Pajamas Media

77 Comments

1. ic:

“The advantage of having the government in control is that it makes sure the fewest number suffer”

Wrong, like taxing the guy behind the tree to spread his wealth around, the advantage of having the govt. in control of healthcare is to spread suffering around, to make sure everyone suffers equally. Conservatives hate equality.

You are missing the most important thing that the govt. can do: print money. The govt. can cut unemployment rate to 0 by hiring all unemployed and print truckloads of money to pay them. Each and everyone of the govt. employee should receive at least $75,000 a year (vs the private sector’s average of $40,000) plus Congress’s healthcare benefits exempting them from the healthcare rationing designed to teach the greedy private sector a lesson. These govt. employees can buy up the foreclosed houses saving the real estate market. They can churn the stock market up creating the wealth effect saving the economy. Only brain dead condervative who hate the poor can object to 0% unemployment, the predatory conservatives who are waiting to buy up foreclosed properties on the cheap can object the revival of the real estate market, the racist conservatives can object to the wealth effect which will certainly help improve a black president’s approval rate.

Oct 16, 2009 - 12:16 am 2. DougS:

Well, when you put it like that………NOT!

Oct 16, 2009 - 12:22 am 3. matt:

i love this lol, i was really getting frustrated when it started but the end of this article is a perfect way to end it. Nice job

Oct 16, 2009 - 12:26 am 4. Francis W. Porretto:

Marvelous. The perfect parody of left-liberal / big-government statism.

I am reminded of a laugh line tossed out some years ago by a stage comedian: “Say what you will about slavery, we all worked steady back then.”

What’s that? That gag is racist? Oh, did I mention that the comedian was black? Yup. Richard Pryor, by name.

What guarantees the eventual triumph of freedom is that statists have no sense of humor. Some are aware of it, but they can’t figure out how to acquire one. Maybe a government program…

Oct 16, 2009 - 3:02 am 5. Dr. Matt:

Actually, a pretty nice article.

ok, admittedly, a truly hands-off approach would get rid of those deadbeat old, disabled, and non-politically connected people who would die of starvation in the post-Apocalyptic Depression that would have occurred if there were no banking system and no bank bailout (e.g. Lehman Brothers). And, with restarting from zero, you would get rid of a lot of bad industries and old bureaucracies would fall in the ensuing riots and chaos.

So, are you going to get rid of the protectionism of 1) insurance protection from anti-trust, 2) agricultural protectionism 3) intellectual protectionism to allow atheism, admit there’s global warming, and that associations in which there is duty of care should also have all legal benefits (I don’t see gay rights; if two siblings care for each other, they should have civil unions, if the goat can assume your care, then the goat should have a civil union)

Oct 16, 2009 - 3:51 am 6. john from cinncinatti:

tell me a story uncle Remus

Oct 16, 2009 - 4:25 am 7. Gary Ogletree:

Slavery is so old fashioned and crude. Debt bondage is where it’s at.

Oct 16, 2009 - 4:37 am 8. Jerry:

The problem with good satire is that in the beginning you don’t see the humor and its arguments make sense. “As long as you have the right people” making the decisions, everything will be fine. Well, we always want “the right people” doing anything at all, even if it only entails washing the bathtub. That is how language gets in the way. Humans need to be modest about whether they understand what is being said to them, because there are so many ways to be wrong, very wrong, or just plain crazy wrong. So, let us parse the language that we hear until it makes sense, so that it does not fool us, so that others do not use language to fool us.

“Liberty” – freedom from aversive interventions from our parents, our children, our friends, our neighbors, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, from our faceless government no matter how bright and well-meaning its members are.

Oct 16, 2009 - 4:47 am 9. Will:

Go play in the street Frankie.

Oct 16, 2009 - 4:49 am 10. Gail:

It is not so hard to get people to believe the government is benign. Indeed, that has been bought by a large minority already. But you don’t need to worry about how to sell your message – the election of President Obama shows that we are much closer to your vision than you allow.

The final push for this sublime slavery to the government is already being implemented by our President. He pushes forward, with his czars writing new policies, against any political opposition, willing to take the slings and arrows, though the media stand and shield him to a large extent. A true believer, he knows, as the Bible says, he will succeed if he is only able to stand and not give in. He took over college loans with a small whimper, and perhaps he has taken over other industries we haven’t noticed. He will not stop – and we will experience the bliss of no more personal choices. His opponents don’t even have the courage or knowledge to do more than whine and protest that he’s not playing fair. Car dealers obediently gave up their families’ heritage quietly and slunked away to their savings; doctors show concern that the government insurance may not be good; and most Republican Congressmen hope that 2010 will be a Republican year and they’ll return to DC if they just keep quiet. Sometimes people get slavery because they prefer it to the high cost of freedom.
Gail

Oct 16, 2009 - 5:02 am 11. Old Soldier:

Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loose
Nothing, and that’s all that Obammy left me, yeah

Oct 16, 2009 - 5:02 am 12. Obi-Wandreas:

Reading this really makes me think of how discourse has deteriorated.

