The American Spectator : Hazardous Times Ahead

Text Size

Hazardous Times Ahead

By Tom Bethell from the June 2009 issue

After the Berlin Wall came down I thought the obvious lesson -- that socialism doesn't work -- would penetrate the skulls of our domestic intelligentsia. But somehow it never did.

I worry that by the time Obama is through with us, the U.S. will be a second-class country. A lot of people feel the same way. A similar concern has been in the back of my mind for years. In the Carter era I also worried about the fate of the country, but I have to say that the hazards seem far greater now.

After the Berlin Wall came down I thought the obvious lesson—that socialism doesn’t work—would penetrate the skulls of our domestic intelligentsia. But somehow it never did. They never regard a limit to government expansion as a desirable thing. Nothing seems to have been learned from the fall of Communism—the great history lesson of the 20th century.

Consider health care, much in the news. When I first came to America, people would inquire about Britain’s “socialized medicine.” Their tone was politely skeptical. Was it really free? Well, no. You’re not charged when you go to the doctor, but everyone pays because taxes are much higher. The National Health Service was introduced in 1948 (it now employs more than 1.3 million people), and before that, if you went to the doctor, you paid for the service. To blunt the blow of misfortune there was private insurance, and doctors recognized a moral obligation of charity toward the indigent.

Today, almost everyone will acknowledge that America’s private health system delivers better services than the state does in Europe. (“Formerly private,” I should have said.) Don’t forget, the Soviet Union also had “free” medical care, and good luck if you went to a doctor in Leningrad. Maybe things have improved now that it’s St. Petersburg again. Yet today, with little sense of déjà vu, America is moving toward nationalized health. Obama made “a promise” of “affordable high-quality care available to every American.” The thrust of politics will be to make health care much more expensive for the nation as a whole, and of lower quality—without intending any such decline.

A few words about education: Until the 19th century, it too was something that the customer paid for. By the 1870s, however, all states were providing “free” elementary education. Today, private schooling has become a much more valuable good than it was 50 years ago, when government schools still functioned properly. They had not yet collapsed under the influence of teacher unions, progressive politics, and the decline of the family. So government schooling remained a viable alternative.

Even today, in the better suburbs vigilant parents have been able to maintain standards to some extent by keeping close track of what goes on in school. The true victims of public education are the inner-city poor, where all liberal reforms have worked to their disadvantage. A comparable trend may well reappear with universal health care. I sometimes wonder whether progressive elites really care about education. My suspicions were aroused when I read in a book by Robert Conquest that Lenin said he didn’t care about the education of the Soviet masses, disavowing Communist propaganda on the issue. All Lenin cared about was whether the proles could understand and obey the Party’s instructions.

Do the liberals care about our chaotic urban schools today? No doubt some do. But effective action would mean challenging unions and the whole progressive mindset. As long as the unions keep delivering the votes, they will continue to exercise a major influence over the Democratic Party and will be allowed to run their own show—whether or not the inner-city kids learn to read or write. The recent shutdown of the voucher program in D.C. showed that the education of poor blacks is not an important consideration for the establishment.

Obama surely does understand that instructing inner-city blacks has become a big problem. But he will only be able to do something about it only if it becomes his top priority. That is not going to happen— other issues will always be more urgent. Instead he will preserve the comfortable fiction that education can be reformed by increasing the dollars appropriated for it.

Let me also say something about the energy madness that engulfs us. Here lies the real threat to America. The carefully stoked fears about “climate change” and “energy independence” have the potential to do real harm. Liberals really believe that oil and coal will have to make way for renewables, notably wind and solar, and they believe that this transformation can happen within a few years. They think goodwill can surmount all problems.

The potential for harm was increased when the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that carbon dioxide threatens our health and welfare. Before that a prudent delay had seemed likely, but the EPA may push Congress into something really foolish.

I WAS FRUSTRATED BY GEORGE BUSH on the energy front. He failed to confront the bogus science of global warming and he tiptoed around nuclear power. He favored it, but quietly, as though hoping to avoid arousing the opposition. But you either confront the anti-nukes directly or they will defeat you. When irrational fears drive policy, only full-bore presidential power can turn things around.

The same was true of global warming. Bush never accepted that it was man-made, yet he didn’t confront it, even though the scientific support for the warmists’ claim is abysmal. It’s a house of cards that could have collapsed (and could still) with the right opposition. But Bush didn’t want to stick his neck out, and that meant the “warm-mongers” won.

Now we find ourselves in the murky waters of cap and trade. A bill that hits the manufacturing, oil, and coal-producing states with higher taxes will be resisted by lots of Democrats as well as Republicans. But the relevant congressional chairmen are leftist ideologues—Reps. Waxman and Markey and Sen. Boxer—determined to impose big penalties on CO2 emitters. No one knows how this will play out. I was cheered the other day when the president of the Cato Institute, Bill Niskanen, told me that cap and trade won’t pass the Senate. The Democrats just could end up hoist on their own petard.

The propaganda on behalf of “renewables” has been so misleading that most Americans—probably a sizable majority—have no idea how far we are from being able to replace coal, oil, and natural gas with politically correct power sources (which don’t include hydropower). Al Gore actually called for all of the nation’s electricity to come from wind and solar within a decade. Currently, only 1 percent does. Obama wants 10 percent of electricity to come from these sources by the end of his first term, but that too is a fantasy.

Late in the day, some journalists have begun drawing attention to problems with renewables. It was as though they had found out about them for the first time. Climate change advocate Juliet Eilperin reported on page one of the Washington Post that wind and solar projects “may carry costs for wildlife.” The land area needed for renewable energy is far greater than that required by traditional energy sources, she reported. If a nuclear power plant occupies one square mile, for example, 15 square miles would be needed to generate the same power by solar technology and 30 square miles for wind power (according to the Post).

Those ratios struck me as far too low, minimizing the problem. I checked with Howard Hayden, a physicist who puts out a newsletter called The Energy Advocate. For wind farms, he told me, the year-round average output “translates into 300 square miles per 1,000 megawatts, the size of a nuke.” So it seems the Post reduced this particular renewable problem (there are many others) by a factor of 10.

Just about everything we have been told about renewable energy is a fantasy, but that doesn’t mean the Democrats won’t try to cram it down our throats. So get ready for difficult times ahead, and pray for the country.

About the Author

Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (43) | Leave a comment

Robert Pinkerton| 6.9.09 @ 6:35AM

EXCERPT from George Sorel's "Letter to Daniel Halevy," which forms the preface to the Peter Smith edition (New York{ 1941) of his Reflexions on Violence (op. cit. page 9):

The optimist in politics is an inconstant and even dangerous man, because he takes no account of the great difficulties presented by his projects; these projects seem to him to possess a force of their own, which tends to bring about their realization all the more easily as thwy are, in his opinion, destined to produce the happiest results...
If he possesses an exalted temprament, and if unhappily he finds himself armed with great power, permitting him to realize the ideal he has fashioned, the optimist may lead his country into the worst disasters. He is not long in finding out that social transformations are not brought about with the ease he had counted on; he then supposes that this is the fault of his contemporaries, instead of explaining what actually happened by historical necessities; he is tempted to get rid of people whose obstinacy seems to be so dangerous to the happiness of all...

Sean| 6.9.09 @ 6:49AM

Single-payer healthcare isn't socialism, and US healthcare lags behind many countries', despite being the most expensive. Think of single-payer as cutting out the middle man.

Inquirer| 6.9.09 @ 7:50AM

Sean, could you please give an example of a country with a single-payer system that has better quality healthcare than the United States?

Ran| 6.9.09 @ 8:12AM

SEAN: WHEN YOU "CUT OUT THE MIDDLE-MAN" AND REPLACE HIM WITH A BLOATED, EVER-INCREASING GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY, YOU GET THE MIDDLE-MAN ON BLOODY STEROIDS. COSTS RISE AND THE RESULT IS RATIONING AND DIMINISHED QUALITY. THIS IS A SIMPLE FACT PROVEN EVERYWHERE IT HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. SINGLE PAYER MEANS TAX PAYER.

Why is it that liberals fail to recognize that they achieve precisely the opposite of their stated intent every bloody time they interfere in markets?

The US healthcare system, dearest young Sean, is the go-to system the world depends upon for the latest in procedural advances, medical devices and new chemical therapies and drugs. It produces more patents and innovations per capita than all the rest of your fucking "single-payer" systems combined. When people get really sick, moron, they fly to Johns-Hopkins, not Havana.

I'm apologize if I wasn't rude enough or sufficiently abusive. Blatant lies such as "single-payer healthcare isn't socialism" and "single-payer [is] cutting out the middle man" deserve nothing less than utter contempt.

Ark Ashamed of Bill| 6.9.09 @ 8:17AM

Mr. Bethell is remiss in ommitting a principal culprit in the destruction of public education in America, namely the black-robed barbarians of the progressive judiciary. Having accepted Charles Beard’s specious theory that the Constitution isn’t binding on future generations, they have become a law unto themselves and a mighty engine for propagating destructive social engineering. The federal courts have communities of the ability to manage their schools, which is the root cause of the decline in American public education.

Inquirer| 6.9.09 @ 8:28AM

Hmm, Ran, next time I'll omit the "please"! So, Sean, how about it?

Sean| 6.9.09 @ 8:28AM

Struck a nerve, I guess. "Ran" can go fuck himself..doesn't deserve a response. "Inquirer", Canada gets more bang for the healthcare buck by a long chalk. Can you name one country that has walked away from single-payer?

Curly Smith| 6.9.09 @ 8:36AM

So Sean's is the hospital and the doctors need to get approval for his emergency life-saving operation... 39 days later a floor vote occurs in the House where the "Ayes" decide in Sean's favor... the measure then moves to the Senate for consideration and 45 days later the "Save Sean" bill is approved after $89 billion in earmarks are added. Sadly, Sean died well before his emergency care was approved but, happily, John Murtha got a much needed terminal added to his airport.

Tell me something Boomers: if you're retired, drawing Social Security and living large on Medicare, what incentive does the Government have to "give" you healthcare? Your prime tax paying days are over, you've given all that you have to give, why should the Government allocate scarce resources to you when they could go to "the children"? You can just see the headlines "Will the greed of the Boomers never end"? Maybe the Boomers haven't read the CDC's 2011 pamphlet "Euthanasia - the Ultimate Swine Flu Vaccine".

Eric A| 6.9.09 @ 8:47AM

Sean, thank you for having the courage to post. Please pardon my long response; I want to treat your argument seriously.

I respectfully beg to differ with your comment: “Single-payer healthcare isn't socialism, and US healthcare lags behind many countries', despite being the most expensive. Think of single-payer as cutting out the middle man. “

Perhaps you mean that under “single-payer” the government won’t technically own doctors, merely pay them, so the means of production will remain in private hands. That’s technically true and practically false. When the government commands all payment, it will use force to set what prices will be paid and dictate what will be provided. What treatments are provided will not be directed by the tiny fraction of the electorate with serious diseases, but by the voting masses of worried mostly-well. That’s why in places like Britain and Canada women with breast cancer suffer waiting for treatments more available to American women, while offices are clogged with waiting lists, and people waiting for life-saving heart treatments languish behind people with sniffles.

In my role as a manager of databases of disease prevention programs at an HMO I am already doing what Barak Obama only talks about doing: using information to pursue aggressive disease prevention (and cut future costs). Theoretically I have nothing against a government program; in fact it would benefit me personally because if government took over they’d have to hire people like me, and I’d finally get a cushy government job with a nice pension. But I know that neither Barak Obama nor the current bureaucrats in charge have a clue about the complexity of what it takes to do real disease management and prevention programs, just like they didn’t have a clue about running banks or car companies.

By the way, our HMO has on file copious evidence of people whose lives were saved – along with millions of dollars of avoidable desperation treatment – because of our HMO’s disease prevention programs. Nor is this uncommon; all of the top HMOs have very aggressive and successful disease prevention programs that are audited yearly. There are no government-run health programs – none – that come even close to having to prove their success the way we do every year with hard data, just for the right to exist for another year. In the private sector, programs must prove their worth every day; in the government sector, programs that fail are given more money next year.

But don’t expect the mainstream news media to report to you the huge strides in disease prevention made in the American free-market system, or the fact that most drugs and health innovation are created here and would be suffocated by a single-payer system. That doesn’t fit the Party talking-points.

Assertions that “the U.S. lags behind other countries” should be taken with a big grain of salt. First, comparisons don’t adjust for the fact that the U.S. health system must cope with less-healthy population, with problems like enormous third-world migrations, bad diet, and illness-inducing social dysfunctions.

Moreover statistics are skewed: for example in Britain they don’t even bother trying to save seriously premature infants, but in the U.S. huge efforts are made to save their lives. Result? Britain doesn’t even count the infant death in their statistics, while we do. So our infant mortality statistics look worse because we tried to save the life they didn’t even bother with. Then some uninformed American leftist quotes the superior British infant mortality statistics, without even being aware of the anguish of British parents forced by their government to witness the deliberate-neglect death of their beloved baby – all to save money and ration care.

The primary cost-causing difference in the U.S. has nothing to do with whether the system is private or government run. The largest single cost component in U.S. healthcare is labor, i.e. doctor and nurse salaries, which are far higher here than in most countries. So if you think it’s okay to set up the government as dictator to save money by chopping all their salaries, good luck with the care you’ll get.

Nor are government systems truly more efficient, despite wishful thinking such as yours that one can miraculously “cut out the middle man”. Some are fond of deceptively quoting the low direct administration cost ratio of government health programs; it’s true, they spend little managing their huge expenditures. But they don’t count the hundreds of billions of preventable costs, the tens of billions of abusive billing, and the billions of outright fraud – all of which could be managed by investing more in administration.

So again, incentives matter: the private insurer is driven to constantly balance spending enough on administration to police fraud and other costs that add to the total bottom line. The government bureaucracy has other incentives; the head of the human services department looks good if he can use aggressive and abusive cost-shifting to underpay hospitals and doctors and force them to shift their costs onto privately-insured patients – which is exactly what is now happening. So big government programs drive up the costs with excessive consumption of negligible value, then force providers to shift the costs into private insurance bills. Then they proclaim how cost-effective they are in comparison to private insurance, and ignorant Party journalists parrot the talking points.

About ten years ago a head-hunter offered me a $15,000 pay raise if I’d take a job doing databases for a manufacturer. It was very tempting but I stayed in managed care because I know I am making a difference. I have in my file drawer a copy of a thankful letter written to our HMO from a woman who lived to see her daughters graduate from high school because her breast cancer was detected early, thanks to an exam reminder from our disease prevention department. The woman was treated early because she lives under the American medical system.

So if you get your wish of a single-payer, socialist health system, I’ll have mixed feelings; I’ll be free to pursue more lucrative database jobs, or maybe settle for a government job with a nice pension. But you may find yourself standing in a long line with a life-threatening illness.

There are tens of thousands of diagnoses and hundreds of thousands of different drugs and treatments. Medicine is enormously more complicated than auto manufacturing. If you think the government is doing a great job running GM, then by all means vote for government-run medicine.

Sean| 6.9.09 @ 8:49AM

Curly, short answer..look up "insurance" @dictionary.com. I'm moving on, this board is silly.

Marc Jeric| 6.9.09 @ 9:22AM

The overall cost of sick care (not health care - that is a propaganda term) in US is about $2.5 trillion/year. This cost could be reduced by 30% simply by changing our legal rules where one can sue anybody and, is losing, just walk away. In every other civilized country the loser automatically pays all costs, direct and indirect, of the defendent and the court. So we have here about 1,100,000 lawyers while Germany, Japan, and Great Britain have together only about 35,000.

Marc Jeric| 6.9.09 @ 9:33AM

We are not rushing into socialism - we are being railroaded into communism. Our Community Organizer-in-Chief Abu Hussein from Kenya had the following "working" experience before entering the swamps of Chicago politics: a) as a community organizer; b) as a lawyer for community organizers; and c) as a law instructor for future lawyers for community organizers. His ACORN brownshirts are getting $9 billion from his stimulus bill to enlarge their voting fraud, intimidation of banks, selling mortgages to "underserved minorities", and conducting the 2010 census. Now, in Russian "community organization" translates as "soviet". That invention by Lenin was refined by Davis and Alinsky, both ranking members of the Communist Party USA and Obama's early teachers.

cnc| 6.9.09 @ 9:38AM

the health care and medical treatment I received while living in england was at least as good as my HMO now, and the waits were shorter. Merely anecdotal evidence, but the system there was pretty good.

Bram| 6.9.09 @ 9:43AM

I was already a pessimist when the Berlin Wall came down. Socialists didn't see the collapse of the Soviets and their slave states as repudiation. They saw flaws in the details – a great idea incorrectly implemented - they still think they are smart enough to do communism/socialism right. And they are determined to prove it - no matter the cost.

Inquirer| 6.9.09 @ 9:50AM

Sean, Sean, Sean . . . name ANY major government program that ANY government has "walked away from", until possibly when they're on the verge of bankruptcy, or maybe revolution. Once entrenched, no matter how poor it's performance, it endures forever! That's the point of this "silly" discussion! When government pays, the program stays, for bureaucrats it's Happy Days! When I pay, I get MY way, if only for today!

Melvin| 6.9.09 @ 9:53AM

I saw a doctor (Dermatologist) in the Philippines for a "Fungus," There was no appointment you just signed in and sat in the chairs outside the office.
The wait was about as long as I have to wait here about 45 minutes to an hour.
The doctor saw me, said I had a fungus prescribed medication in which she kept in her office and one from the pharmacy, and you know what it cost me? $14.00 for an office visit and medicine, and the medicine was Pfizer to boot.
I looked at the doctor funny and she said what was wrong? Nothing I replied, it just that this type of treatment from the United States would cost a hundred times more and I would have to see three or for specialists just to say I have a fungus.
She further added that doctors in the Philippines do not have to put up with 90% of the crap that US doctors have to. No lawyers, no bureaucrats, no hot looking former cheerleaders peddling medicine. I saw a doctor (Dermatologist) in the Philippines for a "Fungus," There was no appointment you just signed in and sat in the chairs outside the office.
The wait was about as long as I have to wait here about 45 minutes to an hour.
The doctor saw me, said I had a fungus prescribed medication in which she kept in her office and one from the pharmacy, and you know what it cost me? $14.00 for an office visit and medicine, and the medicine was Pfizer to boot.
I looked at the doctor funny and she said what was wrong? Nothing I replied, it just that this type of treatment from the United States would cost a hundred times more and I would have to see three or for specialists just to say I have a fungus.
She further added that doctors in the Philippines do not have to put up with 90% of the crap that US doctors have to. No lawyers, no bureaucrats, no hot looking former cheerleaders peddling medicine, just a doctor practicing medicine period.
The funny thing is I saw three different medical providers in the US before I went overseas and none of them knew what the hell was wrong. I saw on doctor overseas and within 15 minutes she diagnosed me, provided medication and I was on my merry way.
By the way for inquiring minds, the fungus was on my arm.

maximumrandb| 6.9.09 @ 9:55AM

Several years back when a health issue caused me to go regularly to the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, it struck me how many "Je Me Souviens" license plates were in the patients' parking garage. These Canadians obviously were not getting the care they felt they needed at home.

John Navratil| 6.9.09 @ 9:59AM

Sean,

Connect the dots... You do the math... Look up blah-blah...

Pithy isn't profound. If you can defend your position, please do you. If you can't then, by all mean, move on from this silly board.

Curly Smith| 6.9.09 @ 10:10AM

Sean, do you not understand that "insurance" is a contract? What evidence do you have that suggests the Government has any respect for contractual obligations? Maybe you should give the Chrysler and GM bondholders a call and find out how their "inconvenient" contracts were honored. Your heirs might be able to sue the Government for not honoring your "insurance" but that won't do you much good. Assuming, of course, that your heirs would be willing to risk their "coverage" in the process...

Inquirer| 6.9.09 @ 10:13AM

John,
Poor Sean! He thinks the witticisms he learned at a government school constitute an education. Moving on is all he knows.

J.C.Eaton| 6.9.09 @ 11:45AM

Sure you hit a nerve Sean. You have the 4-letter vernacular of the street urchin well in hand. It is a verrrry rare user of this site who appreciates that sort of crass incivility. Which frankly goes well with the rest of your cruddy, childish chirping. Good riddance health care maven.

David Govett| 6.9.09 @ 12:10PM

American teachers have destabilized the country by failing to teach critical thinking, so any well-marketed goofballs can be elected to the highest offices. What else could one expect when the Left marched through the institutions and destroyed the ballast of America: family, religion, patriotism, education, competition, capitalism? A revolution, if not civil war, will result when Americans fully realize the extent of destruction of their inheritance, which was hard won by their blood and sacrifice of generations of ancestors.

Alan Brooks| 6.9.09 @ 1:14PM

Tom,
virtue doesn't work any more than socialism because we are like the latter day Romans.

Wall Street| 6.9.09 @ 2:47PM

Socialism, Communism, Nazism, are all members of the same family invented by the same people, to exploit people for profit, and use people as battery Chickens for their own ends.

I notice the Israeli wall is going up all over the place.

Walls keeps out crooks, walls coming down and Globalization no trade barriers means more people to steal from.

Helen Donnelly| 6.9.09 @ 3:11PM

Dear Sean,
By your crass words, you reveal your lack of intelligence and common decency. Spare us your four letter bombs, and keep the comments on target and civil.
Thank you.

brutus| 6.9.09 @ 3:27PM

Hey Sean, if Canada's governemnt run health care is so great, why was Natasha Richardson rushed to the US for treatment rather than being treated in Quebec or Toronto? Yeah, yeah, you'll say I'm using anecdotal evidence, but the fact remains that Canada care said they couldn't help her in her condition, so she was rushed to the US for critical medical care. Sadly, too late. If she'd had her skiing accident in the US rather than Canada, she might well be alive today.

Eric A (whom you made no attempt to refute) and Inquirer have pretty well debunked the rest of your claims.

Robert Pinkerton| 6.9.09 @ 5:06PM

For many socialists in whatever degree, socialism either A. takes the plce of conventional theistic religious belief, or B. (not limited to the example of "Social Gospel" Christians) functions as an adjunct to their more conventional religious beliefs in the same degree as conventional religion in terms of fixity in a person's consciousness. With such people, one is not dealing with self-interested secular rationalints.

Charlene| 6.9.09 @ 6:00PM

I stopped reading anything Sean said at the "f" word. Again I say, liberals defeat their causes (others stop listening, the in-road is blocked) with their foul, vulgar language. Civilized people with valid, intelligent points never have to resort to vulgarity.

Nina| 6.9.09 @ 6:25PM

The author complacently states: "Today, almost everyone will acknowledge that America’s private health system delivers better services than the state does in Europe." No, almost everyone DOES NOT acknowledge this. Not the people who have no healthcare ins. in US and end up in emergency room with a bill of $5000 or more which will be taken out of their savings. Not the ones who have not gone to doctors for years because they dont want to spend the money. Please wake up - every international indicator shows that Western Europeans and Canadians lead USA in almost every positive healthcare statistics, longevity and less deaths. Not one of these countries wishes for American health system with its 50 million uninsured. It's time to stop complacently delusional chest-beating and face the scary reality of the state of American healthcare. Those who who dont have helathcare ins. ARE ON THEIR OWN. This "..ism" is much more scary than socialism.

Alan Brooks| 6.9.09 @ 7:48PM

forget socialism; the salient fact of 21st century dystopia is:
globalized social pathology and vulgarity-- perhaps one and the same.

Ran| 6.9.09 @ 8:11PM

"Struck a nerve, I guess. "Ran" can go fuck himself..doesn't deserve a response." Thanks for the fuck, liar, and for not responding, dearest Sean. I'm a former Canadian who came here to the US... for the health care and for the freedom. And my folks know that when they get damned sick *I* am their health care option of last resort. My sister skis.

Ran| 6.9.09 @ 9:18PM

Nina,
You lie about the number of "uninsured."

You lie when you suggest that someone who finds herself indigent is owed coverage of her debts by the taxpayer. Me.

You lie when you say that Canada leads the US in healthcare... tell it to my family and to Richarson. Want to live in Canada? Just don't get sick. Especially avoid brain tumors and ski slopes.

Daisy| 6.9.09 @ 9:37PM

Sean is such a typical liberal useful idiot. Unfortunately, there are many more just like the little foul mouthed cretin.

Good posts, Ran--keep speaking the truth; you're effective!

Howard| 6.9.09 @ 9:42PM

I wonder if the Democrats get a Single Payer program, will still allow their trial lawyer pals to run wild with medical malpractice suits. Or will they have to seek other avenues to suck blood.

jacksmith| 6.9.09 @ 11:32PM

ALL HANDS ON DECK!

Howard Dean and the Democrats are correct.

"a" (Toothy, Robust, Affordable, Immediate, Triggerless, Medicare-Like ) "public health insurance option" (For All Who Want It) "is more important than bipartisanship, and Democrats should pass health-care legislation that includes the option with 51 votes if necessary."

"Democrats should have "no intention" of working with Republicans if it's not the strongest possible legislation that could be passed with a simple majority." (Howard Dean)

CONTACT CONGRESS and your representatives Now! And tell them you demand ALL of the minimum requirements above. This is the time for maximal, toothy, sustained pressure on Congress to get this done. Be creative. But be relentless.

This is what WE THE PEOPLE gave the Democrats all that power to do for ALL of us.

In medicine and healthcare there is only one acceptable standard. And that standard is the HIGHEST level of EXCELLENCE! you can provide for everyone. Nothing less is acceptable for a precious human life.

And the White House is right. "Good health care reform is essentially good economic policy." (Christina Romer)

BUT HEAR ME WELL! Just as I warned you before 911. Before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And before the US and Global economic crisis.

I must tell you now that healthcare reform is now a critical matter of NATIONAL SECURITY. A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) was yet another loud WAKE-UP! call. And there is MUCH! worse lurking, and poised to strike at any moment. Working against the clock, many of us have known this for a long time now. And this is why we have been pushing so hard for so long without fully saying why. But Congress and the American people are literally running out of time.

I'll tell you more later. But get healthcare reform done NOW!.

SPREAD THE WORD!

God Bless All Of You

jacksmith -- WORKING CLASS

CC Ryder| 6.9.09 @ 11:47PM

Yeah, we just can't wait for you stupid fascist liberals to destroy our health care like you've destroyed our economy.

It's your fault that unemployment is at 9.4% and sky-rocketing. You people are a pox on our country.

KICK THE FASCIST LIBERALS OUT 2010!!

Reagan| 6.10.09 @ 12:16AM

"I worry that by the time Obama is through with us, the U.S. will be a second-class country. A lot of people feel the same way. A similar concern has been in the back of my mind for years. In the Carter era I also worried about the fate of the country, but I have to say that the hazards seem far greater now. "

You just revealed yourself to be a first class partisan dumbfuck. I stopped reading after this.

PS: You're a dumb as shit moron.

Andrew B| 6.10.09 @ 5:30AM

I learned all I need to know about socialized medicine years ago. I was dating a girl who was a British subject, although she had spent nearly her entire life in America. Her father was a wealthy executive, and his disdain for the US was palpable.

The family was spending their usual summer vacation in Britain when one of the kids developed a toothache. Did he rush them to the nearest dentist? No. He voted with his feet. He got her a limo to the airport, got her a first-class ticket on the next jet to the US, had another limo waiting, and had her whisked to her dentist.

All together, I figure that little excursion must have cost him perhaps $3000-5000 (and this was 25 years ago, when that was real money), just to avoid the possibility of his child enduring socialized medicine.

From that point on, I just smiled whenever he complained about how dreadful the US was...

Daniel Richard| 6.10.09 @ 2:02PM

Reagan certainly shows that he has a lot of class. Too bad for him that it is all Low.

Whenever a kool aid drinker gets his foil hat on too tight, they don't bother to read the entire column...in true liberal fashion they "quit". Then as follow up to their intellectual laziness and dishonesty, they resort to comments like this:

"You just revealed yourself to be a first class partisan dumbfuck. I stopped reading after this.

PS: You're a dumb as shit moron. "

Now THAT is a convincing debating point, Reagan. It convinces me that not only are you illiterate (it's spelled 'ass', not 'as), but also unhinged and in serious need of extensive therapy and medication. You may need to be institutionalized so you don't harm yourself.

As a liberal I am sure you're looking for sympathy and pity. Sorry Matey, fresh out of pity for fools.

Emo| 6.11.09 @ 12:39PM

Sen said: ""Struck a nerve, I guess. "Ran" can go fuck himself..doesn't deserve a response. "Inquirer", Canada gets more bang for the healthcare buck by a long chalk. Can you name one country that has walked away from single-payer?"

Yes, the UK has and has Sweden. Canada is in the process of doing so. Single Payer means just that a SINGLE PAYER. Those nations mentioned above either have or are in the process of introducing private health insurance to supplement the failures of single payer. Since the left is so thrilled with foreign law, here is a case you should ponder. The SC of Quebec said that since Health Care is a right, the state cannot prohibit individuals from purchasing private health insurance, effectively the death knell of SINGLE PAYER in Quebec.

SEAN "Curly, short answer..look up "insurance" @dictionary.com. I'm moving on, this board is silly."

Mostly cuz you lost the debate

Richard Baker| 6.12.09 @ 12:30AM

Sean:
You REALLY need to speak with a Brit, Canadian, New Zealander, an escaped Cuban, or anyone else who came from a government run health care system. Don't think you'll be-a hearing them singing it's praises. Too many Americans live by the saying "Don't confuse me with the facts. I know what I know". To tyrants, Ignorance, on the part of the population, IS bliss. Read Mr. Jefferson on tyranny and Liberty.

Dave Lincoln| 6.12.09 @ 11:20PM

"It convinces me that not only are you illiterate (it's spelled 'ass', not 'as) ...." I think he meant it as in "dumb-as-shit moron", Emo.

Believe me, I'm just stating this to set the record straight, not to defend any illiterate socialists out there.

Great post, Eric A and also Mr. Jeric (as usual). There are 2 guys that ought to know.

Pennies for Dollars| 6.15.09 @ 4:31AM

It's truely amazing that everytime i read comments following a informational article there are people who just dont get it. They act as though they are the captain of a ship thats sinking in to the dark bottom of the ocean. Regardless of what ANYONE says they intend to go down. Sadly people will eventually wake up and realize "where did all my freedom's go?". Nationalized medicine does not nor has it ever worked. Even in the US armed forces it has its flaws. Its the perfect example of government run health care. If you need an appointment you make one. If your 10 mins late you lose your appointment, but if you 10 mins early you are still waiting almost 2+ hours to see the doctor/specialist. Thats even if you had an appointment??? whats the point right? Having a nationalized system will be the downfall of our overall healthcare quality. Why do you think that people around the world come to the US to seek medical care????? anyone??? because its the best in the world.... Of course that simply based on the will/ability to pay for it. But people with the ability to pay for it will make any necessary arrangements to see a US doctor. If a nationalized system is emplaced i forsee a few things happening. The quality will go down due to the simple fact that the doctors will go from being about the patient, to being about surviving. Look at medicare or any place in the world where a like system is present. The doctor is dictated to by a board or some sort of organization as to what they can charge for a service (usually less the private insurance companies) and what they can perform. Those who are living in britian (I think) deal with the unfortunate gamble of serious medical issues. If the cost of the treatment outways the possibility that you'll survive and live long enough to make the treatment cost effective......well sorry for you and your family. In Germany the socialized healthcare has played a MAJOR role in not only the medical coverage people receive, but also the jobs they are able to obtain. Its VERY common and almost expected that people find it hard to maintain full time jobs in germany. Primarily because the government makes the employer pay for all the medical benefits in order to save money on their socialized plan. The result is that very few people get to work full time. As long as the employee doesnt work full time, the employer is not responsible for paying for their medical benefits. Therefore i can forsee this happening in the US. Where anyone not working full time would be covered under the government plan, but anyone who is working full time would be covered by their employers plan. The company will of course offset the costs by making the employee pay for their own coverage similar to the current situation. But then the employee will be forced to pay for the public option for everyone else through the use of income taxes. So im sure this will spark the question... why pay for it twice? the private industry will then begin to colapse because the government system will then undercut the private industry. How can you compete with dictation of services and fees? You can't! One last point i would like to make before wrapping this up....

Anyone in the US who do not have insurance falls within two categories in my eyes. The first category are those who are disabled and elderly who may have put their fair share of time in the work force. These individuals deserve Social Security and Medicare. Because they deserve this benefit they should maintain it. The other category are those who dont, can't because of excuses, or refuse to work. These individuals get no sympathy from me and deserve to live their life the way they earn it. With nothing. Anyone without insurance in the US has the ability to obtain medical coverage. Its called going out and getting a job. Even jobs with mcdonalds, walmart, and target has available health coverage. ITS AVAILABLE!!!!. So anyone saying that we have millions of people without coverage is only hiding the fact that these people fall into these categories. We have had systems emplaced for many years that have been used and abused. Im not heartless i do understand there are circumstances that do not allow for everyone to afford coverage through their employer. These people then in my eyes qualify for assistance from a government program. But they should only receive assistance when they are making the effort to help themselves. This hand out mentality, expecting everyone to pay their way, and doing nothing but collecting time period needs to end... The more people expect government to provide means of survival, the more rights and freedoms they are voluntarily surrendering to these forces...... Til next time:

Pennies for Dollars