Ronald Reagan on Socialized Medicine: 1961
CARPE DIEM
Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Thursday, June 18, 2009
About Me
- Name: Mark J. Perry
- Location: Washington, D.C., United States
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
Previous Posts
- Southern California Real Estate Market Rebounds: U...
- Southern California Home Prices Rise Slightly in M...
- 71-Point Increase in Philly Fed Forecast Index Sug...
- Wolfram Alpha
- Jobless Claims Fall to Lowest Level in Four Months
- Almost 4 Of 10 Uninsured Households Make > $50k Pe...
- Foreign Investment in U.S Businesses Increased t...
- Map: Drink-Driving Limits Around the World
- Want Health Insurance? Go Out and Buy It. If You C...
- Countrywide REOs Back to Early 2007 Levels
16 Comments:
When people vote @ the polls they frequently vote how to spend other peoples' money.
"Do I want more taxes to fall on the rich, or do I want the rich to pay more taxes?"
Commerce, the choices free people make, are where the real votes are cast.
Unless some 'proponents' actually plan to move to either Canada or the UK, they don't want the downside (waiting lists, rationing, poor quality) of Nationalized Health Care.
Sure, they live with an idealized notion but they blind themselves to the outcomes.
I'd have to classify this as being, in military parlance, as "psy-ops", i.e. propaganda. I'd love to know who specifically sanctioned and/or paid for this soundbyte. No matter--- as every political/social engineering party has produced similar constructs for their own particular agenda advancements.
Speaking of the military, I still remain in the Army Reserve as an officer and within the medical command structure.
One thing that most of us (officer corps and enlightened enlisted) do agree upon, is that the concept of socialized medicine does exist in the US and has so for years. This system is the military model of health care seen within all of our DoD hospitals and treatment facilities. Over the last decade or so, this system has evolved and adapted to the needs of the consumer base and as a provider, I can say that this military model makes a whole lot more sense than the constraints imposed upon me as an internal medicine specialist in the civilian world. Likewise, the adaptations of developing a system wide EMR system (so gloriously touted by Obama and his ilk) have been in place for years and exist as a true working model of how things can be run.
Before anyone jumps all over me about the horror stories of the VA, the DoD system is distinct and separate.
I happen to be quite proud of the DoD structure and do feel that a fair amount of lessons-learned in the continuing evolution of said system could easily be adapted into defining and creating a more nationalized (ok..ok..."socialized", if you must use that word) and fair system.
Of course, the private sector and associated denizens who control the Beltway realpolitik desire to have their fingers in the pie as well---therein lies the rub.
Of course, the private sector and associated denizens who control the Beltway realpolitik desire to have their fingers in the pie as well---therein lies the rub.
Where do you think wealth comes from? The private sector has made this the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. The private sector created modern medicine. They made the "pie". And they have every right to lobby the government in an effort to promote and protect their interests.
As a military officer you've sworn to defend and protect the Constitution. The Constitution expressly forbids socialism or "leveling" as the founders called it. Samuel Adams: "The utopian schemes of leveling (redistribution of the wealth) and a community of goods (central ownership) are … arbitrary, despotic and, in our government, unconstitutional." James Madison held it a violation of personal liberty to seize property from "one class of citizens for the service of the rest." The Supreme Court agreed: "No man would become a member of a community in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. … The legislature, therefore, had no authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold and vesting it in another. … It is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution."
And just what is Reagan's "particular agenda" here? He's simply warning people not to trade away their freedom over their anxiety for security. And he's exposing the agenda of the left, who view socialized medicine as a step toward undermining free enterprise.
As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
While Obama may be as good of a speech deliverer as Reagan, the substance is much richer from Reagan.
It's like being in a restaurant with good service, except with Obama you get a nice vegan salad and with Reagan you get a five course meal with every little personal detail there.
At least that's what I get from the two speakers. If you don't trust human nature, dislike America as it existed 1776-2008 and covet your neighbors things, you probably prefer Obama to Reagan.
I do appreciate the following: "I happen to be quite proud of the DoD structure and do feel that a fair amount of lessons-learned in the continuing evolution of said system could easily be adapted into defining and creating a more nationalized (ok..ok..."socialized", if you must use that word) and fair system"...
There's plenty of reason to be proud, very proud...
There's only one problem with this that I see, civilians unlike the military don't take orders very well...
I think the, 'lessons learned' part does have something for the rest of us when we express our own desires for choices...
moneybagzz nailed it!
One of the few times the commerce clause is actually applicable - allow competition across state lines; let's see where that leads.
Stop socialized healthcare.
Read the constitution.
There goes that "amiable dunce" again. He sure was a fool to think that in 1961, he could know what the world would like almost a half century later.
Anonymous 11:41,
Great post.
I am fine with socialized medicine bashing.
