In
1961, Ronald Reagan joined the American Medical Association in opposing
the Democratic Party's attempt to force socialized medicine on the
American people.
President Reagan's advice is just as relevant today as it was then. In part, he warned:
"One of the traditional methods of
imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.
It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project.
. . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized
medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote
against it." – Ronald Reagan
Listen to Reagan's speech (10 min) on liberalism, socialism, and national health insurance. This is why he is still an icon – because he spoke presciently, clearly, logically, intelligently, and rightly. He compares it to Social Security, and the limits intended for that program.
Liberals, naive and, dare I say, deceived by the lies of Socialist serpents like Stalin, Marx, and Mussolini, were enchanted by Socialism then, and they still like it now. Blind to the unsustainable nature of such schemes, and disenchanted with the risks of freedom and a free market, they trade our freedom for statism. Students of history and freedom don't buy the Utopian lies of government-as-savior schemes. Vive la Reagan.
Hi Daniel: This speech was where Ronald Reagan warned about how MEDICARE was a threat to our freedom. Now you have the town hall protesters demanding that Washington keep its hands off their Medicare! Medicare has been a hugely successful program. Reagan's warnings were absurd.
your friend
Keith
Were they really absurd? AFAIK, Medicare is an unsustainable program that’s being propped up by doctors shifting costs to privately insured individuals…
Some people ARE indeed upset that Obama plans to make deep cuts to Medicare. Of those, some are upset because they like Medicare, others are upset because Obama flat out lied about this (AARP townhall, “No one is talking about cuts to Medicare”, one month earlier in an interview, “I plan to cut Medicare by $300B”).
On a related note, this news is coming out of Canada. Depending on where you stand, the timing is either perfect or dismal:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw
Enjoy!
Absurd? AFAIK, Medicare is a bloated program that is adding significantly to our national debt. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a bell that POTUS Obama's been ringing frequently. When we steal from the future generations, we are reducing their freedom to act as they will according to our democratic principles. Medicare is also stealing from currently privately insured individuals, reducing their freedom to use their earned capital themselves.
Now SOME people are indeed protesting that Obama has promised $300B in cuts to the Medicare program. Some of those people are on the program, and have a very vested interest. The bad known is often more comfortable than the scary unknown. Others are protesting it because Obama has presented himself as a flat out liar. One month after proposing $300B in Medicare cuts, he told the folks at the AARP that "no one is talking about Medicare cuts."
I'm curious if you think that "Medicare has been a hugely successful program" in a wholistic way, or only with certain aspects.
Oh, and this is interesting news. You probably either like it or don't based on your healthcare leanings… I find the timing highly amusing:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/ar…
Absurd? AFAIK, Medicare is a bloated program that is adding significantly to our national debt. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a bell that POTUS Obama's been ringing frequently. When we steal from the future generations, we are reducing their freedom to act as they will according to our democratic principles. Medicare is also stealing from currently privately insured individuals, reducing their freedom to use their earned capital themselves.
Now SOME people are indeed protesting that Obama has promised $300B in cuts to the Medicare program. Some of those people are on the program, and have a very vested interest. The bad known is often more comfortable than the scary unknown. Others are protesting it because Obama has presented himself as a flat out liar. One month after proposing $300B in Medicare cuts, he told the folks at the AARP that "no one is talking about Medicare cuts."
I'm curious if you think that "Medicare has been a hugely successful program" in a wholistic way, or only with certain aspects.
Oh, and this is interesting news. You probably either like it or don't based on your healthcare leanings… I find the timing highly amusing:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/ar…
Absurd? AFAIK, Medicare is a bloated program that is adding significantly to our national debt. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a bell that POTUS Obama's been ringing frequently. When we steal from the future generations, we are reducing their freedom to act as they will according to our democratic principles. Medicare is also stealing from currently privately insured individuals, reducing their freedom to use their earned capital themselves.
Now SOME people are indeed protesting that Obama has promised $300B in cuts to the Medicare program. Some of those people are on the program, and have a very vested interest. The bad known is often more comfortable than the scary unknown. Others are protesting it because Obama has presented himself as a flat out liar. One month after proposing $300B in Medicare cuts, he told the folks at the AARP that "no one is talking about Medicare cuts."
