors, there was no high-tech equipment that would allow the doctors to do what we can do in the States.
Meanwhile, our church was apprised of the situation and an offering was taken. The local Rotary Club matched our funds, and then doubled their match. With the amount we raised, a medical equipment company matched the donation and several state of the art pieces of medical equipment were donated to Uganda. A doctor there had tears streaming down his face when the gifts were delivered. Prior to the gift, he was ready to quit, as the best he could do was watch his patients die. Now, with the new equipment, he is able to save scores of lives.
From the news, we don’t hear about these gifts. From our President, we hear apologies for our country instead of praise for the ongoing efforts of Americans to reach out and help other countries. From Congress, we hear glimmers of what the National Health Care Bill will be.
As nearly as we are allowed to know, it mimics the plans of Canada and England. Canada has about 1/10th the number of high tech medical equipment per capita as the US. What that means is shortage. Shortage equates to long waits. For those who can afford to do so, they come to the US, seeking diagnosis that may save their life. Shortages also mean less opportunity for philanthropic giving. If an entity is in the situation of not having enough supply, that entity will not be apt to donate. Hence, despite the giving of a church body and philanthropic organizations such as the Rotary Clubs, there will be no availability among the producers or manufacturers. Third World recipients will see their donations dry up. And the doctors will have to be satisfied with watching their patients die.
Profit for private businesses has somehow become a dirty concept among the elite liberals. Although they can’t point to a socialist or fascist government that has a history of giving and providing for other less fortunate countries, they are sure that it is conceptually possible. Having a capitalist company donate money, supplies, equipment, etc, is somehow dirty and tainted. Ironically, the country which has historically provided the most aid to other countries in need, now finds itself being blamed for that which allows its generosity - capitalism.
It’s sad to think that all the knowledge is right before our eyes. We do not have to ruin our country to later discover that capitalism did, in fact, work. For those in doubt, here’s your challenge: find one socialist country that rose to world power status which also had a track record of reaching out regularly and providing substantial financial aid, and secondly, at the same time, produced products that were improved from one level to the next without having a competitor serving as the impetus for striving for the next level of excellence.
Save yourself some time, there is no such country. Socialism leads to complacency, lack of competition, and a failing economy. That’s the direction Obama is taking us. This is not about Republican vs. Democrat. It’s just what is. Obama campaigned on re-building this nation, and he meant it. Most of his voters thought he was talking about improving it. He wasn’t. Obama plans on dismantling this country’s economic power and reducing it to a socialist or fascist economy, so that we are no more powerful than any other country.
Perhaps you’re thinking, “Fine, I don’t think US should have anymore power than others.” It’s not just about power. It’s about wealth. It’s about the ability to help those who are less fortunate. It’s about helping Third World countries do more than watch their people die.
Yes I agree with the Obama statements but I think that third world countries should take care of themselves, without our help. Obviously if they are third world, they are doing somthing wrong and our money is just making them weaker if you look at the big picture. Our money could help a few people but who are we to judge who gets the money. We can't help all of them and they can't help themselves.
ReplyDelete