It is, of course, clear to all of us that this is satire. Unfortunately, with what is taken to be serious conversation and argument in many circles, particularly academic ones, it becomes incredibly difficult to distinguish satire from ‘reality.’ I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve read or watched something waiting for a punchline that never came.

Excellent article. It still, however, makes me sad.

Oct 16, 2009 - 5:04 am 13. Brad G:

George Orwell couldn’t have said it better, as I am sure the author realizes. This is trully the essence of the liberal philosophy: freedom from want is the only true freedom, and anyone who is familiar with any socialist work recognizes this. Well written, as much as I am sure it was well intended!

Oct 16, 2009 - 5:08 am 14. Fred Beloit:

I like it. Can I ask my government, um um, coordinator-in-charge for one more little thing? How about costless mail. I hate those bad tasting sticky little ruffle edged things we are forced to buy, excuse me, free to buy.

Oct 16, 2009 - 5:28 am 15. Paul -Indiana:

Where is Aldous Huxley when you need him?

Oct 16, 2009 - 5:43 am 16. mnewman:

I could really alienate many of my lib friends by linking to this. I’d better not. Nice job.

Oct 16, 2009 - 5:59 am 17. abreiden:

I agree with Obi-Wandreas. While I know this is satire, I had to make myself “see” it. This article, even more than Frank’s other excellent work, cuts to the heart of what animates progressives. This line was particlarly good: “Slavery is true freedom, because it is freedom from want and worry.” Of course, the slavery bit would be taboo to say but the freedom from want and worry is spot on. This line, and the rest of the article, is so true that you really have to look for the satire.

Oct 16, 2009 - 6:30 am 18. Libertyship46:

Mr. Frank Fleming, I couldn’t agree with you more. The Obama administration seems hell-bent on making this country no different than any of the European socialist nanny states, like France, Germany, or Spain, just to name a few. So for a few “perks” like poorly-run socialized medicine, endless unemployment insurance, cradle-to-grave housing benefits, mandatory union-run factories and public utilities, and government-paid schools, all you need to do is settle for endless national budget deficits, constant high unemployment, no economic growth, incredibly high taxes, laughable defense spending, high gasoline prices, tiny cars, and high food costs. Oh, and did I mention that most Europeans live in apartments and NOT houses? So you can kiss that home-ownership idea goodbye too. But who needs a house when you can have a small comfy apartment in a Muslim ghetto, like in France? What’s not to love? Yep, we would all be “silly” for not jumping at the opportunity to become a failed European nanny state. I guess that’s why all those stupid Europeans are constantly trying to live here in this country, the United States. I guess they’re just to dumb to realize how good they have it over there in Europe.

Oct 16, 2009 - 6:41 am 19. MDr:

“Slavery is true freedom, because it is freedom from want and worry”

So’s death.

Oct 16, 2009 - 6:44 am 20. Now and Then:

14. Fred Beloit:
“I hate those bad tasting sticky little ruffle edged things”

Hey, Fred, they condoms without the ruffled edges.

Oct 16, 2009 - 7:00 am 21. Cassie:

See this is exactly what I needed. A little comic relief. With the way things are today, if you don’t laugh, you’d have to cry.

Oct 16, 2009 - 7:06 am 22. Bob:

Hilarious satire. Well crafted, sir!

Oct 16, 2009 - 7:07 am 23. Old Soldier:

“Slavery is true freedom, because it is freedom from want and worry”

I’m reminded of the late Roman Empire period when citizens were selling themselves into slavery because they couldn’t afford their taxes and slaves aren’t taxed. High taxes destroyed the middle class and created the Medieval Feudal system. Luckily history never repeats iteself.

Oct 16, 2009 - 7:07 am 24. Bear:

Why worry about money? I’ll be free of want and worry. Might as well watch sportscenter all day.

Oct 16, 2009 - 7:24 am 25. Poor Citizen:

Some of us need to be reminded that along with freedom, comes responsiblity. Those that do not believe in taxes do not believe in freedom, because freedom is not free, we need big (paid) armies so that we can have that freedom. So if you do not believe in taxes, then you do not stand for freedom, you stand for tyranny. So what’s it gonna be? Me? I stand for freedom and I pay my taxes and I support my country.