I'm curious if you think that "Medicare has been a hugely successful program" in a wholistic way, or only with certain aspects.
Oh, and this is interesting news. You probably either like it or don't based on your healthcare leanings… I find the timing highly amusing:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/ar…
Beat me to it, Keith. Yes, I'd like to see Obama (or anyone else for that matter) propose eliminating Medicare or Social Security: the result would make the current town hall mobocracy look like a kindergarten party! Maybe daniel should equate these popular programs to the work of Stalin, Marx, and Mussolini, and then see how far he'd get. Maybe he should, in advance, renounce all his future benefits if he wants to be consistent in his far-right rejection of government "interference." What a bunch of loons!
Louis,
You said, "Maybe he should, in advance, renounce all his future benefits "
I think the financials on those programs are doing it for us. :P
You have a broader point though, Louis, and I'll happily concede it. The Republican base wants fiscal responsibility. We just can't seem to get enough people in office who have the courage of their convictions. Republican politicians get in office and ultimately treat it as an opportunity to endulge their largesse. The majority of politicians do. That's why we have run away pork spending.
I don't think this makes an argument against pushing for fiscal responsibility. I think we need to pass a balanced budget amendment, and I'd GLADLY forego all government retirement and medical benifits to get there.
Keith,
Absurd? AFAIK, Medicare is a bloated program that is adding significantly to our national debt. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a bell that POTUS Obama's been ringing frequently. When we steal from the future generations, we are reducing their freedom to act as they will according to our democratic principles. Medicare is also stealing from currently privately insured individuals, reducing their freedom to use their earned capital themselves.
Now SOME people are indeed protesting that Obama has promised $300B in cuts to the Medicare program. Some of those people are on the program, and have a very vested interest. The bad known is often more comfortable than the scary unknown. Others are protesting it because Obama has presented himself as a flat out liar. One month after proposing $300B in Medicare cuts, he told the folks at the AARP that "no one is talking about Medicare cuts."
I'm curious if you think that "Medicare has been a hugely successful program" in a wholistic way, or only with certain aspects.
Oh, and this is interesting news. You probably either like it or don't based on your healthcare leanings… I find the timing highly amusing:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/ar…
Louis,
You said, "Maybe he should, in advance, renounce all his future benefits"
I think the financials on these programs have done that for us all. :P
There is a larger point you're making that I, for one, would gladly concede. The republican base is almost unanimously interested in fiscal responsibility. Yet we've never seen a majority of Republican politians who are as interested… By and large, they get into office and seem a lot more interested in cronyism and increasing their personal largesse than getting tough on spending. Pork spending seems to be something that Democrats and Republicans can always form a majority on. (I think there's still room to talk about "better" and "worse", but I'd rather we were talking about "none" vs. "some")
I would applaud the politician who was brave enough to forgoe reelection chances and clean up our wasteful spending. I'd VERY much support a balanced budget amendment. I don't kow why in the world we've gotten so used to spending our childrens' and grandchildrens' money and call that an "investment". Poppycock! I'd also very happily personally forgoe any government retirement or healthcare benefits (although I seriously don't think I'll ever see any).
Keith,
Absurd? AFAIK, Medicare is a bloated program that is adding significantly to our national debt. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a bell that POTUS Obama's been ringing frequently. When we steal from the future generations, we are reducing their freedom to act as they will according to our democratic principles. Medicare is also stealing from currently privately insured individuals, reducing their freedom to use their earned capital themselves.
Now SOME people are indeed protesting that Obama has promised $300B in cuts to the Medicare program. Some of those people are on the program, and have a very vested interest. The bad known is often more comfortable than the scary unknown. Others are protesting it because Obama has presented himself as a flat out liar. One month after proposing $300B in Medicare cuts, he told the folks at the AARP that "no one is talking about Medicare cuts."
I'm curious if you think that "Medicare has been a hugely successful program" in a wholistic way, or only with certain aspects.
>> JAMES: I would applaud the politician who was brave enough to forgo reelection chances and clean up our wasteful spending.
