On Socialized Medicine

***The following is an article I wrote for a publication here at school. I thought I'd put it up here too, particularly since it deals with one of this blog's favorite topics. However, be forewarned, I ripped off a few lines from myself, so you might recognize one or two of the sentences.***

One of the most important, consistently discussed issues in American election-year politics over the past several years would, in my view, have to be that of Health Care. Furthermore, insofar as this particular issue is concerned, an increasing number of Americans seem to favor the introduction of some kind of “Universal Health Care” program. However, in my estimation, such a program is nothing more than a thinly-veiled offering of socialized medicine, and thus, like its counterparts in Europe, Canada and other ‘western’ nations, an inherently bad idea. Certainly supporters of “Universal Healthcare” want to differentiate their programs from socialized medicine – for they remember the catastrophic downfall of Hillary Care’s 1990’s inauguration – but let’s be honest, any system which requires hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and contains mandates for either employers, insurance companies, hospitals, Doctors, or regular folks is a socialized system. As, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can grant such sums of money, without so much as a thought, and easily gain the compliance of the various actors mentioned in “universal healthcare” proposals.

No bonus points if you guess what it is.

Yet, putting the labeling deception of its proponents aside for a second, let’s turn to something that even the supporters of universal healthcare admit: these plans will cost money. No one is entirely sure where all of the money will come from, but they just assume it will be found. Never mind the fact that even the current government-run, but much less inclusive, Medicare and Medicaid programs are over budget and running out of funding. Never mind the fact that raising taxes on the rich or eliminating Earmarks would account for only a small increase in revenue; or that the government is already running a multi-trillion dollar deficit – we’ll figure it out.

However, as we sit on the eve of a massive $700 Billion bailout, we have to be, if we want to be sensible and realistic about our generation’s financial future, looking for ways to significantly decrease the amount of money that our government spends. Saying we can add this or that expenditure and still make things work out is about as reasonable as Napoleon’s decision to invade Russia. Nevertheless, as problematic as the financial burdens of this system may be, they are, in my view, the least worrisome of the three major issues that a socialized medical system brings to the table.

One of the major faults of a socialized medical system was perhaps best illustrated by Rudy Giuliani’s quip during the primary debates that Canadians would have nowhere to go for treatment if Americans were to socialize healthcare. While many perhaps saw this as an allusion to the waiting lines that often develop in places like Canada, it is more enlightening when thought of in terms of healthcare quality. Europeans and Canadians, despite the “free” nature of their own systems, often do come to the United States; because, simply put, the American healthcare system and its Doctors are more likely to cure them than their own socialized systems. Indeed, across the board in terms of things like cardiovascular disease and cancer, the United States healthcare system has consistently higher cure rates than its more socialized (or should I say more ‘Universal’) counterparts. And this is despite the fact that, due to skyrocketing obesity rates, Americans are, comparably, more likely to get these diseases in the first place.

In my mind, this has and always should be the goal of a healthcare system: to cure the highest possible percentage of the sick. Worrying about paying for an expensive cancer treatment certainly is a big issue, but receiving free treatment for cancer, in which the quality is so low that it won’t keep you alive, is a bigger issue. Thus, as any good capitalist will understand, they key to improving the American system will lie in our ability to reduce government interference in the Doctor-Patient interaction and to increase the competitiveness of the market. This combination will increase the quality of the services provided by Healthcare professionals and decrease the cost. Afterall, the highest quality healthcare in the world at a reasonable cost is a much more laudable goal than 100% coverage and inferior quality care.

However, leaving aside cost and quality for a moment, there is one other major, philosophical, problem with socialized medicine. Any “universal” system is also, as proponents will happily tell you, all-encompassing. It makes sure that the things you need are both done and provided for you. A fact which ultimately makes it another in a long line of ill-conceived, nanny-state programs that result in the removal a populace from its own sense of personal responsibility and the often times harsh realities of life (and its finances). When this estrangement between the individual and responsibility occurs, people no longer become accountable to the consequences of making a bad choice. Furthermore, by deferring such accountability and, indeed, personal choices to the government, you also defer an aspect of your freedom to the government. This is because the kind of freedom espoused and celebrated by our Founding Fathers becomes quaintly irrelevant if it comes without responsibility and consequences – as the concepts are inextricably linked.

This fact is why ‘Universal Healthcare,’ in addition to its terrific costs and inferior quality, is an unconscionable solution to the flaws in American Healthcare. For any system that's ‘all-encompassing’ is simultaneously all-controlling; and when crucial aspects of your life have government controls on them, you don't have near as much freedom.

Doing Stalin Proud

Well, it seems more or less official at this point, the Federal Government of the United States has decided to dip into the treasury fund your tax dollars and offer up $1 Trillion to help bail out all of these companies that have been floundering over the last few weeks. That's right, $1 Trillion - the same amount we've spent over the last 5 years fighting the War in Iraq - all in just a few weeks.

I know, not what you voted for either, huh?

Well, I was going to write a little blurb on why I don't like this massive bailout plan, but then I came across this audio of Judge Andrew Napolitano, of FOX News, ranting on this very topic. So I'll just have you listen to his rant instead - it's brilliant:



Indeed. However, before I go, let me just put in one quick word of my own. It should be noted that part of the reason all of these companies have been failing in the first place is because of the idiotic policy of what amounts to corporate welfare. In recent years, big American companies have gotten used to government bailouts - whenever they go just a little bit to far, the government is there to help them out, and make sure they don't totally collapse - what we're seeing this week is new only in the sheer scale on which it's being done. The problem is that by continually bailing out companies, big or small, the government creates a welfare net that these companies can (and have) come to rely on.

As a result, these companies have become fairly certain that, if they screw up, the government will be there to offer a helping hand. Consequently, they can continue to take bigger and bigger risks, risks that they probably wouldn't take if they had to operate entirely on their own, which result in them getting into massive financial messes like the ones taking center stage this week.

It is, if you will, Corporate America's replica of the catastrophe of the European welfare state.

Just as increasing social services to the point of absurdity (a.k.a Europe) causes one to lose a sense of responsibility about one's own life, this kind of corporate bailout program causes companies to forget what it's like to have to be responsible for one's own decisions and to have to deal with the consequences of poor ones. Bailing out people who make stupid choices, be it the crack addict on welfare or AIG, is not a solid foundation for economic prosperity; it is socialism, pure and simple.

In fact, come to think of it, AIG et. al. are a lot more like that welfare crack addict than you might think - the only difference is that AIG's drugs are legal.

McCain Gets It Right On Malpractice

I was just watching a video over on CBS's website of a townhall that McCain and Palin did yesterday, and as I was listening I began to think; "you know, if I was at one of these things, I'd love to be able to ask McCain his opinion on Medical Malpractice Reform." Well, almost as soon as the thought had passed through my head, lo and behold, a young Doc from Grand Rapids steps up and asks Senator McCain that very question.

Here's the link, the question comes almost right at 13 minutes into the clip, so feel free to skip on ahead to it.

McCain, thankfully, understands that "absolutely, absolutely, we need to have medical malpractice reform" in the United States. He also rightly noted that this malpractice reform has "got to be part of any reform of helathcare in America." Indeed, he went on to call it "one of the most compelling issues" that we face. Amen. It's so nice to finally hear a politician say that, in order to truly reform our bloated, expensive, and expanding healthcare programs, we have got to focus on preventing Trial Lawyers from suing the very Doctors which that helathcare system relies on, out of business!

With Palin on the ticket, I'm already very much 'on-board,' so to speak, but if I needed any extra assurances, this good answer should do it. Indeed, one can only imagine what the Lord Messiah Obamarama, who once worked for a big Chicago law firm, thinks of possibly limiting the amount of frivolous lawsuits his trial lawyer buddies, such as the now-disowned John Edwards, could file against one of their favorite targets.

Quite Frankly My World, I Don't Give...

The rest of the world just loves Barack Obama, did you know? Yes, folks, just like in 2004 when the rest of the world begged us to elect good ol' Waffles Kerry, the pre-US Presidential election poll of world opinion shocks, awes, and thoroughly astounds us all with the revelation that the rest of the world is in favor of electing the Obamarama. Indeed, to quote the survey's chairman, "Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents."

How they managed to figure out what, exactly, he represents, based on the meaningless political BS he spouts 24/7, is still unknown.

(Maybe there was some kind of secret code in that speech to the 4th Reich 200,000 adoring Germans, that us Americans couldn't understand, that told them what his real plans are.)

Thankfully, of course, not a single one of these people gets to actually vote in the November Elections. Nope, they have to sit back and watch while this mysterious "Republican voter" class of Americans does its best, over the next 7 weeks, to get another one of these Cowboy-ish types in the White House. (Ok, so John McCain doesn't exactly qualify as cowboy; I know, but we must play along with the International stereotypes).

Indeed, it must be frustrating for these people, especially the Europeans, to sit around, knowing they've got it all figured out, and see America vote, time and again, against their best judgment. No matter who/what/when/where, it seems, we're always voting and doing it wrong. Which, in my mind, brings up an interesting question: why is it that the rest of the world seems so intent on criticizing us for our, supposed, flaws? Afterall, we're the ones who have the strongest economy, the strongest military, the richest populace and the freest society that the world has ever seen. We've been, and still are, beating them - so why on earth would we want their advice? Better yet, put in terms the rest of the world might understand, would the Italian National soccer team, be soliciting the advice and imitating the in-game strategies of the American National soccer team? The 5-0 difference in number of World Cups won would seem to indicate, um, "no".

You see, this disconnect is the thing I'll never understand about the America-bashers, both here and abroad. They always seem to criticize America for how we do things differently from the rest of the world; however, the possibility that all the things we do differently directly correlate to why we're better, never. crosses. their. minds. Never mind the possibility that it's precisely because America has avoided European-esque politicians, like Barack Obama, that she has been able to become the greatest and most powerful Nation in world history. No, that just couldn't possibly be it; at least, not in the minds of Obama-loving foreigners.

Ultimately, of course, the rest of the world wants Obama to be President, not because they think he's the best choice for the citizens of the United States; but rather, because he's the best choice for them. Indeed, in the survey, an even greater majority of respondents believed that relations with the United States would improve under an Obama Presidency (as opposed to a McCain one). Now, the international, pro-Obama crowd would have you believe that this fact is due to the greater degree of 'soft power' (and friendlier diplomatic personality!) expertise that Obama would bring to the Oval Office. They're wrong. And they're wrong because 'soft power' simply does not exist independent of 'hard power' - the latter at which Obama both stinks and knows little of. The world wants Obama because they know getting concessions from the U.S.A will be easier under President Obama. They know he'll work in support of their agendas - and he'll do it all under the foolish guise of "making America a leader of the international community."

Because, apparently, winning both World Wars and the Cold War, being the only remaining superpower and having the most money and most powerful military didn't already earn us that position by default. Oh, no that's right, we have to be a moral leader in the international community - you know, like Germany - which is really rich coming from people who not only are moral relativists, but refuse to label Islamic Jihad as a violent evil.

Somehow, of course, lost in all this feel-good bullshit is the reality that, since the US is the world's one and only superpower, the rest of the international community's natural self-interest will inherently be served by reductions in American power. Any concession we make is their gain. Obama will make more of those concessions; therefore, they want Obama.

Moreover, in my experience there are only 3 reasons that countries deal with other countries; they either 1) want another country's money, 2) want the protection of their army, or 3) are scared of that army. This is why the world likes Obama, even if they don't/can't/won't admit it. Obama will make that army a lot less scary.

Overall, that's why American opinion usually diverges so sharply from the rest of the world on issues like these: we have different interests. (Hell, a lot of the people who vote for Obama in this country will be doing so for reasons that run counter to the brilliance of the International Intelligentsia.) We American voters, as a general rule, look out for and vote in the best interests of our country. We choose candidates who, we feel, will be better at making America continue to stand out from the rest of the international pack.

We like being different. And hey, it's worked out pretty darn well for us so far - don't ya' think?

You Gotta Love These SC Dems

Earlier today, the Chair of the SC Democratic Party joined the long line of Democrats who are so freaked out by Sarah Palin that they just start tossing personal smears around like Santa would candy at Christmas. Quoth some idiotic woman who probably has far too much power over my own goddamn State Legislature:

[Palin's] primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.

Note to SC Democratic Party: We realize you're freaked out, shocked, surprised, concerned, yada, yada, yackity about Sarah Palin - but seriously, get over yourselves. McCain could have picked an f'in sweet potato as his running mate and he still would have won South Carolina.

That's what happens when ya'll nominate a hard left Euro-socialist who thinks we "cling" to guns and religion as your Presidential candidate. Afterall, we South Carolinians happen to like our guns and Bibles, thank you very much.

Moreover, in these remarks, which I guess must be Ms. Fowler's desperate attempt to remain relevant on the national Democratic scene, the lovely chairwoman also recycles the tired line about how Senator McCain made a mistake in picking Palin because she's not going to win him the female vote.