Oct 16, 2009 - 7:46 am 26. Awesometific American:

Wow, FrankJ. I applaud you. I believe you have finally mastered the ability to disconnect your higher brain functions while keeping your motor skills active to mimic the thought patterns of the left. The comedy gods have surely blessed you my friend. Just make sure that the next time you write something as brilliant as this your wife is standing by with a defibrillator and atropine ejector to bring you back to us just in case you go to far. It is one thing to suffer for genius but we do not need to loose you.

Bravo!

Oct 16, 2009 - 7:50 am 27. myth buster:

I believe in paying taxes to fund the military and veteran’s benefits, but those comprise about 1/3 of government spending. Thus, we could easily fulfill our national security and other obligations with a tax rate half of what it is now. Taxes are necessary, yes, but excessive taxation is slavery by another name.

Freedom is Slavery.
War is Peace.
Ignorance is Strength.
-1984 Ingsoc and the motto of the Left

Or if you prefer C.S. Lewis-
“Freedom is doing what I tell you to.”
-Shift (Antichrist figure from Chronicles of Narnia- The Last Battle).

Oct 16, 2009 - 8:13 am 28. Kay:

If you left out the last few paragraphs about slavery, this could easily be mistaken for a serious article on Huffington or Kos, with agreement from all of their loyal followers. All of these actions are slowly chipping away at our liberty and freedom. These are so many people in this country will have no idea how important our liberty is, and what it will mean if we begin to lose it.

Oct 16, 2009 - 8:17 am 29. David S:

Safety nets are for wimps, right?

What a farce.

Peace.

DS

Oct 16, 2009 - 8:19 am 30. dumbfounded:

Free speech for thee but not for me right David S

Peace my Arse

I’ll take anarchy over your idea of Peace Ahole

Oct 16, 2009 - 8:33 am 31. venividivici:

23

I’m reminded of the late Roman Empire period when citizens were selling themselves into slavery because they couldn’t afford their taxes and slaves aren’t taxed. High taxes destroyed the middle class and created the Medieval Feudal system. Luckily history never repeats iteself.

venividivici’s corollary to Santayana’s statement about those who forget history being doomed to repeat it is that “Those who don’t forget history are doomed to be a minority watching it be repeated”.

27

Exactly. These people go from a universally-recognized “public good” like “military spending” to a highly-controversial set of policies, which they’d like everyone to consider “public goods” in the guise of “entitlements” but aren’t necessarily so, as if one followed the other in a completely logical fashion. There is no such thing as an “entitlement” in reality. Hell, even the Supreme Court recognized this and told the guy who was being deported back in the 1950’s that he was not “entitled” to Social Security payments, even though he’d paid in during his working life. That Leftist politicians have persuaded useful idiots to sacrifice their freedom for an illusion of “entitlement” is a great trick, born of great cynicism.

Oct 16, 2009 - 8:36 am 32. venividivici:

Safety nets are for wimps, right?

You know what country had a great safety net? East Germany. It was so great that they had to build a wall to keep the West Germans out. They also, unfortunately, had to shoot some people who tried to climb over the wall to tell the West Germans just how awesome the safety net was. If the West Germans had eyewitness accounts telling them of the awesomeness of the safety nets, they would have overwhelmed the guards manning the wall, so shooting those people was a precaution against putting the guards in danger. Michael Moore is working on a documentary about it as a follow-up to “Capitalism: A Love Story”.

Oct 16, 2009 - 8:57 am 33. texexpatriate:

Frank, I can’t wait. I regret I am so old I won’t get to enjoy very many years of slavery. How wonderful things must have been for Negro slaves in both north and south, and for those captives of Comanches and Kiowas. I’m sorry I won’t get to enjoy very many years of it.

Oct 16, 2009 - 9:08 am 34. venividivici:

Yep, “entitlement” really isn’t the right word now, is it?

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

You idiots who support these liars are being used for their aggrandizement.

Oct 16, 2009 - 9:39 am 35. David S:

@30. dumbfounded:

Free speech for thee but not for me right David S

Not at all. Your freedom of speech is safe with me.

Peace my Arse

Not my style.

I’ll take anarchy over your idea of Peace Ahole

I used to be an anarchist, too – but it’s just not sufficient to counterbalance the forces of capital.

@31. venividivici:

Military spending is not a universal good. Excessive military spending is one of the main reasons for our currency problems. I think universal health care is a lot better at promoting the general welfare than another fleet of aircraft carriers. Arguing from false premises doesn’t do much for your point.

32. venividivici:

You know what country had a great safety net? East Germany.