Maybe you should support Ron Paul :) :D
>> JAMES: I'd VERY much support a balanced budget amendment.
This is just one of the reasons that I am a fan of Gingrich. As per wikipedia's entry for the Balanced Budget Amendment:
In fact, in his book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America (2005), he covers this again:
And in Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works (2008), Gingrich discusses such topics as
You might also want to support the two Republican Senators from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, who in 2007 re-introduced a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
Ron Paul has some extreme ideas that I think a lot of people find attractive because they shake things up.
I'd be more amenable to them if they weren't attached to the man. Boy, I feel like we just talked about this… :) As much as I'd like to address the ideas as ideas, I think he's crazy (re: conspiracy theories), and I know he's a racist (I just don't buy that he was unaware of what was being printed in that racist newsletter under his name for so long without anyone calling his attention to it). That, I just can't do.
… I think we can get good stuff done with more "conventional" people, who are willing to forgoe reelection. Frankly, they exist already, we just need them en masse.
Hi James:
Absurd? AFAIK, Medicare is a bloated program that is adding significantly to our national debt. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a bell that POTUS Obama's been ringing frequently. When we steal from the future generations, we are reducing their freedom to act as they will according to our democratic principles. Medicare is also stealing from currently privately insured individuals, reducing their freedom to use their earned capital themselves.
I would disagree that Medicare is a bloated program. What is bloated is medical costs because our private system is designed to benefit private insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies instead of the general public. A single payer plan (like Medicare) would if applied system wide give us the bargaining power to hold down costs the way every other civilized country does.
your friend
Keith
>> KEITH: I would disagree that Medicare is a bloated program. What is bloated is medical costs because our private system is designed to benefit private insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies instead of the general public.
I think that Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist said it well before Congress in 2003:
I don't know if this is 'bloated,' but it is certainly not without need of some drastic reform, not the least of which is the socialistic mistake of 'pay as you go.'
HOWEVER, I do also agree with Keith that the costs are partly driven by greedy insurance companies and pharma, but what are you gonna do about it? Put them out of business?
I worked for a not-for-profit HMO (Lifeguard), which died in the bust of the late 90's. Perhaps all insurance companies should be not-for-profit. My current auto insurance is like that – if they collect more premiums than they need, they issue members a check. Every year, I get between 50 and 150 bucks from USAA, which is nice.
Regarding pharma, they are in a tough position – they risk a lot of capital in development, and then are expected to go generic overnight as to not reap inordinate profits – but how to reward them for their initial risk?
Perhaps, as one pundit said (I forget who) regarding the phone company monopolies, when they make more than 1000 times their initial investment, perhaps at that point they should be expected to give back.
There is one more thing that drives up medical costs – the patients themselves. They do this through
– just getting older
– if they are large in number, like the boomers, a pay-as-you-go system will fail by its very design
– patients require ever increasing services at the same cost. In the past, if you had a heart condition, they gave you nitro-glycerine tablets. Now you expect a heart transplant.
– patient's are not rewarded for healthy lifestyles, so there is no incentive to live and eat healthy – with our current epidemic of <s>gluttony</s> obesity, us irresponsible patients drive up costs because we are, to put it crassly, lazy pigs.
Any real healthcare solution needs to address all of these components. I am glad to hear the Obama admin driven to considering other options like health insurance co-ops. But they have a long way to go to approach the common sense recommendations of the GOP alternate bill(s), and of Newt Gingrich's wise models.
Hi Daniel:
A couple of points:
1. I don’t agree with Frist/Hastert et al about the “one-size-fits-all” alleged problem with Medicare. What Medicare recipients WANT is to know that they will be able to get the care they are their doctors believe is appropriate. With Medicare they get that, and Medicare has low overhead costs since they don’t have to do the things that private insurers have to do (market their product, design their product so that they eliminate high risk customers from their risk pool etc.)
