"Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie." ~ William Shakespeare
They used to call it socialized medicine. Now they call it National Health care. Or Universal health care.
The term, "socialized medicine" is more accurate, because ideally, it takes money from the rich, (supposedly) and uses it to pay for health care for the poor. That, of course, is the main tenet on which Socialism is based.
The author of The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx, wrote, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs".
I am just guessing, but I think the reason the term "national health care" is used instead of "socialized medicine" is because the socialists who are pushing socialized medicine in this country have finally realized that there is a negative connotation to anything that includes the terms "socialized" or "socialism".
It is simply not beneficial to their agenda to equate any national policy with any form of Communism, and they know it. The American people would not support them. The memory of Communism and it's oppressiveness is still fresh in our collective memory.
So now, it's called National health care. It's the same thing as socialized medicine but it sounds nicer.
This isn't the first time Liberals have used semantics to legitimize their socialist agenda. They used to proudly call themselves "liberals", and some still do, but later, when they realized that the term Liberal was being interpreted (and rightly so) as "Communist" or "Socialist", they began referring to themselves as "Moderate". That is, until Americans began to realize that word was simply code for "Liberal", which is code for "Socialist".
Now they call themselves "Progressives". What's next?
"A rose, by any other name..."
But I digress. I was talking about socialized medicine. It sounds like a great idea on the surface. I mean, who wouldn't like to have free health care?
But there are problems with that concept. First, and most obvious, the cost of health care has to be defrayed somehow. How do the proponents of national health care propose to pay the price? You guessed it. Higher taxes.
Paying higher taxes to pay for free health care is an oxy-moron, but nevertheless, using tax revenue to pay for health care isn't necessarily a bad thing, if used and distributed responsibly. I, for one, wouldn't complain about slightly higher taxes if I could get free health care, within reason.
The problem with it is, when has any social program been executed responsibly in this country, or for that matter, any other country?
Here is a problem that I observed first hand way back in my youth:
I learned early on that Air Force personnel and their families received free health care at the local base hospital, McConnell Air Force base in Wichita, Kansas, where I grew up. I was surprised and astounded at the petty reasons many of my "Air Force brat" friends would go to the base hospital. If some of them sustained anything from scraped knees to paper cuts, they were rushed to the emergency room by their well-meaning, but over protective parents. I often wondered how the hospital ER staff could handle so many non-emergencies and still handle real emergencies effectively.
Apparently, socialized medicine works for America's armed forces, but I don't know how. Perhaps if the Libs truly want socialized medicine for all American citizens, they might want to look to the military for it's model.
The other day, I read an article posted by the liberally biased AP about a woman who birthed a set of identical quadruplets. Apparently, it is "news" because the ratio of quadruplets being identical are approximately 13 million to one.
But within the article, I believe the AP unknowingly revealed a serious problem with socialized medicine. Here are some excerpts from the story:
"Karen Jepp of Calgary, Alberta, delivered Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia by Caesarian section Sunday afternoon at Benefis Healthcare, said Amy Astin, the hospital's director of community and government relations."
She is from Canada, but she chose to give birth in Great Falls, Montana. Why?
"The Jepps drove 325 miles to Great Falls for the births because hospitals in Calgary were at capacity."
Here it appears the AP reporter attempts to give a credible excuse for the inadequate Canadian Health Care system, by blaming it on Calgary's rapid growth:
"The difficulty is that Calgary continues to grow at such a rapid rate. ... The population has increased a lot faster than the number of hospital beds."
I'm not buying it. The people (and we know who they are) that are pushing socialized medicine in this country continue to point to Canada as a shining example of how wonderful national health care can be in our country, but if health care in Canada is so wonderful, why did the Jepps have to drive 325 miles?
It's no secret. Conservative opponents of socialized medicine have been discussing it for years. Socialized medicine causes overcrowding of hospitals, over regulation, delayed essential medical operations and procedures (which are a consequence of over regulation), incompetent or substandard medical care, and the enabling of unscrupulous politicians who abuse the system to enrich themselves through graft and bribery.
