“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Ronald Reagan's Warning on Socialised Medicine

Since this is the subject of an on-going "dialogue" this morning, I thought it appropriate to post.

Listening to Reagan in his prime reminded me of how the man was vilified as an empty suit. To the left he was a hack, has been, B-movie actor. The left said that he was a shill for the right. That's the kind of Alinsky propaganda that the left employs to discredit the well reasoned arguments of conservatism. It's funny that recently, even the left have begun to admit that Reagan was much more than they gave him credit for. Here's his warning on the slippery slope of socialised medicine. It's somewhat lengthy for today's attention spans, but please listen to the end.

67 comments:

  1. Where are all my deep thoughts about Bible Verses on weapons?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry WiO, I buried that story two posts back. I had it in the backroom queue for a day or so and simply brought out "for the historical record."

    ReplyDelete
  3. By way of Tiger at the Observer, here's a Finn's take on his national healthcare:
    we have great medical services at an affordable price, and, in theory, that's so for all Finns. But ah, there's a difference. When you can afford to go private, you not only get first-class care immediately (the national insurance scheme pays maybe a quarter to a third of the cost), but your doctor, who always seems to be a moonlighting university hospital professor, can get you past the queues into the fast lane of his hospital, where specialist services and hi-tech treatment are free for everyone. Quite legally. Meanwhile, your neighbors, going to the local health center, where you pay just peanuts for a visit, wait years to surface from that queue and may literally die before they get the care they need.

    He goes on to say that it's better in Canada where Doctors aren't allowed private practices. Much more egalitarian that way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whit: He goes on to say that it's better in Canada where Doctors aren't allowed private practices. Much more egalitarian that way.

    "I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago," said Dr. Hendricks. "Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun.

    I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything - except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it.

    That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve.'. That a man who's willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards - never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy.

    I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind - yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims.

    Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of a man who resents it - and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."

    Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Beautiful, Lilith!

    Ann, the Anti Ruf!

    Miller's been re-reading her.

    Both Rush and I were more than impressed by the docs and nurses here.
    Me more than he, 'cause he was apparently 100% heart healthy.

    Blows me away to think that some want to give more control over these dedicated and hyper-competent professionals to schlubs like Schumer, Franks, and Co.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let incompetent corrupt bastards make the rules for dedicated, hardworking, super-skilled professionals.
    AND remove all private market forces.
    Makes a whole lotta sense.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "When Men Were Free"

    RIP, Ronnie.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lil, it's interesting how Reagan's tone and words are so similar to those of his contemporary, Rand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Whit, Ayn Rand (that's "Eye-an", Doug, not "Ann") was asked about Ronald Reagan, and her opinion was that he was too liberal. She died in 1982 before she could see him win the Cold War.

    ReplyDelete
  10. RR became less liberal when he acknowledged that encouraging the destruction of young lives was not a good idea.
    Nor moral.
    Real Men admit their mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The liberals I know want to focus on the dymentia Reagan had in his later years and not on his accomplishments. Another Alinski tactic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Whit cited a Finn:

    "He goes on to say that it's better in Canada where Doctors aren't allowed private practices. Much more egalitarian that way"

    Unfortunately that is wrong; it is factually incorrect. Physicians in Canada run private practices.

    That Reagan audio piece brought me back to those years when he was in power and I shook my head at his poor reasoning and his exaggerations. At about 5 mins. he says something like 'nobody is saying we should throw those old people out and let them die with no medical attention - that is ridiculous and he goes on to trumpet a bill which will allow money to flow from the Feds to the States to care for these people. THAT IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! He then gets all maudlin and trots out the old 'if you let the foot in the door the everyone will be forced to ask the government what kind of work they will do'.

    I did as you asked and listened to the end and it was as bad now as it was then.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ol' Dutch. He was a Dandy. Right about the Cold War, but wrong about Medicare.

    It WAS, perhaps, more important to be Right about the Cold War, than Medicare, I'll admit.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A lot of poor people got medical care in Ms as a result of Medicare. A lot more than would have gotten it if the money had been sent to the Governor.

    Today, you can't get on Medicaid in Ms until your life is in imminent peril. That is NOT an exageration.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A lot of small town Docs don't like Medicare, and Medicaid, I think, because the forms have to be filled out properly, and it Does take longer to get reimbursed by Medicare/Medicaid than by regular insurance.

    Then, again, every now and then a group of them will go on a rampage against Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Or, sometimes it's the neighbor's shade tree putting too much shade on their one-eyed susans, or somesuch.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Raising the "Greens Fees:" That's guaranteed to get a speedy response from a Doctor, or two.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Small Town Doctors, I've found, mostly like "Cash."

    ReplyDelete
  18. I remember as my Grandmother was aging and in her final years requiring constant care and the possibility of using Medicaid came up (I think that is what it was) and I believe she had to be virtually destitute before receive money for care from them. Her house would have had to been sold and her bank accounts drained before qualifying. I am, however, writing from memory as one who did not have to deal with the medical funding details myself - my father handled that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The bottom line, bare-bones truth is: If you withhold medical care from the poor, many of them are going to die early, and many more are relegated to a life of suffering.

