Skip to content

Why the Right Opposes Universal Health Care

December 3, 2007

No, it’s not any economic reason; it’s cold, calculating, politics. In a rare moment of candor, the National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru and Richard Lowry explain the perils of Democratic control of Congress and the presidency: first, the effect on the judiciary, but a close second, putting in place “a national health-insurance program that would irrevocably expand government involvement in the economy and American life, and itself make voters less likely to turn toward conservatism in the future”. I’m not even going to quibble with their mis-use of the term “conservatism”, but come to the point instead. This group hates universal health care for the same reason their predecessors hated the New Deal: it would be immensely popular, to the detriment of their laissez-faire liberal agenda. This is no surprise. Bush said as much when he vetoed S-CHIP. But it’s refreshingly honest, nonetheless.

About these ads
62 Comments
  1. Blackadder permalink
    December 3, 2007 7:44 pm

    Back in April Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said: “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041201992.html

    By Morning Minion’s method of reasoning, this proves that the real reason the Left opposes the Iraq war is not because they think it was unwise or unjust, but because of cold, calculating politics. In fact, the argument is much stronger in the case of the Left and the war, since, contrary to Morning’s Minion’s assumption, saying that a national health care system would be difficult to get rid of does not imply that such a system would be popular.

  2. December 3, 2007 8:06 pm

    Oh come on. This is one of the silliest posts I have ever seen you put up.

  3. December 3, 2007 8:10 pm

    Please.

  4. December 3, 2007 8:13 pm

    MM — have you considered the effect idiotic posts like this might have on newcomers? Have your colleagues?

  5. jonathanjones02 permalink
    December 3, 2007 8:29 pm

    Both Ponnuru and Lowry have written extensively and in detail about why they oppose government-run health care (especially Ponnuru). Ramesh is an intellectually honest and extremely sharp Catholic.

    I second that your characterizations are silly.

  6. December 3, 2007 8:37 pm

    I’ve know Ponnuru’s position on health care, and have argued that it is fundamentally weak, lacking in rigorous economic analysis, will do nothing to solve the health care crisis, and is riddled with laissez faire liberalism. I’ve talked about this, I think, more than any other subject on this blog, so you cannot simply read this post in isolation of the broader story.

  7. December 3, 2007 8:42 pm

    What’s your point regarding Harry Reid, exactly, Blackadder? That Democrats recognize the advantage of taking a position that about three quarters of Americans agree with?

    MM – I think that’s exactly why the right is so opposed to national health care: the reality would be so much more convenient, and less scary, than the Health-care lobby paints it to be.

  8. Blackadder permalink
    December 3, 2007 8:50 pm

    Matt,

    My point is that just as it would be silly to conclude from the Harry Reid quote that the Left’s opposition to the Iraq war is based on cold, calculating politics, so it is silly to conclude based on the Lowry/Ponruru quote that the Right’s opposition to national health care is based on cold, calculating politics.

  9. Blackadder permalink
    December 3, 2007 9:06 pm

    By the way, Morning’s Minion, you may be pleased to learn that Mr. Ponruru reads this blog, or is at least able to keep apprised of its contents:

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjIwMmI2OGQ1Nzc0MmEzZjhjZTY5Y2M4OTAzOWYzN2Y=

  10. December 3, 2007 9:12 pm

    A number of liberals (see here and here for example) seem to be taking us to be arguing that conservatives should fear liberal health-care policies because they will work, be popular, and thus make federal activism popular across the board.

    It’s sad that Ramesh even must endeavor to explain this.

  11. December 3, 2007 9:34 pm

    I’m flattered.

    But if Ramesh wants an honest debate, he needs to stop mis-using terms. Am I a “liberal”? Do I support unbridedled individualism? No. Do I believe the free market embodies both efficiency and virtue? No. Do I believe in nationalism? No. Do I think medieval policy was in some ways superior to the modern nation state? Yes. Do I believe in an economic role for government? Yes, to the extent laid out by Catholic social teaching from Rerum Novarum onwards. I know I keep harping on this point, but it is something that has always irked me in these Catholic debates, where labels are meaningless.

