In the spirit of free enterprise, I propose the Democrats give the federal government the authority to offer a Public Option through AIG, not to be effective in 2013 or 2014, but in a year.

Why Left Talks About 'White' Tea Parties
By Dennis Prager · Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Opponents of the popular expression of conservative opposition to big government, the tea party, regularly note that tea partiers are overwhelmingly white. This is intended to disqualify the tea parties from serious moral consideration.

But there are two other facts that are far more troubling:

The first is the observation itself. The fact that the Left believes that the preponderance of whites among tea partiers invalidates the tea party movement tells us much more about the Left than it does about the tea partiers.

It confirms that the Left really does see the world through the prism of race, gender and class rather than through the moral prism of right and wrong.

One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).

Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.

One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist," "homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."

You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist.

As a Leftist rule of thumb -- once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible -- white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left -- strong and weak -- to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good. That is a major reason for Leftist support of the Palestinians (weak) against the Israelis (strong), for example.

This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.

In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.

But in a more rational and morally clear world, where people judge ideas by their legitimacy rather than by the race of those who held them, people would be as likely to ask why blacks and ethnic minorities are virtually absent at tea parties just as they now ask why whites predominate. They would want to know if this racial imbalance said anything about black and minority views or necessarily reflected negatively on the whites attending those rallies.

And if they did ask such un-PC questions, they might draw rather different conclusions than the Left's. First, they would know that the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics no more implied racism on the part of tea partiers than the near-absence of blacks and Hispanics in the New York Philharmonic implies racism on the art of that orchestra.

Second, they might even, Heaven forbid, conclude that it does not reflect well on the political outlook of blacks and Hispanics that they so overwhelmingly identify with ever-larger government. Leftist big-government policies have been disastrous for black America just as they were in the countries that most Hispanics emigrated from. But like the gambling addict who keeps gambling the more he loses, those addicted to government entitlements keep increasing the size of the government even as their situation worsens.

Finally, if one eschews the "racism" explanation and asks real questions, one might also conclude that America generally, and conservatives specifically, have failed to communicate America's distinct values -- E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty (which includes small government) -- to blacks and Hispanics.

Unfortunately, however, no real exploration of almost any important issue in American life is possible as long as the Left focuses on the race, gender and class of those who hold differing positions. And that will not happen. For when the Left stops attacking people and starts arguing positions, we will see what the Left most fears: blacks and Hispanics at tea parties.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Entitlement Rip-Off
By John Stossel (Archive) · Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Bernie Madoff took money from people who thought he'd invested it, gave some to others who thought it was a partial return on their earlier investments and kept much for himself. That's called a Ponzi scheme, and his $50 billion fraud was called the biggest ever. But it wasn't the biggest. Social Security and Medicare are much bigger ones.

These are trillion-dollar scams. Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security's is $8 trillion. There's no money to keep those promises.

But Congress isn't investigating this scam. Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things.

Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.

So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the "problem" is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn't live to 65. Now we average 78.

This means that baby boomers like me who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare are basically stealing from children.

Think of the burden: When I was a kid, there were five workers for every retired person. Now, there are only three. And soon there will only be two young workers to fund each baby boomer's Social Security and Medicare checks.

Veronique de Rugy, an economist at the Mercatus Center, points out that Social and Medicare right now consume almost half the federal budget. In coming years, if nothing changes, they will swallow nearly the whole thing. But since Congress will want to spend money on all the other things it now buys -- not to mention a new medical entitlement -- the government will either have to raise taxes to stratospheric heights, borrow like crazy or inflate the dollar. Whichever it chooses, we'll have serious problems.

Higher taxes are not a good solution because taxation suppresses economic activity by transferring capital to politicians. Yet our only hope is a sustained economic boom.

As Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., points out: "You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. It's not mathematically possible. ... You wipe out the middle class."

Well, how about borrowing? That might mean raising interest rates, which, again, would depress economic activity. Even then, lenders such as China may soon be too nervous to lend Uncle Sam more money. Moody's recently announced it might downgrade America's credit rating.

The most likely outcome is that the Fed will print more money, inflating the currency, so that the creditors are paid with less-valuable dollars. Our purchasing power will disappear.

The architects of the welfare state sure have left us a big mess. Yet hardly anyone talks about entitlements, except to add new ones.

De Rugy asks: Why can't people take care of their own retirement by investing the money government now takes? Had we done this all along, the looming problem would have been averted. Instead, "We're about to witness the biggest, most massive transfer of wealth from the relatively young and poor people of society to the relatively old and wealthy people in society."

Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: "We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity ... the burden we ourselves ought to bear." Well, we sure are dumping my generation's debt onto posterity. I wish we had more politicians like George Washington.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

The Real Public Service

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Every year about this time, big-government liberals stand up in front of college commencement crowds across the country and urge the graduates to do the noblest thing possible -- become big-government liberals.


That isn't how they phrase it, of course. Commencement speakers express great reverence for "public service," as distinguished from narrow private "greed." There is usually not the slightest sign of embarrassment at this self-serving celebration of the kinds of careers they have chosen -- over and above the careers of others who merely provide us with the food we eat, the homes we live in, the clothes we wear and the medical care that saves our health and our lives.


What I would like to see is someone with the guts to tell those students: Do you want to be of some use and service to your fellow human beings? Then let your fellow human beings tell you what they want -- not with words, but by putting their money where their mouth is.


You want to see more people have better housing? Build it! Become a builder or developer -- if you can stand the sneers and disdain of your classmates and professors who regard the very words as repulsive.


Would you like to see more things become more affordable to more people? Then figure out more efficient ways of producing things or more efficient ways of getting those things from the producers to the consumers at a lower cost.


That's what a man named Sam Walton did when he created Wal-Mart, a boon to people with modest incomes and a bane to the elite intelligentsia. In the process, Sam Walton became rich. Was that the "greed" that you have heard your classmates and professors denounce so smugly? If so, it has been such "greed" that has repeatedly brought prices down and thereby brought the American standard of living up.


Back at the beginning of the 20th century, only 15 percent of American families had a flush toilet. Not quite one-fourth had running water. Only three percent had electricity and one percent had central heating. Only one American family in a hundred owned an automobile.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.




By 1970, the vast majority of those American families who were living in poverty had flush toilets, running water and electricity. By the end of the twentieth century, more Americans were connected to the Internet than were connected to a water pipe or a sewage line at the beginning of the century.


More families have air-conditioning today than had electricity then. Today, more than half of all families with incomes below the official poverty line own a car or truck and have a microwave.


This didn't come about because of the politicians, bureaucrats, activists or others in "public service" that you are supposed to admire. No nation ever protested its way from poverty to prosperity or got there through rhetoric or bureaucracies.


It was Thomas Edison who brought us electricity, not the Sierra Club. It was the Wright brothers who got us off the ground, not the Federal Aviation Administration. It was Henry Ford who ended the isolation of millions of Americans by making the automobile affordable, not Ralph Nader.


Those who have helped the poor the most have not been those who have gone around loudly expressing "compassion" for the poor, but those who found ways to make industry more productive and distribution more efficient, so that the poor of today can afford things that the affluent of yesterday could only dream about.


The wonderful places where you are supposed to go to do "public service" are as sheltered from the brutal test of reality as you have been on this campus for the last four -- or is it six? -- years. In these little cocoons, all that matters is how well you talk the talk. People who go into the marketplace have to walk the walk.


Colleges can teach many valuable skills, but they can also nourish many dangerous illusions. If you really want to be of service to others, then let them decide what is a service by whether they choose to spend their hard-earned money for it.

"What is fair? / What is right?
Capitalism teaches us that it's important to do what is right, not what is fair. If you don't do what is right, you can spend an entire day doing what is fair and make no progress. Universal health care may be fair, but it isn't right. (of course it isn't fair either if you understand how our tax system works) Give this simple truth some thought and you will begin to adopt a Capitalist mindset."

Capitalism's Truths

Andrew,

Please understand this is a forum for people to leave "comments' (see top) and offer opinions and ideas on the role government should play in reforming health care today in America. The fact that you offer little in the "comment" area proves your lack of knowledge in history, economics, or government. Therefore, it's probably best you spend more time in the classroom or reading books before coming to a forum and making posts on a subject that is obviously way over your maturity level and, most importantly, your level of intelligence.

You would be better advised not to only hang-out on progressive (liberal) websites like this one. Visit other websites that give alternative views and opinions to yours on health care and other challenging issues we face today as a nation. Once you know as much or more of your opponent's views/ideas will you truly be able to "defend" your views/ideas as being right, moral or just. That is why a "libertarian" like me comes to progressive websites like this one. I am always looking for something to challenge the views and opinions I happen to have today. Senator Sanders "Unfiltered" website is one of many sites I visit from time to time to see what the "other side" is saying about issues I'm concerned and very interested in...like health care. Your opinions offer no real danger to society, however, Sanders being a Senator is a real and present danger to us all. He is a maker of policy...which makes him a politician.

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
-- Thomas Paine

I thought you were that "challenge", but in the end you were another disappointing "lib" who can't argue or defend a point as important as health care reform. The problem we have today are people like you that 'hope" and "vote" politicians will correct the many imperfections we have today in our society from health care, unemployment, poverty, racism, education, energy etc...

"There are still some voices of sanity today, echoing what Edmund Burke said long ago. "The study of human institutions is always a search for the most tolerable imperfections," according to Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago. If you cannot tolerate imperfections, be prepared to kiss your freedom goodbye." Thomas Sowell

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense.... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs."
-- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. "
-- James Madison, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 16, 1788]

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
-- French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."
-- Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775

"the true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best . . . (for) when all government . . . shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as . . . oppressive as the government from which we separated."
--Thomas Jefferson

A better question would be... Does anyone in America care that Mr. Obama visited with Senate Republicans while there is a massive oil spill in the Gulf?

Does anyone know why Mr. Obama visited the Senate Republicans today when there is a massive oil spill in the Gulf?

Andrew,

"This is not my website..." what kind of response is that? Jeez Andrew, I get the feeling you are still in high school or perhaps a recent graduate there of. You offer so little in the way of "supporting" or "defending" ideas by progressive politicians like Sanders or Kucinich. I'm in search of facts, not opinions. Opinions will not solve our health care problems. Feel good "opinions" and rhetroic of how "things can be better" are becoming old and boring. It helps to win elections, but won't solve problems.

Do you not find it interesting that every two years politicians come at us with the same slogans like "change", "better tomorrow", and "brighter future"? It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican they all say it over and over again. And we (voters) continue electing politicians in hopes that they might actually make our tomorrows better or brighter. Our lives and futures can only be made better and brighter by our own abilities and capacities to improve our own attitudes, behaviors, priorities, and efforts. Fancy words and rhetoric doesn't create "outcomes" for people. A coach can give a great pep-talk before a game, but the outcome of the game will ultimately be decided by the actions and efforts of the players during the game.

I find it ironic that they (politicians) must first "take" from one man his hard earned property (money, efforts) to 'give" to another man. This system of "taking" and "giving" (sharing) is wrong and immoral. How can a society have a better and brighter future when people in that society are "compelled" to share those things (property) that would, if left alone by politicians, help them to create their own brighter and better tomorrows (outcomes)?

Progressives have convinced us (or at least enough of us) that our neighbor's property is our property too. And that our neighbor is obligated to "share" his property with us since he appears to have more "property" than he rightfully needs (progressive income tax). According to liberals, our neighbors have a moral obligation to "share" with us that property we do not yet have for ourselves. There is nothing "moral" in "taking" someone else's property without his consent to give to someone else. Just because a politician can do it legally doesn't make it right. Benevolent and charitable "sharing" is moral only when it comes from an individual who willingly and voluntarily "shares" his property with his fellow man.

Rich people are obviously very good at "sharing" their property...much more so than Sanders cares to admit or acknowledge. Just walk through a college campus or a hospital to see the names of those "greedy, cowboy capitalists" who have "voluntarily" given millions for education and medical care and research. The rich have always been the biggest "philanthropists" in society. Check out the Bill Gates Foundation. The Foundation of politicians (Republicans and Democrats alike) is the United States Treasury. Heck, I could be a "good guy" too if I had the power of goverment to compel people to give to my "charity" through a tax system. How is that moral? We give politicians all this praise for being "caring" and "compassionate" when its being done with our money? We applaud Sanders and Kucinch for forcing people to "give" to their Foundation? What a joke!! And we condemn the "rich" capitalist like Bill Gates who "gives" his own money for charity? Dang Andrew, I could be a heck of a socialist if that's all it takes...take from your fellow man that which you think the other guy needs or wants. How about a system where fellow man is rewarded for "trading" with the other guy that which he needs? Andrew, believe it or not, the "trading" system is that which works best for the most number of people in a society....history and facts support me on that, trust me! No better yet, don't trust me, just look it up and decide for yourself.

Andrew, if you want to make this world of ours a better place then look no further than yourself. WE all have a moral responsibility to help and serve our fellow man that cannot help themselves. Charity and benevolent giving is best left up to INDIVIDUALS to decide...NOT politicians. Politicians have rung up a $13 trillion dollar debt trying to be charitable and benevolent. We can't afford to continue down this path...emperical data and historical evidence tells us at some point we will hit a "dead end" at some point. Unless we start electing politicians that actually respect the Constitution and respect our "rights" and "individual liberties", I'm afraid the "dead end" is just around the corner. (Please see Greece today)

roscoe, roscoe, roscoe,

This is not my website. You can post what you want as much as you want if Senator Sanders has no objection.

Dear Andrew,

Please read the 2 columns I posted below by Walter Williams...perhaps after reading you'll understand just how ridiculous your "bank account" comment really was in your last posting. Please reply back to me this time with a comment worthy of someone with your level of knowledge and intelligence. Looking forward to hearing back from you soon.

Thou Shalt Not Covet
As a Sunday school kid, I never quite understood the significance of the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." It was easy to understand why you shouldn't covet your neighbor's wife. After all that could lead to adultery but what's wrong about being jealous about your neighbor's other possessions? Liberals have helped me see the light: jealousy is a precursor to evil. It causes otherwise decent people to fall easy prey to scummy charlatans.

Look at the debate surrounding the Republican proposed tax cuts. Liberals protest it isn't fair to cut taxes of those earning over $200,000. Liberals make the incredibly thoughtless argument that since the wealthy have benefitted the most from society they also owe the most. Higher taxes are a way to make them "give something back." Liberals' agenda is to make us jealous and make us think that one person has more because another has less so they can succeed in their redistributionist agenda.

But how do people earn money in a free society? Let's take the extreme example of billionaire Bill Gates, founder of Micro-Soft. There is no evidence that Gates enslaved or robbed anyone. There's a lot of evidence that millions of common people like you and me voluntarily gave him money for software programs that make life easier and more pleasurable like Windows, DOS and other products. Gates served us well and he's rich because millions upon millions of independent decision makers agreed his products were superior to the next best alternative.