2. The demographic problem Frist/Hastert spoke about isn’t a problem with Medicare, it is a problem of health care for old people costing a whole lot. The large number of baby boomers needing expensive health care will certainly mean the Medicare system will require lots more money. But so would a privatized health system, unless the private companies refused to cover the expensive treatments the old need. I will resist the temptation to talk about private “death panels”:-)
3. I am not going to accuse the insurance companies of greed. They are in the business of making a profit the same as all private companies in a capitalist system. But the competitive pressures require them to reduce expenses compared to their competitors, which requires them to avoid paying for expensive care if they can. They can do this by up front refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions, or finding ways consistent with the contract to deny coverage or rescind coverage when they can.
your friend
Keith
Keith said:
"What Medicare recipients WANT is to know that they will be able to get the care they are their doctors believe is appropriate"
I think this is the key bit here. It's not what they get now, and it will only get worse if the government takes over more.
Right now, what the patients get, is what the doctor recommends *that will also be paid for under the program*. If we move to single payer, which the public option will lead to, only medical treatments that are approved will be available. That is less choice, not more.
The current bill in congress is modelled largely on the UK's system. Google NICE and Drugs and see how far you have to go to find medical professionals complaining that NICE has restricted effective drugs over dubious cost complaints.
The cost drivers are primarily that US patients want and demand the most up to date medical treatments. Find out how many MRI machines are available in the Canadian health system. Compare to the US. This starts to paint the picture. Previously you mentioned cutting costs by using used prosthetics… Patients don't want those. You blame it purely on the doctors and medical companies. It's foolish.
We can talk about Private Death panels. Comparing private insurer and single payer is a strawman talking point.
I'm not sure you understand the difference between Price and Cost, also.
"A single payer plan (like Medicare) would if applied system wide give us the bargaining power to hold down costs the way every other civilized country does." Right now, the payments from Medicare are subsidized by private insurers (the underpayment by Medicare is passed right along). The COSTS are the same per procedure.
Let me ask you this: When medical treatment is "free", will demand for that treatment go up or down? How do you think that will relate to cost?
I'm further curious. Have you seen that Canada's top doc is talking about privatizing health care? ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/we-h… ) Shouldn't that create some sense of caution before rushing towards a system similar to theirs?
One more thought for those of you who would like single-payer/lower costs medical care:
Our current private system allows and even rewards medical/pharmaceutical experimentation and improvement. The US has long been the world wide leader in medical innovation. If we move to a system that not only doesn't reward this, but doesn't allow it, what will happen to not only our people, but the people of the world? Aren't foreign socialist medicine states actually benefitting from us currently?
I just haven't heard ANY single payer socialized medicine HCAN advocate discussing this angle at all…
And Daniel, forgot about yours!
“Not for Profit” doesn’t exactly mean what the title says… PLENTY of people profit on Not for Profit. Sting’s not for profit puts a lot of money in his pocket. Skip Gates not for profit put money in his fiance and colleagues pockets.
I don’t think Co-op offers what you’re thinking, either: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelFCannon/2009/08/17/when_out_of_hope,_feign_change
Enjoy!
Keith said: "I am not going to accuse the insurance companies of greed."
Well, then, I will do it for ya ;)
From where I am, I can see who the rich boogers are. They are: The Insurance people, the doctors, the other medical professionals (who read tests for $500 each), and the politicians.
Don't get me wrong. I don't mind paying people for their services, especially when I may die without them. But when their services for one day's work cost more than I can ever make in a year (two years, three years)? I would say there is a problem here.
Here's a thought: Farmers are the ones who should be rich, since we'd all die without them! :)
I agree with Daniel here: "us irresponsible patients drive up costs because we are, to put it crassly, lazy pigs."
If people cared more properly for their bodies, they'd need "health care" less.
The whole system is all wrong. And it is not fixable. When "we the people" nix the middleman, pay people more appropriately for their services rendered, and don't expect to live forever (without pain, all the while doing whatever we feel like doing instead of what is healthy), we will figure out "health care".
And, to James: Ron Paul is awesome. He is not a racist! But he is crazy, in a "let's REALLY shake things up" kinda way. Which I love :)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsl…
So would you say that he didn't mean it? Or he didn't know it was being written in his name?
Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?
I'd say that, though such comments appear racist, you are throwing that phrase around too liberally, if you'll excuse the pun.
