The liberal solution is always more government.
President Obama repeatedly emphasized as a candidate that his three top priorities as President would be health care, energy and education. He has continued to stress those themes since his inauguration, both in proposed legislation and on the bully pulpit. To his way of thinking — and to that of the liberal elite who believe they are running the nation, which in fact they seem to be — these three issues are the most critical facing our nation at the close of the first decade of the twenty-first century. This would seem to relegate to secondary importance such "minor" issues as: Islamic fundamentalism and its assault on Western Civilization; runaway entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt the nation; a bloated federal government, massive deficits, a rapidly expanding money supply that portends severe inflation and a crippled economy, all of which threaten to do likewise; out of control illegal immigration, augmented by tens of millions of poorly assimilated minorities that weaken the cultural fabric of our society; and a profound ignorance among our citizens of the founding principles upon which our country was established.
Now while I think that the President's priorities might be misaligned, I do not mean to suggest that Barack's big three are not vitally important. They are. But what strikes me is that the three top problems that he has identified are perhaps the three that most clearly illustrate a principle that characterizes the behavior of our federal government. Namely, it is intent on solving problems that it created in the first place. Moreover, its preferred method of solution bears amazing resemblance to the methods it deployed that created the original problem. That assertion is true of some of the other issues I specified above. But it is particularly true of Obama's big three. My purpose here is to elaborate on that observation.
I will take them in reverse chronological order. That means energy is first as the original sins of the government occurred less than a half-century ago. America's need for and use of vast quantities of energy originate in the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. Prior to that we got by with energy gleaned from "natural" sources like water, solar, wind and of course human and animal strength. But the new engines of economic growth in the 19th century required more robust sources of energy — initially coal, and then later oil. These sustained us for more than a century, although they had certain disadvantages — primarily environmental and the fact that, at least in the case of oil, the sources were to be found increasingly in foreign lands.
Then, at almost exactly the same point in time, three critical events occurred: (i) the environmental impact of our heavy reliance on coal and oil worked its way into the consciousness of the American public's mind; (ii) it became clear that the "finite nature" of those resources would cause them, if not to disappear altogether, then at least to become dramatically more expensive and harder to obtain; and (iii) an amazing new resource became practical. At that point, the federal government initiated policies that recognized (i) but totally ignored (ii) and (iii). In short, beginning approximately 45 years ago and continuing to this day, the government implemented steps that: (a) restricted the use of coal and limited the deployment of more environmentally friendly coal technologies; (b) severely limited drilling and exploration for new domestic sources of oil, shale and other "dirty" sources of energy; (c) began to emphasize and favor inefficient and expensive biofuels that has had the unanticipated consequence of distorting food prices (because of the diversion of certain grains from food production to biofuel production); (d) made the construction of new oil refineries virtually impossible; (e) pursued the chimera of reviving the use of "natural" sources (water, solar, wind) in a major way, expecting beyond common sense that they would provide a substantial portion of our total energy needs; and (f) most importantly, essentially suspended the development and deployment of nuclear technologies that would in fact have supplied huge proportions of our energy needs. Not surprisingly, these steps have caused scarcity in energy supplies, driven energy costs sky high and placed our industry and our lifestyle at grave risk. Stated in this fashion, and I believe it is an accurate summary of the idiotic government-driven energy policies our country has pursued over the last 45 years, it is natural to wonder how our government, with our concurrence, could institute these incredibly moronic policies. Why would any government do such things?
The answer: For exactly the same reasons that motivate the Obama administration, whose members seem to be convinced that to fix our energy problems we have to pursue precisely the policies that put us in this predicament — although they don't see it that way. The Obamaniacs are motivated by the beliefs that:
- The US is no more entitled to access to energy supplies than any other nation, that therefore our consumption of more energy per capita than anyone else is unfair, indeed morally wrong, and that it must cease;
- Mankind is a threat to the Earth and living with less, cleaner energy is an appropriate check on our human tendency to "rape the Earth";
- It is the job of the federal government to control our energy appetite and referee the equitable distribution of energy, not only among the peoples of the nation, but also among the peoples of the world; and
- Unregulated exploitation of the world's energy sources is a reflection of the corporate greed that is so characteristic of an unfettered capitalistic system, a system that must be reigned in.
