The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 4)

In a word, no. The questions posed by Manon McKinnon are too simplistic. Who likes higher taxes? Nobody, however, many thoughtful people recognize that we have amassed a tremendous national debt which will grow even larger because of the current economic crisis which demands deficit spending and the fact we are fighting a war on two fronts. If nothing else, the current economic crisis has reminded people that eventually the bill has to be paid. Who is going to pay it? The taxpayer, of course. The only real question is whether this generation is going to start shouldering the burden of paying for the debt it has incurred or is going to hand it off to their children and grandchildren. Republicans favor the second position, a deeply immoral position in my estimation.

Concerning foreign policy, McKinnon sets up a false dichotomy. Nobody is interested in coddling our enemies. This is pure neo-con fantasy. However, there is being "real strong to the bad guys" intelligently or being "real strong to the bad guys" stupidly. We have seen the consequences of the latter during W's administration. People are looking for something different.

But, I suggest there are other, darker reasons for people being undecided. The first is race. Are people ready to elect a black man president of the United States? The second is age. Is McCain healthy enough to serve a full term as President? This question has become even more problematic for "undies" given his selection for Vice President.
-- Mike Roush

---

RIGHT-WING EXISTENTIALISTS
Re: Quin Hillyer's Odd Man In:

The intelligent reader of "Odd Man In" understands that the article says much, much more about Hillyer's opinions and insecurities that it says about Obama. The article essentially says nothing about Obama. But it speaks volumes about the irrational fear the far right has of an intelligent, articulate Democrat being president.

"Trust those who are searching for the truth, and beware those who have found it" -- André Gide.
-- Larry Cahill, Ph.D.
Qureshey Laboratory
Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
University of California, Irvine

---

Mr. Hillyer, in his article entitled "Odd Man In," describes Republican Party candidate John McCain as an "SOB" who has "fits of rage"; "takes umbrage;" and "holds grudges" for "no good reason." The concluding sentence of his closing paragraph further describes him as being "cussed, unconventional, willful" and "irritable." Personally, I take no issue with the veracity of Mr. Hillyer's description of Mr. McCain and, to be honest, given McCain's maddeningly recurrent tendency to support left-leaning policies throughout the course of his career, my own opinion of the man would require considerable editing prior to publication. I do, however, question whether Mr. Hillyer article serves to advance either the conservative cause or Mr. McCain's chances come November. To the contrary, I feel that it hinders them both.
 
The forthcoming election, I believe, is the most important of my 55 years. Indeed, the very character of the American nation hangs in the balance. The socio-economic demarcation between the forces of socialism and capitalism has never been clearer in our society and yet, as we as a nation stand poised at the brink of this unnerving electoral abyss, many of us lament that Mr. McCain, a quasi-conservative at best, is the candidate most willing to advocate for the continuation of traditional American values. The man, after all, has been so frequently un-conservative that many of we who support him do so in spite of his political philosophy as opposed to because of it. Like myself, I suspect that Mr. Hillyer's support of him is predicated primarily on the basis that voting for the Democratic Party's more socialistic counterpart is simply unthinkable. Still in all, the cultural division separating the American electorate dictates that it is the undecided and independent voters who'll likely hold sway in forthcoming election. Few among those, I suspect, support having a "cussed", "irritable" and "unconventional" "SOB" throwing "fits of rage" in proximity to the trigger of America's nuclear arsenal. On this, the very day of the final presidential debate, I can only wish that Mr. Hillyer, with whom I otherwise typically agree, had chosen adjectives that were more palatable and benign in nature. That he chose otherwise can only diminish McCain's chances amongst the very voters whose support he needs the most to win.
-- Thomas Donley
Michigan

---

McCain's closing argument: If you want a welfare check, vote for Sen. Obama. If you want a paycheck, vote for me.
-- Jerry Schnell
San Pedro, California

---

PRINCIPLES OF HEALTH
Re: Peter Ferrara's Barack Obama's Health Care Lies:

There are several lessons from insurance "theory" that will always come to bear on health care:
 
1. There is always an unlimited demand for health care services. The cheaper these services are, the more they will be utilized. It is simply human nature. With free or relatively inexpensive costs to the individual, he or she will casually visit their doctor or clinic for even the most minor of ailments. People do not like to suffer even a little if they don't have to. Thus whoever writes the checks to pay "the doctor" will eventually find his account drained to the last penny -- more likely sooner than latter.
 
2. No entity, whether in the private sector or in government, can operate using an "open checkbook" for healthcare. The check writer will eventually, more likely sooner than latter, seek ways to limit costs. There are all sorts of mundane and creative ways to do this but it all boils down to two avenues. The first and most obvious means is to increase the cost for the individual to use healthcare services. The second way is to limit the availability of those services. Often times both means are used in some combination.
 
Thus we come to the irony of socialized medicine. In order to open up the availability of healthcare to everyone, you must discourage people from using healthcare resources. Higher and higher co-pays and deductibles become standard fare. Long waiting lists for surgery are common. And essential technologies in modern healthcare (Cat-scans, MRI's, etc.) are slow to be adopted and limited in number.
 
3. There is a truth to publicly financed anything that is not discussed as much as it should be. It is called "third-party-effects." The easiest way to think about this is the old saw "he who pays the piper calls the tune." The present common complain is that insurance companies insert themselves into the private doctor/patient relationship and tells the doctor what treatment he can provide. Worse, these decisions are being made by people with no medical training. Public financing does nothing to alleviate this -- in fact, it is likely to be magnified. When a third party pays the bills, the doctor finds himself having to please the payer rather than the patient. The flip side of this is doctors in medical associations in their own self-interest will "sell" the payer on the type of services they want to provide rather than the actual needs of their patients
 
With any governmental involvement, politics comes into play and healthcare will be no different. Broad decisions will be passed down based on what politicians and bureaucrats think the "healthcare system" aught to be instead of the organic shape made by thousands of real experiences of those who practice medicine. If those in the department of enlightened health decide among themselves for whatever reason that there are "too many" c-sections, quotas will be established for each hospital to implement. The practical effect of such quotas is that a mother about to give birth may put herself and her unborn child at additional risk by choosing a hospital which is too close to its assigned limit. Don't be foolish and think this won't happen.
 
There is a notion amongst us that says when cold, hard cash is involved people will act more rationally and carefully. The truth is that precisely because money is involved we are often most susceptible to fads and superstitions. There are experts who can persuade us and those charged with protecting our concerns to act against our own interests. I've seen far too many administrators shoot themselves in the foot and wonder six months latter why it hurts so much. Being foolish with money and the money of others seems to be part of the human condition. Being smart is no guarantee one would be any better than those with the least resources. Socialized medicine will be no different.
 -- Mike Dooley

---