Ever since Senator Bernie Sanders proposed his “Medicare for All” single payer “health care” plan in the Senate last month, with at least 15 Democratic supporters, the liberals have been crowing over it and all its supposed benefits. One would think that single payer (i.e. socialism) is this great utopia in which everyone is truly on equal footing. However, the experience of history has not borne out this ideology.
Let’s start with some definitions. Many people link socialism with communism, and they ARE basically the same concepts, although levels vary. According to an article by David Floyd on Investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp), “communism and socialism are umbrella terms referring to the left-wing schools of economic thought that opposes capitalism.”
The article further explains some differences between those terms. The ideology of communism tends to be hard-left, which means that it makes “fewer concessions to market capitalism and electoral democracy.” Socialism, however, can involve a large political spectrum, and socialists can be pro or anti-market, although that “market” is clearly limited by government control. For instance, socialists may consider their ultimate goals to be the abolition of social classes or they may be seeking more pragmatic goals, one of which is often universal “health care.”
Ah yes, and this is where the United States finds itself – still discussing the possibility of universal single-payer “health care.”
Here is an interesting tidbit from Yuri Maltsev, the keynote speaker for the 2017 Free Market Medical Association conference in Oklahoma City this year. Maltsev was an economist for Mikhail Gorbachev, not too long before the former Soviet Union collapsed. So he has seen socialism at its closest and its worst.
Dr. Maltsev quoted this rather telling statement by Karl Marx, who is considered the father of socialism, about the attitude of socialists/communists toward people and the absolutism of his own goals:
“Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way.”
Karl Marx, “Forced Emigration,” The New York Daily Tribune of March 22, 1853
I guess this means that if one is not willing to go along with a socialist agenda taking hold in one’s country, such individuals are kicked out? Either that are killed off by the prevailing socialistic and tyrannical government, which is what happened in the former Soviet Union, according to Maltsev.
One example of forcing those who are not a benefit to a socialist regime to “give way” can be seen in a recent edict handed down by the British government regarding services rendered by the country’s single payer National Health Service.
According to a commentary by health policy expert Sally Pipes in Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/08/single-payer-health-care-means-might-be-denied-surgery-for-being-too-fat-no-really.html), the NHS has recently handed down an edict that anyone who is considered obese (anything above a body mass index of 30) must either wait a year for elective surgeries such as hip or knee replacements or lose 10 percent of their body weight. The irony here is that if someone needs a joint replacement, he/she will face a long arduous process of a drastically changed diet because physical activity will probably be minimal, which can be very slow and discouraging.
An article by Henry Bodkin in The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/), reports that smokers are also barred from undergoing routine surgeries for at least six months.
While I am no fan of being obese or smoking, I think this brutal form of surgical rationing betrays a strong lack compassion for people, discriminating against them for having deep-seated issues in their lives. The NHS policy reveals how what is called “universal care” is really not that at all and certainly does not demonstrate compassion for all. Such rationing admits to the fact that a country simply cannot afford all-around care for everyone under a socialistic single-payer delivery model and so it DISCRIMINATES.
Yet I see a continued drumbeat for single payer coverage on the march, to some degree, in the United States as one sees demonstrations in many places advocating the socialist ideal of “Medicare for All.”
So now that Sanders has made that proposal, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is urging Democrats to make single payer “health care” the centerpiece of their campaigns. She, along with the other senators, vigorously advocate this outrageous piece of government control over every American’s health care choices. Also, in California, even Democrats who oppose single payer “health care” on the principles of its impracticality, have received death threats.
We see many college students blindly following the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens in this country, often not even understanding all the principles upon which socialism is built, or its real history. These are the same students that are trying to shut down free speech and open political debate in the public square. I must say, that with such attitudes, they certainly have socialism mastered, which is scary.
People such as this have little to no regard for the principles of freedom upon which the U.S. was built. I wouldn’t have so much objection to this form of health care delivery being an option, as long as those who objected were not forced into it through the payment of taxes, but were allowed to participate in a parallel free market system in which their tax exemptions could be used to have health savings accounts, participate in Direct Primary Care practices and buy low-cost catastrophic insurance. However, Bernie and company want to eliminate most insurance coverage and private practice.