Why not take a more direct approach?

Today I found myself pondering the astonishing horror show going on in Washington DC right now. I am speaking of Mitch McConnell’s so-called “healthcare” bill.

When I think of the very large number of American children, senior citizens, and people with pre-existing conditions who will needlessly die through loss of access to adequate healthcare if Mitch McConnell’s mean-spirited plan should pass, I find myself asking two questions:

(1) Exactly how many Americans would die each year once Medicaid has been gutted? (2) Just how much money would a few very wealthy Americans (the actual beneficiaries of this plan) thereby save in taxes each year?

Instead of going through such an elaborate song-and-dance, couldn’t we achieve the same result more directly? Why don’t we just let Mitch McConnell kill those people directly? Obviously it wouldn’t be fair to ask one man to personally shoot to death hundreds of thousands of people, so we’ll need to streamline the process.

Perhaps we could supply him with explosives, so he could blow up entire schools to kill the requisite number of young children en masse, with poison gas to exterminate large numbers of old people in group homes, and with plenty of automatic weapons and ammo so he can saunter through our towns and cities while shooting anyone with a pre-existing condition dead in the street.

For every one thousand Americans Mitch McConnell manages to kill, we would each agree to send an agreed-upon amount of money to our wealthiest citizens. If we get the numbers right, we would end up achieving exactly the same result as his proposed bill, but it would all be so much more direct.

On the other hand, maybe it isn’t fair to ask one man to personally exterminate hundreds of thousands of American men, women and children a year. After all, if Mitch McConnell were to fall behind on his daily quota, then our wealthiest citizens wouldn’t end up getting their cash.

And that wouldn’t be fair, would it?

Leave a Reply