It is a radical, anti-free market, redistributionist philosophy that too many of our people have bought into because of the brainwashing they have succumbed to in our schools and at the hands of a biased media. It is a program that will lead us to economic ruin.
Having caused the problem, the government announces that we are in crisis and then sets out to resolve it by rededicating itself to the efforts that created it in the first pace. And the people buy it. But when there will be insufficient energy to heat their homes, power their vehicles and drive the engines of their businesses, then perhaps the good people of America will realize, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, that Barack Obama and the liberals calling the shots are the problem, not the solution.
Proceeding backward in time, the next issue is health care. The basic problem is the explosive nature of the cost of health care. It is universally acknowledged that American health care is the finest in the world — why else would foreigners flock here to access it? Unfortunately, its cost is exceedingly high and seemingly out of control. Why is that? I maintain the root cause is that the vast majority of American health care is paid for by so-called "third party" insurers. That is, party one (the individual or family) seeks medical assistance from party two (doctors and hospitals), but the bill is paid by party three (either an insurance company or the government).
This abnormal situation came about because of two fundamental blunders by the federal government. The first was the wage and price controls it imposed during World War II. This caused business, when it sought to attract employees, to offer subsidized health care benefits to potential employees; the subsidies were not subject to federal income tax or wage controls. With the federal government's acquiescence in this dodge around wage controls, thus was born employer-based health insurance that inaugurated the era of the third party payer system. It looked like a win-win for everyone, but the impression created in the public's mind was that, while health care was not totally free, its costs were capped (by the premiums they paid through their employer) and so they felt no compulsion not to enjoy as much of it as they pleased. A simple case of supply and demand. The insatiable demand by third party-insured health care consumers drives the price for health care higher and higher.
The problem was compounded by the introduction of Medicare in the mid-60s. The target was America's elderly instead of its workers and young families, and the third party insurer became the government instead of private insurance companies — a horrible eventuality for other reasons. But the third party payer principle was the same and so costs were driven even higher. Americans buy their car, life, home and disability insurance in the open market. Costs for these escalate in line with standard cost of living indicators as people pay directly for what they receive. But the federally-inspired, third party payer health care insurance industry interferes with the natural laws of supply and demand and drives prices to the stratosphere.
So how is the government going to fix this? Why of course by instituting universal health care — controlled, managed and financed by the government, which, whether purposefully or inadvertently, will drive private health insurers out of business. Nationalized health care! Oh swell, the government completely controlling the supply and demand for health care. Of course the demand will not decrease, so the only way to control costs will be by restricting supply. Yup, rationing of health care! Precisely what has happened in other countries that have nationalized health care (see, e.g., Great Britain and Canada)!
Having seen the disaster that nationalized health care has been in other countries, why would the US government implement it here and why would we the people vote for it and support it? Obama made no secret of his intentions. How could we have given him the power to do it? The answer to the second question lies in the brainwashing we have endured in the last few generations; the answer to the first looks suspiciously like the reasons for our misbegotten energy policies:
- Access to health care is a basic human right (actually, where in the Constitution or Federalist Papers that might be found is a mystery to me — but Barack sees it clearly); all should have the same access — even if at a lower level for everyone.
- The federal government has the obligation to guarantee that right.
- Private insurers are motivated purely by the profit motive (damned corporate greed again), not by the desire to fulfill this human right — only the government can provide uniform and fair coverage.
Once again, a radical, redistributionist ideology at work that our brainwashed populace might conceivably not endorse, but certainly acquiesces in. And again, having caused the problem, the government proposes to fix it by redoubling its misguided efforts. When, like in Britain, it takes months (if ever) to see a specialist, we might have second thoughts on the wisdom of this fix.