I think your example leaves a lot to be desired. The West Germans had a pretty good safety net, including universal health care. So did the British. I think you are being pretty obtuse when you try to attack the safety net based on the lack of political freedom. They aren’t the same thing. But thanks for playing.

Peace.

DS

Oct 16, 2009 - 9:58 am 36. Bilwick:

This reads like a parody of pretty much everything I’ve ever read by Thomas Frank. (Author of the popular book, WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH THESE STUPID PEASANTS AND WHY WON’T THEY JUST SHUT UP AND ROLL OVER AND LET REALLY SMART AND ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE LIKE ME RUN THINGS?)

Oct 16, 2009 - 9:59 am 37. venividivici:

I think your example leaves a lot to be desired. The West Germans had a pretty good safety net, including universal health care. So did the British. I think you are being pretty obtuse when you try to attack the safety net based on the lack of political freedom. They aren’t the same thing. But thanks for playing.

It’s called “incrementalism”.

Military spending is not a universal good.

You’re focusing on amounts, not on the concept itself, which is the concept of “public goods”.

Excessive military spending is one of the main reasons for our currency problems.

Really? Do you have some regression analysis to prove that or am I supposed to take your word for it?

Oct 16, 2009 - 10:26 am 38. Fred Beloit:

#20
Use whatever kind you like, NAT. Just please use them. One pesty NAT is enough for any universe.

Oct 16, 2009 - 10:33 am 39. venividivici:

The West Germans had a pretty good safety net, including universal health care.

Also driving them to bankruptcy. It’s like you are watching people drive over a cliff and saying “Boy, that looks like fun”.

Let’s assume that YOU have the perfect prescription for exactly how much “safety net” is required. Who is to say that your exact preferences are where politicians of the future will stop? Your preferences in safety nets may simply become the “reactionary” preferences of tomorrow. It may have been metaphorical when George Washington described government as being akin to fire, but it wasn’t an ill-chosen metaphor.

Oct 16, 2009 - 10:33 am 40. Frank J. Fleming:

Bilwick:

Some recent Thomas Frank columns were what inspired this.

Oct 16, 2009 - 10:55 am 41. SurgeUSAorg:

It’s fun to rant, but the only way to stop this tyranny is for the people to get organized and make members of Congress fear defeat in 2010 by candidates who would actually be different. Keep the Tea boiling and whistling until 2010.

Look up “Operation Can You Hear Us Now” – 120+ protests against MSM bias this weekend. Also, Tea Party Express II – Countdown to Judgment Day. Other initiatives too. Get involved to support better candidates – not just to gripe.

Oct 16, 2009 - 11:00 am 42. Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg:

“They oppose Obama rescuing businesses despite all the jobs on the line…”

False. They “need” rescuing BECAUSE they’re failed businesses. ‘Rescuing’ them only delays the inevitable and wastes resources needed for actual job creation.

A simple fact, cearly demostrating why you understand neither conservatives nor freedom.

Oct 16, 2009 - 11:20 am 43. Bilwick:

“Frank J:

“Bilwick:

“Some recent Thomas Frank columns were what inspired this.”

Damn, I’m good!

Oct 16, 2009 - 11:25 am 44. redinbluestate:

Great article. I think its also great that the pols finally found a way to tax the air we breath as well

Oct 16, 2009 - 11:45 am 45. biblio44:

Even in the realm of straw-man arguments, this article would stand out.

Oct 16, 2009 - 12:00 pm 46. Delia:

11. Old Soldier,

Holy crap! That’s the same song I had in my head when I read the caption. lol

Oct 16, 2009 - 12:35 pm 47. myth buster:

David, you’re the one arguing from false premises when you use “general welfare” to describe aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers have nothing to do with the “general welfare;” they have everything to do with the “common defense.”

Also, here’s an Econ 101 lesson for you: a public good or service is any good or service for which it is impossible to exclude non-payers, and for which each individual’s contribution is small compared to the total cost. Therefore, it is in no individual’s best interest to volunteer to pay for it without the guarantee that everyone else will, too. Health care is not a public good, because you can exclude non-payers.

Oct 16, 2009 - 12:46 pm 48. venividivici:

Even in the realm of straw-man arguments, this article would stand out.

As you do, in the realm of idiots.

Maybe you can do us all a favor and tell us what freedoms liberals DO want conservatives, or just non-liberals in general, to have. Please be specific and don’t say “You’re free to do what you want” because clearly that isn’t true.

Oct 16, 2009 - 12:47 pm 49. Rule303:

You know what’s really sad? I know folks who would read this, not realizing it’s satire, and shout, RIGHT ON!