    Ramesh argues that the problem is “worthless and counterproductive bureaucracies” generating supportive constituencies combined with the belief that problems can be fixed by throwing money at them. Let me addresss both points in the context of single payer, universal health care systems:

    First, there is quite a lot of evidence that these worthless bureacracies are far better at delivering health care than the “worthless and counterproductive” insurance companies who profit motive ensures they spend vast resources trying to weed people out and deny claims. As I’ve noted before, when Medicare Advantage went head-to-head with traditional Medicare, the former proved to be 10-20 percent costlier.

    Second, it’s ridiculous to say that advocates of single payer systems believe the answer to be throwing money at the problem. The US spends almost twice as much, in per capita terms, for health care than an equivalent European country…. and actually comes out with inferior outcomes. So, no, throwing money away is not the problem!

  12. December 3, 2007 9:53 pm

    Ramesh is sticking to the conservative storyline on virtually any government program that helps people, setting up a false dilemma between the liberal approach, which they argue would only result in “worthless and counterproductive bureaucracies[!]”, and their approach, which generally amounts to doing little or nothing.

    The thing is, show me a non-governmental solution that will help the same number of people to the same degree, as soon and as certainly, and I’d see no reason not to support it.

  13. December 3, 2007 9:55 pm

    Oops – you beat me to it, MM, and put it far better than I could :)

  14. December 3, 2007 10:08 pm

    Well, did the Republicans offer a solution to the SCHIP problem, for example? I’m asking, because I don’t know. I only heard a lot of whining from their side and saying that the program didn’t target poor kids, but did they work it so it would then serve poor families? This was a bipartisan bill though, so we can at least give them that. However, I see a lot of vetoing from Bush’s part, but not very constructive or positive solutions.

    Do any of you guys know what was the Republican alternative to SCHIP? And “let the States handle it” is not a valid answer ;)

  15. December 3, 2007 10:17 pm

    And “let the States handle it” is not a valid answer

    Why not? I’d genuinely like to hear your explanation as to why this couldn’t or shouldn’t be an issue addressed by the states. I’m not necessarily saying that “let the states handle it” is the proper response, but why is it automatically rejected out of the gate?

  16. Zach permalink
    December 3, 2007 10:25 pm

    Is this post productive? Is anyone being persuaded by this argument?

    It seems this argument is made over and over again in more or less the same way, and it never persuades everyone.

    The root causes of the disagreement between statists and anti-statists about the proper ends of government are never addressed on this blog.

    People seem to be disagreeing about reality. Classically-minded liberals point to human nature and inefficiency of government as evidence that statist solutions do more harm than good. Progressively-minded liberals argue that it’s possible to do better with the government than it is with profit-minded private business. How can we move the conversation forward?

  17. Blackadder permalink
    December 3, 2007 11:04 pm

    Morning’s Minion,

    The fact that “liberal” in the American context doesn’t mean what you’d like it to doesn’t make the term meaningless. But let’s not get sidetracked. Your post was not about the merits of national health care versus some alternative, but about the Right’s motivation for opposing national health care. You claimed that this opposition was based not on economics but on cold, calculating politics, and your sole piece of evidence for this broad claim was the quote from Ponnuru and Lowry. Are you willing to concede that you were wrong about the quote?

  18. Blackadder permalink
    December 3, 2007 11:07 pm

    Katerina,

    The Republicans did have an alternative to the Democrats SCHIP expansion. Some info on that plan is available here:

    http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=16&num=15254

  19. December 3, 2007 11:21 pm

    No, I am not, Blackadder. I remember back in 1994, the GOP (I can’t remember the protaganist at the moment) said clearly that they needed to kill HillaryHealth for exactly these political reasons. And this broader thesis is one of the main theme’s of Paul Krugman’s recent book.

  20. Blackadder permalink
    December 3, 2007 11:25 pm

    So you think that Mr. Ponnuru is lying?

  21. Donald R. McClarey permalink
    December 3, 2007 11:51 pm

    2008 will be fun around Vox Nova, assuming that comments aren’t disabled blog wide!