This brings me to the third priority — education. In this case the original sin lies long in the past — namely, more than a century ago when radicals like John Dewey (and Horace Mann even earlier) convinced the American people that the education of their children was a task best left to the government. It need not have developed that way. True, the governments involved were local, or occasionally county or State, not federal. That would come later. But at the end of the nineteenth century the people of the United States relied on local, State and the national government for precious few services outside of those prescribed in the Constitution. Mail, transportation, some communications come to mind. All in the realm of interstate commerce. Today every activity falls under the rubric of interstate commerce — even education. But exactly where is it ordained that government-run schools are the preferred — and if some had their way, only — method of delivering an elementary school education to the youth of America? It is a choice made by the American people that has led to:
- Inefficiency, waste and corruption in the administration of America's school systems;
- A level of performance by the average student that borders on the abominable;
- A curriculum that is often at odds with the desires of the students' parents;
- A dangerous physical environment rife with drugs, promiscuity and violence;
- A failure to transmit to America's youth the fundamentals of our Constitutional Republic and the essentials of our American culture;
- A total failure to teach our youth about free market capitalism, the fundamental economic system that is responsible for our unprecedented prosperity;
- A cadre of teachers beholden to the most radical and powerful union in America — the National Educational Association; and
- A homogeneity of thought on the part of the teachers and staff who run the system that has resulted in the brainwashing of America's youth who are inculcated with a "progressive agenda," which is nothing more than the statist philosophy of the liberal elite.
Here Barack would disagree. He likely would think me daft and would instead cite the following as the fundamental problems with our school systems:
- Inadequate resources available to minorities compared to those for white males;
- Too much emphasis on American history and culture and not nearly enough attention paid to the people of the world;
- Insufficient study of the effect of mankind on the environment and not enough indoctrination — er, that is, information about being green;
- Inadequate teacher salaries; and
- Too much local control as it is clear that education is far too important to the future of America to be left to anyone but the federal government.
Well, how will he fix these problems? By nationalizing the schools of course and reinforcing the regimen implemented over the last century, which as I have pointed out, is responsible for the failures I have cited — as opposed to his phony problems. The schools will only get worse. But they will produce little Obama clones.
In summary, our esteemed President has identified three critical areas of concern for our nation, but failed to notice that they are areas of concern precisely because of past policies practiced by the government. He proposes to fix them by implementing "new" policies that constitute nothing more than the ratcheting up of the methods that caused the concerns originally. Can you say "Prescription for disaster!" Hopefully the American people will wake up before it is too late.
Re: Our President's Three Top Priorities
In this posting Mr. Lipsman chooses three seemingly unconnected areas; energy production, health care, and education. His purpose is not only highlight government's inability to solve a problem, but its inability to recognize that government interference was the original culprit in the cause of the problem.
I submit that Ron's conclusion is incorrect. In each case, the US government knew in advance the likely outcomes of their original meddling! These and many other maneuverings were purposefully foisted on the American people by government. Each time government had the intention of diverting power unto itself; and if unintended consequences resulted in another opportunity to further effect change, so much the better
Energy – In 1890 the Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The first target; Standard Oil. Standard Oil was broken up by decree of SCOTUS in 1911. In Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey vs. United States; the Supreme Court found Standard Oil guilty of monopolizing the oil industry through abusive and anti-competitive practices.
Fast forward to 1965 and the formation of OPEC. Twelve countries Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela bonded together to set oil production and pricing for the world. No other country had a company large enough to stand against the dictates of OPEC as was proven in 1973.
All along the way, Congress has been complicit in enacting legislation putting more and more acreage known to contain oil and natural gas reserves under restrictions specifically prohibiting the exploration and/or exploitation of those reserves. The final nail in this coffin will be cap & trade. The current administration has embarked on a course that will make 'green' energy a reality; not because of technical advancement, but because they will purposefully raise the cost of conventional energy generation to the point where wind and solar are no longer more expensive.
Education – Public Education has its roots in colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire in the 1600's. Public Education was always recognized as a state issue. However in 1979, President Carter created the cabinet level Department of Education. In 1979 the average expenditure per student was $3,184. In 1984 it was $4,782. In 1989 it was $6,317. In 1994 it was $7,921. By 2007 this cost had risen to $8,701. Each increase in cost was followed by a decline in achievement scores for the children involved. It is interesting to note that while only about 10% of federal dollars make up any public school district's funding; the amount of federal control exerted by the government for that money is significantly higher.
While the Congress and the Department of Education continue to micro manage the states' school districts; children fall further and further behind their counterparts in other industrialized nations. All of the secular, politically correct, globalized views are taught to the students; along with endless presentations as to the 'rights' they may expect to be granted by government. Little "hard" education occurs any longer, and that which does is, more often than not, centered on problems that also involve climate change, social justice, or other liberal dogmas. A recent conversation with one of my nieces, public school educated, revealed to me something I previously had not known. She told me that she was taught that it was ALWAYS a good idea to recycle; even if the recycling process was so cost prohibitive as to drive an institution to bankruptcy. Under those conditions, the responsible thing to do was to absorb the cumulative costs in order to continue the recycling of that particular item. Granted; I was educated in the Catholic School System over a generation ago. I had no idea that such a conclusion, is today, considered to be conventional wisdom! No doubt, my niece is sailing down the path toward being a good little global citizen just as the Congress wants her to be.
Health Care – Since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, Congress has been directly involved in the expansion of health care benefits for a greater percentage of the population. The latest programs on the books allow families living at 2.5 times the poverty level to participate in a government run plan. No longer will the average income family have to choose between that big-screen HD TV and health coverage for their children. Thanks to government they can now have both.
There is no thought given to the opinion that in order to control cost, access will have to be restricted. Our President is telling everyone that the savings will be so great due to the economies of scale; the health care will "pay for itself." No one even bothers to ask the question that "If single payer health care will save so much money, why is Congress working so hard to find a funding stream?"
Each of these above examples, and a myriad of others, shows the involvement of Congress from the beginning. They also show, I believe, that Congress knew exactly what it was doing, what the ramifications would be, and that they intended for these things to happen all along. More and more control exerted upon our lives while, at the same time, educating subsequent generations to be more accepting of that control.
Now you know the real reason the majority of Washington insiders place their children in private schools.
Very good response milbrat. While reading Mr. Lipsman's article I had the feeling that he had bought into the fallacious propaganda that we have a problem in Healthcare, energy, and education and he was giving BHO too much credit for being altruistic. It is the same old Paper Tiger argument that has worked so many times to rest power from the people and put it in the hands of government.
One question for you: Do your per student numbers account for inflation (another government scam)?
And one for Mr. Lipsman: If our healthcare & education system is so bad then how do you account for increasing life expectancy & the falling infant death rate, and the Flynn effect?
Ivan;
Numbers are in real (2009) dollars.
milbrat does not dispute the thesis in my title, merely the motivation of the government officials behind the deeds. Whereas I might have only implied naivete, stupidity or willful ignorance on their part, he accuses them of duplicity, subversion and evil intentions. He might be right. Whichever is the case, as I said at the end of the piece, if the Anmerican people do not face the reality of the situation soon, we are in for a calamity–a sentiment with which, I presume, he would agree.
As for Mr, Ivanovich, if I may quote my piece, "The basic problem is the explosive nature of the cost of health care. It is universally acknowledged that American health care is the finest in the world — why else would foreigners flock here to access it? Unfortunately, its cost is exceedingly high and seemingly out of control." Thus I do not dispute his assertion that our health care is excellent; it is its runaway cost, which is the problem that our government will supposedly fix.
Dear Mr. Lipsman
It's is not my intension to pick a fight with you. I agree with many of your assertions. I agree with milbrat that there is no reason to believe that the Dems have any good intensions and many indications are that they are exploiting the situation for there own benefit at a cost to the citizens of the USA. Runaway costs? Maybe, but only the people can solve this problem if the government would get out of the way. The people have become so accustomed to getting good health care without ever having to consider the cost that they ask for, and receive, Cadillac service at Yugo prices. Doctors and hospitals don’t care either and they do everything they can to maximize their income and avoid risk. The days of phoning the doctor and getting the advice to take two aspirin and call me in the morning are gone. Now they want to do a MRI or CAT scan to make sure you don’t have a brain tumor and John Edwards will sue them. Everyday we are bombarded with ads for free scooters, new prescription pills, and lawyers suing to get you money for some condition you have never heard of, because there is a class action. No wonder the costs are soaring. It’s not health care that’s out of control! It’s health insurance and government.
Gentlemen,
While this is a wonderful discussion, I believe we may be missing the point here. I will stick with medical care because that is the subject that has emerged in the last few posts; plus it is a subject I've recently had extensive dealings with.
Ron is correct from the standpoint that it makes no difference as to the motive assigned to the majority. Both ignorance and malevolence are equally capable of wresting control of major life decisions and depositing those decisions with the government.
Ivan is correct in that most people never actually contemplate the costs involved in healthcare. You either have it or you don’t. I'll admit that I myself fell into this former category until my wife was recently hospitalized.