Another article I read recently stated that America's health care system ranks 41st in the world. I don't recall it mentioning what criteria the researchers used to come up with that figure, but it hammered the Liberal point that France, England, and other countries have socialized health care, and America doesn't. By doing so, the inference was made that those countries have better health care, but would you like to know what information they conveniently left out of their report on the study?
The report didn't mention where the countries that have socialized medicine rank in the study. I think if they were ranked above the United States, the report would most certainly have mentioned it, don't you think?
I am fortunate because, at fifty five years of age, I am still remarkably healthy. Outside of a nagging pain in my right elbow and my left ring finger, and a questionable diagnosis of type II Diabetes, I have no immediate need of health care.
I would very much like to avail myself of free health care, when and if I need it, but until someone comes up with a national health care system that doesn't create more problems than it solves, I'll take my chances with the one we currently have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Mark said:
"The term, "socialized medicine" is more accurate, because ideally, it takes money from the rich, (supposedly) and uses it to pay for health care for the poor."
I'm not taking much of a stance on socialized medicine at this point. I think we have many problems with our healthcare system with no simple solutions - although the best is to take better care of ourselves.
But I DO have a question: If pulling our resources to provide health care for everyone is "socialized medicine," is pulling our resources to provide roads for everyone "socialized motorist-support"? Or is pulling our resources to have the world's largest military machine "socialized militarism"? Is pulling our resources to have the world's largest prison system, "socialized penalism"?
In other words, I'm wondering if you're opposed to all instances of pulling resources, or only in the case of health care and dealing with poverty? If the supposed beneficiaries are middle class + motorists or corporations, is it okay in those instances to pull our resources to help them out, but not if you're amongst the poorer crowd?
Maybe so, Dan. But for the record, I am not entirely opposed to using tax revenue to pay for Health care for everyone. In fact, I said so in my post. But I think there can be better less expensive ways of providing affordable health care to Americans.
I suggested a way in a previous post, and was roundly and soundly criticized by both Libs and conservatives.
I still think we are attacking the problem from the wrong angle. Health care costs are just way too high and in my opinion, they don't need to be. Lower the health care cost instead of forcing people to pay higher taxes to pay for the ridicuously high medical costs.
Think about the average medical exam. A doctor looks in your eyes and ears with a little flashlight, then listens to your heart with a stethescope, sticks a popsicle stick in your mouth and thumps on your back a few times. Why should that cost over a hundred dollars?
I'll bet if it was broken down to what each individual office exam actually costs the doctor, it would amount to a few cents per patient. Why does a doctor make that much profit? Not even the wealthiest corporate officers make that percentage of profit per product produced.
Nice rant. One problem: Supporters of national health care have never used the term "socialized medicine" themselves. It has always been opponents of national health care who called it "socialized medicine," specifically to spook people into confusing it with socialism, or communism, when it is neither.
Other than that, your whole premise, I mean, nice rant.
Yeah? How is it different from Communist ideology?
"Progressives" = Runaway trains
conservatives = brakes on, chaps!
The filter of conservatism is essential for satisfactory social progression. Blind progress in the 'guise of liberty is dangerous...and often leads to swift and unforeseen destruction.
Yeah, Mark! And...ER...how unsocialist is it then?
( I love making up new words, lol!)
"It has always been opponents of national health care who called it "socialized medicine," specifically to spook people into confusing it with socialism, or communism, when it is neither. "
Right.
It is BOTH.
What makes anyone in america believe that the responsibility for providing their healthcare is anyone's but their own?
Do any of you believe that everyone else should pay for your gasoline?
Your electricity?
Where does this mentality stop?
(And don't try to tell me it stops with Healthcare...)
Personal responsibility.
Self sufficiency.
Maturity.
Try it... You'll like it.