Liberals make the nonsense argument that people like Gates owe society something. If anything society benefitted far more from Gate's activities than Gates himself. That's nearly always the case. People who invented products like MRI's, miracle drugs, and laser machines or services like overnight mail, e-mail, and hotels benefitted society much more than anything they themselves might have received. Just ask yourself: who received the greatest benefit from the antibiotic that may have saved your loved one's life - the inventor who got profits from sale of the medicine to you or was it you and your loved one?

How appropriate is it to hold people, who serve us so well, up to scorn, abuse and ridicule? We might also ask: how appropriate is it for us to make social mascots out of society's leeches, vermin and parasites? How much sense does it make to confiscate the wealth of those who serve us and reward those who seek to live off and prey on others?

Liberals are about the control. Jealousy is their powerful instrument for the politics of envy. By getting us to covet that which belongs to our neighbor, we in turn give them the power to confiscate what are perceived as illgotten gains of others and pass it around. In the process we all wind up being less free, less prosperous, less moral and become a nation of thieves engaged in the futile attempt to live at each other's expense.

You'd think at least the church would be in the forefront in preaching against envy. But one of the greatest successes of liberals is their co-optation of America's church leaders into their evil agenda. Today's church leaders, along with members of Congress, have forgotten God's commandment against coveting and probably interpret the commandment "Thou shalt not steal" as God really meaning "Thou shalt not steal, unless there's a majority vote."

Walter E. Williams
April 25, 1995

Rights Versus Wishes
Congress' budget debate would be much more honest, and perhaps more fruitful, if we clean up some of our thinking about what is a right and what isn't. People say they have rights to medical care, decent housing and food even if they can't pay for it. If these goodies aren't forthcoming, somehow their rights have been violated. Let's discuss rights.

Imagine that I meet an attractive young lady. I ask her to marry me. Suppose she says no, have my rights been violated? Or, suppose I ask to live in your house, and you say no, have you violated my rights to decent housing? Finally, suppose I ask you for a job, and you say, "No! I refuse to hire you because you're too tall, and I don't like tall people." Have you violated my rights? In any meaningful sense, of the term rights, none of these acts constitutes a violation of my rights.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, exist simultaneously among people. The exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another and imposes no obligations on others except those of non-interference. If I ask for a job, a person is no more obliged to enter into a work contract with me than they would be obliged to enter a marriage contract with me. By contrast if you and I enter into a work contract, or if a young lady agrees to marry me, and a third party initiates force to prevent the transaction, my rights have been violated.

To say people have rights to housing, medical care, and jobs is an absurd concept. Those "rights" can be realized only by governmental imposition of burdens on others. For government to guarantee a "right" to housing, it must diminish someone else's rights to their earnings. This modern vision of rights, if applied to my right to speech, worship and travel, would require government to force (tax) others to provide me with an auditorium, church and airfare.

If, instead, we called these new-fangled rights wishes, I'd be in agreement with most other Americans. I also wish everyone had decent housing, nutritious meals and good medical care. However, if we called them wishes, there'd be cognitive dissonance problems among people making the pretense of morality. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to make someone else's wish come true. If I simply had a wish for a five bedroom house, and Congress told its agents at the IRS to take other people's money to make my wish come true, you wouldn't think much of Congress. Americans find it easier to live with their conscious, and find congressional initiation of force against others more palatable, if it were said I have a "right" to a five bedroom house. After all it's Congress' job to protect rights.

We can compare rights versus wishes another way. Suppose someone initiated force to prevent another from speaking and Williams privately stepped in to protect that person's right to speak. Would I be declared a hero or villain? Then suppose I saw a homeless person and did privately exactly what government does - initiate force to take someone's money to guarantee that homeless person's "right" to housing. What would you call me? In the first case, most would probably call me a hero and in the second I'd rightfully be called a despicable thief.

Separating wishes from rights has great relevance to today's federal budget debate. After all Congress' making wishes come true constitute two-thirds of federal spending. The nation's problem is there's not a single member of Congress who has the courage to point out that the moral route to a balanced budget is for Congress to protect rights not guarantee wishes.

Walter E. Williams
June 1, 1995
Return to Articles Page

An

Dear Andrew,

You are absolutely right about me...I do care about my bank account. It's a great place to store my money that I "earned" by "working" for my fellow man. I use this account to write checks or use my debit card for purposes of "trading" with my fellow man. My fellow man appreciates it more when I "trade" for things I want instead of having government "compel" them to "give" me something that I or they (government) think I should have as a right or entitlement.

My bank account has money in it because I "work" to survive. To survive in a market economy one must "trade" something his/her fellow man is willing to exchange for dollars. I've got to give (work) something to receive (salary) something. The more I give (work) the more I receive (salary). It's a rather simple concept Andrew. I actually have to serve my fellow man first before I can serve myself. The system you advocate is the exact opposite. Your system advocates receiveing before giving. That is why your system is wrong and immoral and why it ultimately fails where ever it is practiced. Your socialist system fails to realize that man is much more motivated to serve his fellow man when he can do it by serving his own interests at the same time. You progressives hate to see and recognize that simple fact. You progressives also have a hard time understanding that people create wealth for themselves only when they have created something of "value" in society. Bill Gates' fortune came only from the "value" his software created in society. If I want to make a higher salary for myself I have to find more ways to please my employer (working longer, taking on more responsibility, finding a better way to do something that saves the company money etc..)...the more I please the more I receive. By doing more for my employer the more valuable I became to my employer. You guys want "value" but don't want to create anything or do anything to "earn" it. Socialism ultimately fails because that system has a hard time creating "value" which can only be done by something actually being produced. Therefore, if "production" of goods/services is the name of the game, then hands down, capitalism is the best chance people have to create "bank accounts" for themselves. Socialism fails in the end, because people soon tire of creating someone elses bank account. Thus...endeth the lesson. Time for your snack and nap Andrew.....

roscoe82,

You're such a bullsh*t artist. The only thing you care about is your own bank account. Why don't you save your trash talk for your beloved Republican party.

Hey Progressives,

Just out of curiosity....Do you think there is anything to be learned from the "troubles" over in Europe today? And if so, what might those lessons be?

"The facts are clear"....surely you cannot be serious? Read the following article to "clear" the air of assumptions and wishes by Progressives such as Sanders and Andrew. I've asked for "facts" and have received nothing in return but "power of numbers" and "leveraging".

It is a battle between "free markets" for health care and a health care system "commanded" by bureaucrats and politicians. The "FACTS ARE CLEAR", Andrew, you either don't want to see them or just too "blinded" by ideology to see the facts. "Voluntary" exchange between people (buyers and sellers) is what has made America great and prosperous. When government decides (most always for political interests) to be an intermediary in that "exchange" (3rd. party to a deal) either the buyer or the seller is going to be negatively impacted by the intrusion. It just depends on if the "3rd. party" comes in on the side of the buyer or the seller. Either way the market suffers and ultimately we all end up suffering in the end. Right now the we are being sold on an ideal that the reason health care costs are so high are because "Corporations" (sellers) are "greedy" and are somehow unfairly setting prices in the market to maximize their "greed" for "profits". Therefore, buyers need "help" to protect themselves from "greedy", "profit seeking" capitalists. When in reality, the buyer is being "harmed" not by capitalists but by "social do-gooding" Progressives (liberals) who want to make the market a "single payer" market. Obviously the market is "destroyed" because half of the market today is not driven by forces of supply and demand, but by the forces of political power and persuasion. The capitalists now must compete for "political" favors to survive rather than competing to win over "consumers".

Andrew, if you had only stayed awake in your economic classes (or at least taken and economics class) you would know that the consumer is "sovereign" in the market place. You are advocating a system where politicians (bureaucrats) are "sovereign". No good my friend....history (facts) shows time and time again that individuals are much better off (not to mention safer) when "sovereignty" is in the hands of "private" individuals than in the hands of "public" individuals. Our Founding Fathers created this country of ours so that our "inalienable rights" would be protected and respected by government. They tried hard to give government just enough power to carry out its obligations of "protecting" our "rights" and "liberties". Limiting government's power is our best chance for survivial and prosperity. Sacrificing "power" (liberty)to politicians to use in the hopes of arranging some sort of temporary security for ourselves is a recipe for disaster. America became great and prosperous because people could come here and create thir own "outcomes". America's downfall will be when its people decide to have their "outcomes" arranged for them by a politician. ....Please continue to read the article below by Dr. Walter Williams.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2008, AND THEREAFTER



Affordable Health Care



One of the campaign themes this election cycle is "affordable" health care. Shouldn't we ask ourselves whether we want the politicians who brought us the "affordable" housing, that created the current financial debacle, to now deliver us affordable health care? Shouldn't we also ask how things turned out in countries where there is socialized medicine?

The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute's annual publication, "Waiting Your Turn," reports that Canada's median waiting times from a patient's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist, depending on the procedure, averages from five to 40 weeks. The wait for diagnostics, such as MRI or CT, ranges between four and 28 weeks.

According to Michael Tanner's "The Grass Is Not Always Greener," in Cato Institute's Policy Analysis (March 18, 2008), the Mayo Clinic treats more than 7,000 foreign patients a year, the Cleveland Clinic 5,000, Johns Hopkins Hospital treats 6,000, and one out of three Canadian physicians send a patient to the U.S. for treatment each year. If socialized medicine is so great, why do Canadian physicians send patients to the U.S. and the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year on health care in our country?

Britain's socialized system is no better. Currently, 750,000 Brits are awaiting hospital admission. Britain's National Health Services hopes to achieve an 18-week maximum wait from general practitioner to treatment, including all diagnostic tests, by the end of 2008. The delay in health care services is not only inconvenient, it's deadly. Both in Britain and Canada, many patients with diseases that are curable at the time of diagnosis become incurable by the time of treatment or patients become too weak for the surgical procedure. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to introduce a "constitution" setting out the rights and responsibilities of its health care system. According to a report in the Telegraph (02/01/2008), "What this (Gordon Brown's plan) seems to amount to in practice are the Government's rights to refuse treatment, and the patient's responsibilities to live up to what the state decides are model standards." That means people who have unhealthy habits such as smoking, heart sufferers who are obese or those who fall ill because of failure to take regular exercise might be refused medical care, even though they pay taxes to support government health care.

Government health care can become ghoulish as reported in a Human Events (1/17/08) article "Gordon Brown Wants Your Organs" written by Susan Easton. As in the U.S., many Brits die while on the waiting list for organ donations. The prime minister has a solution called a "Presumed Consent Scheme." Mrs. Easton says, "If you don't specifically carry a card saying 'leave my corpse alone' -- known as the 'opt out option', or unless one's family is on hand to object, one's remains are considered fair game for an organ harvest festival." Supporters of the scheme argue that what is done with people's organs after their death should not be up to the next of kin. Such a vision differs little from one that holds that after one's death he becomes the property of the state.

Of course, if socialized medicine becomes a reality here, Americans can do as many Brits do. Mrs. Easton says, "more than 70,000 Britons -- known as 'health tourists' -- have gone as far as India, Malaysia and South Africa for major operations. This figure is expected to rise to almost 200,000 by the end of the decade."

We have health care problems in the U.S. but it's not because ours is a free market system of health care delivery. Well over 50 percent of all health care expenditures are made by government. Where government spends, government regulates. It's truly amazing that Americans who are dissatisfied with the current level of socialized medicine in the U.S. are asking for more of what created the problem in the first place. Anyone thinking that an American version of socialized health care will differ from that found in Canada, Britain, Sweden, France and elsewhere are whistling Dixie.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

People, I'm not going to go round and round on this anymore. The facts are clear: You are being sold a Chevy for the price of a Cadillac. There is an alternative: single-payer, also known as Medicare-for-All, which Senator Sanders is proposing in the Senate and Representative John Conyers, Jr. in the House of Representatives.

Isn't it funny the same people who are puritanical about government involvement in healthcare are the same people who wanted the federal government to give $700 billion in taxpayer dollars to banks and insurance companies? They don't have a problem with the US government OWNING an insurance company. But when it comes to healthcare, it's "hands off." Funnily enough, they also happened to be the biggest defenders of Medicare during the recent healthcare debate in Congress. Medicare for those who do not know already is government single-payer healthcare for people 65 years old or older.

Opponents of healthcare reform like to say the US has the best healthcare system in the world. There is definitely one thing it's best at: extracting as much money as possible from patients.

If I were in the medical community, health insurance business, or pharmaceutical business I would be screaming bloody murder and trying like heck to keep government from creating a "single-payer" system. I'd give all the money I could to lobbyists and politicians to keep this "single-payer" ideal from ever coming law.

Where do people like you and Senator Sanders get off thinking that government should impose it's power in a market like health care? Do you really think you can make it better? Where is the emperical data that proves a market is better directed by bureaucrats than a market directed by buyers and sellers "voluntarily" trading for those things they need and want. I find it ironic that where government has had the least amount of market intrusion into "voluntary" exchange of goods and services is where you see the best markets for producers and consumers and also the greatest consumer satisfaction with quality and price. And where you see extensive government intrusion in the market place are where you see the worst markets for producers and consumers alike...especially for consumers! Producers can often times "bribe" bureaucrats and politicians to gain some form of a favorable outcome for their business. Which is exactly the biggest problem we have today in health care. Its not the fault of the health care industries that we have this mess today...it is the fault of our politicians for creating the system where "money" can create favorable outcomes for businesses that pay their due "patronage" to those in the right committees and sub-committees in Washington.

You are right, the health care industry and the like are trying like heck to keep government from destorying what market is left in health care (government already controls half of it now). And I dont' blame them a bit. What do you think Microsoft, Intel, Google, Apple, or Dell would be doing if government thought that technology companies were unfairly making profits from artificially inflated prices and unfairly leaving consumers out of the market for technology... and so proposed a "single-payer" system to fulfill our technology needs? You fail to see the "big picture". Its the very fact that politicians in our goverment (like Sanders and Kucinich) that think they do have the "power" to intervene in the market place is why their is so much corruption in the first place. It's very much in the interest of all businesses in America to "sweeten the pot" of polticians as a hedge against "them" (politicians) doing anything that might negatively impact their prospects for survival in the market place.

