There’s a lot to cover here, so let me preface it with this: Just because certain acts or actions are within the power of the federal government does not mean it should be placed into the scope of it. For example, I remember seeing some political cartoons showing Iraq as the 51st state and calling it “Texaco” back in 2003 at the advent of the Iraqi invasion when all of this was a lot more popular with the public. Although the comic might have been funny, manifest destiny is no longer a goal of the United States, and is not appropriate in serious discussion on foreign policy. Whether or not we could conquer other countries and add it to our number at this point in history is not even a question to consider.
Health Care
Likewise, many of our existing social policies, as well as those frighteningly proposed, are equally improper. This is important to point out, as a recent poll (and I hate polls) states sixty-two percent of Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine supports nationalized health care. Wait a minute; I fall into that category! So does my wife, and my brother, and most of my friends from ranging backgrounds from across the country. I haven’t heard this idea specifically expressed by any of them; then again, I haven’t heard much opposition to it either. I think many young Americans are apathetic to the most important issues of our time. I guess we won’t care until it’s too late.
Sadly, I see this apathy pour through discussion on a number of issues, and it breaks my heart every time; however, here I’d like to discuss universal health care and its dangers to this nation. For the American public to relinquish private sector control of health care to the federal government is to effectively abort our nation’s Constitution. At most, states have the right to implement health care coverage, but not the federal government. This is not to say the current health care system is not flawed and in need of reform. I am only arguing that giving the government complete control of your health care is foolish.
Consider the words of Ben Carson, Johns Hopkins University neurosurgeon, speaking to the class of 2006 at Columbia University’s medical school: “You are the generation of doctors who are going to have to stand up and fight for restoring the doctor/patient relationship, for halting and reversing the government takeover of medical care, for slowing down the consolidation of everyone into HMOs, and to work on the medical malpractice issue. If you are not prepared to engage in this battle, you may as well consider a career in a field other than medicine. You are the future and you are the individuals who can save health care in America.”
Everyone likes to cite Sweden as the example of the greatness of socialized health care; taxes, however, comprise roughly fifty percent of Sweden’s GDP. Also, in many cases in Sweden, it can take up to two years to be seen for routine medical procedures. I disagree with using the old Soviet method of “Dognat Y Peregnat;” that is, to “catch and overcome” by focusing on another nation and trying to outdo them somehow in some area. This is bad for America. We have our Constitution for a reason, and that is to protect Americans, even if that means from its own government. As I stated earlier, our health care system is flawed, but I don’t believe abandoning individual rights in America is part of the solution. I don’t trust the government’s social system’s ability to ensure I get the right tax return every year, so I sure don’t trust them with responsibility for my health care. I’ve seen the way government work takes place. Removing competition and capitalism from the health care system is simply a flawed proposal.
I’d like to take off on two tangents here: First, I don’t think it is proper for any other American citizen to pay for Michael Moore’s colonics; what I mean to say is health care starts with the individual. Some medical problems are unavoidable (believe me, I know), but I don’t think someone else’s poor health decisions, such as smoking, should affect anyone else’s pocketbook; I’m sorry if that’s offensive to anyone. This brings up my second tangent: Too many people are walking into theaters with no opinion whatsoever and are leaving fired up over some newfound information, whether it is fact or opinion. In the case at hand, some people actually leave a movie believing Cuba has a better social system than we do. Effective orators and entertainers have Americans’ undivided attention and are doing a great job at shaping our mindsets. This has to stop. It is time to stop general American apathy and start thinking for ourselves.