It is interesting to note a few facts here. The terms of my coverage state that the maximum 'out-of-pocket' cost for any covered individual is $1,500 per annum. Once that threshold is achieved in the words of our hospital assigned Financial Counselor "Your worries are over. The insurance company is responsible for all costs after that point."
This is misleading. My wife was hospitalized with lower bowel obstructions, which were ultimately diagnosed to be caused by adhesions from a previous surgery performed over a decade ago. Needless to say; almost three weeks in the hospital, numerous laboratory tests, C-T scans, consultations, surgery to clear the adhesions, and post operative recovery amounted to over $75,000 on the billing statement the hospital assigned counselor was kind enough to provide to me upon her discharge.
At first blush; I thought "Wow, without this coverage; we'd be broke, and then some!" Then I really began to look at the pages. The bill is broken into sub-sections; room, disposables, intravenous applications, medications, laboratory, and on and on. Each sub-section is totalized with three numbers. The number in the first column represents the hospital's charge for the device, test, pill, or service. The second column is the amount reimbursed by the insurance company. The third column is the difference remaining; usually anywhere from 35 to 40 percent of what was originally billed.
This was an eye-opener for me. While I cannot remember exactly the total on the final page; it went something like this;
$75,000 Billed deductable $1,500 compensated $48,750 Total Paid $50,250
I thought someone had misled me. There was still $24,750 worth of 'unpaid' charges remaining on the bill. I called my insurance carrier and they assured me that I would not be receiving any other communications from the hospital's billing department. They explained that all insurance carriers negotiated contracts with hospitals under their respective coverage umbrellas; and the hospital knew up front that they would only recoup a percentage of each charge.
Under these circumstances; my supposition would be that hospitals must 'overcharge' by a factor of 35% in order to ensure they recover enough dollars to cover actual costs. Also, anyone not possessing insurance is libel for 100% of the 'over-billed' price.
Now fast forward to universal care. Such a program would, I imagine, function as Medi-Care. The government would set an ABSOLUTE ceiling on the amount that could be billed for any item, drug, procedure, or service. If I remember things right from my mother's hospitalizations prior to her death, these upper limits were usually somewhere @ 45% of actual cost. Unlike insurance contracts, there are no negotiations. Your only options are ghost billings (a felony) or eat the balance. Since the government probably doesn't allow a business deduction to medical professionals' tax returns for unpaid balances, how long do you think a physician can afford to maintain a practice under these circumstances?
This altruistic motive of assigning health care as a right without regard to cost will kill medical evolution in this country. Politicians do not care about people, they care about votes. If they grant 'free' medical care on the unwashed masses, those masses will reciprocate at the ballot box.
This cements the liberal agenda. They come closer to achieving the definitive goal of liberalism; sameness. Multiculturalism, nonjudgmentalism, secularism, and the elevation of groups over individuals, all point to the liberal goal of sameness. To the liberal being; having the largest possible group all exhibit the exact amount of 'sameness' IS fundamental equality.
That someone must eventually wait 6 months for an MRI or that Grandma is told to 'Just go home and take one for the team." matters not. As long as everyone waits the proscribed amount of time, or all Grandmas are refused treatment once they reach a designated 'maximum' age.
This is the challenge we face. Ron, ignorance or malevolence. Who cares? Ivan, tagging the people as ignorant or malevolent doesn't help either. The central theme of the discussion is: Do we want and desire to be in control of our own destiny, and all that entails? The right to make our own decisions, to be wrong, and to suffer the consequences of those decisions? Or do we desire privilege; but still be able to hit the reset button at our whim?
I believe we've lost the definition of what 'rights' are. Rights are privileges irrevocably coupled to responsibilities. The privilege to drive is coupled to the responsibility of obeying the rules of the road and carrying liability insurance. Violate either of these responsibilities and your privilege may be restricted or revoked. This incessant caterwauling about privilege, without addressing the related responsibilities has led us to these crossroads. We've arrived at the final choice; Liberty or Death.
Weds. morning links…
The Liberal solution is always more government.
Is anything anybody does "Interstate commerce"? Montana and guns
Woll global cooling damage Al Gore's cred?
Geert Wilders' June 14 speech about preventing the Islamization of Europe. h/t, T…