You think corruption is bad today at the federal level of government? Give those clowns up there in D.C. even more power...and it will be a certainty that corruption will grow right along with it. Having government be responsible for being the "single-payer" of all health care expenditures for 300 million plus Americans is absurd and dangerous. You talk of "intellectual" tyranny as if "intellectuals" pose a greater threat to us than a "do-gooding" politician. Show me evidence in history where an "intellectual" posed a greater threat to our rights and liberties than a politician. Intellectuals can't write laws, make policy, or levy taxes. Only politicians can do those things....which is why our Founding Fathers said to watch "them" very closely and to be careful of what liberties you sacrifice to them to gain a little security. We are at $13 trillion as we Americans continue to create more "security" and "arranged outcomes" for ourselves through the "good works" of our loving and caring politicians....perhaps its time we start heeding the words of the "enlightened" politicians of yesterday rather than the "fancy rhetoric" of todays politicians like Obama or Sanders.

There is an intellectual tyranny in this country perpetrated by the medical community with the assistance of the health insurance and drug companies against single-payer.

Some people may ask, "If single-payer is so great, why isn't anyone talking about it?"

This is in fact an excellent question. Why isn't anyone talking about it? After all, if you read the leading newspapers in the country, including Democratic ones, there is virtually no discussion of single-payer. The same is true of television. So why the silence?

There are 2 reasons, one is obvious, and the other is insidious.

The first reason -- and the most obvious one -- is that single-payer would reduce healthcare expenditures substantially, on the order of over a trillion dollars. This, needless to say, would cause dislocation for many in the healthcare sector and is not something easy to confront psychologically.

The second reason is more subtle and, as I said, insidious.

People have characterized the debate over healthcare as Democrats versus Republicans, pro-government versus free-marketers, but I don't see it that way. In my view, this is much more about the country's elites versus grassroots America. It goes without saying physicians circulate among the top decision makers in the country much more than other Americans. Politicians are much more disposed to defer to the medical community than other groups. Add the financial resources of the healthcare sector to the equation, and you have an extraordinarily influential group of people. Sadly, they have used this influence to the detriment of the American people.

So, given the economic stakes and the prestige of the medical community, there is a virtually no discussion of single-payer.

Dear Andrew,

Please understand I really do enjoy reading your responses and your attempt at explaining how government (single-payer) will make health care better for us all. A "single-payer" is socialism. This "single-payer" system you champion for has already rung up a debt of $13 trillion. How many more chances are you willing to give these "bozos" to finally get something right?

If a "single-payer" system was more efficient and created better outcomes for people at a lower price....then all "goods" and "services" should be distributed and paid for by a "single-payer" system. Correct?

Why do people have health insurance? One of the reasons is the power of numbers. In other words, a policyholder gets better prices from healthcare providers (physicians, hospitals, etc) than a non-policy holder because the health insurance company is able to leverage the large number of its policyholders in negotiations with healthcare providers. This is a simple business principle used in countless businesses -- the more you buy, the lower the price you get.

Single-payer is the logical extension of what already exists today. Instead of having Americans fragmented among many different health insurance companies, single-payer has all Americans collectively negotiating with healthcare providers on price. The more you buy, the lower the price you get. Single-payer employs this business principle in the most effective way -- and it's why the American healthcare sector hates it and most developed countries have adopted it.

Dear Andrew,

Is that your best effort at defending your assumption that government mandated "reform" will improve quality and quantity for health care in America while doing it at a lower cost? When in the history of the world has government bureaucrats ever shown to be more efficient with it's scarce resources than a place where resources were directed by prices set in the market? The irony of your argument is this...close to half of our present health care system is paid for by goverment through Medicare and Medicaid. Are you proposing that all it would take to fix the cost and availability of health care is to get the other half under government control? Perhaps the real problem is the "half" that is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats? But no...that would be absurd for a liberal to believe. Afterall, politicians and bureaucrats care and have compassion for their fellow man. That's why they work hard at providing us with those things such as cars, gasoline, flat screen tv's in HD, couches, carpet, light bulbs, toothpaste, shampoo, perfume, computers, cellohones, software, baseballs, golf clubs, swimming pools, boats, fishing poles, shoes, shorts, pants, suits, tools, machines, airplanes, trucks, trains, fertilizer, water hoses, bird houses, bird seeds, steak, chicken, salmon, corn on the cob, shaving cream, razors, mirrors, tires, guns, ammunition, houses, concrete, flowers, trees, christmas decorations, fireworks, pots, pans, ovens, microwaves, grills, forks, knives, spoons, coke, beer, cigars, matches, lumber, brick, candles, picture frames, digital cameras, video, cd's, cable, and thousands of other things including MEDICINE!!!!! Why is it that you liberals think a goverment can provide us with better medicine and health care when government can't come close to providing a better product and at a better price than the products I listed above. I think you know the answer and it will kill you to admit it. Private individuals make much better decisions in regards to meeting the needs and wants of people and do it at a better price than a goverment bureaucrat could ever do. If the latter were true, then the Soviet Union would still be on Rand McNally map today. China and India would be becoming more socialistic and less capitalistic today. Socialism cannot and will not ever be able to provide a better way of life for people than capitalism. No matter how many times man has tried to survive by "sharing" (rather than trading for survival) that experiment ultimately fails. Just for kicks google "pilgrims and thanksgiving" and read how their experiment with socialism went for them that first winter.

I asked you for proof and evidence that your "reform" would make health care more affordable, more available, and more effective for us good citizens of America. And I got nada! History is not kind to those people and societies that base their economies on "assumptions". See Soviet Union and Eastern Europe 1917 to 1991.

If someone is making money from the current healthcare system there is nothing anyone can say to convince them to move to single-payer.

Dear Andrew,

Lets say for argument sake that a renowned and highly respected Economist like Thomas Sowell is wrong about health care. And all his facts and figures are wrong and inaccurate, as well. And that history is wrong in showing that in places where health care was made public that the quality and quantity of health care improved for more people than under private health care. ....What empirical evidence can you show me to convince me that your "reform" is going to work and has worked in the past? I admit I'm a cynic when it comes to believing the government can improve the quality and quantity of health care we have today in this country. Give me something....because I've got 13 trillion reasons and counting why I probably won't believe you.

Repeating tripe doesn't change the fact it's tripe. Mr. Sowell's analysis is deeply flawed.

Let's take 2 of his arguments: 1. reform just means cost shifting and 2. there are no substantial cost savings to be found at drug companies.

1. The United States has 26.5 Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) units per one million people while the median for developed countries is 7.7. Despite all these MRIs, the United States still has a lower life expectancy than the average for developed countries. Clearly, reform would mean greater efficiency in the procurement and use of expensive and sophisticated equipment such as MRIs.

2. According to a Congressional Budget Office report, "In 2008, pharmaceutical manufacturing companies spent at least $20.5 billion on promotional activities. Detailing to physicians, nurse practitioners, and physicians’ assistants cost $12 billion, accounting for more than half of that promotional spending. Drug companies spent another $3.4 billion sponsoring professional meetings and events and about $0.4 billion placing advertisements in professional journals. Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent the rest of their promotional budgets, $4.7 billion in 2008, on direct-to-consumer advertising. To place those figures in context, the Pharmaceutical Research and Man-
ufacturers of America (PhRMA) estimated that, among its members, domestic sales of pharmaceuticals and medicines totaled $189 billion in 2008 and domestic spending on research and development totaled $38 billion."

With reform, much of this marketing could be dispensed with, helping to lower the cost of drugs to patients.

These 2 items are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of cost efficiencies that can be attained with reform.

The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high" — either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.


There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes — or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.


Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive — but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.


Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance — and fewer people who can afford it.


Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.


If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.


What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.


Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors' income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.


Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.


There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.


The high costs of "defensive medicine" — expensive tests, medications and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients — could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.


If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.


Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?

Dear Andrew,

Please read the column below by Thomas Sowell.
Alice in Health Care

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Most discussions of health care are like something out of Alice in Wonderland.


What is the biggest complaint about the current medical care situation? "It costs too much." Yet one looks in vain for anything in the pending legislation that will lower those costs.


One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs, whether an insurance company or the government. What is the politicians' answer? To have more costs paid by insurance companies and the government.


Back when the "single payer" was the patient, people were more selective in what they spent their own money on. You went to a doctor when you had a broken leg but not necessarily every time you had the sniffles or a skin rash. But, when someone else is paying, that is when medical care gets over-used — and bureaucratic rationing is then imposed, to replace self-rationing. Money is just one of the costs of people seeking more medical care than they would if they were paying for it with their own money. Both waiting lines and waiting lists grow longer when people with sniffles and minor skin rashes take up the time of doctors, while people with cancer are waiting.


In country after country, the original estimates of government medical care costs almost always turn out to be gross under-estimates of what it ultimately turns out to cost.


Even when the estimates are done honestly, they are based on how much medical care people use when they are paying for it themselves. But having someone else pay for medical care virtually guarantees that a lot more of it will be used.


Nothing would lower costs more than having each patient pay those costs. And nothing is less likely to happen.


One of the big costs that have actually forced some hospitals to close is the federal mandate that hospitals treat everyone who comes to an emergency room, whether they pay or not. But those who talk about "bringing down the cost of medical care" are not about to repeal that mandate. Often they want to add more mandates.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.




The most fundamental issue is not whether treating everyone who comes to an emergency room is a good policy or a bad policy in itself. If it is a good policy, then the federal government should pay for what it wants done, not force other institutions to pay for it. Then let the voters decide at the next election whether that is what they want their tax money spent for.


Confusion between costs and prices add to the Alice in Wonderland sense of unreality.


What is called lowering the costs is simply refusing to pay all the costs, by having the government set lower prices, whether for doctors' fees, hospital reimbursements or other charges. Surely no one believes that there will be no repercussions from refusing to pay for what we want. Some doctors are already refusing to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients because the government's reimbursement levels are so low.


Similarly, if it costs a billion dollars to create one new pharmaceutical drug, then either we are going to pay the billion dollars or we are not going to keep on getting new pharmaceutical drugs produced. There is no free lunch.


Virtually everything that is proposed by those who are talking about bringing down the costs of medical care will in fact raise those costs. Mandates on insurance companies? Why are insurance companies not already doing those things that new mandates would require? Because those things raise costs by an amount that people are unwilling to pay to get those benefits.


If not, it would be a slam dunk for the insurance companies to add those benefits to the policies and raise the premiums to cover them. What politicians want to do is look good by imposing mandates, and then let the insurance companies look bad by raising the premiums to cover the additional costs.


It is a great political game, but it does nothing to lower medical costs.


Politicians who want a government monopoly on health insurance can easily get it, just by making it impossible for private insurance companies to charge enough to cover the costs mandated by politicians. The "public option" will then be the only option — which is to say, we will no longer have any real option.

Alice in Health Care, Part II

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | What is most like Alice in Wonderland is discussing medical care reform in the abstract, as if there are not already government-run medical care systems in this country and elsewhere.


Yet there seems to be remarkably little interest in examining how government-run medical care actually turns out — medically and financially — whether in Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration hospitals in this country, or in government-run medical systems in other countries.


We are repeatedly being told that we need to have a government-controlled medical care system, because other countries have it — as if our policies on something as serious as medical care should be based on the principle of monkey see, monkey do.


By all means look at other countries, but not just to see what to imitate. See how it actually turns out. Yet there seems to be an amazing lack of interest in examining what government-controlled medical care produces.


While our so-called health care "summit" last week was going on, British newspapers were carrying exposes of terrible, and often deadly, conditions in British hospitals under that country's National Health Service. But this has not become part of our debate on what to expect from government-controlled medical care.


Such scandals are an old story under the National Health Service in Britain, one repeatedly producing fresh scandals that their newspapers carry, but ours ignore.


In addition to a whole series of National Health Service scandals in Britain over the years, the government-run medical system in Britain has far less high-tech medical equipment than there is in the United States. Neither in Britain, Canada, nor in other countries with government-run medical care systems can people get to see doctors, especially surgeons, in as short a time as in the United States.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.




It is not uncommon for patients in those countries to have to wait for months before getting operations that Americans get within weeks, or even days, after being diagnosed with a condition that requires surgery. You can always "bring down the cost of medical care" by having a lower level of quality or availability.


But, again, you may never learn any of this by following most of the American mainstream media. It is not that they don't make comparisons between medical care in different countries. But they tend to feature news that will promote government-controlled care.


One of the statistics they spin endlessly is that life expectancy in some countries with government-controlled medical care is higher than in the United States. What they don't tell you is that, in some of these countries, all the infants that die are not included in infant mortality statistics, as they are in the United States.


More important, both political and media supporters of government-controlled medical care consistently confuse medical care with health care.


Much, if not most, of health care depends on what individuals do in the way they live their own lives — including eating habits, alcohol intake, exercise, narcotics and homicide. A study some years ago found that Mormons live a decade longer than other Americans. But nobody believes that Mormons' doctors are that much better than other doctors. When you don't do a lot of things that shorten your life, you live longer. That is not rocket science.


Americans tend to have higher rates of obesity, narcotics use and homicide than people in some other countries. And there is not much that doctors can do about that.


If those who make international comparisons were serious, instead of clever, they would compare the things that medical science can have a great effect on — cancer survival rates, for example. Americans have some of the highest cancer survival rates in the world, and for some particular cancers, the highest.


When you can get to see a doctor faster, and get treatments underway without waiting for months, while the cancer grows and spreads, you have a better chance of surviving. That, too, is not rocket science. But it is also something that you are not likely to see featured in most of the media, where people are promoting their own pet notions and agendas, instead of giving you the facts on which you can make up your own mind.

Alice in Health Care, Part III

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | With all the controversies, charges, counter-charges and buzzwords swirling around the issue of medical care in the United States, there is a lot to be said for going back to square one and asking just what is the fundamental problem.


The quality of the medical care itself is not the problem. Few — if any — countries can match American medical training, medical technology or the development of life-saving pharmaceutical drugs in the United States. Most countries with government-controlled medical care cannot come close to matching how fast an American can get medical treatment, particularly from specialists.


Political hype is no reason to throw all that away. In fact, policies based on political hype over the years are what have gotten us into what is most wrong with medical care today — namely, the way it is paid for.


Insurance companies or the government pay directly for most of the costs of most medical treatment in the United States. That is virtually a guarantee that more people will demand more medical treatment than they would if they were paying directly out of their own pockets, instead of paying indirectly in premiums and taxes.


Since people who staff either insurance company bureaucracies or government bureaucracies have to be paid, this is not bringing down the cost of medical care, but adding to it.


What also adds to the costs are politicians at both state and federal levels who mandate additional benefits to be paid for by insurance companies, thereby driving up the cost of insurance.


If medical insurance simply covered risks — which is what insurance is all about — that would be far less expensive than covering completely predictable things like annual checkups. Far more people could afford medical insurance, thereby reducing the ranks of the uninsured.


But all the political incentives are for politicians to create mandates forcing insurance companies to cover an ever increasing range of treatments, and thereby forcing those who buy insurance to pay ever higher premiums to cover the costs of these mandates.