    Tony, your comment reveals you lack all understanding of those of us on the conservative side of the spectrum. The worst thing that anyone involved in a political struggle can do is to underestimate the opposition. The second worst thing is to completely misunderstand the opposition.

  22. TeutonicTim permalink
    December 4, 2007 12:38 am

    Is it cold calculating politics to realize that entire generations will be enslaved under more social programs? All it takes is one generation to be born who didn’t know what it was like before the Government took over yet another aspect of their lives. Entire generations and segments of the population have been enslaved by the welfare state and mentality. This will be far worse.

    It’s not even “conservative” vs. “liberal”

    Think of the consquences that having the Government control your health information and acess to care. If you think we are beholden to them for taxes, we’re in for a rude awkening. Kiss any sort of personal health decisions good bye.

    Unintended consquences abound.

    Also – MM do you really want the .gov you seem to think are War criminals controlling your health care?

  23. December 4, 2007 12:51 am

    Tim – in what possible sense is the government paying people’s doctor bills “enslaving” them?

  24. TeutonicTim permalink
    December 4, 2007 1:03 am

    Matt – Money. The tax burden would be absolutely massive We can’t even fund social security and we’re supposed to be funding this as well? Maybe you’d be comfortable with paying 80%+ tax rates, but I’m not.

    It doesn’t even come down to a Catholic discussion. There are many ways for Catholics to look after those who need help. Using the government for coervice power can be just as dangerous as those who use it for other purposes. That’s why I mentioned unintended consequences. Government control over aspects of people’s lives opens doors to many places I don’t think anyone wants them to go.

  25. Mike permalink
    December 4, 2007 1:21 am

    We can’t even fund social security and we’re supposed to be funding this as well?

    Sure we can, and only economic illiterates or deliberate liars believe otherwise.

  26. Daniel H. Conway permalink
    December 4, 2007 1:31 am

    Now its cold politics if actions beget a “permanent liberal majority.” But it was honorable and ethical when the right wing created a security state attempting a “permanent conservative majority” ala Rove.

    Golly, now its seems like sour grapes is in play.

  27. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 1:57 am

    MM — you aren’t willing to concede you misinterpreted the Ponnuru/Lowry quote, even after Ponnuru specifically explained that your interpretation was wrong? This doesn’t seem to be arguing in good faith.

  28. TeutonicTim permalink
    December 4, 2007 3:29 am

    “Sure we can, and only economic illiterates or deliberate liars believe otherwise.”

    Oh sure, we can fund it. Only an economic illiterate or a deliberate liar believes that it wouldn’t come at the cost of something else, or higher inputs by those who won’t collect.

    Throw in socialized health care and we’re in for a real mess.

  29. December 4, 2007 4:48 am

    His “latter-day” explanation is far worse than his first (which has the virtue of simplicity). He is basically saying that what he basically meant to say is that even if universal health care is completely worthless, the stupid plebs will continue to support it anyway. One could easily make the same argument about economically less-well-off inhabitants of the south and blustering Republicans, but even I will not go there. It’s one thing to say that politicians use issues for less that idealistic reasons, it’s quite another to assume the electorate is a bunch of idiots.

  30. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 5:34 am

    That’s a very uncharitable way to read his argument. It’s a quite common observation that, due to a wide variety of factors — including path dependence, rational ignorance of voters, and public choice theory — government programs that may not have been the best idea nonetheless become entrenched. Can you come up with a rational reason to disagree with that argument, without making the indefensible assumption that Ponnuru and Lowry secretly agree with you on the merits of universal healthcare but are lying about it?

    In other words, assume that they’re sincere in their opposition to universal health insurance (even if you continue to think them wrong), and then with that assumption in mind, demonstrate why they’re wrong to be concerned that (what they think is) a bad government program could nonetheless become entrenched. Again, note that I’m asking for rational reasons, not another polemical caricature of your opponents’ positions.

  31. December 4, 2007 8:34 am

    How about how uncharitable it is to call someone “liberal”, which is a derogatory term by those who label themselves “conservative” just because someone disagrees with them and “takes them to task”? And, we must remember, limited government and the demoratic spirit is classical liberalism, because it believes in the natural goodness of humanity to come out when left alone from evil, Satanic government (however, we must remember Cardinal Pell called this the Donald Duck heresy).