Sheesh, for the last time, Palin was not picked to win over disaffected Hillary voters still trying to rock the sisterhood! She was picked for people like me; Bible Thumpin', gun-totin', abortion hatin', uneducated, patriarch lovin', rednecks (hey, that's the way the international press has characterized us the last 2 weeks!) - in other words, Conservatives. Any disaffected Hillary voters Palin brings in are just a welcomed bonus.

Anyways, with that little rant out of the way, Ms. Fowler, you can go back to controlling my faux-Republican State Legislature now.

And Reagan Smiled...

With Governor Sarah Palin's acceptance speech now behind us, I think we can all have full confidence in the fact that John McCain made the right pick for VP. Indeed, with one hell of a speech, her arrival on the National political scene has truly been announced, much to the (very apparent) chagrin of the liberal media.

Now this grocer's daughter and devoted mother who is despised by the press, has risen to become, more-or-less, the standard bearer for her Party.....er, no, wait, sorry. That grocer's daughter part belongs in Margaret Thatcher's life story, not Sarah Palin's; although I suppose you can probably understand why I might have gotten a little bit confused, eh? Yes folks, with what could only be described as an 'iron' resolve and assured sense of self that must have surely made the Iron Lady, herself, proud, Mrs. Palin not only stood up to her detractors in the media and in the Obama campaign in her speech last night; but coolly mocked them - and practically dared them to pick more fights with her.

They had derided her experience as a small-town Mayor, so she gave them a quick lesson in what Mrs. Thatcher must have meant when she commented on how interesting it was "that the things that [she] learned in a small town, in a very modest home, [were] just the things that," in her mind, "[had] won the election" for her Conservative Party.

They have harpooned her family, and the perfectly normal ups and downs it has been through recently, so she stood up for them, proudly; perhaps with a little bit better understanding of what Maggie meant by stating that a "woman who understands the problems of running a home [would] be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country."

Furthermore, and to get away from the Margaret Thatcher quote references for a second, she got in several great shots at Barack Obama, laying into his inexperience, a man who, having already been pulverized by Palin warm-up act Rudy Gulliani, must have been feeling pretty beat up after last night.

But let's get back to those Thatcher comparisons for a second, shall we? The comparisons work for several reasons. First, Palin's got a willingness to take on the establishment for the sake of reform that resembles the one Prime Minister Thatcher had when she brought down Great Britain's crippling Union beauracracy. She also has this unique ability to frighten her opponents in much the same way Margaret Thatcher scared the living daylights out of people like (former French President) Francois Mitterrand. Moreover, Governor Palin also seems to posses the confidence that comes from knowing ones political actions are rooted firmly in sound political principle. Finally, and most importantly, she's got a toughness that perhaps even Ronald Reagan lacked - that being, I suppose, the toughness that comes from being a woman playing what has, historically, been very much a man's game.

Put simply, Mrs. Palin has served notice that she is here to stay, that she will not be done away with easily, and the she will be a force for conservatism in American politics. However, to be fair, much as I love Mrs. Palin, she has a long way to go before she actually becomes the second coming of Margaret Thatcher. That, as the Iron Lady would certainly point out, can only come when she has consistently delivered, on a national level, the results that she has so far managed to produce on both the local and State levels. Nevertheless, as we saw last night and have seen throughout the last week, the tools, drive and stubborn will necessary to accomplish the, undoubtedly difficult, tasks she has set herself are all there. The conservative movement in America may have just found what it has been looking for in recent years - although we will have to find a new metal to start her nickname with, since Iron is already taken.

Maybe gold will do; afterall, that's what Americans went to Alaska to find in the first place, right? And her speech last night certainly stood out, much they way gold always has, to the 30 million-some-odd 37.2 million (!) people who watched it. But then, the 'Golden Lady' just doesn't seem to me like it will strike fear in the hearts of media-idiots all across America quite the way it should. And given their collective level of intellectual prowess, perhaps it really is only fair that they receive an appropriate warning for someone like Governor Palin.

Although, you know, come to think of it, even those in the media should have been able to pick up on the signs that came out of her speech last night. Indeed, I think it's safe to say that, after last night, Sarah Palin's critics in the Media, and those on both the Left and even on the Right, have been sufficiently warned: this Lady, is definitely not for turning.