That way, politicians can play Santa Claus and make insurance companies play Scrooge. It is great political theater. Politicians who are pushing for a government-controlled medical care system say that it will "keep insurance companies honest." The very idea of politicians keeping other people honest ought to tell us what a farce this is. But if we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.




One of the ways of reducing the costs of medical insurance would be to pass federal legislation putting an end to state regulation of insurance companies. That would instantly eliminate thousands of state mandates, which force insurance to cover everything from wigs to marriage counseling, depending on which special interests are influential in which states.


It would also promote nationwide competition among insurance companies — and competition keeps prices down better than politicians will. Moreover, competition can bring down the costs behind the prices, in part by forcing less efficient insurance companies out of business.


Another very real and very big cost behind the high prices for medical treatment are the many forms of expensive "defensive medicine" that doctors and hospitals have to practice, in order to avoid being sued by unscrupulous lawyers. Expensive and unnecessary tests and treatments cost even more than the multimillion dollar awards that clever lawyers can get from gullible juries.


Tightening up the laws, so that junk science does not prevail in courts, would create some real savings in medical costs. But, since plaintiff's lawyers are big financial contributors to the Democratic Party, that is unlikely to happen during this administration.


Finally, there are costs that are high because people want medical care in more comfortable surroundings — a private room rather than a bed in a ward, for example — and are willing to pay for that. This is more common among Americans.


There is no reason for others to interfere with that, just because of a mindless mantra of "bringing down the cost of medical care" or class warfare rhetoric about "Cadillac health plans."

Alice in Health Care, Part IV

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Some years ago, one of my favorite doctors retired. On my last visit to his office, he took some time to explain to me why he was retiring early and in good health.


Being a doctor was becoming more of a hassle as the years went by, he said, and also less fulfilling. It was becoming more of a hassle because of the increasing paperwork, and it was less fulfilling because of the way patients came to him.


He was currently being asked to Xerox lots of records from his files, in order to be reimbursed for another patient he was treating. He said it just wasn't worth it. Whoever was paying — it might have been an insurance company or the government — would either pay him or not, he said, but he wasn't going to jump through all those hoops.


My doctor said that doctor-patient relationships were not the same as they had been when he entered the profession. Back then, people came to him because someone had recommended him to them, but now increasing numbers of people were sent to him because they had some group insurance plan that included his group.


He said that the mutual confidence that was part of the doctor-patient relationship was not the same with people who came to his office only because his name was on some list of eligible physicians.


The loss of one doctor — even a very good doctor — may not seem very important in the grand scheme of heady medical care "reform" and glittering phrases about "universal health care." But making the medical profession more of a hassle for doctors risks losing more doctors, while increasing the demand for treatment.


A study published in the November 2009 issue of the Journal of Law & Economics showed that a rise in the cost of medical liability insurance led to more reductions of hours of medical service supplied by older doctors than among younger doctors.


Younger doctors, more recently out of medical school and often with huge debts to pay off for the cost of that expensive training, may have no choice but to continue working as hard as possible to try to recoup that huge investment of money and time.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.




Younger doctors will probably continue working, even if bureaucrats load them down with increasing amounts of paperwork and the government continues to lower reimbursements for Medicare, Medicaid and — heaven help us — the new proposed "universal health care" legislation that is supposed to "bring down the cost of medical care."


The confusion between lowering costs and refusing to pay the costs can have a real impact on the supply of doctors. The real costs of medical care include both the financial conditions and the working conditions that will insure a continuing supply of both the quantity and the quality of doctors required to maintain medical care standards for a growing number of patients.


Although younger doctors may be trapped in a profession that some of them might not have entered if they had known in advance what all its pluses and minuses would turn out to be, there are two other important groups who are in a position to decide whether or not it is worth it.


Those who are old enough to have paid off their medical school debts long ago, and successful enough that they can afford to retire early, or to take jobs as medical consultants, can opt out of the whole elaborate third-party payment system and its problems. What the rising costs of medical liability insurance has already done for some, other hassles that bureaucracies and politicians create can have the same effect for others.


There is another group that doesn't have to put up with these hassles. These are young people who have reached the stage in their lives when they are choosing which profession to enter, and weighing the pluses and minuses before making their decisions.


Some of these young people might prefer becoming a doctor, other things being equal. But the heady schemes of government-controlled medicine, and the ever more bloated bureaucracies that these heady schemes will require, can make it very unlikely that other things will be equal in the medical profession.


Paying doctors less and hassling them more may be some people's idea of "lowering the cost of medical care," but it is instead refusing to pay the costs — and taking the consequences.

The poor, poor "healthcare" sector. How repressed they are. They charge double what other developed countries spend for healthcare while providing sub-par care. What's the worst that can happen to a physician or hospital? They get sued, or in the physician's case, may lose their license to practice. What's the worst that can happen to a patient? They DIE or are CRIPPLED FOR LIFE.

The "healthcare" sector is already trying to undermine the new Bill by redefining what constitutes cost in complying with the Bill's cost mandate. Like I said, why don't we just cut the bullsh*t and have single-payer.

Utopia versus freedom

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice."


If we can be so easily stampeded by rhetoric that neither the public nor the Congress can be bothered to read, much less analyze, bills making massive changes in medical care, then do not be surprised when life and death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands — and out of the hands of your doctor — and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.


Let's go back to square one. The universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to "solve" our "problem."


If we are, then there will be a never ending series of "solutions," each causing new problems calling for still more "solutions." That way lies a never-ending quest, costing ever increasing amounts of the taxpayers' money and — more important — ever greater losses of your freedom to live your own life as you see fit, rather than as presumptuous elites dictate.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.


Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said, "It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated" and "I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes."


But today's crusading zealots are not about to tolerate evils or infirmities. If insurance companies are not behaving the way some people think they should, then their answer is to set up a government bureaucracy to either control insurance companies or replace them.


If doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies charge more than some people feel like paying, then the answer is price control. The actual track record of politicians, government bureaucracies, or price control is of no interest to those who think this way.


Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.


If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about — the high cost of a major medical expense — the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.


Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.


But politicians in the business of distributing largesse — especially with somebody else's money — cannot resist the temptation to pass laws adding things to insurance coverage. Many of those who are pushing for more government involvement in medical care are already talking about extending insurance coverage to "mental health" — which is to say, giving shrinks and hypochondriacs a blank check drawn on the federal treasury.


There are still some voices of sanity today, echoing what Edmund Burke said long ago. "The study of human institutions is always a search for the most tolerable imperfections," according to Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago. If you cannot tolerate imperfections, be prepared to kiss your freedom goodbye.

"The power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbour and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less that which the smallest functionaire possess who wield the coercive power of the state, and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am able to be allowed to live or work."

F. A. Hayek

Burke and Obama

By Thomas Sowell







http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The other day I sought a respite from current events by re-reading some of the writings of 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. But it was not nearly as big an escape as I had thought it would be.


When Burke wrote of his apprehension about "new power in new persons," I could not help think of the new powers that have been created by which a new President of the United States — a man with zero experience in business — can fire the head of General Motors and tell banks how to run their businesses.


Not only is Barack Obama new to the presidency, he is new to running any organization. One of Burke's fears was that "we may place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never been tried."


Neither eloquence nor zeal was a substitute for experience, according to Burke. He said, "eloquence may exist without a proportionate degree of wisdom." As for zeal, Burke said: "It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion."

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



The Obama administration's going back and forth on the question whether American intelligence agents who forced information out of captured terrorist leaders will be subjected to legal jeopardy, even though they were told at the time that what they were doing was not only legal but a service to the nation, came to mind when reading Burke's warning about the dangers of continuing to change the rules and values by which people lived.


Burke asked how we could expect a sense of honor to exist when "no man could know what would be the test of honour in a nation, continually varying the standard of its coin?"


The current drive to take from "the rich" for the benefit of others came to mind when reading Burke's warning against creating a situation where "any one description of citizens should be brought to regard any of the others as their proper prey."


He also warned that "those who attempt to level, never equalise." What they end up doing is concentrating power in their own hands— and Burke saw such new powers as dangerous, even if they were used only sparingly at first.


He said, "the true danger is, when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients and by parts." He also said: "It is by lying dormant a long time, or being at first very rarely exercised, that arbitrary power steals upon a people."


People who don't like "the rich" or "big business" or the banks may be happy that President Obama is sticking it to them. But such arbitrary powers can be turned on anybody. As Robert Burns said: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." There was a lot of wisdom in the 18th century.


The Constitution of the United States set out to limit the powers of the federal government but judges have greatly eroded those limitations over the years and the dispensing of bailout money has allowed the Obama administration to exercise powers that the Constitution never gave them.


Edmund Burke understood that, no matter what form of government you had, in the end the character of those who wielded the powers of government was crucial. He said: "Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state."


He also said, "of all things, we ought to be the most concerned who and what sort of men they are that hold the trust of everything that is dear to us." He feared particularly the kind of man "whose whole importance has begun with his office, and is sure to end with it"— the kind of man "who before he comes into power has no friends, or who coming into power is obliged to desert his friends." Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and others came to mind.


The biggest challenge to America — and to the world — today is the danger of Iran with nuclear weapons. President Obama is acting as if this is something he can finesse with talks or deals. Worse yet, he may think it is something we can live with.


Burke had something to say about things like that as well: "There is no safety for honest men, but by believing all possible evil of evil men, and by acting with promptitude, decision, and steadiness on that belief." Acting — not talking.

Utopia versus freedom

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice."


If we can be so easily stampeded by rhetoric that neither the public nor the Congress can be bothered to read, much less analyze, bills making massive changes in medical care, then do not be surprised when life and death decisions about you or your family are taken out of your hands — and out of the hands of your doctor — and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.


Let's go back to square one. The universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to "solve" our "problem."


If we are, then there will be a never ending series of "solutions," each causing new problems calling for still more "solutions." That way lies a never-ending quest, costing ever increasing amounts of the taxpayers' money and — more important — ever greater losses of your freedom to live your own life as you see fit, rather than as presumptuous elites dictate.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.


Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said, "It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated" and "I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes."


But today's crusading zealots are not about to tolerate evils or infirmities. If insurance companies are not behaving the way some people think they should, then their answer is to set up a government bureaucracy to either control insurance companies or replace them.


If doctors, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies charge more than some people feel like paying, then the answer is price control. The actual track record of politicians, government bureaucracies, or price control is of no interest to those who think this way.


Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.


If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about — the high cost of a major medical expense — the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.


Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.


But politicians in the business of distributing largesse — especially with somebody else's money — cannot resist the temptation to pass laws adding things to insurance coverage. Many of those who are pushing for more government involvement in medical care are already talking about extending insurance coverage to "mental health" — which is to say, giving shrinks and hypochondriacs a blank check drawn on the federal treasury.


There are still some voices of sanity today, echoing what Edmund Burke said long ago. "The study of human institutions is always a search for the most tolerable imperfections," according to Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago. If you cannot tolerate imperfections, be prepared to kiss your freedom goodbye.

"Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Think things, not words." In words, many see a need for "social justice" to override "the dictates of the market." In reality, what is called "the market" consists of human beings making their own choices at their own cost. What is called "social justice" is government imposition of the notions of third parties, who pay no price for being wrong.


Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Muammar Qaddafi and Vladimir Putin have all praised Barack Obama. When enemies of freedom and democracy praise your president, what are you to think? When you add to this Barack Obama's many previous years of associations and alliances with people who hate America — Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, etc. — at what point do you stop denying the obvious and start to connect the dots? "......Thomas Sowell Random Thoughts 10/7/09

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?"....Thomas Sowell Random Thoughts 12/1/09

Yes...that was me again. Go find someone to read for you... then have them explain it to you. And then perhaps you can come back and actually convey something refreshlingly different than than your usual old "progressive" ideals and wish lists postings. I thought you would entertain the idea of actually debating and defending some of the issues I've raised on my posts to you. Unfortunately your lack of maturity and intellect prevents you from offering up much more than the juvenile response you had for your last post. ....Or maybe its because you have no way of defending "progressivism" when history and facts prove "free" societies are much better for man than "planned" socieities. Here is another recent article by Dr. Walter Williams you might find interesting....

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2010



Conflict or Cooperation



Different Americans have different and often intense preferences for all kinds of goods and services. Some of us have strong preferences for beer and distaste for wine while others have the opposite preference -- strong preferences for wine and distaste for beer. Some of us hate three-piece suits and love blue jeans while others love three-piece suits and hate blue jeans. When's the last time you heard of beer drinkers in conflict with wine drinkers, or three-piece suit lovers in conflict with lovers of blue jeans? It seldom if ever happens because beer and blue jean lovers get what they want. Wine and three-piece suit lovers get what they want and they all can live in peace with one another.

It would be easy to create conflict among these people. Instead of free choice and private decision-making, clothing and beverage decisions could be made in the political arena. In other words, have a democratic majority-rule process to decide what drinks and clothing that would be allowed. Then we would see wine lovers organized against beer lovers, and blue jean lovers organized against three-piece suit lovers. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. Why? The prime feature of political decision-making is that it's a zero-sum game. One person's gain is of necessity another person's loss. That is if wine lovers won, beer lovers lose. As such, political decision-making and allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market decision-making and allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict.

Take the issue of prayers in school as an example. I think that everyone, except a maniacal tyrant, would agree that a parent has the right to decide whether his child will recite a morning prayer in school. Similarly, a parent has a right to decide that his child will not recite a morning prayer. Conflict arises because schools are government owned. That means it is a political decision whether prayers will be permitted or not. A win for one parent means a loss for another parent. The losing parent, in order to get what he wants, would have to muster up private school tuition while continuing to pay taxes for a school for which he has no use. If education were only government financed, as opposed to being government financed and produced, say through education vouchers, the conflict would be reduced. Both parents could have their wishes fulfilled by enrolling their child in a private school of their choice and instead of being enemies, they could be friends.

Conflict in education is just one minor example of how government allocation can raise the potential for conflict. Others would include government-backed allocation of jobs and education slots by race and sex, plus the current large conflict over government allocation of health services. Interestingly enough, the very people in our society who protest the loudest against human conflict and violence are the very ones calling for increased government resource allocation. These people fail to recognize or even wonder why our nation, with people of every race, ethnic group and religious group, has managed to live together relatively harmoniously. In their countries of origin, the same ethnic, racial and religious groups have been trying to slaughter one another for centuries. A good part of the answer is that in the United States, there was little to be gained from being a Frenchman, a German, a Jew, a Protestant or a Catholic. The reason it did not pay was because for most of our history, government played a small part in our lives. When there's significant government allocation of resources, the most effective means of organizing for the gains are those proven most divisive, such as race, ethnicity, religion and region.

As our nation forsakes our founders' wisdom of constitutional limitations placed on Washington, we raise the potential for conflict.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Somebody say something?

Perhaps it was your conscience telling you to quit believing in half-truths and false ideologies....man is born with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government's sole purpose is to protect those "natural rights".... Anything else is basically a government slowly becoming tyranical. Yes, tyranical....of course that is if you believe people should be free to live and direct their lives in their own self-interest.

Dear Andrew,

You forget that at the end of the day Obama is still a politician. Politician's self-interest is getting re-elected period. You and other progressives baffle me when it comes to expecting things from our elected leaders. You guys are quick to criticize the corruption and the bad policies our government leaders implement....BUT, then you turn around and want to give these "same politicians" more power and more of our "property" to control and regulate. Why on earth any rational human being would willingly give politicians more of our rights and property to control is beyond me. Politicians are human beings not angels. Because of that fact, it is in all our best interests to limit their power and control over our lives and property. All one needs to do is look back in history and see what happens when people are forced or compelled to give up individual liberties for public security.

Barack Obama, Stooge of Corporate America?

Up till now I have been reluctant to criticize Mr. Obama because of his relative inexperience and the enormous difficulty of his office. However, at this point I beginning to be troubled by a pattern to his actions.

Mr. Obama, when he was still in the US Senate, voted to approve the $700 billion for TARP. The record of his vote can be found at:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call...

Since becoming president, Mr. Obama on relatively small issues, has taken a liberal position. But on the big issues, he appears no better than a Republican. For example:

1. He re-nominated Ben Bernake as Fed Chairman - Are we really to believe there was not one Democrat in all of the country who could have served as Fed Chairman?

2. Allowing offshore drilling of oil - I thought Mr. Obama is the "green" president

3. Encouraging the development of nuclear energy - ditto

4. Praising the passing of the "healthcare" Bill by Congress as "historic" - taking the Bill out of context, anything done on healthcare is historic. But in light of his own vote to give Wall Street Republicans $700 billion no questions asked, the Bill is not "historic", unless he means a "historic letdown."

There is a gulf between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and his actions. Surely, Mr. Obama himself is aware of this disparity. If so, what is the motivation for continuing it?

Dearest Andrew,

Please accept my apology for personally attacking you in my last posting.

I hope one day you and those that share your ideals about health care "wake-up" and see that government isn't the solution for solving our health care problems. To quote from Dr. Williams in his column "Affordable Health Care"......"Well over 50 percent of all health care expenditures are made by government. Where government spends, government regulates. It's truly amazing that Americans who are dissatisfied with the current level of socialized medicine in the U.S. are asking for more of what created the problem in the first place. Anyone thinking that an American version of socialized health care will differ from that found in Canada, Britain, Sweden, France and elsewhere are whistling Dixie."

.....I have given you countless articles from Dr. Walter Williams ( an actual Economics Professor at George Mason University) and quotes from our Founding Fathers. I would also direct you to read articles written by Dr. Thomas Sowell (another well known Economics Professor) concerning health care. Perhaps read something by Milton Friedman. "Losing argument" you say. Really? Perhaps in the political arena. But that arena cares little for what is right and moral. That arena is more about serving political interests than serving private interests. Giving up private interests (rights) for the safety and security of "public interests" is not a path I care to go down nor should it be a path people like Senator Sanders should be advocating for our country. I know history and I know what our Founding Fathers had to say about the role government should have in our lives. I respect their words and wisdom much more than those words spoken by a Bernie Sanders or a Dennis Kucinich today.

Here are a few words from our Founding Fathers and other enlightened people from that era you might enjoy ruminating over in your free time...

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ."
-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
-- French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
--John Adams in a Letter to Abigail Adams (July 7, 1775)

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."
-- James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin, Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993

.....and you still say I have a "losing argument"? If so, then you must also say that our Founding Fathers ideals and philosophy concerning limited government are also losing arguments.

roscoe82,

I find it interesting that opponents of healthcare reform, such as yourself, regularly engage in personal attacks. Why is that? Maybe it's because they know they have a losing argument.

Whether I think healthcare is a right is unimportant. However, I will say this: I wouldn't trust a physician who didn't think it's a right.

Now, let me get this straight......we're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief whodidn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What the heck could possibly go wrong?

The fact that you fell asleep after the first line isn't at all surprising... again. The very fact that you don't read explains your ignorance and lack of intellect concerning government and the economic decisions/policies they are making for us and the impact it has on us today and in the future. Anyone who advocates health care as a "right" might like to read what Dr. Walter Williams wrote recently called "Is Health Care a Right". Andrew this probably means nap time for you....

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010



Is Health Care a Right?



Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.

Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

I have to say I found Mr. Obama's speech after the House passed the "healthcare" bill sickening. The gap between reality and rhetoric was so great, it was unreal. The Bill doesn't even include Mr. Obama's own proposal to give the federal government the authority to stop insurance rate increases. And this was the Bill he was praising so effusively? It appears to me he was saying something like this: "We, the Administration and the Congress, had the choice of doing nothing or almost nothing. We took the High Road, and did almost nothing. Generation after generation will sing our praises. They will say, 'Obama and Congress could have done nothing, but they did instead almost nothing.' This will go done in the history books as one of the greatest achievements in Human History, equal to the Ancient Greeks or building the Pyramids."

According to testimony before the House Rules Committee, all the residents of Libby, Montana (population: 3,000) will be eligible for Medicare regardless of age if the House passes the healthcare legislation.

How about that? Single-payer for Libby, Montana and no one else.

roscoe82,

When I got past the first line, I fell asleep.

Its more likely that when you got past your first year you fell asleep and have never awakened since.

More personal insults from Mark.

Hey Andrew,

Gotta another article for you to read....enjoy! If you got time you might want to spend some time reading Walter William's archived articles on his website.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles.html


A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010



Is Health Care a Right?



Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.

Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

People know where the cash is, and it's not in banks!!!!

Get this: $70 million in prescription drugs were stolen from an Eli Lilly & Co. warehouse in Connecticut before dawn Sunday.

News story at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALe...

roscoe82,

I'm sorry I disappointed you. I'll try harder next time.

As for the 2% discrepancy, that equates to about $300 billion, something you would think a business oriented person would care about, but what's $300 billion between friends, right?

You are right...2% is substantial especially when you are dealing with numbers in the trillions like our GDP. So what you are saying is that you are wanting to give these "clowns" in Washington another $300 billion of our property so they can continue to do good things for us? I don't...it's all I'm saying. History is on my side. And that is a FACT!

I'm not advocating GIVING anything to anyone. I am advocating all Americans belong to one entity that negotiates prices with healthcare providers. This would cut by at least HALF the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare. I don't care what that entity is -- the government, a non-profit organization or the Girl Scouts.

Andrew,

I figured I'd get a response like this from you...no surprise at all actually. The fact you would let a difference of 2% blind you from the major point of my argument that this Government of ours already has too much power and control over our lives and private property is sad and somewhat disturbing. I read the responses to all of Senator Sanders "Unfiltered" postings and it scares me that people in this country still think Government can and will serve our interests better than we can for ourselves. I was merely conveying to you that history has shown time and time again that societies that compel its citizens to "share" for their survival are doomed for failure in the end. Those socieities that allow individual people to "trade" freely for their survival are where you see the best places for people to live and prosper. Its not a perfect system....but it satisfies and fulfills more people's needs and wants than any other system yet invented. Senator Sanders and "Co." (people that share his opinion in Washington DC...Company, in this case, means people that subscribe to his ideals and philosophy. Senator Sanders has never owned and run a real "company" that is for sure. Most liberals aren't much for running businesses...they are better suited telling and dictating how people and businesses should conduct themselves. You know the liberal is the progressive thinker....if only everyone could think and act like them the world would be so much better. History has shown that most "tyrants" Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot et.al all wanted to make things better...unfortunately millions of lives were destroyed because of their "progressive" ideas.) are attacking the very economic system that created the greatest civilizations on earth. Socialism has merely destroyed civilization throughout recent history. Sorry you couldn't get past that 2% thing....I bet those dang trees keep you from ever seeing the forest too.

roscoe82,

It's hard to take your post seriously when you get the facts wrong. Healthcare accounts for 17.3% of GDP when the average for developed countries is 9% of GDP. Gee, in a little while we won't have to worry about what percentage of GDP it is because Americans will be in the poor house.

I have to say I got a kick out of your referring to Senator Sanders as "Senator Sanders and Co." What "company" does Senator Sanders have in the US Senate?

Andrew,

I am and always will be convinced (history is on my side on this) that private individuals left alone by government to make their own economic decisions create a much higher standard of living for themselves than those places around the world where government makes those decisions for the people instead. PERIOD!! Senator Sanders scares me, as do you I'm afraid to say, because he actually believes that they (Government) can solve our healthcare problems. When in fact it is they (Government) that created the problem in the first place. They (Government) have been bought by the healthcare providers. They (Government) gave the legal monopolies to the healthcare providers. They (Governemnt) created a welfare system that feeds the healthcare privders billions of tax dollars (Medicare/Medicaid). Now they (Government) want to fix it for us? Jeeez! No thanks...I've seen a budget debt grow to $13 trillion. Not wanting to see it go to $20 trillion anytime soon. You progressives like Senator Sanders who keep thinking "the fix" starts with Government planning are not very good students of history. Its been tried before....it doesn't work. It won't work. It can't work. Why? Compelling people to sacrifice private property and private (self) interests for the interest of a politician or a political party is wrong and dangerous. 15% of our GDP will now be the hands of politicians whose "interests" I don't trust and will never trust. Politicians and the bureaucrats that serve them in Washington DC are not "angels". And since they are not "angels" I really don't want to give them control of a healthcare system that accounts for 15% of GDP. These guys you want to do our "collective bargaining" are the very same guys who have run up a debt of $13 trillion and a deficit today of $1.6 trillion. Are you kidding me...you trust Senator Sanders and Co. to continue doing "good things" for us? Here are some quotes that might "burst your bubble"....

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.... [G]iving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one...."
-- James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
-- James Madison in The Federalist

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin

roscoe82,

I hate to burst your bubble but single-payer is a simple business proposition. It simply proposes that Americans -- all 300 million -- collectively bargain with healthcare providers on price rather than participate in the currently fragmented insurance market. Why is this important? Because it will allow Americans to leverage their numbers to negotiate vastly lower prices for healthcare. The fact it would be the government negotiating prices is incidental to the idea. Healthcare providers would remain in the private sector, as much as opponents of reform would like Americans to believe otherwise.

Some people would object to this saying it would deprive of them of choice, but this in fact is a vacuous objection. Healthcare is based on science, not voodoo, and the science is the same if you're in Europe, Asia or the United States. What's important is ACCESS to physicians, medical facilities and drugs.

For an idea of how much single-payer would reduce costs, look at Japan which is the country that has the largest population participating in a single-payer system -- 127 million people. The per capita cost of healthcare in Japan is $2,600. Contrast that with the USA which is $7,300. Why is population size important? Because it generates economies of scale, and the economies of scale for the USA would be huge.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2009 AND THEREAFTER



Good Ideas



During winter months, I work out 10 minutes on the treadmill and lift weights at seven stations four mornings a week. Over the years, during the spring through fall months, I racked up about 2,000 miles on my road bike. This level of exercise helps account for why, at 73 years, I'm in such good health and physical fitness. So my question to you is whether you think regular exercise is a good idea. I think the answer is definitely yes, if nothing other than its beneficial effects on health care costs. Since exercise is a good idea, would you support a congressional mandate that all Americans engage in regular exercise?

Instead of simply saying, "Williams, you're a lunatic!" and rejecting such a congressional mandate out of hand, let's ask why it should be rejected. We should keep in mind that there's precedent for congressionally mandated measures to protect our health and safety. Seatbelt and helmet laws are examples. If you're in an accident and wind up a vegetable, you will be a burden on taxpayers; therefore, it's argued, Congress has a right to mandate seatbelt and helmet usage. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to people who might burden our health care system because of obesity or sedentary lifestyles? If it is a good idea for Congress to force us to buckle up and wear a helmet on a motorcycle, isn't it also a good idea to force us to regularly exercise?

There is only one question to ask were there to be a debate whether Congress should mandate regular exercise. Whether regular exercise is a good idea or a bad idea is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant question is: Is it permissible under the Constitution? That means we must examine the Constitution to see whether it authorizes Congress to mandate exercise. From my reading, the Constitution grants no such authority.

You say, "Aha, Williams, you've blown it this time. What about Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says Congress shall provide for the 'general welfare of the United States.'? Surely, healthy Americans contribute to the nation's general welfare." That's precisely the response I'd expect from your average law professor, congressman or derelict U.S. Supreme Court justice. Let's look at what the men who wrote the Constitution had to say about its general welfare clause. In a letter to Edmund Pendleton, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one ..." Madison also said, "With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson said, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

If you compare the vision of our nation's founders to the behavior of today's Congress, White House and U.S. Supreme Court, you would have to conclude that there is no longer rule of law where there is a set of general rules applicable to all persons. Today, we are commanded by legislative thugs who, with Supreme Court sanction, issue orders commanding particular people to do particular things. Most Americans neither understand nor appreciate the spirit and letter of the Constitution and accept Congress' arbitrary orders and privileges based upon status.

What to do? Thomas Jefferson advised, "Whensoever the General (federal) Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." That bit of Jeffersonian advice is dangerous. While Congress does not have constitutional authority for most of what it does, it does have police and military power to inflict great pain and punishment for disobedience.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2009 AND THEREAFTER



Sweden's Government Health Care



Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). That's until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list.

Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada's single-payer system. Canada's government system isn't that different from Britain's. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don't: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.

"OK, Williams," you say, "Sweden is the world's socialist wonder." Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden's problems in "Lesson from Sweden's Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt," published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden's third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden's National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.

Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, "In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today's slimmed-down health care."

These are just a few of the problems of Sweden's single-payer government-run health care system. I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying. We have problems in our health care system but most of them are a result of too much government. Over 50 percent of health care expenditures in our country are made by government. Government health care advocates might say that they will avoid the horrors of other government-run systems. Don't believe them.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, who published Sven Larson's paper, is a group of liberty-oriented doctors and health care practitioners who haven't sold their members down the socialist river as have other medical associations. They deserve our thanks for being a major player in the '90s defeat of "Hillary care."

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2009 AND THEREAFTER



Our Problem Is Immorality



Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, "That's a pretty heavy charge, Williams. You'd better be prepared to back it up with evidence!" I'll try with a few questions for you to answer.

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.

In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That's simple. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

The reason why your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They'll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes. As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.

I am all too afraid that a historian, a hundred years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government but it all returned to mankind's normal state of affairs -- arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC

A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010



Who Poses the Greater Threat?



Bill Gates is the world's richest person, but what kind of power does he have over you? Can he force your kid to go to a school you do not want him to attend? Can he deny you the right to braid hair in your home for a living? It turns out that a local politician, who might deny us the right to earn a living and dictates which school our kid attends, has far greater power over our lives than any rich person. Rich people can gain power over us, but to do so, they must get permission from our elected representatives at the federal, state or local levels. For example, I might wish to purchase sugar from a Caribbean producer, but America's sugar lobby pays congressmen hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to impose sugar import tariffs and quotas, forcing me and every other American to purchase their more expensive sugar.

Politicians love pitting us against the rich. All by themselves, the rich have absolutely no power over us. To rip us off, they need the might of Congress to rig the economic game. It's a slick political sleight-of-hand where politicians and their allies amongst the intellectuals, talking heads and the news media get us caught up in the politics of envy as part of their agenda for greater control over our lives.

The sugar lobby is just one example among thousands. Just ask yourself: Who were the major recipients of the billions of taxpayer bailout dollars, the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)? The top recipients of TARP handouts included companies such as Citibank, AIG, Goldman Sachs and General Motors. Their top management are paid tens of millions dollars to run companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy, were it not for billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Politicians preach the politics of envy whilst reaching into the ordinary man's pockets, through the IRS, and handing it over to their favorite rich people and others who make large contributions to their election efforts.

The bottom line is that it is politicians first and their supporters amongst intellectuals who pose the greatest threat to liberty. Dr. Thomas Sowell amply demonstrates this in his brand-new book, "Intellectuals and Society," in which he points out that: "Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies ... Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators each ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them."

While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision. Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They are pro-control and coercion, by the state. These Americans who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others. A tyrant's primary agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Markets imply voluntary exchange and tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning and regulation, which is little more than the forcible superseding of other people's plans by the powerful elite.

We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine's warning that "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

In my opinion, the Democrat Party is dysfunctional. It no longer is a meaningful political party in the usual sense of the phrase and offers no meaningful alternative in its present incarnation to the Republican Party. Given the fact the United States has had only 2 major political parties throughout its history, it's easy to see the weighty consequences this has for the United States.

Therefore, any kind of meaningful reform of anything in the United States will require, in my opinion, a revolutionary change of the Democrat Party.

Mr. Obama and his fellow socialists ignored one major factor in their attempt to give government control of our health care system, and that is the fact that a vast majority of Americans do not want the government controling their lives and forcing them into dependency on government care. Most of us want to control our own lives and take personal responsibility for our health. We do not desire the false security of being cared for by the State, prefering to work and earn and decide our lives for ourselves, which is exactly what the U.S. Constitution is all about. The present government has decided that things should be different, and their efforts are a violation of their legal commitment to defend and uphold our Constitution. For this they will be removed, and perhaps should be jailed.

I believe my earlier question was answered.

The first thing that is evident in the Obama Administration's proposal is the absence of a Public Option. Why? Maybe Ms. Deparle can explain that or even better, Mr. Obama during the conference. Or maybe we should have the Senate Democrats stand up and explain their opposition to something that was in the 2008 Democratic Party Platform.

The central idea of Mr. Obama's proposal -- giving the federal government power to rescind rate increases -- is almost laughable. What is the Obama Administration saying? That the Vampire Sector doesn't make enough money now?

To expect someone as inexperienced as Mr. Obama to get major healthcare legislation passed is unrealistic, but Mr. Obama's efforts are a beginning.

Just the beginning.

News reports say the Obama Administration will publish its own healthcare proposal Monday.

I don't want to appear cynical (although the Vampire Sector makes it hard not to be), but is this proposal written by the "Healthcare Czar" Ms. Nancy-Ann Deparle?

All management of health care should be not-for-profit - including malpractice lawsuits. The people who have been determined to have been harmed should have their health care bills paid and any disability and lost income compensated - no contest. There would be a lot fewer lawsuits if there weren't huge payouts to the lawyers for taking emotionally charged cases to court for dramatic trials.

As I said before, let's make America socialist, turn everything over to the government, they are non-profit right? Then nobody would have to pay for anything, nobody could get hurt by evil power and money mongers, and we wouldn't have to have any more debates about anything because our wonderful government would already have everything fixed up just the way it should be. Write to your senators and represetatives and show your support for socialism today!! The answer to all your problems is just one phone call or letter away.

Anytime SINGLE PAYER is mentioned, the Vampire Sector howls. Why the anxiety?

The corporations who are raking in the big money on healthcare are relentless. They now have the FDA and the United Nations helping eliminate the things that keep people healthy and out of the doctors office and off drugs. The FDA is implementing quality control regulations for vitamin and supplement producers that will make it impossible for them to stay in business. The U.N. is pushing the codex alimentarius on a global level which will effectively make any useful vitamins and supplements illegal if they get their way. This will create a larger pool of diseased people to whom they can peddle drugs and treatments. God bless the corporations! All hail the New World Order!

For 2009, the "healthcare" sector consumed 17.3% of GDP, or $2.5 trillion. Of course, it goes without saying that despite spending almost double the average of developed countries, the USA's health outcomes are below average.

The "healthcare" sector is not about healthcare at all. A better term would be the Vampire Sector, because that's what it is. It is consciously and deliberately trying to bleed the American people of as much cash as possible. Therefore, I will from now on use the more accurate term Vampire Sector.

Carol,

Take a look at this website that lists the compensation of physicians in different areas of practice:

http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_ph...

One example - Ophthalmology: $325,000

Now tell them they have to take a pay cut.

I do not understand why Medicare for All Citizens is not supported by President Obama, the Senate, and the House. The CBO says it will save the most money and help lower the deficit that is terrifying everyone. It will cover all citizens equally, not just some more than others. It could begin to be implemented immediately rather than waiting until 2014. With the time schedules in the Senate bill, I'm afraid that everyone who is not paying for healthcare now and must begin paying 2 years before they see any benefit will vote with the Republicans who will then repeal the entire bill. People need healthcare NOW not in 2014. People need price reduction, or at least no more increases in the cost of healthcare, drugs, and insurance. I have insurance and every year the price goes up, the copays go up, and the benefits go down. Still I'm lucky. Even if I only have $39 left out of my pension by the time I pay my premium at least I have some coverage. Everyone on Medicare is thrilled to have it. Spreading the risk and negotiating drug prices would make it viable.
I keep hearing Democrats in Washington say, "I'm for a public option" but they don't vote that way or they turn it into a welfare program. Social Security and Medicare are so popular precisely because they are not welfare and they do cover everyone equally. It makes me want to shake them until their teeth rattle!

Healthcare reform IS about jobs. Moving to Single-Payer would reduce annual expenditures for healthcare by $800 billion to $1 trillion ANNUALLY. Instead of the money going to paper pushers and overpaid health insurance executives, it would go to schools, roads, telecommunications and other infrastructure. Stop blowing smoke. It's not working anymore.

It's hard to take the Obama Administration seriously on healthcare when Ms. Nancy-Ann Deparle is the reputed "Healthcare Czar." This is from Wikipedia:

"DeParle has drawn criticism for her lucrative service on corporate boards after her tenure in the Clinton administration. Msnbc.com reported that she was paid more than $6 million, and served as a director of half a dozen companies that faced federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions. Many of these companies have a stake in the health care reform that she is leading.

She served as a director of Accredo Health Inc., Boston Scientific, Cerner Corp., DaVita, Guidant, Medco Health Solutions, Speciality Laboratories, and Triad Hospitals. She was a managing director of CCMP Capital."

From the MSNBC article Wikipedia references:

“This woman owes her fortune to the corporations that she is making decisions about,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University and a co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

“She cashed in really big on her previous role in government and made millions and millions of dollars. Then she divests and all of a sudden she’s Snow White. It’s ridiculous.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31566399/ns/health-...

If everyone is entitled to healthcare, then they are also entitled to clothing, housing and food. If the government would simply take everything over and provide everyone with what they need then we would have no more problems, don't you agree???

Democrats want what's due them: Single-payer healthcare, otherwise known as Medicare for All.

What to know when a Quisling Democrat is lying about healthcare reform? When the sentence begins something like this: "Facing the need to maintain a tenuous 60-vote coalition in the Senate ..."

Of course, giving $700 billion to Wall Street Republicans didn't require 60 votes, only healthcare reform requires 60 votes.

A new newspaper has been created called "The Quisling Democratic Times." Its motto is "All the Quisling News Fit to Print."

Here are some of the headlines:

- Quisling Senate Democrats say they need 60 votes to pass healthcare reform.
- Quisling House Democrats say they're willing to cave to Quisling Senate Democrats on Public Option
- Quisling Congressional Democrats say healthcare for Americans second priority to throwing cash at Republicans on Wall Street.
- Quisling Senate Democrats say raising healthcare standards while cutting costs unachievable. They say Canadian, British, French and German systems unrealistic.

Quisling Democrats say: "You can't afford healthcare? Too bad for you!"

Quisling Democrats say: "You're paying double for healthcare what the Canadians, British, French, Dutch and Germans pay? Get used to it!"

Quisling Democrats say: "Your policy was rescinded after years paying your premiums? Too bad, sucker!"

Obama would have signed single-payer into law if Congress had sent it to him, so I don't blame Obama. Obama is just not very good at political arm-twisting.

The real culprits are the Democrats in Congress, particularly the Senate Democrats, who, like The New York Times, are quislings masquerading as progressive Democrats.

President Obama encouraged Congress to disregard the wishes of constituents and pass so-called "healthcare reform" legislation. They have done so, and as a result America can no longer claim government as being "of the people, by the people and for the people". All those who hated America and what it stood for may now thank Mr. Obama and Congress for destroying what was once a great nation. Goodbye America, you will be sorely missed.

The Senate Democrats are claiming victory, no doubt for the health insurance and drug companies.

But it gets better. Senator Barbara Boxer of California who stated she supported the public option because it was necessary to contain costs now has changed her mind. The following link is to an interview where she stated her support for the public option. It occurs at 1:18

http://vodpod.com/watch/1979716-sen-boxer-talks...

I thought having women in the Senate was going to get rid of corruption in politics and pandering to special interests. Maybe not. Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Has Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and the Fox Network, bought the esteemed New York Times?

The title of the New York Times editorial on the Senate "healthcare" Bill: A Bill Well Worth Passing

Was the end game ever in doubt? If the Senate Democrats think they have hoodwinked the American people, they're mistaken. The healthcare issue is not going away, no matter how much special interest money may convince them otherwise.

If the Senate Democrats could have only gotten Lieberman's 60th vote. Too bad.

The Democratic Party tells Americans not to worry, healthcare reform will happen in the next 100 years. If you don't see healthcare reform in your lifetime, your children or grandchildren will.

Mark ... you're back again ... I think what your posts show is an intolerance for other people and their opinions ... This is Senator Sanders website so I cannot speak for him, but I believe it would be only appropriate for him to delete your last post. You have abused the privilege of posting here.

I see that your tolerance for expressions of opinion that are opposed to your own has led you to accuse me of abuse. Perhaps you can tell me how my view against the health issue is abussive, and why your view in favor is not? I believe that you would love to see any opposing views deleted from this site, and any others you post on, but unfortunately for you Mr. Sanders is interested in all views, whether he agrees with them or not. It is clear in reading your posts that you have one interest, and one only, and that is to put forth your views and attempt to belittle those who oppose them. My posts are statements of fact and opinion, and are as valid as any other posts here, and suggesting that they be deleted clearly shows who is tolerant and who is not. This is one reason why Mr. Sanders is the author of this site, and you are not.

Whatever comes out of congress with the label "healthcare reform" will be anything but. Forcing everyone to pay into a system of insurance they may not want or have a use for, and then deciding what will and will not be covered, can hardly be considered a productive and positive course of action. The medicare program is a glaring example of what we can expect from government run healthcare. Who is Congress supposed to answer to? Only those from their own party? How about ALL the people in their home district that they swore to represent when they took office? I wonder how many of them have ever read, let alone understand, the purpose given their office by the U.S. Constitution. The common activity has generally been to "interpret" the document in a way that suits their own agenda. America is not the free and dynamic nation it once was, having been twisted and weakened by power seekers and liberals who wish to play Robin Hood, claiming it's unfair for one to have more than another, regadless of what they did to earn it. An ever growing number of Americans are lazy, poorly educated, and misinformed about almost every aspect of what America is supposed to be about. America is supposed to be a federal republic founded on Constitutional principles, not a socialist democracy in which the majority dictates to evryone else. Healthcare reform starts with each individual, and no amount of insurance is going to make any difference in anyones health, because the medical system itself will remain the same, little more than an outlet for dangerous drugs and largely ineffective procedures that attempt to cover up the symptoms of sickness while doing nothing to find and eliminate the cause. Most of the illnesses in America are caused by a lack of appropriate self care. That means eating real and wholesome food, getting enough exercise to keep your body from breaking down, and educating yourself as to why these things are important. Unfortunately, most Americans are content to accept the lie that doctors and drugs are the best way to deal with their health, or lack of it. But I know the retort perfectly well, America is sicker and spending more on healthcare than the rest of the world because they don't have insurance, and if we can insure everyone then they will all become healthy and we will spend alot less. If you believe that, then please explain to me how that works so I can be enlightened. I doubt anyone can do that.

I understand that many Americans (about 34% http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db01.pdf) are suffering from the health effects of obesity, but that leaves 66% of Americans, the vast majority, whose health problems cannot be blamed on obesity. I am not overweight, I do not lack appropriate self-care, I eat real wholesome food, and I still need regular medical attention. So please explain to me why other people being obese means I should not get medical care?

I did not say that anyone should not get medical care. But I will say there is no reason why I should be forced to help pay for someone elses medical care, or to buy medical insurance that I do not want. I will also say that America is becoming a nation of people who are dependent on government, and that is what is destroying the nation. When it finally becomes clear that the government will make your decisions for you, and that there is little allowance for independent thought and decision making in your life, then you will realize the price you paid for medical care, and whatever else you get from the government. On that day, remember that you have what you wanted, and that someone told you it would not be free.

I really doubt you would be forced to help pay for someone else's medical care since that burden will most likely fall on those in the highest income bracket. (People in the highest income bracket usually don't spend their time arguing on blogs on the internet.) I'd rather see a single-payer system subsidized by a tax on corporate income than one where individuals foot the bill. The government providing health care would eliminate the number one cause of bankruptcy--medical bills, making society more stable, families more stable.

I found out the government made decisions for me years ago and it didn't have a thing to do with healthcare or insurance. Maybe 150 years ago my ancestors settled on a farm in Arizona. They built their own house, built a barn, dug a well, and felled trees. Can I do any of these? My parents own farmland, can I begin felling trees and build my own house from them? Not without mountains of government red tape, fees, permits, etc. Permits alone cost over $80,000 here. Can I build my own home without installing wires and electricity? No. What about one that has it's own water source instead of being hooked up to city water? No. And if I build a house anyway, the city can declare it a nuisance and tear it down.

This new healthcare system isn't perfect, but it's far less evil than basing whether someone lives or dies on how much money they can pay.

Who has died because they could not pay the doctor? Nobody. Who is going to pay for this new health insurance law? According to Congress, EVERYONE will be required to PURCHASE health insurance. If there is something in the bill that is actually going to help anyone, please enlighten us. Judging by what you have said already, I suspect that, just like most congressmen, you haven't even bothered to read it.

Many, many thousands die every year from lack of healthcare. A simple google search uncovered that. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/...

As I stated before, the current bill is not enough, we need a single-payer system.

OK. Many, many MORE thousands die each year BECAUSE of healthcare. A simple google search also uncovered that. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/errback.htm

As many of us have stated before, we don't want the government forcing us into a system we don't want, and that is what single payer does. Of course, we know that those who favor such ideas couldn't care less about individual rights to choose. According to the drug companies and hospitals, there is only one proper way to care for ones health. Here is another link to help explain the real value of our healthcare system: http://www.gao.gov/cghome/2004/hccrisis/img40.html

I suggest that we fix the system first, and then start sending people to the doctors for treatment.

Only 25,000 people a year die from lack of medical care because the vast majority of people aren't hiding from medical care. A lot of those 25,000 people are dying of preventable, treatable diseases. The amount of care and cost it takes to save some of these lives is so small.

I'm not saying the medical system is perfect, I have met too many bad doctors to believe this, BUT I think seeking traditional medical care is the least likely option to kill me. Doing nothing, (the system you're promoting, the one where I don't have care because I can't afford it) WILL KILL ME just like it kills tens of thousands of americans a year.

Nothing is ever going to force you to go to the doctor when you don't feel like it. If the government were to chose to offer free care under single payer, you would be free to chose to go to no doctor at all if you wished, or free to seek out a faith healer, or to pass yourself off as someone without coverage and pay out of pocket. But if all this fails and you still want to pay whenever you see the doctor, I'm sure someone in the doctor's office will take your $80 if you ask nicely enough. What are you afraid of?

Where do you get the 25,000 figure? The article you referenced says over 18,000. It needs to be noted that the study the article is about was done by UnitedHealth Group, which is a huge insurance seller. The insurance companies, as you are probably aware, are doing all they can to see this healthcare legislation passed, out of their deep concern for everyones health I'm sure.

you suggest these 25,000 are hiding from medical care, can you elaborate?

I will remind you that the governments original reason for wanting to "reform" healthcare was that it costs an unreasonably large amount of money every year. Now the reason is that not everyone can afford access to the system. The probable truth is that they will give any reason that appears to garner more support for their socialist agenda, regardless of whether or not it's true. Why else straddle the country with another trillion or more of debt just to give people more access to a broken and corrupt medical system? So, how did "healthcare reform" suddenly become "insurance reform"?

I suspect that you, or someone you know, have a medical need you cannot afford treatment for, thus your focus on simply getting a single payer plan started, but can we look at this from a broader view? This is about alot more than whether or not people can afford to go to the doctor. It's about a government that wants more control, more power, over you and me. A government that will lie and hide facts in order to accomplish that goal, and a president who tells his political friends in congress to ignore the wishes of their constituents, to forget about the political consequences (ie: not being re-elected) and do it anyway. In case you forgot, or didn't know, that is the definition of tyranny.

I want everyone to have access to medical services, but this is not the way to do it. To do it right will require more than universal coverage. It will require time, talent, and for the most part the exclusion of political influence. Anything less will lead to losses and no gains.

Principle without courage is just cynicism. The idea the Senate Democrats are willing to drop the public option from a Bill that already is so watered down makes a mockery of the words "healthcare reform." The public option is in the 2008 Democratic Platform. If the Senate Democrats are unwilling to stand by and stand up for their own Party's positions, then they should just resign. It's time for the Senate Democrats to take a stand, one way or another, but they shouldn't be allowed to claim victory if they have only betrayed it.

Healthcare reform as it's being devised in congress now is not about serving the American people, it is about developing a system that serves the wishes of the corporate healthcare industries that are paying congress many millions of dollars for. Healthy people don't need the drug therapies they sell, and this reform package will make sure that real health is not realized for those who choose to depend on the system as it exists. Forcing everyone to buy insurance will never change the fact that our healthcare industry does nothing to make people healthy, it only peddles pills potions and surgeries that perpetuate sickness.

Who's fooling who? A Democratic Congress wrote a $700 billion check for Wall Street in a week and after 6 months a Democratic Congress still hasn't passed healthcare reform? They must think the American people are turkeys. How long do the Democrats think the American people are going to swallow this 60 vote rule in the Senate?

The free healthcare mongers cry: "it's not MY fault I'm fat and sick, they made me eat burgers and pop and sit on my butt all day, so they owe me healthcare to fix what they did to me." The health mongers cry: "I can take care of myself, avoiding the bad habits and foods that CAUSE cronic disease and obesity, therefore I have no need of the inefective and expensive healthcare that the socialists are trying to shove down my throat."

If you want to feel at home somewhere, I suggest you post at the New York Times because it is just as much a supporter of the current system as you are. You should fit in perfectly.

I must be winning this debate because you keep coming back.

We now know Corporate America's healthcare plan for Americans: fight providing preventive care, encourage Americans to eat as many burgers and fries at fast food restaurants as possible, treat them for chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes, castigate them for being overweight and then say they're not deserving of quality, affordable healthcare.

Face it, healthcare is about taking care of yourself more than anything else. If you learn what foods are unhealthy and avoid them, if you refuse to sit on your butt and do little or nothing, if you find out what drinks are unhealthy and refuse to drink them, then you will maintain great health and be unlikely to spend much time or money at a doctors office trying to fix the damage done by an unhealthy lifestyle. That is an established and accepted fact of healthcare, and there is no argument against this statement. If you are fat and lazy, it's your own fault, and I have no pity for you and nobody owes you a dime for healthcare in any case, so get off the couch and take responsibility for your life and your health, and stop whining to the taxpayers that you cant afford to pay your own way. If you want a free lunch, try runnung for Congress.

I was watching a news program a few days ago.They were talking about the severe shortage of nurses in japan.The interviewer asked "why is that so"? They went on to say that japans health care system is goverment run.And because their economy hasn't been doing well for some time,There hasn't been much more money approved for the health care system. They noted that to be a nurse in japan,They need a 2 year collage education.But,their wages are no more than someone who works at a Starbuck's or McDonald's ! Could this be our future? I hope not.

In one of my earlier posts I gave a link to a survey of different countries healthcare systems, Japan included. Going through the different country surveys should be helpful. If you're too lazy to do that, then nobody can help you.

I was watching a news program a few days ago.They were talking about the severe shortage of nurses in japan.The interviewer asked "why is that so"? They went on to say that japans health care system is goverment run.And because their economy hasn't been doing well for some time,There hasn't been much more money approved for the health care system. They noted that to be a nurse in japan,They need a 2 year collage education.But,their wages are no more than someone who works at a Starbuck's or McDonald's ! Could this be our future? I hope not.

I was watching a news program a few days ago.They were talking about the severe shortage of nurses in japan.The interviewer asked "why is that so"? They went on to say that japans health care system is goverment run.And because their economy hasn't been doing well for some time,There hasn't been much more money approved for the health care system. They noted that to be a nurse in japan,They need a 2 year collage education.But,their wages are no more than someone who works at a Starbuck's or McDonald's ! Could this be our future? I hope not.

One of the things that is overlooked in the healthcare debate is how American companies that export are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis their foreign competitors. There are 2 reasons for this. First, American companies have to provide healthcare to their employees while their foreign competitors don't since their employees are usually covered by the government at much lower cost on a per capita basis. Second, American companies subsidize their foreign competitor's healthcare when they sell into their competitor's market because usually the foreign country they're selling into has a sales tax called VAT. Part of the revenues generated by VAT are used by the government to provide healthcare to its residents who include, of course, the foreign company's employees.

Only Americans would do this to themselves.

The cost of healthcare has more to do with the way it is used, and the cost of paying for it with insurance, than the cost of the insurance itself. It costs a great deal to process insurance claims, and it also costs alot for a doctor to protect himself from possible lawsuits. It also costs alot to care for a population who have a lifestyle that promotes disease and obesity, and who run to the doctor every time they get a cough or want another xanax. What the rest of the world does is irrelevant to this issue. Americans don't need more government to take care of them, they need to learn what real health is and then start living in a manner that will keep them out of the hospital and off the drugs, period. Until that happens healthcare will remain what it is, a service thats does little more than cover up symptoms of disease, and does practically nothing to eliminate the cause, pumping ever more resources into the abyss. Why is it so hard to admit these facts?

You essentially have the right idea excepting "more government" and "doesn't matter what the rest of the world does." Isn't that naive? Did you know that the lead based cosmetics that are manufactured by the US cosmetics companies are banned in Europe? That is because while the US mfrs don't give a hoot about women's health European governments do. Not only because they have to foot the bill, but also the "government of the people, by the people for the people" is a reality. Unless you are a rich multi-millionaire, and I hope for your sake you are, you objection just shows how brainwashed you are with the extreme conservative media, ads by special interests and the politicians bought by the big money. Grow up, Mark. NJohari

My statement that it doesn't matter what other countries do means we should not be dealing with healthcare hear by saying "the UK has it, Canada has it" and so forth. If you think that more government is the answer, then I suggest you move to a country where more government is available to you. I also need to point out that saying things like "grow up, Mark" indicate a real need on your part to do some growing up.

My apology, Mark. I must have touched a sensitive nerve by saying, "Grow up, Mark." Probably something your mommy dearest used to say. Of course, when you say: "I suggest you move to a country where more government is available to you", you have shown a remarkable maturity! Oops, I forgot. We being "the Greatest Country" in the world, MUST NOT IMITATE other countries; we HAVE to be leader to the rest of the world. Pizza anyone. Oh, that is Italian!

You are similar to Andrew, do you guys go to the same school? It's obvious neither of you are adults. Please find a forum appropriate to your age group.

You said: "f you think that more government is the answer, then I suggest you move to a country where more government is available to you."

Maybe you should be the one moving, at least as it relates to healthcare.

Umm, you Andrew, not me, are the one seeking government run healthcare. Is this issue too complex for you to keep track? Your responses are rather childlike, how old are you?

Mark, maybe you can explain to everyone here why you are here. You are against healthcare reform. OK, we know that. You believe healthcare reform won't change Americans health for the better. OK, we know that. Now you're engaging in personal attacks. Why the hostility?

I simply made a logical observation and asked a question, there is no hostility implied. Anyone reading your comments would wonder if you are under 18 years old, sorry if this is an unexpected revelation for you, but it is the truth. Njohari is very similar to you in this respect, and I really don't intend to waste any more time discussing this issue with children.

It's been my experience that most people who are against healthcare reform (ie., single-payer) fall into 2 groups. Either: 1) they make money off of the current system, whether they be health insurance companies or politicians who receive contributions from the healthcare industry; or 2) they are ignorant of the facts. When people who are unfamiliar with the facts are exposed to an honest explanation of the deficiencies of the American healthcare system, they become fast converts to single-payer. Rarely in light of the facts are there people who still support the current system. They exist but usually are ideologues.

Some people have an agenda and are not interested in the facts. Other people are just ignorant of the facts. I'll assume for debate's sake you're in the latter group rather than the former. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) performs a survey of the healthcare systems of its member countries. I suggest people look at the survey of the USA and compare it to others. They are available at http://www.oecd.org/document/46/0,3343,en_2649_...

Thank you Andrew for assuming that I am only ignorant, as opposed to having an agenda. The OECD report, however, supports my contention that poor lifestyle choices are a major factor in U.S. healthcare costs. It is lifestyle choices that have given America the lead in obesity, degenerative diseases, and a life expectancy well below what it should be for a developed country. It is ignorance and a lack of personal responsibility that has brought the U.S. to this condition, and healthcare expenditures are as huge as they are for this reason. No amount of insurance reform is going to change the situation. The only real answer is to get Americans to stop making themselves sick with a lifestyle that involves little physical activity, soft drinks and garbage food filled with little or no nutrition, and a belief that all can be taken care of with a doctor and a couple bottles of overpriced pills. I would imagine that many who favor the plan being considered in Congress are discussing it over a cheeseburger and fries, washing it down with some yummy soda pop. Cheers!

Obesity is a problem in the US. However, it is in part a symptom of the lack of prevention care in the US. Why is prevention care so low in the US? Because there is a lot more money in heart surgery.

There is also a problem with your thesis that higher healthcare costs in the US are due to obesity. The US has 30.6% obesity while Britain has 23%. While US obesity is 30% higher than Britain's, US healthcare costs are double Britain's on a per capita basis.

It would be very interesting, Andrew, if you would explain what role preventive medicine would play in reducing obesity. Perhaps some nice drugs would do the trick.
There are many health problems other than obesity at work in America, most of which could be avoided without medical intervention. Most people however would rather turn it over to a doctor than take responsibility for their own health.
It cannot be reasonably denied that the poor health of Americans in general is due too lousy self maintenance, again due to poor lifestyle choices. If you disagree, please reply.

Poor Health is a very important issue. You can not in good faith claim it is only up to an individual as many illnesses are now proven to be caused by exposure to toxins brought to us by; "Big Business and "Profit At All Cost" Corporations. And who gets to foot those medical bills? The Taxpayers. All the while the Businesses of America rape and pillage our land and now our HEALTH, without being held accountable. With the Republican mantra that some Democrats supported; "DEREGULATION", our E.P.A./F.D.A. no longer are in the position (as they were set up to do), represent WE THE PEOPLE, not the Corporations. If you have big Corporations lobbying our Representatives, you need Big Government to represent "WE THE PEOPLE" and rein in their greed . That is the price we all have to pay for the unethical deregulation. Funny how both economic depressions came about during a "Republican" Administration. Greed is a powerful thing when you have no morals.

It is a fact that there are toxins which can harm your health. It is also a fact that you have the choice to avoid those toxins, and take care of your health in spite of it. If it were not so, I would be sick and miserable, like those who are desperate for the government to take responsibility for their health so they don't need to. I correspond with my representatives in government regularly, and that is what people must do if they seek change. Listening to CNN and pointing fingers at opposing political groups is just another way of being irresponsible, which is what the democratic socialists are depending on.

You said: "If you disagree, please reply."

Clever.

You are unable to explain how preventive healthcare can cure obesity as you claim, probably because you don't really care about the truth, you are only interested in getting free healthcare from the taxpayers who are likely already supporting you.

The Senate and House should start over. Single-payer NOW!

Count me as a supporter, Andrew.

By the time the major provisions of the Bill go into effect in 2013, the situation will be so much worse, the Bill will be too timid, in my opinion. It will be interesting to see how this evolves.

Dbc2000: Your post reads like a Republican Party position paper. Nice try throwing in the only Republican, Dick Cheney, at the end to make it look otherwise.

Interesting. You are completely wrong, of course, since Mark Foley is a Republican. And I'm a libertarian. So I suppose I should parrot you by saying "nice try"?

And no one responds to these questions when I post them. Ever.

As to your comment, if the major provisions of the bill don't go into effect until after the next presidential election, we could have an entirely different government running our health care. Why not just look at the solutions we can make now that will work no matter who is in office? I don't get why you or the White House won't even discuss breaking the ties between employment and insurance.

Take a look at this list of health insurance companies by state: http://www.usa-healthinsurance.com/insurance-co...

Clearly, selection is not a problem for most States. As for State standards, you're right, they're meaningless. What's the point of having standards if an insurance company can terminate your policy when it sees fit.

You say you're a Libertarian. Alright. The US has a healthcare system that most closely approximates a free market in the entire world and yet the US has the most expensive system in the world that provides mediocre outcomes. I believe it's reasonable to say the free market has failed.

Again, states require you to purchase insurance you do not need. If there are a million insurance companies in your state but the government has mandated that they all have to cover these procedures, then prices will not go down. Neither will malpractice insurance if we don't inject better medical science into our courtrooms.

The health care system is this country is not a free market system. I don't have any idea why you would think that.

Do you support sending people to jail if they don't buy health insurance?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

The appropriateness of State standards are in the eye of the beholder. To you, they may seem unnecessary, to someone else, quite otherwise. As for malpractice, the evidence to date shows that tort reform would be of marginal benefit to the healthcare system. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, only that people shouldn't have grandiose expectations of its benefits.

I didn't say the healthcare system is a free market system. I said it most closely approximates one in the entire world.

The healthcare reform Bill passed by the House is seriously flawed because it had to compromise with special interests. In an ideal world I would have preferred a single-payer system.

My right to dissent with my dollar is as important as my right to dissent with my speech. Who are you to decide for me that I have to buy medical care from government? If I do not support the practices of a hospital or an insurance company in a free market system, I stop paying them and move to support another company. If I am taxed to support government programs, how do I stop supporting them? You are taking my rights.

You are not only taking away my right to dissent, you are installing as a moral authority a party now heading by a man who opposes the right of gay people to be married. In other words, someone whose views I find so morally repugnant that I would not allow them in my home. Why do you think that you have the right to do that to another person?

We are all for the same thing -- health care for everyone, a safety net for everyone -- but our methodology is what differs.

This is whom you implied, maybe "Intellect Delinquency". You support a "free market" system and yet it is the Corporations that only have a voice. "Free market" means the health and welfare of the people take second, and I don't know about you, but we as a nation can not proceed without the very backbone of "We the People". So yes I did address one of your questions and still wasted your time. You have a right for dissent but so does everyone whom replies to your dissent. I would rather use my taxpayer dollars to pay for medical costs than having my monies go to "For Profit" Corporations as we, the taxpayers, subsidize those "For Profit", "free market" industries. What is "free market" about that? What is "free market" when you rob the Americans by taking out jobs out of this Country to exploit cheap labor and in turn losing that tax base to keep America strong? There is not one "Free" thing about this. Tax dollars used to support "For Profit" businesses should be a crime. We all have suffer economic disaster with this "free market" guise.
Who are you to tell me, a consumer, that I can not chose to pay a "regulated" Health system, but I have to pay a "unregulated" Insurance company that take premiums to use against a persons own best interests. Sounds to me that you are happy with your insurance and bully to you, as we should all be as lucky.
An important point Is when I said, supposed "Christian Nation" I am noting the blurring of the line to our Constitution between separation of "Church and State". Remember the "Christian right" brought to us by a "right" wing agenda along with the "free market system", the "trickle down" theory and "deregulations" at all costs? All these decisions were based on the best interests of business, not you or I. They just sold you and many others that bag of goodies. Our President's morals should not be an issue, as we vote in our states representatives to represent our dissent. If that was not the case Our President would now have a single-payer health care system.

I can't make sense of your extremely poor writing, much less what point you're trying to make. There are so many logical fallacies and so much religious thinking here that it hurts my head to read.

Maybe you just don't want to hear another point of view. Poor writing does not take away from facts. Let me try to make this as simple as I can. We taxpayers subsidize these so called "free markets" (insurance companies), but we can not afford to make a regulated/ affordable "HealthCare for All" (like medicare) available to the American taxpayer? Don't let your head hurt, go to your Doctor. Fallacies are only fallacies when they are proven to be fallacies. Make your point!

You did not respond to the questions I asked in my original post a week ago. I already made my point. You ignored it. You look at this as a silly, religious, good vs. evil battle, and ignore all of the evils that government perpetrates on its citizenry when blindly granted moral authority.

I'm done responding to meaningless postings from you. Have a nice life.

What government subsidies apply to insurance companies? I think you are confused and misinformed.

Mark, when you open your mind to media beyond hannity, o'reilly, beck and limbough you inform yourself with lot of things, but I think I am expecting too much. I got something out of Wikepedia for you, about Stupidpak-Pitts Amendment that prohibits a private insurance company underwriting a subsidized customers being allowed to murder a woman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupak-Pitts_Amend...
"The amendment prohibits use of Federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, which is being interpreted to mean abortions not included in the exceptions may not be covered in the public option or in any of the exchange's private plans that take subsidized customers. The exceptions are similar to those included in the Hyde Amendment; it also specifically allows individuals to purchase supplementary insurance that covers other abortions. The House of Representatives included the amendment in the Act as passed on November 7, 2009."
See, they take subsidies.

correction: I mean they are allowed to murder. (not prohibited to allow.)

And THAT, my friend, is exactly where so-called Libertarians get it wrong.

NO--your right to protest with, or even have a dollar is NOT equal to your right to speak. (most people are born with an ability to speak, but not everyone is born with a silver spoon)A corporation is not a person. Money is not speech. Until you understand that, we will be a corporatist state and a fringe party.

You are just plain wrong and any regular person on the street knows it.

"silver spoon" "so-called Libertarians"

Who has a silver spoon in this discussion? Why did you use the words "so-called"? Please attempt to better articulate your thoughts so I have some understanding of what's going on in your mind.

A person express their views every time they are freely allowed to spend their money. Every time you decide where to buy food, where to shop for clothes, where to pay for gas, et cetera, you make choices based at the very least on prices and other basic consumer preferences. If you're a vegetarian, for instance, shopping at a health food store or dining at a vegetarian restaurant is a direct expression of your ethical views. If we were all forced to eat only where our employers decided to buy a dining plan, we would lose our important right and ability to make those ethical expressions. You offer no argument otherwise.

Corporatism only comes about by government's intervention. And I never said I was a member of the Libertarian Party, so I'm not sure what party you're referring to as being mine. I assume you felt you had to link me to a political party in order to best serve your views. I vote for the people who best uphold libertarian principles.

I was only referring to the livbrtarian insistence on money as speech, and corporations as persons. I also think that your anger everytime someone disagrees is always evident.

I have to spend money to survive...what if I dont want to. Shouldnt I be free to survive without having to make money? We could go around and around about that, but the main point , is, I feel, that money is not speech. If everyone had the same amount,from birth, it might be, possibly. Thats all. I am not going to go into my entire philsophy about life here. Too boring. The markets are created by people, so , if you believe in them, you believe in a certain philosophy of laissez fare. I think its crap. Any evidence Im wrong? YOu first advanced the point.

I'm not aware of libertarians considering corporations as "persons", only that the formation of a corporation by a group of people does not suddenly grant the government special permission to violate the basic civil rights of those people. Again, you call me angry, you say things are so just because they're your opinion, you call a philosophy "crap", but you offer no real argument. I'm sorry if it's boring for you to delve into why you think the way you do, but don't expect me to respect an empty, name-calling attack just because you own a keyboard.

Maybe its just the SCOTUS, since the 1800's....Ive spent the last year trying to find things in common with "those who think libertarin" (wouldnt want to pigeon hole you!) and I cant do it. You guys will think up something that impresses me and then --BOOM!_ you just start talking crap.

I agree that you shouldnt be forced to subsidize a private corporation (if they should exist at all) and then you say that money is speech and health care is a product...the entire civilized world would disagree.

If you want to know my philosophy so badly (ie money isnt speech) try wsws.org. I am done arguing with "those that admire Ron Paul". I was so tired of Obama, but, youre certainly not an alternative for most Independents.

I dont think that a "group of people" has civil rights, that they do not have as individuals. Thats just saying that corporations are people with a different twist. I dont care is you respect me or not. I dont even know you . But I know alot like you and I am not going to waste time arguing with you.

You're too bored to argue with me, even though you responded to a post I made days ago? Okay. Cool. I find you boring, too.

I dont hang around on the internet everyday. You can ignore it. I dont give a rat's ass.

What I am angry about is that I am looking for an alternative to the duopoly and so-called libertarians, pretent that they are offering something different but they are not. I am bored with ideology and jingoism. I cant be bored with you or not. I dont know you. Its not personal, you know...I didnt call you silver spoon, etc. I was commenting about (what seemed to be you)politics.

I just said that money is not speech. And its not. If it is in the US corporatocracy, it is immoral and should not be. It kills people. And I think that that is wrong and, in the end, will ruin the country and we will eventually pay the price. The underprivileged and disabled are paying it now.

Capitalism doesnt work and it kills people. Thats enough for me to be against it.

The current US healthcare system is unacceptable. Why? Because it has become predatory. In other words, it is leveraging the necessity of medical care to extract higher and higher prices from patients.

You said: "If I do not support the practices of a hospital or an insurance company in a free market system, I stop paying them and move to support another company."

There is only one problem with this view. Most participants in the US healthcare system are engaging in this predatory behavior. So moving from one provider to another is not going to solve your problem. I won't say there is collusion going on among healthcare providers, but pretty close.

Now, there are only 2 solutions to this problem. Either health insurance is entirely abolished and people pay cash out of pocket at the time of illness, or the country moves to a single-payer system. The first option is unrealistic because it would bankrupt the healthcare system. That leaves only the second.

You said: "We are all for the same thing -- health care for everyone, a safety net for everyone -- but our methodology is what differs."

The free market methodology has failed, not because of any intrinsic problem with a free market, but because many providers are willing to sacrifice their patient's health for profit.

Every business profits off of the needs of its customers. The beauty of the free market is that you are free to start your own insurance company with moral practices and put the immoral companies out of business. With the amount of wealthy people in this country (including celebrities who make hundreds of millions of dollars each year) who renounce the practices of health insurance companies, you could easily finance a new company if we had a free market system. There would be no need to have a government-run plan.

If people don't say what you like, do you throw out free speech?

Free speech doesn't kill. Unscrupulous health insurance companies and healthcare providers do.

As opposed to government? Wow. You have your religion.

Judge not lest you be judged.

This all sounds great but how does it get implemented when even the President doesn't support it? Since the government seems to be getting nowhere on this issue, why not support a referendum? What about it Bernie? We love you, but we need to know how to make progress.

Why can't we just buy insurance over state lines? This would open up competition.

Why can't we do away with state regulations that require us to pay for unnecessary and unwanted procedures like gastric bypass surgery or hair transplants?

Why can't individuals receive the same tax benefits that employers receive, thus breaking the ties to employer-based insurance? This would end the fear of losing your insurance if you wanted to move to a new employer.

Why does the AMA limit the amount of medical schools or doctors who can go there? How can they be allowed to do this in a free market? The same question goes for dentistry.

Why, in a time where health care is so expensive and unemployment is so high, do we have a nursing shortage?

Why should I as a citizen give that kind of power and moral authority over to a government populated with individuals like William Jefferson, John Edwards, Mark Foley, Elliot Spitzer, Dick Cheney...?

The Government is "We The People". Right now the only representation that have that power, is Corporations. We as "Americans" are obligated to fix this broken Government, as it was intended to represent; "We The People". Healthcare must be addressed as a "right" not a paid for privilege, and with the mantra of "Profit At All Costs" even over the health and welfare of it's people, has becomes a moral issue that even our "supposed", " Christian Nation", should rightfully hang our heads in shame.

If healthcare is a right, then also is food and shelter and clothing. Perhaps we need a bill that says the government will now provide for all basic needs because they are rights. Of course anyone who knows anything is aware that this has been tried before and it's not possible to make it work. Personal responsibility is paramount in a society that wishes to be free. If you wish the government to take care of all your needs, please make use of one of our nice secure penitentiarys, it's as close as your going to get.

Why are you replying to my post by answering none of my questions? Why are you wasting my time? It might make some people think you are intellectually bankrupt.

I'm not sure what a "Christian Nation" has to do with this discussion. I do know that in modern times, human beings have made "moral arguments" for pretty disgusting things such as slavery, internment camps, segregation, and governments have backed them up. Morality comes from the people, not from government, and to give government moral ownership over your health care is, at best, shortsighted and historically ignorant.

The Democratic party, with a president that opposes gay marriage, is no different than the Republicans at their worst.

I replied and wasted your time on your post because I can. You tout your rights, but chastise mine.
Right now those unregulated "free market" insurance companies are responsible for many deaths/medical bankruptcies in this country. That is what makes this a moral issue. As taxpayers, we subsidize for "Profit" Industries, but people object to funding a basic human right to "healthcare"? As a taxpayer I have a moral and ethical right to object to blatant misuse of my monies going to "For Profit" companies, that claim to be "Free Market". Absolutely nothing "Free" about that. I want the chance to buy into a "regulated" HealthCare company that cares about me and my families, not the all mighty dollar, (i.e. profit). We are human therefore prone to illness. If you can proclaim Democrats are worse than Republican due to a stance of Our Presidents' moral issue, you have yet to read the History books.

Having a conversation with you is like speaking to a child. All companies want to help you in order to make a profit. If a company treats you badly, you take your business elsewhere. If a company treats others badly, you don't sign up with them in the first place. That's how the free market works. We do not have a free market system now because of the government regulation that allows these companies to do what they do and bar competitors from entering the marketplace and providing better business. Are you telling me that there are billions upon billions of dollars to be made from a "moral" health care business and yet none of the millionaires in this country who support government-run health care would want to invest in a new, privately-owned company that could operate under those moral principles they espouse and still make money? If so, you are not a rational person. You are someone who believes what is comfortable to you, who will swallow any narrative that a politician will sell you for a vote. And that is sad.

Putting your words in quotes and/or capitalizing them for no reason makes your writing incoherent.