Mark: If the way MediGap insurance is any indication of how Socialized, National or Universal Health Insurance would work, I don't want it. I am on Medicare which is costing me $96.00 a month right off the top of my Social Security, and then I signed up for MediGap which would pick up expenses where Medicare leaves off, that cost me another $35.00 a month and then I signed up for the Medicare Prescription, another $13.45 a month. Then after two years, the MediGap Insurance dropped me because they said I can't have my Medical through them and my prescription coverage through another company, and if I wanted to keep my medical I would have to drop my prescription coverage with the other company and sign up for their medical/prescription coverage which would cost me $165.00 a month plus the $96.00 a month to Medicare, which would be $117.00 more a month then what I am paying now. Then to top that off, the Insurance people told me I would also have to change doctors and that I could not use the hospital of my choice.
So, there you are, pay more money and lose your right to the doctor and hospital of your choice. That was kinda like the health care plan that Hillary was trying to push when she was first biatch.
I am now back to just Medicare and I kept the prescription plan I had, and I still have my doctor who I have had since 1985 and I can use the hospital of my choice. the only problem is Medicare doesn't pay for much unless you are in the hospital which means that if I need tests and stuff I still have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket, which I can't afford.
The libs should be honest with the public and tell them that under socialized medicine the patients lose their freedom of choice and they will be on waiting lists for some tests and procedures. Also every country that has socialized medicine, each person is only allowed a certain amount each year. If you go over that amount, you are S.O.L.
Okay, Mr know it all. As soon as you start paying for all your own roads, for the full cost of gasoline and driving, your own military, etc, etc, you might have a real case there...
So, Dan, your arguement is that I have no right to protest the escalation of Socialism in America because we already have Socialism here?
If I did pay for my own roads, cost of gasoline, et al, they would be higher quality, and cheaper than what the government has magnanimously provided for me.
The Constitution clearly provides for maintaining the Military.
It says absolutely nothing about making YOU provide ME with healthcare.
No thanks.
Ask a Veteran how well Socialized Medicine works...
Ask anyone who depends completely on Medicare or Medicaid...
Anyone trying to live on a Socialist Security check...
Anyone who has been to the DOT office in the past five years...
You see, we don't have to ruin the system we now have in order to know how the new system would work.
We have any number of examples of how wonderful and efficient our government is at managing our lives, (Thanks alot, Dan & Friends...)
Use your heads.
Mr. Know it all...Welcome to my blog. You are wating your time asking Liberals to use their heads. They use only their hearts. As Rush says, Conservatives think, Liberals feel.
Also, regarding your statement, "It (The Constitution) says absolutely nothing about making YOU provide ME with healthcare."
It also says nothing about making ME provide YOU with healthcare, which to me, is more important.
abouna,
Medicare has three main parts, A, B and D. If your Medicare only pays for hospital stays, then you only have part A. You need to get part B pronto. Of course, it'll cost you, but I don't think it's a whole lot, and it'll be less than the thousands of dollars it costs for outpatient visits. Part D is for prescription coverage. Even with those three parts, you'd still do well to pick up a supplemental insurance policy. They can be spendy, but they generally will pay everything that Medicare doesn't, which could be a lot if you have a real problem.
End of public service announcement.
"your arguement is that I have no right to protest the escalation of Socialism in America because we already have Socialism here"
No, I'm stating as a fact that it is obfuscation to castigate one particular part of our budget as "socialism," when we already pull our resources for items you are probably fine with.
When many on the Right start bringing up charges of socialism, it's because they're trying to demonize healthcare or welfare, when both of those are examples of where the US citizenry has decided that these are worthwhile ways to pull our resources, as we have for roads, the world's most massive military, corporate welfare, etc.
If you want to criticize a national healthcare plan (and as I've stated, I'm not here advocating in favor of one), then criticize the plan. I certainly will criticize our obscenely bloated military and roadways system.
Just do so based on their merits or lack thereof. Playing the socialism card is just sloppy debate.
Socialized healthcare already exists in this country in the form of Medicare, Armed Services, and Medicaid.
They all have their pros and cons. For instance, if you have a question to ask Medicare, don't bother calling the 800 number unless you have an extra 36 hours to spend on hold, and you don't mind not actually getting an answer in the end. Also, there is basically no recourse if they decide something isn't covered. With private insurance there's an appeal process that you and your doctors can go through, but there's nothing like that with Medicare. No means no. But, it's accepted just about everywhere and they send out pretty good monthly activity statements.