  32. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 2:06 pm

    MM — I’d also note that you’ve been able to give a sympathetic account of 1) American proto-fascists who wanted to legislate women out of the workplace; and 2) pro-choicers (in your post calling for a “truce”). This is generally a good thing — political discussions are bound to be more fruitful if one isn’t constantly misrepresenting and caricaturing the other side, but is rather trying to understand what they view as sincere concerns. Why not extend that same courtesy to Ponnuru?

    Henry: Tu quoque, then? That’s your only response?

  33. December 4, 2007 2:33 pm

    Stuart

    Obviously you didn’t read the second paragraph of my response. Please go back and read it.

  34. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 2:35 pm

    I didn’t see a second paragraph . . . I do see a second sentence, but it doesn’t seem relevant here.

  35. December 4, 2007 2:40 pm

    Sorry, I originally meant it to be two paragraphs; you are right, but you ignored the whole second part of what I said. It is very relevant to the discussion. But you will, I see, stick to side points, instead of dealing head on with the issue of government, and the Donald Duck heresy and why the Donald Duck Heresy (as well as Lone Ranger syndrome, which Pell also mentions) shows us that government is a necessary good — that the fall requires government, and any rejection of government and its role is itself utopian in agenda (it’s why so-called American conservatives, which are classical liberals, are contradictory when discussing the government and will want it both ways; they will preach that government which governs best governs least, but won’t follow through with anarchism, because they do want to use government and its institutions as well).

  36. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 2:55 pm

    With all due respect: In the context of discussing MM’s specific post, my comment about how MM is misrepresenting Ponnuru’s thinking is directly on point. It seems much more of a side point to try to bring in the “Donald Duck heresy,” whatever that is (sorry, never heard of it, and a little more explanation is needed). Moreover, to say that “ANY” rejection of government is “utopian” is a bit odd; it sounds as if you’re supporting totalitarianism (anything less would be a “rejection” of government). By the same token, to say that government is a “necessary good” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) does nothing to establish whether government should provide a specific item (such as healthcare or anything else).

  37. December 4, 2007 3:51 pm

    The response is how Ponnuru’s comment doesn’t even discuss MM because MM is not a “liberal” and to use that term to refer to MM is just a dodge of the issue and makes the response to MM beside the point.

    And if you think the whole “best government is that which governs less” doesn’t work to anarchism, you would do well to think it out logically. For the anarchist government which has no government would be the one which governs the least.

    When a Catholic begins to read what Catholic teaching says about government and its roles, and follows the traditional teachings on this matter, they will begin to see how it goes contrary to true liberalism (which, as I pointed out, what so-called conservatives in the US follow).

  38. December 4, 2007 3:51 pm

    Only an extreme laissez-faire liberal could dub the New Deal “proto-fascism”.

  39. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 4:06 pm

    The caricatures never cease . . . I’m not an “extreme laissez-faire liberal,” just someone opposed to the notion of big government giving power to big corporations to have their mom-and-pop competitors thrown in jail. That was all explained in detail in the earlier thread.

  40. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 4:10 pm

    Mr. Karlson — you say that “Ponnuru’s comment doesn’t even discuss MM because MM is not a ‘liberal.'” This is just playing word games. No matter how you define “liberal,” Ponnuru did too “discuss MM” — he explained why MM was misinterpreting the comment from the Ponnuru/Lowry piece.

  41. December 4, 2007 4:21 pm

    Accuracy in description for something which works as a rebuttal is now a “word game”?

  42. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 4:26 pm

    Ponnuru’s rebuttal in no way depended on whether MM is a “liberal,” regardless of what definition you choose to use — Ponnuru would still be right that MM’s post was based on a misinterpretation. So yes, analysis of the word “liberal” is nothing more than a diversion here.

  43. Blackadder permalink
    December 4, 2007 4:46 pm

    Morning’s Minion,

    One of the first duties of rational discourse is to honestly and accurately represent the other guy’s position. For whatever reason, you seem to have trouble doing this. This is not only rude, it also tends to be unpersuasive.

