Everyone dies, but some people just die sooner. Sorry. Survival of the fittest. Some major problems already addressed by others on the blog include global warming, over-population, poverty and unemployment. We as humans created the problems we are forced to live in, so why not we solve the problem as well? One hot debate happening right now is the issue of healthcare. Everyone wants free health care, but what would happen if there was no health care?

My modest proposal: ELIMINATE HEALTH CARE! At least some forms of it. Eliminating health care would solve the problems previously listed. Seriously. If we eliminate some forms of health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, many people would die if they become sick. They wouldn’t be able to afford the expensive medicines, surgeries and procedures necessary to keep them alive. Instead of putting off the inevitable, people would just die sooner. With less people living and breathing on Earth, there would be less respiration in the air and thus according to Brooke’s blog, reducing the effects of global warming. Additionally, with less people on the planet, fewer cars would be driven and there wouldn’t be as many people driving to and from doctor’s appointments, reducing the carbon monoxide levels put into atmosphere.

Eliminating health care would also solve overpopulation, so we would have fewer people to worry about feeding, housing and educating. Poverty and unemployment wouldn’t be as much of an issue, since only the strong, elite and wealthy would survive. Also even if you are wealthy but elderly, you might die earlier so you can pass along your inheritance to your children and grandchildren earlier so they have more opportunities to either go to college and get an education, or start investing the money earlier to make a better living for themselves.

This is sort of a Darwinian solution, with our existence going back to being “survival of the fittest.” Only those who have any value to our society would live to an older age, providing for a stronger and more stable economy. Additionally, without receiving medical help from healthcare, it would appear that only those who have strong immune systems would survive. Only the strong would live on. Eventually, this would lead to a continuation of a strong set of genes that will be carried on throughout the years. The age of the average human life would increase because people wouldn’t be dying of disease until a later time. We would have stronger immune systems able to fight off diseases that we would encounter. Eventually, this all leads to making a stronger human race. Sounds pretty good to me.


6 responses »

  1. KCasty says:

    Harsh, but sounds like the long list of benefits are worth it..!?

  2. Mike says:

    I completely agree with acting on the overpopulation of humans on this planet, just maybe not to the extent of completely eliminating healthcare. I’d be on board if healthcare was “suspended” for a few years and then reimplemented for the fittest to continue to survive though.

    Overpopulation has been the root to so many of the world’s problems. The diversification of all species (plants and animals) is the key to the sustainability of our ecosystem. The growing human population is inversely diminishing all the other species’ population. What would we do when humans habitate every acre of land, scavenging for whatever is left from our natural environment? There is only so much of one species that our world can sustain, and I think we far surpassed it (as evident from the environmental changes that have been surfacing).

    It frustrates me to see noticeably poor parents with several children running around in Faded Glory hand-me-downs. They struggle to feed their children now, so how can they afford to give them proper education, healthcare, etc in the future, especially if they have more children. Why do they continue to pop out a new baby every other year when they could hardly support one? Maybe they just can’t afford condoms. But with a lack of common sense like that, they need to kick the bucket already. Survival of the fittest…not sorry.

  3. Cheryl says:

    The proposal does sound harsh, but definitely interesting. As you said, eliminating health care would ultimately lead to people dying sooner and the overall population decreasing, however, completely eliminating it might not be the best option in my opinion. No health care means that the society has to go through a period of having too many sick people (mostly the poor ones) , which might consequently lead to a wider spread of diseases and a lot more people might be affected by it. Diseases would be now all over the place and medical expenses would increase more as well. Society will have to suffer from it, even if it would potentially lead to the desired end of having “the right population”.
    But again, I agree with you that restricting healthcare can be a solution to the overpopulation problem. Like Mike said, it is frustrating seeing the number of poor, uneducated, unemployed people increase more, and these people can’t seem to stop taking advantage of the welfare system. As long as they keep depending on the government and others to support them, they will just be the burdens for society, and economic and social growth will still be hindered. We should not be responsible for those who refuse to get up and work and take responsibility for their own life.

    • Jeff Galloway says:

      Well, you know the old saying…everything gets worse before it gets better. Just to play devil’s advocate/play along with Hannah’s proposal, I think a better idea would be to slowly eliminate it. More specifically, keep providing healthcare/quarantine for those with contageous or dangerous diseases, while slowly whittling away at the rest. This would minimize the problems that Cheryl brings up, while ultimately leading us to a country with no health care and as Hannah says, a smaller, stronger group of citizens.

  4. Zach says:

    While eliminating healthcare may not be the solution, I honestly do think about the populatiuon growth that the world has been experiencing in recent centuries. If you look at a graph of the world population over time, the curve looks to be exponentially growing. The time it took to get from 5 billion to 6 billion people is only a fraction of the time it took to get from 1-2. Now, the rate cannot continue to increase at this rate forever, but it seems that at some point in time, the world will no longer be able to handle the population. What will happen at that time? It really is a scary world to imagine, and one that I will hopefully not be around to witness

  5. Mike M says:

    While agree the proposal is a bit harsh, I really like the idea: return to a more darwinian survival of the fittest type society. In most developed nations, humans have essentially stopped evolving since medicine and technology have found ways to solve most problems people may have. This causes “weaker” people to survive and reproduce even though they likely would not have survived without modern medicine. This could eventually allow people with “weak” genes to dominate the planet, completely opposing the idea of evolution that only the strong survive. While this proposal is harsh, it would allow natural evolution to once again take over and hopefully result in a stronger human race overall.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s