https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/01/the-link-between-single-mother-welfare-fatherlessness-poverty-and-crime-5/
https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/02/how-is-universal-government-run-healthcare-working-for-canada-in-2024/
WK goes 2 for 2 over the weekend. He cover two of the left's scared cows and provides data that suggests that their policies are not particularly effective. We've known for years that Fathers are important, despite what the left would have us believe and the waiting times for the Canadian healthcare are simply unacceptable.
12 comments:
" secular left in this country believes that fathers need to be separated away from their children, and that’s why they support welfare programs that redirect money from husbands in intact families to single mothers. They believe that fathers are harmful because they set boundaries on children, and judge them and punish them when they act immorally. To the secular left, boundaries, judgments and punishments on children are bad, and must be stopped."
When someone leads with primary age, stupidly false claims, it's really hard to take them seriously.
At all.
[Rolls eyes]
Dan
Well, when someone responds with an "eye roll" without actually proving their claim, it's even harder to take them seriously.
I see what you think you've done here. You think that by "debunking" a throwaway aside by WK that you have a reasonable excuse to ignore the data. Therefore you likely believe that you've debunked all of the actual data provided by simply rolling your eyes.
Yeah, it's hard to take you seriously anymore.
While one could possibly quibble with the manner in which WK stated his conclusion, the reality is that the does NOT put a premium on fathers or the traditional notion of marriage in the first place. The proper...that is, ONLY...beneficial family dynamic is one man married to one woman and the children they two of them produce. No one who is truly concerned about the welfare of the nation can suggest that ideal is malleable. It's not a guarantee of outcomes, but a guarantee that the best outcomes are most likely. It's not a guarantee other "family" arrangements won't produce good results, but a guarantee the good results from other arrangements are less likely.
Sometimes, it's just wise to concede that despite one's personal preferences, God's plan is best.
As to Canada's health care boondoggle, I offer this article from a Canadian, who gets around to the health care system there in time (a somewhat long piece, but worth it), but also speaks of all the ways "progressives" (that is, marxists) have brought Canada to the brink. It's what the American left is too stupid to realize awaits us if we continue giving them the time of day.
https://elizabethnickson.substack.com/p/canada-is-a-failed-state-and-mark
One could quibble with the wording of the conclusion, but in doing so one would be ignoring the meat of the post, the data offered, and reality.
There's a quote from someone (Sowell?) that talks about the damage done when the government replaced the wage earning father.
I believe that the left is so enamored with nationalized health care, that they simply choose to put on blinders when assessing the problems with it.
Is it really recieving care if the care takes months and the problem continues to worsen?
Is it really getting care when the Canadian government encourages people with treatable conditions to allow themselves to be killed to save money?
(Man...I gotta slow down my typing! So many typos!)
While I was a product of a single parent family after my father passed when I was 9 yrs old, I did go through a lot of the issues mentioned in the WK piece. It took a while, but I got with the program. Wasted a lot of time until then and could be much better off had I not lost my way at all. Would the presence of my old man made that better? Hard to say. The data suggests it would have.
A former co-worker I met since I moved here and with whom I still keep in contact, had set aside politics in his life several years ago, but still complains about the way things are, especially the cost of health care. He has some issues which requires financial outlays on his part which he believes a nationalized health care situation would resolve. He has just the other day made reference to that on a FaceBook post of his, and I responded. I've not seen him return volley as yet. It's too bad, because he seems a nice guy, but some of his notions are truly goofy.
Obviously, not all kids raised in single parent families have the same outcomes, see Ben Carson, yet the data seems pretty clear that fathers play a very important role in their children's lives and government policies that facilitate single motherhood would seem to be part of the problem.
In theory I can see how a national health care service could possibly work in certain smaller, homogeneous countries. But ultimately, they are bound to make significant compromises and ration care. It's strange to think that the folx who bitch about the government getting between them and their Drs, actually want more government between them and their Drs.
I would suggest that smaller, homogeneous countries simply suffer at a different rate from socialist health care than larger countries do. But health care in this country has long suffered from government interference making costs rise beyond the reach of too many citizens. As was most absolutely true in pushing Obamacare, the real "root causes" of our health care system problems were all reversible issues which resulted in elevated costs, none of which was addressed.
That's certainly a possibility. My point is that it seems theoretically possible to do some sort of national health care system in the right circumstances. Smallish population, generally healthy, etc. It's not an endorsement, just an acknowledgement. Even then, it'll lead to rationing and encouraged euthanasia most likely.
The US system is kind of a paradox. In many ways the level and accessibility of care is great, while the mechanism to pay for that care is much less great. I'd agree that part of that is government involvement, part lawsuits, and part a population that is generally pretty unhealthy. We know that there are some very basic lifestyle changes that lead to better physical and mental health, yet our society disdains those in favor of drugs and surgery. (I'm a great example of that) So we start by consuming more healthcare than we probably should, then add government BS and the litigation class on top of that.
It'd be interesting to see what our healthcare system would look like if we as a society simply got healthier. Lost weight, exercised more, ate better, got off of the couch, etc. I'd be willing to bet that costs would drop, demand would drop, outcomes would be better, and Big Pharma/Big Insurance/Big Medical would freak out.
Post a Comment