    On the “[o]nly an extreme laissez-faire liberal could dub the New deal ‘proto-fasicsm'” point, Jonathan Alter, who meets no one’s definition of an extreme laissez-faire liberal, has described the National Recovery Administration as “fascistic (or at least corporatist).”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0606.alter.html

  44. December 4, 2007 5:05 pm

    Wait a second, “corporatist” is not “fascistic”; corporatism is endorsed by the Church. And by the way, it is well established that the “corporatist” institutions of the New Deal served to compress wages both within and between industries (Golden and Margo, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1992). You can argue the merits or demerits of the NRA, but the concept is well in accord with Catholic social teaching– that’s what I meant when I said that dismissing it outright smacks of free market liberalism.

  45. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 5:24 pm

    MM — once again, you’re defending the abstract “concept” of corporatism, ignoring the fact that I wasn’t discussing an abstract concept. Instead, by the word proto-fascist, I was referring to the National Recovery Act as actually implemented — that is, Roosevelt conspired with big business to give them virtually unfettered power to have their mom-and-pop competitors literally thrown in jail for selling groceries too cheaply. Again, I discussed and documented all of this in the earlier thread, and Roosevelt’s thuggish tactics here were too much even for you to defend. This makes it all the more surprising that you continue to pretend that any objections must be coming from an “extreme laissez-faire liberal.”

  46. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 5:31 pm

    Blackadder refers to Jonathan Alter. Here’s a conversation in which Alter admirably concedes that “FDR met with Mussolini’s people, there was a lot of fascism in the NRA.” http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=403&cid=2431&in=30:19

  47. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 5:52 pm

    In any event, MM, the point is that even with regard to Roosevelt’s fascist tendencies, or as to pro-choicers, you’re able to give a warm and sympathetic reading to other people’s sincere intentions. So why not give the same courtesy to Ponnuru? You’re avoiding that question for some reason.

  48. December 4, 2007 6:47 pm

    The problem is the normative content in the words “proto-fascist”, which (in my reading at least) suggests that government intervention in wage and price formation can never be justified. You know yourself that critics of the NRA talk about “economic freedom” and the attack on the free market; they are not asking how corporatism can be improved. If you want to discuss the NRA, fine. I believe a great benefit was the increase in minumum wages, wage compression, and improve worker’s bargaining power (improving not only wages, but working conditions and hours worked). As part of the “grand bargain”, corporations were granted monopoly powers that I believe went overboard and indeed had detrimental effects (that is well established). Does this outweigh the positive? That’s an open question. Could it have been done better? Of course, as can anything with the benefit of hindsight.

    But here’s a broader point I will develop in future posts: countries which allow centralized wage bargaining, and coordinated between unions and employers, tend to have better labor market outcomes as well as lower inequality.

  49. December 4, 2007 6:51 pm

    I am more than happy to discuss health care with Ponnuru, or anybody else, just as I am perfectly happy to talk to pro-abortion people. On the latter example, just because I argue that we should seek common ground (in the footsteps of Cardinal Bernardin) does not mean that I will change my stance that abortion is not a “right”, and will never be a “right”. So I don’t know why you are bringing up that comparison, seeking a classic Tim Russert-style “gotcha” moment.

  50. December 4, 2007 7:12 pm

    Why am I bringing this up? I’m just wondering why you are willing to grant that some people are arguing in good faith even if they disagree with you, but on other issues (such as here), you’re reading everything that your opponents say (whether Ponnuru or me) in the worst possible light. Just as you wouldn’t get anywhere in a “truce” with pro-choicers if you accused them all of being “baby-killers,” you won’t get anywhere in discussing healthcare if you accuse people like Ponnuru of either lying about his own beliefs or of thinking that voters are all “idiots.”

  51. December 4, 2007 7:28 pm

    …it’s quite another to assume the electorate is a bunch of idiots.

    Why is there a need to assume something which is empirically manifest?

  52. Jonathan permalink
    December 4, 2007 8:13 pm

    Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. Quadragesimo Anno

    Note that it isn’t what the lesser and subordinate organization could do but isn’t, or has not bothered to try, or some other, related, “inaction” – but what the lesser organization can do.

    I do not think it helps to say that national health care is something only a national government can do, for that argument becomes circular. Rather, is health care for the poor something only the United States Government can do – the answer is clearly “no.”

  53. December 4, 2007 8:27 pm

    Jonathan – show me an alternative to National health care that will:

    1. Help the same number of people;
    2. Provide the same amount of help;
    3. Provide that help as quickly as the government program;
    4. Will be as certain and reliable as the government option,

    …and I would be happy to support it.

  54. Blackadder permalink
    December 4, 2007 8:43 pm

    Matt,

    I offer some such alternatives here:

    http://vox-nova.com/2007/10/22/a-catholic-free-market-approach-to-healthcare/

  55. Stuart Buck permalink
    December 4, 2007 8:52 pm

    MM — You say, Does this outweigh the positive? That’s an open question. Could it have been done better? Of course, as can anything with the benefit of hindsight.

    Spoken like a consequentialist.

    If I misrepresented your views as egregiously as you misrepresent mine, this is what a conversation would look like:

    MM: “I oppose the Bush administration’s use of torture.”

    SB: “Only the most extreme criminal-coddling liberal would object to the prevention of terrorism.”

    MM: “I’m not a criminal-coddling liberal, and I wasn’t talking about the prevention of terrorism. I was talking about torture, which is why I referred to the word ‘torture.'”

    SB: “Well, you can argue the merits or demerits of torture, but the concept of preventing terrorism is well in accord with Catholic teaching – that’s what I meant when I said that dismissing it outright smacks of criminal-coddling liberalism. Also, the problem is the normative content in the word ‘torture,’ which (in my reading at least) suggests that government intervention in controlling crime and terrorism can never be justified.”

    MM: “That is an unbelievably ridiculous misreading of what I said. For the third time, I was talking about torture, and that in no way implies that the government would be barred from punishing all crime.”

    And so on. That would be a bit frustrating, no?

  56. Jonathan permalink
    December 4, 2007 9:29 pm

    Matt,

    Health care on a state-by-state level could easily accomplish the same thing. State governments are entities fully capable of this, perhaps even more capable. Therefore, to insist upon a federal solution is to insist upon a grave evil.

    –Jonathan

  57. December 4, 2007 9:57 pm

    Jonathan –

    A federal solution is a “grave evil”? In what possible sense? We’re talking about who pays the doctor bills…

    Besides which, State-by-state doesn’t meet the conditions I set – there are states that may not choose to provide the coverage because they can’t afford it, or because they oppose it for non-economic reasons.

  58. Jonathan permalink
    December 4, 2007 10:03 pm

    Matt,

    Refer to the language of the encyclical I cited above for responses to both of your statements. The federal government could financially (directly or indirectly) assist a state which could not afford a system and be consonant with subsidiarity, by helping the state to fund a state-run program. However, if a state opposes it for non-economic reasons (thus falling under the “could do, but doesn’t category), then, at least according to the teaching set forth in Quadragesimo Anno, the federal government could not directly offer health care to the citizens of that state without committing a grave evil.

    Unless one is prepared to re-interpret that teaching….?

  59. December 4, 2007 10:35 pm

    I can only think you’re missing something, Jonathan. You’re saying that the Federal Government paying a state’s citizens’ doctor bills, over the (arguably unjust) objections of that state’s government, is held to be a grave evil according to Catholic teaching?

  60. Jonathan permalink
    December 5, 2007 2:38 am

    If a higher organization, in this case the federal government, assigns to itself what a lesser and subordinate organization (a state, county, city, or other local government) can do (not what is unwilling to do, but where it is unable to do, and probably any level less than a state government could not do), and if Quadragesimo Anno is a valid Catholic teaching, then yes.

    Not my words – the words of that encyclical.