Oct 16, 2009 - 1:34 pm 50. bailey:

Sadly I’ve heard some of these things before from people who meant them. Good article.

Oct 16, 2009 - 1:39 pm 51. venividivici:

47

Thanks for bringing some reason to the discussion about “public goods”. It’s ludicrous the number of things on the Left’s policy wish list that don’t pass muster as public goods except in their own subjective evaluations. Of course, being relativists, they take their subjective evaluation for truth.

Oct 16, 2009 - 1:48 pm 52. David S:

@47. myth buster:

David, you’re the one arguing from false premises when you use “general welfare” to describe aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers have nothing to do with the “general welfare;” they have everything to do with the “common defense.”

The purchase of additional aircraft carriers makes no impact on our “common defense”. We already have more military equipment than anybody else. The only purpose for our inflated defense budgets is the “general welfare” of the military-industrial complex.

Also, here’s an Econ 101 lesson for you: a public good or service is any good or service for which it is impossible to exclude non-payers, and for which each individual’s contribution is small compared to the total cost. Therefore, it is in no individual’s best interest to volunteer to pay for it without the guarantee that everyone else will, too. Health care is not a public good, because you can exclude non-payers.

Here you go off the rails, because you can’t exclude non-payers. Health care is a public good according to your definition. Each individual’s contribution is small compared to the total cost, and we all pay extra to cover indigent care. Therefore, it is in no individual’s best interest to volunteer to pay for it without the guarantee that everyone else will, too. Are you sure you passed Econ 101?

Thanks for supporting the public option.

Peace.

DS

Oct 16, 2009 - 3:10 pm 53. Rick:

You really are an idiot.

Oct 16, 2009 - 3:13 pm 54. venividivici:

we all pay extra to cover indigent care.

This makes it more than a tad problematic, because the definition of who is “indigent” becomes politicized. The upward drift in eligibility in the various CHIP programs comes to mind.

The bottom line is that in terms of the Marxist formulation, “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”, I am “ability” and you are “need”. F*ck off, “need”, get yourself some “ability”.

Oct 16, 2009 - 3:36 pm 55. myth buster:

David, we are not increasing the number of carriers in service. Each new carrier built replaces one that is being retired, which cannot be avoided because the ships weren’t designed to last more than 50 years or so. Once the second core runs out of fuel, the carrier can’t continue in service because it is too old.

Oct 16, 2009 - 4:02 pm 56. Marc Malone:

Fleming – Your best work yet. Very subtle. I knew it was satire, but it has more than just a kernel of truth. It was very much like various opinions I’ve read. The ad absurdum slavery was the icing on the cake. Truly droll.

Oct 16, 2009 - 4:33 pm 57. AST:

Yes!!! And no inequality! Everybody would be equally poor (except for the nomenklatura)! It’ll be just like John Lennon’s Imagine.

You may say that I’m a dreamer,
but I LOVE Big Brother!

Oct 16, 2009 - 5:03 pm 58. Matthew:

It’s a false dilemma, I think.

There are things that government can do well – and some things that government HAS to do. National defense is one, obviously. If you’re going to have a national currency to facilitate trade then somebody is going to have to print/mint it and prosecute forgeries. By all means have a vote to see who it’s going to be, but it still has to be done by SOMEONE. The history of turnpikes shows that if you’re going to have a highway system, it’s far better for the economy as a whole to have a single body build it and pay for it by taxes than to farm it out to private investors. Likewise education – I don’t care who educates kids, just as long as somebody makes sure that it happens. The result is an economic boon for everyone. Everybody else’s kids being educated and contributing to the economy is good for for you personally – it means you can get goods and services you need at a lower price, it means crime is reduced (well, in most countries – the US seems to be a pathological case), it means that they pay taxes rather than live on handouts or theft. If that means that this “somebody” builds schools and pays for it through taxes then that’s a better outcome than it not happening at all. Lets talk about disease – you can’t get jabs for everything, and sometimes the only way to protect yourself is to make sure everyone else is protected as well. Want to avoid cholera? Make sure there’s a working sewage system. You can’t build one of those without a coordinated effort. I don’t care who does it – just as long as somebody does, and does it properly. And so on.

There is a proper role for government. Government can’t do everything, obviously. But there are some things that really ought to be done by a centralized effort of some kind – anything that requires a coordinated approach to benefit the group as a whole. Personally, I think basic health care falls into that category. The australian government has a well-run health system and it saves us (as a country) a fortune. It pays off in economic terms and, as a nice side-effect, means that we don’t leave our old and poor swinging in the breeze. And here’s the bottom line – by gaming the system properly, that big tax-guzzling bureaucracy SAVES ME MONEY. I pay more in medicare and insurance than I’ll ever get back in medical services, but I’m still better off than if we ditched it all and went back to a US-style system, because it controls costs and enforces standards.

Oct 16, 2009 - 6:19 pm 59. DavidN:

The australian government has a well-run health system and it saves us (as a country) a fortune. It pays off in economic terms and, as a nice side-effect, means that we don’t leave our old and poor swinging in the breeze. And here’s the bottom line – by gaming the system properly, that big tax-guzzling bureaucracy SAVES ME MONEY. I pay more in medicare and insurance than I’ll ever get back in medical services, but I’m still better off than if we ditched it all and went back to a US-style system, because it controls costs and enforces standards.

This is one of those fun parts of the argument. Every liberal in town will tell you that Obama’s going to *save* money while insuring 20 or 30 *million* extra people, and say it with a straight face. If they were going to insure 20 or 30 extra people, and I was told it would cost 20 or 30 million Dollars, *that* I might believe, but our government saving money???? The U.S. government has three levels of financial outlay: 1. Drunken sailor in a cheap whorehouse on payday, 2. Beverly Hills trophy wife on Rodeo Drive with hubby’s new credit card, and 3. So ridiculously overspend money that no metaphor will convey how outrageous our expenditure is.

The funny thing is that these people say this, and if anyone challenges them, they get very defensive and angry, because someone’s pointed out the flaws in what they’re saying (which isn’t supposed to happen). I firmly believe that the public option won’t improve health care for a single poor person in the country; instead, what it will do is create an enormous phalanx of new bureaucrats, all of them contributing money to the Democrat of choice and bellowing for enormous pay raises, better benefits, and earlier retirement. By 2020 or so, the Democratic party will have 90% of the political campaign money (especially if the Dems pass “Campaign Finance Reform” and cut off all the Republican sources of money) and they won’t ever have to look back…they’ll run the country without challenge.

Oct 16, 2009 - 7:44 pm 60. Matthew:

DavidN:

Quotes. You can find them just to the left of your key.

The problem you seem to have is that you haven’t seen how successful public health systems work. If you do it right, you can force service providers to compete – and compete hard. You can clamp down on over-servicing, on useless treatments and on waste. As a single provider, the government can game incentives to get the right outcomes, and it has incredible bargaining power with pharmaceutical companies. As has not been reported widely enough, australia has a mix of public universal basic health cover and private insurance, we get health outcomes that are better than america’s and we spend half as much per capita. Blow as much smoke as you like – the facts are well and truly on my side

I don’t believe that obama is proposing to stump up to cover that 30 million people on the public purse. What he’s proposing is to make an affordable schema available to them at a competitive rate.

What seems to be eluding opponents of public health cover is that they’re not being well served by the existing systems. It is possible to do better.

Oct 17, 2009 - 12:00 am 61. Dave Surls:

“There are things that government can do well”

Yeah.

1.) Steal stuff.

2.) Kill people.

That’s about it.

Oct 17, 2009 - 1:48 am 62. seanmahair:

These are some of the people who support this administration and what they have said.

Robert Reich “…..”Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

At a health care takeover protest…….” an unidentified man bit off another man’s pinky finger at the top joint.
*The victim anti health care, assailant pro.

Rep John Conyers “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Rep. John Conyers. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
*Question are doctors, nurses and technicians going to be so innandated with bureaucracy that they won’t have time to “read the chart” or “read medical journals”?

Sebelius HHR Sec. has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and they have conducted fundraising activity on her behalf. Sebelius vetoed abortion legislation in Kansas in 2003, 2005, 2006, and again in 2008.
“In 2008, Sebelius vetoed House Substitute for Senate Bill 389, titled the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act by its sponsors. Proponents of the bill claimed the legislation would strengthen late-term abortion laws and prevent “coerced abortions” particularly with respect to MINORS.” (my emphasis).

John Holdren Science Czar from the 1977 text book Ecoscience.
“On page 837, the book states that compulsory abortion is perfectly legal under the Constitution of the United States:
‘Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.’”
and
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
*Now to be honest Holdren may not have been the author of the specific quotes but he is one of the authors of this text book and so one assume he not only read it (unlike members of Congress) but agrees with it.

Now for something slighly different but ………….oh so sadly similar.
Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. PiankaI wrote this in the article entitled “What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know”,
“I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.”

And less you think that all of this is new to the Liberal thought process we have these quotes by Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger.
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
and
“Birthcontrol: to create a race of thoroughbreds”
and
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit.

But this is by far the best Sanger quote

“”Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
- Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.”

Why would we want ANYONE “punished with a child” or to live beyond their usefulness to society? Death panels what death panels?

How very unObaminain.

Oct 17, 2009 - 7:38 am 63. venividivici:

The problem you seem to have is that you haven’t seen how successful public health systems work.

The problem with this is that the real “unsuccessful” aspects of a “successful” public health system play out invisibly in less innovation. You never see it because it never shows up as a line item in a budget in Australia, but when you do comparative analysis to other systems that are more conducive to innovation (which, in essence boils down to letting the innovators assert their patent rights and recoup their investments plus a profit), you see that Australians get cheated relative to other countries.

It’s all about Bastiat’s concepts of “seen” and “unseen” effects of economic policies.

Oct 17, 2009 - 8:04 am 64. Matthew:

“The problem with this is that the real “unsuccessful” aspects of a “successful” public health system play out invisibly in less innovation”

Erm, no. I think you’re quite wrong about that. What you WILL do is move the commercialization process around the globe. But that’s finance and competition – not the innovation itself. Innovation seems to be happening in australia despite the stalinist nanny state – particularly in medicine. You’re just conditioned to assume that everything’s invented by the US private sector because that’s where companies have their mailing address

You also ignore the role of publicly funded research in all western countries.

Oct 17, 2009 - 4:02 pm 65. Marc Malone:

#64 Matthew – Venividivici is right on this one. 80% of all new medicines and medical treatments come from the USA. If we didn’t do it, medical research would slow to a crawl. If we didn’t do this, your system wouldn’t work.

WE make it all possible. We pay many times as much for medicines here in the USA than does your country. If you had to pay our rates, your system would go broke. The problem with the rising costs in our healthcare system is all the parasitic other countries with their socialistic systems.

I await the day when our government finally tells Big Pharma that they need to charge other countries at the same rate they charge us. The howl of the parasites will echo ’round the world.

Oct 17, 2009 - 5:50 pm 66. Matthew:

“80% of all new medicines and medical treatments come from the USA”

The US is just the world’s single most profitable market, so it attracts the bulk of investment money and people wanting to sell their ideas. If drugs are first targeted at the US market, it’s because it’s the biggest payoff – the approval that everyone wants first. That’s not the same as the US being solely responsible for all medical innovation. Change the rules, and that industry will just redistribute – big deal.

“If we didn’t do it, medical research would slow to a crawl. If we didn’t do this, your system wouldn’t work.”

If you say so. The US certainly pulls its weight in R&D – don’t get me wrong, I’m not dumping on you guys. But that’s a function of your economic size, which is about 15 times australia’s (for example). You guys do great stuff, but you’re still getting screwed on health care costs because it’s a seller’s market.

“The problem with the rising costs in our healthcare system is all the parasitic other countries with their socialistic systems.”

Nonsense. That would only be the case if pharmaceutical companies were selling drugs in australia at a loss, and I’m pretty sure they’re not doing that.

“I await the day when our government finally tells Big Pharma that they need to charge other countries at the same rate they charge us.”

Er, yeah. Good luck with that. I’m sure lots of other industries would be thrilled to be forced to set a single, fixed world price as well. And you wouldn’t necessarily be better off. For one thing, you’d start paying more for a lot of your imported goods (particularly cars).

Oct 17, 2009 - 11:46 pm 67. Michael:

Wow, I finally found someone who thinks as I do. What a relief! I’ve been faltering around through life thinking it was just me, and that somehow I was deformed, demented, or somehow disabled.

You can’t imagine how lonely and scary it is, going through life thinking that somehow your brain chemistry is so screwed up that you hear and think so differently than everyone else, that you begin to think you are not even of this world.

Of course, once our dear leader took office, and began the push for “health care reform”, I knew that my troubles were over. I knew that I would no longer have to worry about making my mortgage payment, car payment, credit card payment, and I could take the money I spend on health insurance, and put that towards some other, more useful thing, like donating it to a 501C3 organization that doles out methadone to those who, by fault of me, are hooked on some drug, through no fault of their own.

I’m curious though; obviously Canada has already figured all this out, so why don’t we just invite them to move into the offices of Washington DC and guide us through this horrible time!? We can just move all those other folks back to their home states, where they can work at one of those Federal Stimulus Plan created jobs, and be covered by the new health care plan.

Oct 18, 2009 - 12:30 am 68. AJG:

Boy oh boy, sounds like a New World Order is needed.

Oct 18, 2009 - 2:49 pm 69. venividivici:

What you WILL do is move the commercialization process around the globe. But that’s finance and competition – not the innovation itself.

If I’m following your point, you are basically allowing that there needs to be one place where commercialization can occur, i.e. there needs to be one place with a relatively free market. OK, I volunteer the US.

Innovation seems to be happening in australia despite the stalinist nanny state – particularly in medicine.

Again, focus on the “seen” and the “unseen”. The “seen” in this case is the innovation that happens, while the “unseen” is the innovation that doesn’t happen. This is why it is more difficult for market economies to exist than non-market economies (at least, going by history) because humans are basically superficial creatures who focus too much on the present at the expense of a possible future. Google around and you’ll see that there are attempts to estimate the number of drugs that have not been commercialized due to the inordinate buying leverage of government-run health care programs around the world. It is fine if the democratic processes lead us to making the trade-off of lower-cost drugs for seniors versus lower profits for drug companies and fewer drug discoveries overall, but at least be mature enough to admit there’s a trade-off being made.

You also ignore the role of publicly funded research in all western countries.

That’s a different issue. Publicly-funded basic science research is fine, so long as it doesn’t become a boondoggle. Going from the publicly-funded research to a viable drug is a process that takes a lot of time and risk capital and is best left to private markets, where economic, rather than political, incentives are involved.

Oct 18, 2009 - 5:28 pm 70. spindok:

“beer hats, NASCAR tickets and Cheetos” indeed.

If only it were true. Recently, to my horror, yet another place I where work has removed genuine Cheetos from the vending machines. They have replaced them with some sort of horrible baked cheese colored product along with those sawdust-like fake potato chips.

And nobody notices, or pretends not to. They could have replaced Susie, the bright-eyed perky receptionist with a rotting flesh consuming zombie and nobody would say a word. You might as well be shooting up in the lounge or even worse, smoking in the parking lot as eating Cheetos in public anymore.

To get real Cheetos these days you have to go to one of those seedy, stale smelling Dairy Mart places with the buzzing lights and cracked linoleum. They are right next to the plastic wrapped porn and under the smokeless tobacco. The guy gives you a semi-toothless grin and kind of grunts when you put them up on the counter which always leaves me wondering what he meant by that.

They came for our Cheetos and we just let it happen. Guns and NASCAR cannot be far behind but are they worth defending anymore? Without Cheetos what would we defend them with? You gonna start a revolution with nothing but a bag of whole grain Sun Chips?

Spindok

Oct 19, 2009 - 9:48 am 71. Cam:

This has got to be one of the most well-stated opinion pieces I’ve read. Thanks Frank…..

Oct 20, 2009 - 9:03 am 72. Sue:

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Of course, this is very well written satire. Sadly, I know people who would have accepted every premise, at least up until the last couple of paragraphs.

Oct 20, 2009 - 11:07 am 73. James:

Umm…. this sounds good and all in a sense. but what i dont understand is that he say the government has money. didnt the government put the U.S. in a Trillion plus dollar debt. Plus, Socialism would work, except for the fact that half the country wouldnt abide by the laws, considering that people have the liberty to be have free choices and they still dont abide by the laws. and in turn, law biding citizens end up being screwed, because they start paying for other peoples stupidity and uncaringness. And i am sorry, but for peopple to continue to complain about our country being so crappy. it is still the most desired country to live in, because we still have the most opprotunity for its people, because we are free to chose, and arent as restiricting as other countries, or overran by mischief. so if you want our country to get better, find a way to get us out of our huge debt first, then you might have a better chance.

Oct 20, 2009 - 11:32 am 74. DrMJM:

w00t! I don’t know what is more delightful – the article, or the comments from people who didn’t get it. Well done!

Oct 21, 2009 - 6:51 am 75. gullyborg:

Yes, we need slavery. That, and turning anyone opposed to this into Soylent Green.

Oct 21, 2009 - 8:52 am 76. Billy:

It would be sad if Frank J. Fleming was moved to one of those “civilized” nations and became a slave, a weird – kinky sex slave or a very, very bad journalist. Thank God we still have our guns and religion. I would take them over slavery any day.

I have a disability. If the government takes over healthcare, they might put me down. Give me freedom.

Oct 21, 2009 - 11:21 am 77. pal:

im nutral,,,ive always found jobs in our capitilistic system,some dumb low payin jobs,yes i worked two at a time….im stopping readin the net,everybody loves reading,opinion,and writing….im workin,payin,taxes,and wasting little time,debating,time is money,excessive debate,is lost money,yes you rush,although this is america,,this is the lords earth,,,once you pay your taxes,you can think,indepentialy from country…..im catholic….not american

Oct 26, 2009 - 12:49 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: