Is this a real or a parody post? If the latter, well the joke’s on me then…

But assuming it isn’t – I assume you realize that Reagan was making all kinds of outlandish claims about Medicare, including that it tell doctors where they had to live? I think history had proved him a tint bit wrong – so much so that the party that now idolizes his memory is fighting tooth and nail against “cuts” in this very same Medicare..

Oh, and as superior as single payer is (and Medicare is single payer by the way), the Obama bill retains the current system of privaet insurers. There is nothing “socialistic” about it. Of course, it attempts to regulate private insurers, including (by the way) how they must deal with abortion – something no Republican has ever supported.

You need to study more on what Reagan actually predicted pertaining to Medicare. Also, tell me why his acolytes currently are its biggest defenders? Also, please tell me what abortion protections were put into the Republican-sponsored Medicare Advantage expansion? And please tell me what exactly is “socialist” in the HCR bill?

Of course, having a policy debate would require moving past mindless slogans – “socialist”, “most pro-abortion president”. Of course, I could also point out to your that your own ideology is almost identical to the liberalism opposed by the Vatican for quite a long time.

Oh No! But I just realized that Ronald Reagan might disagree with Friedrich von Hayek on this question, who wrote, in his Road to Serfdom, that “Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.”

And now I don’t know WHAT to think!?!

Here is the text of the speech:

http://www.elephantowners.com/?page_id=68

Reagan’s warnings have proven prescient. Medicare and Medicaid have grown and grown. We cannot pay for them just as we cannot pay for Obamacare. The government as an insurer has driven up the costs of medicine for all.

Oh and Tony, the most pro-abortion President in our history isn’t a slogan, but a reality. You supported him and now you aren’t even going to get health care. He is also producing a political reaction which is going to sweep the Democrats from power in November in Congress and across the country. As a Republican I would like to thank you. Obama is the best thing that has happened to the GOP since Jimmy Carter!

However plausible Reagan’s predictions may have been at the time, they have not been borne out by subsequent events. It’s been 45 years since Medicare was enacted, and it hasn’t led to a total government takeover of medicine. In fact, I think there’s a plausible argument to be made that Medicare is one of the main impediments to passing a universal health care plan today.

I’m not sure how mandating that people purchase something from the private sector constitutes “socialism”?

Wj,

If you think that Hayek quote is amazing, check out this one (from the Constitution of Liberty):

Once it becomes the recognized duty of the public to provide for the extreme needs of old age, unemployment, sickness, etc., irrespective of whether the individuals could and ought to have made provision themselves and particularly once help is assured to such an extent that it is apt to reduce individuals’ efforts, it seems an obvious corollary to compel them to insure (or otherwise provide) against those common hazards of life. The justification in this case is not that people should be coerced to do what is in their individual interest but that, by neglecting to make provision, they would become a charge to the public. Similarly, we require motorists to insure against third-party risks, not in their interest but in the interest of others who might be harmed by their action.

Finally, once the state requires everybody to make provisions of a kind which only some had made before, it seems reasonable enough that the state should also assist in the development of appropriate institutions . . .

Up to this point the justification for the whole apparatus of “social security” can probably be accepted by the most consistent defenders of liberty. Though many may think it unwise to go so far, it cannot be said that this would be in conflict with the principles we have stated . . . It is only when the proponents of “social security” go a step further that the crucial issues arise. Even at the beginning state of “social insurance” in Germany in the 1880’s, individuals were not merely required to make provision against those risks which, if they did not, the state would have to provide for, but were compelled to obtain this protection through a unitary organization run by the government.

“As for Defense, that thing that gives you the freedom to comment on blogs….”

Funny, I thought that was the Constitution. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance!

The moment congress passes this bill, within a generation, we will no longer have what you refer to as the “private sector”.

This strikes me as unlikely. What in the bill do you think will do away with private sector health care?

Blackadder,

Yes, that quote is amazing. I am always impressed by the clarity and nuance of Hayek’s thinking; if Republicans were more consistently Hayekian and Democrats were more consistently social democratic then we might have actual arguments about policy! We would also be living on another planet, of course.

BA,

They would not necessarily pass more bills, but it can happen.

They would also expand the power of said agencies that would squeeze the private sector more and more.

Not to mention executive orders that can expand the powers of said agencies and restrict those of the private sector.

Tito,

Okay, but all that stuff could happen regardless of whether the current bill is passed. Why is this an argument against the current bill?

BA,

Because it is a slippery slope of creeping government involvement in people’s lives.

WJ,

Please explain.

“Funny, I thought that was the Constitution. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance!”

You are welcome. Without military force to back it up, the Constitution is just another piece of paper.

which sometimes enjoy monopolist status and have the clout to influence legislation in their interests;

The only monopolists in our economy are gas and electric companies and (to some extent) the postal service.

Well, what do you mean by “private sector” anyway?

Never mind.

Of course, having a policy debate would require moving past mindless slogans – “socialist”, “most pro-abortion president”.

Those are not slogans, those are characterizations (the latter quite accurate).

As for Defense, that thing that gives you the freedom to comment on blogs, it took up 23% of the federal budget in 2009.

I’m reminded here of an old Lincoln quote:

All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

We don’t need to spend anywhere near 23% of the budget on defense to ensure freedom of blogging in the U.S.

We don’t need to spend anywhere near 23% of the budget on defense to ensure freedom of blogging in the U.S.

Just out of curiosity, do you have in mind a scenario of what occurs given particular levels of American military spending?

Anyone who cannot see that Reagan was right about his beliefs needs to answer these questions:

1. Did Medicare achieve the goals intended at the costs it promised? Further, is it almost broke now?

2. Was Reagan right that Medicare was just a preemptive move to pass Socialized Healthcare?

My answers for those questions are:

1. No, it has exploded in size, cost, and is rife with Govt corruption and inefficiency.

2. Obamacare anyone?