Consider the words of Theodore Roosevelt in 1910, when speaking in France to the graduating class at the University of Paris: “It is highly desirable that a leader of opinion in a democracy should be able to state his views clearly and convincingly. But all that the oratory can do of value to the community is to enable the man thus to explain himself; if it enables the orator to persuade the hearers to put false values on things, it merely makes him a power for mischief. Some excellent public servants have not the gift at all, and must rely upon their deeds to speak for them; and unless the oratory does represent genuine conviction based on good common sense and able to be translated into efficient performance, then the better the oratory the greater the damage to the public it deceives. Indeed, it is a sign of marked political weakness if any commonwealth of the people tend to be carried away by mere oratory, if they tend to value words in and for themselves, as divorced from the deeds for which they stand.The phrase-maker, the phrase-monger, the ready talker, however great his power, whose speech does not make for courage, sobriety, and right understanding, is simply a noxious element in the body politic, and it speaks ill for the public if he has influence over them. To admire the gift of oratory without regard to the moral quality behind the gift is to do wrong to the republic.”
Hillary
And now, consider the upcoming Presidential election. It seems like a free-for-all. I just hope whoever ends up being elected President in 2008 becomes a symbol of unification. I haven’t seen a real candidate from either caucus that fills the billet yet. Most say a Democrat will be elected President in 2008, and in separate conversations, most say Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. On July 16, a Zogby Poll ranked Hillary above every Republican candidate. Therefore, according to polls, which I hate, Hillary has a pretty good chance at the Presidency. I don’t think people are thinking long term about this issue, as if they haven’t learned what a divisive figure can do to the United States over the last eight years of President Bush’s term. Imagine the actual “State of the Union” the day after she is elected president; according to another poll, forty-six percent say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton. Therefore, another President Clinton would be extremely divisive and frankly bad for the nation.
Personally, Hillary reminds me too much of Nurse Ratched from One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Although some Americans may be apathetic to a Clinton presidency, I’m afraid the forty-six percent that oppose her would react the way Jack Nicholson did, if given the chance. I’m not advocating violence, but this forty-six percent won’t be given a simple frontal lobotomy to ease their pain. If elected President, Mrs. Clinton’s opposition will not disappear over night. There are many reasons not to vote for her, cited in many new books, but I won’t get into those here. Her supporters, male and female, seem to be focused on the fact that she is a woman, and electing a woman president would signify some sort of evolution here in the States. Blinded by some idyllic vision, her supporters are apathetic to the inconvenient truth behind her campaign, which is the uniform distribution of wealth. There are a lot of poor people in this country, and to Mrs. Clinton, that translates into a lot of votes. Even though her proposals display brazen disregard for the future of this country, she still stands a good chance at the Presidency.
Health Care and Hillary
I seem to recall another Presidential candidate named Clinton who used “universal health care” as a campaign platform; the projected cost of his plan effectively killed it when he took the office. My vitriol for Mrs. Clinton has loomed below the surface for a while, but has been perpetuated by a recent visit to Richmond. She spoke for thirty minutes to a bipartisan crowd on July 17. According to reports, her speech consisted of insulting the President and pushing for universal health care; the method in which she did the latter was quite clever.
Her speech began with an appeal on the behalf of the 9 million uninsured American children. As President, Mrs. Clinton promises to insure all of them; in Richmond, she endorsed an upcoming Senate bill to insure nearly half of them with a simple 61 cent tax increase on a pack of cigarettes. Even though the basis of this action (taxing private sector businesses) might be illegitimate, it’s hard for me to argue against it. Cigarettes are a bane on the health of the United States; likewise, it seems immoral to refuse health insurance to children. Later in her speech, however, she admitted this would be her first step towards universal health insurance.
In other words, just give her a little bit now, as Senator, and she will take more later, as President. Give her your individual freedoms, one at a time, and soon, you too can receive Cuckoo’s Nest hospitality and treatment.
I believe the decision to provide universal health insurance at a federal level would be due cause to rewrite the U.S. Constitution; at that point it would obviously be inadequate. Also, consider the fact that 40 million Americans are uninsured; imagine all of them showing up to the doctor’s office for the first time, because the service is now available. Recent studies don’t take a lot of factors into account when plotting out how to service the American public with health insurance. I’m afraid a government takeover of the health care system would fail; if it failed, it could literally kill us.