    If you do extend Medical Care to the poor, and sick, somebody has to pay. The somebody is you.

    Liberals say, "Okay, I'll pay;" Conservatives say, "Go ahead, but leave me out."

    ReplyDelete
  20. In general, if someone requires cash they want you to pay their taxes...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Or they (conservatives) like to be willfully blind when paying as exemplified by the Reagan audio in the headline post.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It is all about remaining "Ideologically Pure" rufus.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah, Ash, that's about the way it works.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, I'm not ezzackly ideologically pure, is I?

    I think Liberals are plumb silly about many things, but right about other things. I think it's horrible to withhold needed medical treatment from those that are too sick to buy health insurance, or to poor to afford it.

    On the other hand, the idea of spending my money for some loon's sex change operation, or "mood therapy" makes me ready to lock and load. I don't mind kicking in for an old person's high blood pressure meds, but he's gonna have ta score the veeeagra on his own.

    But, that's just me. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. In fairness, Pelosi, and Reid started out trying to do exactly what RR was warning about.

    But, with elections every two years, even a "filibuster-proof" majority wasn't enough to get that done.

    With a Super-Majority needed in the Senate, and elections every two years for All Representatives in the house we've got a pretty good "System" going.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Let's see how ideologically pure people are when everyone is absolutely broke.

    State Budgets are be overwhelmed by Medicaid right now. Go ahead, start the redistributive taxing, see how well that works in the good 'ol USA.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In the meantime, all you Conservatives, Relax; You Won.

    The HCR Bill is deader'n Kelsey's nuts.

    The Republic is Saved.

    Enjoy the Game.

    ReplyDelete
  28. rufus said...
    In the meantime, all you Conservatives, Relax; You Won.

    The HCR Bill is deader'n Kelsey's nuts.

    The Republic is Saved.

    Enjoy the Game.

    =========

    <\My Obama friends find my happiness to be "negative"...

    Aint life a bitch..

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Dems could have gotten a decent health care bill, easy.

    Instead, they "Shot for the Moon," full-fledged, Socialistic, open door for single-payer, Nationalized Health Care, and got zippola.

    Bad on them.

    Bad for the people that needed "something" to pass.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Good deal for most of the patrons of the bar.


    they think

    ReplyDelete
  31. rufus said...
    Good deal for most of the patrons of the bar.


    they think


    It's not about health care...

    it's about Obamacare...

    It's about government out of control

    It's about stupid, reckless spending...

    BTW My obama friend, still blames EVERYTHING on Bush

    ReplyDelete
  32. "BTW My obama friend, still blames EVERYTHING on Bush"

    Your friend is right to blame Bush.

    However, does anyone think the current economic conditions would be any different if the Dems had been in power over the last eight years instead of Bush?

    Would the Dems have politicked for the Fed to raise interest rates?

    Would the regulators have done their job any better?

    Would the bankers have been any less greedy?

    Would people have not bought houses they couldn't afford?

    I remember being roundly criticized over at Kudlow's for merely posting an Economist article on the trillions of dollars of dirivatives out there and the potential risk.

    The consensus before the bottom fell out was that the market would continue to go up.

    It's not a GOP or Dem think. The current system is screwed up. The question is who is going to fix it.

    Or at least, who is going to stop the current escalating slide.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "...GOP or Dem think..."


    I meant thing.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  35. Quirk: I remember being roundly criticized over at Kudlow's for merely posting an Economist article on the trillions of dollars of dirivatives out there and the potential risk.

    Now we know the secret of the "Goldilocks" economy, eh?

    I wish I had a job where I get to put all my profits in my pocket (and eight-figure bonuses for making those profits too) and send the bill for all my losses to Uncle Sam because I'm "too big to fail".

    ReplyDelete
  36. You are feeding at the Government trough are you not Lillith? Not as bad as the mess from wall street but definitely in the same ball park for many here and in spades for the Tea Party.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Your friend is right to blame Bush.

    However, does anyone think the current economic conditions would be any different if the Dems had been in power over the last eight years instead of Bush?


    My friend is a moron...

    If McCain was elected we would not have 4x the national debt in 10 months, we would not have 2x the fed's cash... We would not have lost trust with ALLIES...

    The Democrats have proved, by their actions, starting with Jimmy Carter and the community reinvestment act, and ending with the firewall against bush, that they make the simple crooks of the GOP look like amateurs..

    Blame Bush for the last 25 years of welfare, corporate, builders, insurance fraud?

    Hardly, the DEM controlled congress (both houses) for the last 3 years...

    No my friend is an ostrich...

    Nothing he does is his fault, and doesnt want to here anything critical of Obama..

    When I asked about Obama and Hillary allowing the "islamic scholars" into the USA he has no answer (I am talking about the grandson of the founder of the moslem brotherhood)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Here is the problem with all these social programs:

    Unemployment compensation:
    How many people do not know someone who is not presently abusing the system, or has in the past?

    Food stamps?

    Long term disability?

    Worker's compensation?

    A padded insurance claim?

    Is it surprising that people are skeptical about the abuse that will come with universal healthcare? Who will pay for that abuse?

    25% of everyone in Puerto Rico gets some US federal aid.

    65% in St Thomas AVI. Why do actual Americans in America owe 65% of the residents of St. Thomas?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Try and find a worker in St. Thomas that is actually worth a shit? Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 28 percent of African Americans receive food aid compared to 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites.

    Does anyone believe that those numbers are anywhere necessary based on real need?

    Does anyone believe that a new massive federal giveaway will be less?

    Six of every 10 illegal Latino immigrants in the United States do not have health insurance. If I was a poor Mexican and had a family member desperate for medical care, of course I would try and show up at an American hospital.

    If we extend to universal federal healthcare , do not kid yourself. We will be providing it to the hemisphere. Has anyone noticed many illegal immigrants from Africa? They are arriving in bigger numbers.

    All these poor needy people need universal healthcare. There will be no end to this once it starts.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ironically the illegal immigrants coming to the US just want to work, an honest wage for an honest day's work. They will do more for less and run circles around an American manual laborer.

    Give that same worker legal status and he will take advantage of every federal program. Take him into a union and you will not be able to differentiate him from his union brother.

    Furthermore he will become a symbol in the village or town he came from. His brothers, cousins and friends will aspire to what he accomplished.

    Who could blame him? The question is, are you willing to pay for it?

    ReplyDelete
  42. So, we're going to let Americans die because some Haitian might game the system?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I think that an Argumentum ad Fellatiatum, or sumpin like that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You got what you asked for, Guys. Man Up, and call it what it was.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Oh, and T, I don't agree that you're "feeding at the trough."

    Doing a "Days Work," for a "Days Pay," and helping to keep us safe in the bargain isn't what most of us would call "feeding at the trough."

    ReplyDelete
  46. No, I don't want anyone to die, but don't kid yourself about what it will cost, how it will be gamed and who will pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. and I am sure you have noticed that the average American hasn't been doing that well lately.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm figuring somewhere between $1,500.00 and $2,000.00 per taxpayer. I bet I'm not off too far. Of course, it won't all come in the form of taxes. Some will come from higher insurance premiums, Corporate taxes, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The system does not differentiate from the truly tragic needy and the irresponsible that found the money to have a cell phone, pay for processed junk foods,spend $6 a pack for cigarettes, $100 for sneakers but somehow never got around to paying $175 a month for health insurance.

    ReplyDelete
  50. It could, actually, be as low as $1,000.00 per taxpayer. It's hard to get a handle on exactly how much is already being spent on inefficient ER visits by truly sick people.

    Also, a certain amount will be collected in "premiums" from those that aren't paying any now.

    ReplyDelete
  51. That's why the penalty for Not carrying insurance has to be greater than the "premium" on the policy, Deuce.

    ReplyDelete
  52. And, yes, if we can "Mandate" Social Security, and Medicare participation we can mandate insurance coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anyway, that's all a subject for another day, I suppose. It's hard to imagine how h/c could get any deader than it is now.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It's too bad the Dems elected to go for the "Whole Enchilada."

    I've got a hunch, though, that some Democrats aren't as unhappy about the turn of events as they let on, and some Republicans aren't as happy as they appear.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I spend $1100 a month for my health care..

    that is for 2 adults and 2 kids..

    find a way to make the lazy pay? I'm all for it

    find a way to keep emergency rooms clear of idiots? i'm all for it...

    but i bet, in the end, MY premiums will skyrocket to 1800 a mont, all for the sake of "fairness"

    ReplyDelete
  56. My boss's premiums have already gone up almost 500.00 for him and his two children and 200.00 for the secretary in the office.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mass premiums have, actually, only gone up a small bit more than the National Average. About 2% over 2 years, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sorry Rufus, I saw it with my own two eyes. I questioned him, too. I said that has to be for the quarter. He said, "No it's for a month." I questioned him again. I found it hard to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Holy Mackerel! China ramping up for 21 Million Auto Production Capacity in 2012

    That's a bunch'a cars, folks. 4 Million more than we ever built. About 10 Million more than we built last year.

    ReplyDelete
  60. On a lighter note, I had a really nice weekend despite the fact of unforeseen obstacles getting in the way.

    Friday night I had unnecessary haircut and dinner and drinks with a friend.

    Saturday I went shopping and bought two shirts, three bras, incense and wonderful bath salts. That evening I spent it with family celebrating my nephew's birthday. I had several cranberry cocktails and a whole bunch of laughter.

    Today, I did absolutely nothing...because I felt like it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Oh, I believe it, Melody. Nationwide Premiums went up about 9% in the last year, and a half.

    However, Everybody's premiums don't go up every year, at once. One guy takes a big hit this year, and then someone else with a different company, in a different state bite the bullet the next.

    ReplyDelete
  62. In the book of Judges, Samson's weapon of choice was the jawbone of an ass. And it is just as dangerous today. Look at Barack Obama!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Sorry, folks, still learning basic html:

    Ain't Life Grand?

    ReplyDelete