I think he was more criticizing the low state of family values and hard work in the black community (an overservation that no white man can make without being called racist, no matter how correct he may be), and the complicity of the welfare program in keeping them down. Paul's remarks may have been edgy and unwise, but to call him a racist in the sense of hating blacks is stupid and extremist.
He is merely agreeing with the low state of much of the black communtiy in America, As I've written about previously in
Ascended Blacks Leaving the N*ggers Behind
Emancipation from the Liberal Plantation
Come on [black] people!
Ron Paul is kinda crazy, but he's not some hater racist. He's just a loose canon frustrated with business as usual in American politics.
James:
"Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments." — from the article you posted.
He is just a man (imperfect like the rest of us, I am sure) who has common sense about important stuff. Oh my, "God Forbid" we get one of those in our government!
This isn't a question of perfection or imperfection. It's a question of responsibility and personal buttons.
He did not own up to that newsletter, he claimed he didn't know what was written in his name, as you so helpfully point out. That lacks the kind of personal responsibility that leadership requires. Was it just one article? Do the back searching. It was many long years of abhorent stuff that starts to stretch plausibility. Obama didn't know what Wright was teaching for 20 years? RP didn't know what was being written in his name for all those years? I buy one just as much as the other.
Racism is also a personal button of mine. I won't tolerate one inch of it. I won't wink at it. I won't laugh at it. There are ways to make the points he wants to make without abhorent language and the blatant promotion of racist stereotypes.
There are pundits and politicians with tax reform and anticorruption ideas who aren't attached to that kind of crud.
Hi James:
A couple of points:
What Medicare recipients WANT is to know that they will be able to get the care they and their doctors believe is appropriate"
I think this is the key bit here. It's not what they get now, and it will only get worse if the government takes over more.
Right now, what the patients get, is what the doctor recommends *that will also be paid for under the program*. If we move to single payer, which the public option will lead to, only medical treatments that are approved will be available. That is less choice, not more.
Here you agree that what patients get NOW is whatver doctor recommendations PRIVATE INSURERS will pay for. In a single payer system, it would be the same except for the identity of the insurer. There is no reason to think an individual would generally have fewer available treatments under single payer than under the present private system. I know opponents of single payer make a lot of claims about Canadian single payer healh care, but there are studies that claim the opposite. Polls show Canadians are considerably more satisfied with their system than we are here (same is true for the UK–they are more satsified as well).
But it should be reiterated: the Democratic proposal is NOT single payer. The proposal is for more regulation of the private insurance system (no pre-existing conditions and such) with some sort of a public insurance system for people who can't afford private insurance. The ideas for the public system could be insurance coops or a single government system like Medicare.
The current bill in congress is modelled largely on the UK's system. Google NICE and Drugs and see how far you have to go to find medical professionals complaining that NICE has restricted effective drugs over dubious cost complaints.
I don't see how your claim here can be right since doctors in the UK are government employees working for National Health Service. They have actual socialized MEDICINE, which is different from the socialized INSURANCE they have in Canada, which is different from a system built on private insurance with a competing government insurance provider which is what the liberals in the US want.
your friend
keith
"I don't see how your claim here can be right "
So why not look it up? I made a falsifiable claim. I'm interested in truth, not political dogma. Are you?
"Here you agree that what patients get NOW is whatver doctor recommendations PRIVATE INSURERS will pay for. In a single payer system, it would be the same except for the identity of the insurer. "
BZZZZT! Wrong again. The difference is choice. 30,000 vs. 1
"But it should be reiterated: the Democratic proposal is NOT single payer"
Do me a favor and convice Barny Frank of that:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=7888
And Paul Krugman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7WNxrySFQA
And Jacob Hacker, the father of the "Public Option":
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=7984
Or any number of Democratic leaders:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=7888
Then get back to me on that "public option is not single payer" meme.
Best regards,
James
Thanks for those links, James.
Big government savior programs are anathema to freedom. We need to allow govt to help with the fringes, but not be the primary providers of services and goods – that’s socialism, and it doesn’t work.
I’m glad to see that many of the dems are clear about their intentions. Hopefully, outing themselves can lead to their own losses in the next round of elections. We don’t need socialist schemes, they hurt people.