Medicaid is cool because it pays everything, and is accepted everywhere. It is the most hassle free insurance in the world.
Many doctors and hospitals don't necessarily care for Medicare and Medicaid because of all the insurance programs out there, those two pay the lowest contract prices. (Brief tutorial: doctors have their "retail" price, and then they contract with various insurance companies, which then lop off a percentage of the price right off the top. Medicare and Medicaid lop off the most. Which, of course, means that doctors make less money on those patients. It could be argued that that makes doctors raise their prices to make up for it.)
I think it's debatable whether Medicare works well or not. The costs are high, there's a lot of paperwork involved, and I doubt it would get a real high approval rating from those that currently use it, other than the fact that it's basically all you can get at that age.
I think an interesting question is whether it's the government's job to provide health care for everyone. Is it the same thing as roads, the military, or the prison system?
Mr Anonymous said:
The Constitution clearly provides for maintaining the Military.
It says absolutely nothing about making YOU provide ME with healthcare.
No thanks.
The constitution talks about providing for the common defense and for the common welfare. It does not define what exactly that looks like. That's a call for We, the People to make on an ongoing basis.
But I think it's safe to say (based on what THEY said) that our founders would be horrified at the size of our military.
Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. ~George Washington
Hi Mark
Excellent post and some good conclusions. I've experience military hospitals and know those who still do. They work. But not well. I can only imagine the problem would get worse if we went to socialized medicine.
BTW, I'm a strong advocate for calling the plan what it is... socialism. Changing the name is deceitful.
Blessings
"The constitution talks about providing for the common defense and for the common welfare."
I know what Dan's problem is... Either he has no reading comprehension skills, or someone is reading everything for him, and then telling him what it said.
Dan, listen closely.
The Preamble to the Constitution says that We the People do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice (the court system), insure domestic tranquility (the Police force), provide for the common defense (the Military), promote(not provide for) the general welfare (roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc) , and secure the blessings of liberty(not the slavery of Government Dependency and taxation) to ourselves (that means us) and our posterity (that means the chuuldren).
"But I think it's safe to say (based on what THEY said) that our founders would be horrified at the size of our military."
They probably would be.
Just like they would be horrified to see the state of our Border Security, and our tax rate (or the fact that we have an INCOME TAX at all), and the condition of our educational system, and the Entitlement Mentality that has taken such a foothold in this country that now a sizable portion of our population has begun to clamor for someone else to pay for their Healthcare, and our power-hungry politicians are all too willing to promise this national folly in exchange for more power to manage our lives for us (and help themselves to more of our money.)
I would submit to you that the size of our Military would be WAAAAAAYYY down on the list of things (that you readily would endorse) over which our Founders would be horrified.
Nice try.
Go do your homework.
Did my homework. You know what? As it turns out, your parenthetical statements aren't in the Constitution. That's YOUR take on it, brother.
That's why they are in parentheses.
Point out for me which of my parenthetical statements are incorrect.
I still don't see Socialized Medicine in there, however.
The provision for THAT is YOUR take.
Brother.
Friend, it says what it says.
We, the people, establish the Constitution for the United States of America in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
The founders, in their wisdom, left it to we the people to establish what the specifics will be. They were further wise enough to know that those specifics may change with time. But those are the goals:
Establish justice
Insure domestic tranquility
Provide for common defense
Promote general welfare
Secure the blessings of liberty
I'm not saying that socialized roads OR medicine or an obscenely large military are spelled out in there. I'm saying that they're NOT spelled out, either. If we, the People, decide the best way to promote welfare and secure the blessings of liberty is to provide some assistance, then that's what it means.
We, the People get to decide. You can make your case for or against socialized medicine, for or against over-sized militaries and subsidies for motorists, etc.
The point is, Make your case.
Don't try to mislead people into thinking that supporting welfare or medicaid is somehow more "socialized" than subsidizing corporations, motorists or the military-industrial complex. If you want to look at it that way, it's ALL socialism - pulled resources to pay for what we think makes most sense.