    Paolo Carroza has an excellent discussion of subsidiarity here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=984743

  61. Jonathan permalink
    December 5, 2007 1:46 pm

    Make that Paolo Carozza*

  62. jacksmith permalink
    December 7, 2007 1:52 am

    The #1 cause of injury, disability, and DEATH in America is, Health Care. More people die now from contact with the American Medical Health Care system than from any other cause of death. More than from Cancer, Heart disease, or Stroke. More than any other country in the world. Many times more than any other people in the world. This fact is a catastrophic indictment of the entire US Health Care System.

    Driven by greed. And a rush to profit. Thousands of Americans are killed, and injured daily in America. By compromised health care. Cutting corners. Over, and under treatments. And poisonings with all manor of toxic, poisonous pharmaceuticals. Especially the children. America only makes up 2-4% of the world population. But Americans buy, and consume 50% of all pharmaceuticals world wide.

    But the tide has turned. I can see it. Hear it. And feel it. The message is getting out. And taking hold about the fact that we have a very serious, and major health care crisis going on in America. Hurting everyone. Especially our precious little children. Rich, and poor alike. And most all Americans seem to understand now that “HR 676 Not For Profit Single Payer Universal National Health Care For All (Medicare For All)” is the way to go. Like all the other developed countries have done. I have seen numbers as high as 90% of Americans want government managed health care Now. Medicare for all. Like other developed countries have. And like older Americans have now.

    BRAVO!!! America. YOU GET IT! YOU REALLY GET IT! See sickocure.org.

    It’s NOW TIME to bring out the BIG GUNS!! The BIG GUNS!! are you. The American people. And anyone else that wants to help. From now until HR 676 is passed into law. I want every person to reach out and touch their fellow Americans every day if you can. I want you to take a phone book. And call at least one of your fellow Americans every day. And ask them to pickup the sword of HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care For All (Medicare For All).

    Call more than one each day if you can. And ask them to do the same as you are doing if they can. And also to put maximum pressure on their politicians to get HR 676 done. And to make sure their politicians support HR 676. Accept no substitute. HR 676 is a no-brainer. It’s the best way to go on health care. It’s the only moral, and ethical way to go. That is why every other developed country has done it. Most did it years ago.

    I know that many of you have been doing a fabulous job of spreading the word by talking it up with family, friends, and co-workers. And putting pressure on the politicians to get HR 676 done ASAP. The phone calls to your fellow Americans will increase the pressure. And grow the movement at an astonishing, and exponential rate. And I know many of you have been wanting to do something more to help. The phone calls to your fellow Americans is something you can do every day to help.

    Trust me. It will be something to see. But you have to keep the focus, and pressure on getting HR 676 passed pronto. They will try to distract you. With all manor of other crises, and catastrophes. And other plans. Don’t be distracted. HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care is the #1 concern of the American people. Thousands of Americans are dieing daily now. And you or your loved ones could be next.

    There is no good reason HR 676 cannot be passed into law well before the coming elections. Do not tolerate delays. If it is not passed before the coming elections. All America will know which politicians are on the side of the American people. And which are not when they vote. Well before the elections.

    Everyone can do this. Most of you are well informed about HR 676. This truly is one of those no-brainers. Be considerate of your fellow Americans when you call. But be comfortable about calling. These are your fellow Americans. Some will be receptive. And some will not be. Some maybe rude, and mean. Just thank them, and move on to the next. Most will be with you. And if you get a call from one of your fellow Americans about HR 676. Let them know you are already on board. And thank them for calling. Build them up. And keep them strong. They are fighting for all of us.

    I will try to make a second post with just a few of the reasons everyone with 2 working brain cells agrees HR 676 is the best way to go. But you can also look them up for your-self. And read some of the positive informed post on many of the message boards too.

    Lastly, I am sick and tired of hearing how the candidates, and politicians health care plans are going to protect, and preserve the private for profit health insurance companies that have been killing, and ripping off the American people. And now the politicians want to mandate (require) that every American has to support the private for profit insurance company’s that have been killing, and ripping you off. Or you will be fined, and PENALIZED. Thats right. PENALIZED. Ridiculous! The politicians really think you are all detached idiots. CASH COWS! To lead to the slaughter. Don’t put up with that.

