The following two signs are on display in the same yard on Faith Lane in Bowie. I'm trying to understand how these two viewpoints are consistent. Perhaps these signs were posted by two different people?
This first sign seems obvious enough. Someone is not in favor of socialism. I get that.
The second sign doesn't mention health care, but when people protest government takeover these days, they are generally talking about health care. I interpret the phrase "Leave Seniors Alone" to mean that this person wants Medicare to be left alone. I could be wrong. Maybe the sign means that the government should leave seniors alone to buy health insurance on the open market where health insurance companies can't wait to fund another hip replacement.
Is the message here that social programs are bad, unless it is a social program that benefits me? Socialism = bad. Medicare (a social program) = good. Does not compute,
Jennifer Klein, a professor at Yale University, posted a commentary on CNN about the lack of knowledge of the government's role in health care by protesters who want to keep the government from "interfering" in their health care. One woman said, "we worked hard to get it, and we're going to keep it." She was referring to the health insurance coverage that her and her husband have through the United Mine Workers. I have no doubt that they both worked very hard, but their health insurance coverage is not a direct result of their hard work. The truth is that their health insurance was made possible through multiple "interferences" by the government when the mine owners weren't going to provide the coverage. Professor Klein provides the details.
It's one thing to protest the ills of social programs, but it would be nice if the arguments were fact based and void of hypocrisy.