Discuss the issues, don't pitter around with silly demonizations of programs. It undermines your point. Just discuss its merits. That's all I'm saying.
The term is "pooled" resources, not "pulled", genius.
I have been trying to point out to you that this whole idea is unconstitutional.
The very fact that you seem to think this is a good idea points out a major character flaw in you.
I want you to tell me why your Healthcare is anyone's responsibility besides your own.
What else do you believe the world owes you?
If there were no one in the United States but me and you, would you be willing to put me in total control of your well being?
Your Healthcare?
How much food, or water you were allowed?
Do you REALLY not see the problem with promoting this type of dependency?
Could you POSSIBLY be that short-sighted and dense?
I cannot discuss the merits of Socialized Medicine with you because the idea HAS NO MERITS WHATSOEVER.
The reason that Medicine is so expensive in the first place in this country is because of government meddling.
I already have all the bureaucracy I can afford. (and you do too, whether you know it or not.)
Look after yourself.
Help those around you. (YOURSELF.)
I will do the same.
But we will BOTH be happier if we keep our hands out of each other's pockets.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!
Why do I have to make a case against it?
YOU need to convince ME why we need it.
We don't have it already, and I want to keep it that way.
Now.
Explain to me why this is a good idea, brother.
I'm all ears.
If you read the words that I have actually written, anonymous one, you will see that I haven't made a case for nationalized health care because I'm not sure that is the best approach to our health care problems.
My intent here was merely to address the frequent problem of using "It's socialism!" as a critique of one program or another. "It's socialism!" isn't a critique, it's a demonization.
If you're for it, make your case. If you're against it, make your case. Just don't use "It's socialism!" as your reason to be against it unless you're opposed to all pooling (thank you) of resources.
The "whole idea" is NOT unconstitutional any more than our roadways system is, or our support of corporate welfare, or our welfare for motorists is, etc, etc.
It's not unconstitutional.
BUT, if you want to make that case, make it. Keep in mind, though, that merely writing out the preamble with some parenthetical statements does not make your case.
Understand?
As to making the case for socialized medicine, if I were to make one, it would likely have to do with economic responsibility.
For instance, I'm in favor of providing educational and drug-independency help to prisoners in our penal system. Why? Because I'm a softy-socialist who wants to coddle these monsters!!?
No. That would be a demonization-approach to discussing a problem, rather than dealing with the issues at hand.
No, I support that because research shows that it costs less taxpayer money to provide education to prisoners than it does to re-imprison them when they get out of jail no better off than they were before.
Suppose it costs $2x million to imprison criminals. And, when they get out, the recidivism rate is pretty high and most of them return, costing another $2x million (not counting the loss of tax dollars they'd be paying if they were reformed!). BUT, if by spending $1x million to educate them, the recidivism rate goes down and saves the taxpayers $2x million.
From a fiscally responsible citizen's point of view who is concerned about our constitutional obligation to provide for the general welfare of our citizens, it would only make sense to spend the $1x million on education rather than the $2x million on prison.
It's not a vacuum. It's not a choice of "wasting" $1x million on prisoners or keeping the money ourselves. We're going to spend the money one way or another. The question is: Which way is going to be most responsible and best increase our security and well-being? In that case, study after study shows that educating prisoners SAVES money, rather than costing us money.
So, if those who advocate nationalized healthcare can show that same kind of correlation, they might have a fiscally responsible case for their view. If not, then perhaps we ought not pursue nationalized healthcare.
The point remains: We make our case for or against whatever issue based upon the evidence, not on demonizing those who oppose us as "socialists."
The difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives read what the Constitution says.
Liberals read into the Constitution what it can be MADE to say.
Dan, I am telling you that the U.S. Constitution does not allow the U.S. Government to take over the Healthcare system.
Period.
Not without warping the wording beyond recognition.
Now, this is the point in the argument where you show me where it does, if I'm wrong, or you agree with me if I'm not.
If the Government were to take over the healthcare system and run it with tax monies, then that would be an example of Socialism in America.
Calling it something else doesn't change what it is.
And if it is not, then what is it?
As far as making my case goes...
Dan, I've seen you around enough to know that if I did make my case, and did it brilliantly, you would completely ignore whatever I said and go into a rant about the size of the Military (see above), or about what Jesus said, and you would redirect the discussion.
And since you refuse to state your true position on the issue, I see no further need to argue with you.
Have a nice day.
"We, the people, establish the Constitution for the United States of America in order to..."
The question then becomes, did the Founders then put in the Constitution all the ways that they thought the federal government should accomplish the list of things found in the preamble?
Or is it just a framework that we could then interpret?
Good question, Cameron.
knowitall lived up to his name and said:
And since you refuse to state your true position on the issue, I see no further need to argue with you.
I didn't realize I was dealing with someone who knows "my true position," better than I do! You're right. If you know better than I do what I think, there is no reason at all to argue with me.
As to the Constitution, you'll have to take it up with the People. If they decide to institute a national healthcare plan and you fail to make your case against it (as you have here with me), then I reckon you're out of luck.
You see, you failed to make your case against it because you offered nothing - NOTHING - in opposition to it. Just stated YOUR OPINION that it's not constitutional and blathered about those who'd support it being socialists.
In debate and discussions, the way it works is this: You say, I'm opposed to nationalized healthcare because...1, 2, 3 and offer your points. You then offer support for your points.
In your case, you said I'm opposed to nationalized healthcare because 1. it's socialism, 2. it's unconstitutional and 3. we ought to take care of ourselves.
And then you offered no support for any of those three points, basically saying, "take my word for it: It's socialism and it's unconstitutional."
That won't fly in an adult conversation. Your third point has some merit, for what it's worth.
The question then becomes, what do you do with the arguments of those supporting it (again, I don't fall into that category at this time)? What if not having a national healthcare is costing us twice as much as having a national healthcare would cost? That would be a compelling argument (if it were true).
That's how adults have discussions on important matters. Give it a try.
Dan...
You have totally convinced me that we should educate, rather than punish violent criminals.
With all the money we will save, we can cut taxes even more!
Now, what were we talking about before?
What would it take for me to make my case to you that Socializing the Medical System is a bad idea?
Posting direct quotes from the Constitution does not convince you that the Constitution does not allow it, you simply stretch the definition of the phrase "general welfare" until it fits around it somehow.
I could point to the examples that England and Canada have set, point out how ridiculously expensive and innefficient their systems are...
I could (and have) pointed out the failures and mismanagement of other programs that are directed by our government, and try to get you to see that Nationalized Healthcare would be no better...
It wouldn't make any difference.
I have made my case over and over.
It WOULD be Socialism. Not a demonization, an accurate description.
It is NOT provided for in our Constitution. Not an opinion, a fact. (Again, if I'm wrong, feel free to point out the wording to me from our Constitution which describes how "the Rich" are supposed to pay for healthcare for "the Poor"...
And we SHOULD look after ourselves. It is our moral responsibility.
And don't preach to me about how adults debate things, Dan.
This has been like arguing with a five year old.
Mr. KIA, re: "Dan, I am telling you that the U.S. Constitution does not allow the U.S. Government to take over the Healthcare system.
Period."
If President Bush wanted to, he could do it by Executive Order, in the name of national defense. I mean, to hear HIM explain the powers of the presidency.
Like the Executive Order that President Clinton issued during his last days of office regulating ergonomic standards for employers, which has conservatively cost U.S. Businesses upwards of Forty Billion Dollars a year?
Or the 24,500 pages of regulation that Carter added by Executive Order during his presidency?
So, yeah. He could. (To hear Democrats explain the power of the Presidency...)
I mean, if President Clinton can mandate mousepads by executive order, then President Bush could mandate Socialized Medicine that way.
Yes.
"I didn't realize I was dealing with someone who knows "my true position," better than I do!"
Funny, Dan. You use this same remark anytime someone points out the hypocrisy in your implicational and accusatory comments.
You know what you're saying. You just want others to somehow believe that you are their friend.
But your words betray you regardless of how slick you believe that you are.
Delusion fits you.
Mark?
Post a Comment