    So get on it America. Get those phones going. Chat it up! Save some lives. You want all of America talking about HR 676 becoming law, Now! Before more die needlessly. Make it happen. And to my fellow cyber warriors. You have been doing great! I see it! Keep it up. 1 of 2 post…

    Below are a few reasons why “HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care For All (Medicare For All) is a no-brainer. And some reasons why private for profit health insurance is a stupid idea, and injuring, and killing you and your loved ones.

    Medicare cost 2-3% to administer. Private insurance cost 30% to administer.

    Under HR 676 everyone would be covered from birth to death. No co-pays. No-deductible. No out of pocket cost. Plus Dental. And Vision. For less cost than we pay now under private health insurance.

    With private insurance. You have 47 million Americans with no insurance.

    And 89 million Americans that had no insurance part of the time from 2006-2007.

    And over a 100 million that are under insured.

    18-30 thousand Americans that die each year from lack of health care.

    Health Care bills as the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy. And loss of homes.

    Under HR 676 health care is moral, and ethical.

    Private for profit insurance is immoral. And unethical.

    Profit is the primary motive of the private insurance companies.

    They make profit by charging needy, vulnerable, sick Americans as much as they can charge them.

    Then they make more profit by denying them care when they most need it. And are most vulnerable and unable to fight back. When they are sick. Or trying to recover from major illness.

    Yep! I know you are getting angry. I’m sorry. But I have to continue.

    Under HR 676: we will save 300 billion dollars in administrative cost each year.

    With private insurance: we spent more per capita on health care than any other country in the world. Over twice as much as most other developed country’s. Yet we have 47 million with no health care.

    We rank at the bottom in quality of health care #37.

    Americans have a shorter life expectancy than people from all other developed countries. We rank # 42 in life expectancy. Down from #1.

    For the first time in American history. The life expectancy of American children is less than that of their parents. American children are dieing at a record rate. And are in terrible health generally.

    People from other country’s enjoy a much higher level of general health than the best privately insured Americans.

    Americans are also shrinking. We used to be the tallest people in the world. Now we are down to # 10.

    People from other country’s never have to worry about going bankrupt, or loosing their homes over medical bills if they get sick.

    Maybe you should go take a break for a while before I go on. I know this must be upsetting. But this is just a small part of the sad truth about private health insurance that HR 676 can fix.

    Under HR 676: Health care will be based on need. Not on profit. And high standards, and quality will be enforced, and patients protected by the Government through a dedicated civil service. With the power, and resources to rain in abuses of patient care. Like they do with Medicare now.

    With private insurance: Medical care is base on ability to pay. And profit. Tens of thousands of patient are killed, and millions are injure, crippled, and mutilated each year under private for profit health care, and insurance.

    By insurance companies denying needed care to increase their profits.

    By hospitals cutting corners. And using the cheapest least experienced personnel, equipment, and standards they can get away with.

    By doctors that over treat, and under treat. Who injure, mutilate, and kill patients with unnecessary test, procedures, surgery, and invasive diagnostic test for profit. Who poison, kill, and injure millions of Americans with all manor of unnecessary pharmaceuticals for profit. Men, Women, Children, and babies.

    Americans makeup 2-4 % of the world population. But Americans buy, and consume 50% of all pharmaceuticals world wide. This is a monstrous evil. And immorality.

    And lastly, by politicians that take blood money from all these despicable groups and turn blind eye’s to this slaughter of the American people. And the slaughter of their own loved ones. And them-self.

    Well I could go on. And on. But I think this is enough to get you started making your daily phone calls to your fellow Americans to support HR 676. And to help them understand how important it is that each of them join the fight. And bring the MAXIMUM pressure to bear on all individuals, parties, and especially your politicians, and Representatives. To get HR 676 passed into law immediately.

    This is an emergency. America is in a crisis. More Americans have died from this health care crisis than have died in all the wars in US history. Do your best. Millions of Americans lives are counting on each of you. Including your own life. Remember, you are Americans. You know how to fight for your country when you have too. The whole world is in your blood. I’m with you.

    All the best… 2 of 2

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 905 other followers

%d bloggers like this: