A voice from the past speaks as though he was still alive and well today.

Reagan, my first president, spoke about Socialized Medicine.  His speech, amazingly, is still extremely relevant almost 5 decades later.

http://nofanniemed.com/2009/08/13/ronald-reagan-on-socialized-medicine-1...

As if we’re not already overextended enough financially, the issue of National Health Care is now on the table once more vote. Here’s some perspective you might find interesting.

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

Some on here have claimed that the private insurance agencies are demonic.  They deny care to those who need it.  But did you know that according to the American Medical Association (AMA), Medicare is worse than Aetna, Anthem/BCBS, CIGNA, Coventry, Health Net, Humana, and United Healthcare (UHC)

In a report claiming that "Billions of dollars in administrative waste would be eliminated each year if third party-payers sent a timely, accurate and specific response to each physician claim", the AMA (who supports Obamacare) showed us that government is the biggest denier of care. 

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

This will only get worse as more people are forced into a system they don't want. 

The Baucus bill which passed the Senate Finance Committee last week is going to tax "Cadillac" health care plans by 40%.  But the definition of a "Cadillac" plan can be redefined on a whim.  You will come to find out that most of you who have plans, have "Cadillac" plans.  And of course most unions have these plans as well.

But then there is the other side of the coin.

"My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.

Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we neither need nor want—or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan—we would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870329800457445910102233823...

That $1000 tax turns out to be cheaper to pay than to get the better coverage that they don't need.

There is also a provision similair to this in the Baucus bill.

What America needs now is to be thrifty and stop spending money that we don't have.  We don't need more taxes that will take peoples income away.  Income that could be used to to buy things people want instead of what is mandated by a bureaucrat in Washington who will not be subject to the provisions of the bill.

Louise Slaughter will not be holding any town hall meetings on Obamacare.

Here's Why:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/03/dem_rep_im_not_doing_town_hall_meetings_im_not_going_to_give_those_people_a_forum.html

"I'm not doing town meetings; I'm not going to give those people a forum. I went through it with the Clinton health care bill, with the John Birch Society, where we had to have police around, and people hysterically crying…" 

and town halls are "beneath the dignity of my office".

Here is another example of why I hate today's labor unions.  

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unions-target-Whole-Foods-CEO-apf-34525087...

For those of you unfamiliar with the story, the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal.  In it, he outlined a free market solution to health care reform.

Well the union didn't appreciate that.  They are now calling for his resignation because "he is undermining President Barack Obama's health care reform". 

Now what does that have to do with his ability to run the company?  Absolutely nothing.  But the Union is for Obamacare.  So they are trying to squeeze the CEO out for his political views.  They claim that he as "deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base".  But do they provide any evidence of this claim?  Not the in article they don't.

Meanwhile, "Whole Foods pays all of the premiums for its employees who work 30 hours or more per week in a high-deductible health-insurance plan, and the company contributes to wellness accounts that employees can spend as they choose on their health needs."  Sounds to me like a great heathcare program provided by the private sector.

Oh and the cherry on top of this debate.. Whole Foods is not unionized.  This union involved is the United Food and Commercial Workers Union which is part of Change to Win.  These people do not work for Mackey.  They are just angry that he is against Obamacare.

They are angry that he allegedly "deeply offended" Whole Foods shoppers.  So to ensure that they understand Obamacare and in my opnion to offend those that shop at Whole Foods and support Mackey, they are going to hand out "information to Whole Foods shoppers about health care reform".  

It is just plain sad.

Eric Massa is smarter than those he represents.  Or at least he thinks he is.  He held a town hall meeting yesterday in which this exchange took place.

Thanks to Scott Atlas we learn that American Health Care (rated number 1 in the world in patient care by the liberal WHO) is much better than Canada's Public Health Care system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.