Posted on 11/26/2004 6:47:42 AM PST by SandRat
Throughout the 2004 campaign, Sen. John Kerry maintained his proposed health-care plan could not be labeled as "socialized health care."
Arguably, his plan would have at least partially de-privatized the American health-care system. Only through massive insurance pools in which everyone had a vested interest would Kerry have been able to fulfill his bold promise to expand coverage to "96 percent of Americans and 99 percent of all children." But a majority of voters refused to buy into Kerry's health-care plan.
This plan introduced us to the "collectivist" ideology that acts as the driving force behind so many socially liberal policies.
An examination of the manner in which the left wing justifies this, and other moves toward socialism within governmental policies in American society, reveals a commonality in almost all liberal thinking.
As nationally syndicated radio host Dennis Prager points out, "At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good.
"As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism and anything else that can let the individual off the hook."
Prager is correct; it is a key component of the liberal agenda that it is almost always the system at fault and never the individual.
A prime example of this kind of thought can be found in the perception of the events of 9/11. The terrorists can be seen in one of two ways: as brutal, coldblooded murderers or simply as "victims" of the teachings of Islamic fundamentalism. Take your pick; I'll go with the first one.
Taking Prager's thoughts one step farther, there is even an underlying motivation behind the naive belief that people are essentially good. If people are basically good, as liberals maintain, then socialism can work.
Liberals, fully aware that their goal of socialism in the United States is unattainable because it will never be widely accepted, are content with knowing smaller steps in the direction of socialism can still be taken.
This mentality was seen following the election, when many students at my school looked on Canada as a better option than another term under President Bush.
By indirectly attacking the American system - a system of capitalism and free markets that conflicts with the interests of socialism - liberals can successfully evade such labels as "unpatriotic" while still advancing a socialist agenda.
Diverting blame from the individual to the system is not progressive or new at all. Thomas More (1478-1535) believed the key to reform of the individual was the reform of the social institutions that shape the individual.
More's "Utopia" described the perfect socialist society. This society was far from utopian, as it was forced to prevent wars by buying off its enemies. Where is the perfection in that?
Centuries later, liberals still advance their agenda under the same premise. Perhaps the real system at fault is that found in liberal thinking.
I disagree that we with the assertion that we will never accept (unqualified) socialism. We already have. "Full blown", or absolute socialism is another matter, and I will agree that it will not be accepted in the forseeable future.
I will also agree wholeheartedly that socialims is evil. Socialism is a perfectly good, workable system - for ants and bees. It doesn't work worth a damn for people.
I defy you to define socialism in a way that doesn't include at least one MAJOR US program. Its already here, in spades.
Roger that!
Reminds me of the story of the "Ant and the Grasshopper". A commentary on one person's ability to plan ahead and work hard (the ant) versus the other's tendency to just float with the wind, lay around, do no planning -- and then get handed part of the fruits of the ant's labors.
Someone should re-post that story. It demonstrates the backwardness of socialism in terms that even idiot, simpleton liberals can understand....well, almost. :-)
NOTED!
Move on....
bump for sophomore who made it through the libs reeducation camp unscathed.
The health care issue is not a fabrication. First, something must be done to contain the costs, which are increasing at approximately 16 percent per annum. (On a personal note, my health care insurance has increased from $2,500 for 2000 to $4,500 for 2004.) Second, according to the US Census (2000), 43 million Americans are without health care.
The crisis exists; the solution does not necessarily involve the system being "managed" by government. For instance, tort reform, as proffered by President Bush, is one way, in conjunctions with other measures, to slow down the cost increases.
IF -- and I'm only granting this for the sake of argument -- "something must be done to contain the costs," why is that "something" necessarily a public-sector initiative? Is increased health care cost driven by the same market constraints as any other commodity? Namely, demand? In the days when health insurance existed to cover catastrophic injuries or sickness, those costs were under control. But nowadays, when Safety Sandy takes Johnny to the doctor every time he scrapes a knee, costs are skyrocketing. Coincidence? I think not.
Secondly, the quality of medical care has increased substantially from the days when a doctor was a barber, and the best treatment he could offer was "cupping" or bleeding his patient. The new machinery and chemicals are expensive, and someone has to pay for them.
And yes, malpractice run amok has also contributed to exorbitant costs. Tort reform is an excellent start.
... according to the US Census (2000), 43 million Americans are without health care.
I suspect you mean that 43 million Americans are without health care INSURANCE. First of all, so what? How is it my concern whether people have insurance or not? Isn't that THEIR responsibility? Or did I suddenly adopt 43 million children I didn't know about?
Secondly, that number sounds grossly inflated. I recall reading an article that said many of these statistics include people who have had a lapse in their insurance in the last six months, but may be covered now.
And finally, the fact that they have no insurance doesn't mean they won't get the care. It may not be as extravagant as care given those who can pay for it, but that doesn't mean they'll be tossed out in the street to die.
Make no mistake: the "crisis" is fictional, invented by the same socialist ilk that created Social Security and other failed entitlements. Only this time it's our nation's health they're tampering with.
What "the left" is after is power. They have actually given up the main tenet of socialism: the nationalization or collectivization of production. Nationalizing medicine is just a romantic vestige.
Something must be down to contain the costs - otherwise they will eventually bankrupt the country or at the very least the average guy won't be able to afford health care insurance. The "something" doesn't necessarily have to be a public sector initiative. My guess is that the solution will be primarily a market solution with some public sector tinkering at the margins. Yes, demand does drive the cost, but so does corruption, the overuse of technology, excessive lawsuits, antiquated and overstaffed billing practices, slothful, unhealthy lifestyles, and the cost of covering the uninsured.
You're right - I do mean the number of Americans without healthcare insurance. There are myriad reasons why Americans don't have healthcare insurance, and putting it down to a lack of responsibility is too reductionist.
I read somewhere that since 2000, the number of uninsured Americans has grown by about five million, so the 43 millions might be a conservative figure. You're right - they usually do end up getting care. But the taxpayer ends up footing the medical bill for the uninsured in one way or another, so that's one reason to be concerned about the fact that there are millions of these people. It is cheaper to intervene early than it is to let things go to the point that these people end up in emergency rooms at vast expense.
I don't think the crisis is fictional. The system needs overhauling. The question is, are the reforms going to market driven or state-centered?
Future Senator? Maybe.
Republican/Conservative? Yep!
It's the "tinkering" that worries me. Never has the government been content to just tinker. Sooner or later, it forces its way in and takes over everything, to the detriment of all involved.
Yes, demand does drive the cost, but so does corruption, the overuse of technology, excessive lawsuits, antiquated and overstaffed billing practices, slothful, unhealthy lifestyles, and the cost of covering the uninsured.
Corruption? Where? And surely you don't think corruption of all things is going to be REDUCED if the government gets involved??!! Overuse of technology? That does seem to be a problem, one that is being addressed by the HMO model. Antiquated billing? I can't say I know much about that, but it seems to me that modern computerized recordkeeping would invalidate much of that.
As to lifestyles, unless the government regulates everyone's behavior, certain lifestyles are going to be riskier than others. One of the purposes of insurance is to collectivize the risk. It seems to do that well.
And the cost of insuring the uninsured will be borne either in the private or the public sector, the only difference being that a public-sector "solution" will also fund innumerable parasites and fellow travelers.
Health care is best left to the free market, imaginary "crisis" or not.
One of the shortest books in the workd has to be Great Advances In Soviet Pharmacology.
I don't where you are getting the idea that I'm advocating a public sector solution to the problem of out-of-control healthcare costs. I'm not.
Corruption? Over billing/jacked-up prices is endemic in the healthcare industry. Hospitals regularly over charge Medicare and private insurance providers for one thing.
The billing system in the healthcare industry is out of date - there's too much bureaucracy, its over staffed, and it's technology is out of date. You're right - an update in technology is part of the cure. But there's so much time spent figuring out who pays for what...
In my experience, government only forces its way in (and then stays in) when there is market failure. To avoid this, the healthcare industry and those who advocate free-market solutions to health care better put their collective heads together and apply the correct market and legal solutions to the cost issue and the unisured issue before its too late. Bush is probably on the right track with tort reform, medical savings accounts, and tax credits to the unisured poor who can't afford health insurance.
Lastly, the health care insurance industry needs to do a better job in penalizing insurance users who increase costs by engaging in at-risk behaviors and by rewarding low risk clients. I recently read that the cost of smoking to the health care system per packet of cigarettes is $40. Obesity is another risk. If people want to keep on smoking and don't do anything about the fact that they weigh 400 pounts that's their business, but why the hell should I end up paying for their stupidity?
Trey is only a high school student? There is hope for us afterall.
And in a county that went Blue (Pima (City of Tucson)).
GET OUT... a high school kid....WoW...
This piece is enough to give a jaded curmudenous icehole like MYSELF HOPE for Americas recovery... Thanks for this post.. thanks a lot.. I needed this..
And in a county that went Blue (Pima (City of Tucson)).
The Socialist like the power all right, however, If I know human nature, that money trough looks awfully attractive too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.