But the right-wing would gain some credibility if it would also bash socialized agriculture, socialized rural roads and electrification (which has created enormous distortions, which then have to be permanently subsidized) and say, the SEC and FDIC.
It seems right-wing commentators are monkey-trained to bash only certain market-distortions, such as the minimum wage and national health
care.
How about some blurbs here on the evils of the Department of Agriculture? The boobery of the mortgage interest tax deduction (pure social engineering)?
I would venture the market distortions of the DOA and the mortgage deduction dwarf those of the minimum wage and Obama's (ill-thought-out) public health care option.
Benjamin -
Republicans aren't believers in market based solutions in many cases, just like the Democrats. Both parties mistrust the free market when it benefits them politically.
I don't understand why you keep harping on this concept of Republicans being free market backers when they only do so when it suits their needs. I would say that 99% of the people reading your comments understand that simple concept, so you don't need to bring it up. We already get it.
~ This post brought to you by the anonymous libertarian
Benjamin-
History lesson: All interest was tax deductible just a few decades ago. Only with the expansion of consumer debt did the US government start taxing interest. So I would hardly say that the mortgage interest tax deduction is social engineering. The truth is that the taxation of other forms of interest is where the social engineering exists.
Anon-
I don' think you are correct. Otherwise, we would in fact see lots of socialized agriculture-bashing as part of the Republican National Platform. Rush Limbaugh etc would fume about this year's farm bill as a regualr feature, and Sarah Palin would ridicule runaway mortgage interest tax deduction costs for people buying $2+ million homes.
BTW, I agree with the sentiment that either all interest should be tax deductible, or none of it.
Better yet, no income derived from work or productive enterprise is taxable (thus no personal or corporate income taxes), but a variety of consumption taxes makes up the difference.
It is crazy to tax people for productive behavior (working, running a business), and then give them a tax break for unproductive behavior (spending on huge houses, sucking capital away from productive enterprises and into luxury housing).
Hey, that's my stand, I see no one else taking it here. Maybe you all know it already. Then you are way ahead of me.
Hmmm... Ronald Reagan getting hired by the AMA to speak out against Medicare/Medicaid? I guess you must be all communists by now.
I don't know how much stock you can put in a space monkey who confused moments in movies with actual history, and took naps during meetings. Gerald Ford once said he was the most ill-informed president he ever saw.
I wonder how Reagan would deal with California's current budget crisis? Raise taxes?
Dan Loyd
Republicans aren't believers in market based solutions in many cases, just like the Democrats. Both parties mistrust the free market when it benefits them politically.
This brought to mind a recent discussion I had with someone about Nixon's price controls. I haughtily told this person that Milton Friedman TOLD him not to do it. My dinner companion responded that this was exactly the problem. Politicians need to DO SOMETHING because the people need to SEE them doing something, so telling a politician to do nothing is anathema. All politicians - Republicans included. But if government is doing it, then it's interfering with the functioning of the market.
The Republicans, like the Democrats, have their own special interest groups that require care and feeding with our tax dollars. They must also win the votes of Democrats because there aren't enough Republicans to re-elect them each time. The only saving grace of the Republicans is that a larger number of their base rejects most government intervention. The vast majority of Democrats worship at the alter of collectivism.
I don't give a damn how many naps Reagan took, how much of a space monkey he was, or how much history he knew since I never wanted Reagan to direct my life. I would prefer an actual monkey to Obama because the monkey wouldn't have designs on designing my life and the outcome would be infinitely better.
Before people decide to jump on the National-Healthcare-Bandwagon consider this.. a patient of mine visiting from Canada recently fractured her wrist while in Florida. The injury was serious enough to require surgery. After making the necessary calls to her Canadian insurance company she was cleared for surgery. As she was waiting in pre-op with IV flowing, her Canadian insurer called back and said her surgery was NOT approved. She was instructed to get on a plane back to Canada and have her surgery done there. Yes, she had to board a plane with a seriously broken wrist and fly back to Canada for treatment! If people think it is too hard to obtain treatment here in the US.. as the saying goes, "you ain't seen nothin' yet" if national healthcare goes through. An 8 hour wait in the ER will be considered "fast track." And forget about having that hip or knee replaced... you will die of old age first.
" don't know how much stock you can put in a space monkey who confused moments in movies with actual history, and took naps during meetings"...
Must be a New York Times/Washington Post reader...
"I wonder how Reagan would deal with California's current budget crisis? Raise taxes?"...
Hmmm, did Reagan have to deal with a state legislature that had an almost two to one Dems vs. Reps?
To answer your question one needs to consider what Bill Stall of the L.A. Times wrote last year: Reagan ended up approving a $1 billion tax increase on a $6 billion annual budget, which was, proportionately, the biggest tax increase in state history...
Is Stall a credible source of information... You make the call...
Post a Comment
<< Home