Politics and Insights from History

President Obama wants to make sure that every American has health coverage, provided by the government of course. This means universal health care. This idea is not new. Many in Congress have been pushing for socialized medicine for the past two decades, or more. Sweden and Great Britain were two of the first western countries to institute state run health care. They have had government run health care since 1948. Over the decades other nations such as, New Zealand, Australia, Cuba, and Canada have all instituted government run healthcare.
Sweden is often referred as a country that has the most equalization. It’s true, if you believe in equal results rather than equal opportunity. Sweden is the most socialist country in the world. And they have state run health care. Many people look to Sweden as an example for how a healthcare system should be run. After all they provide the best healthcare to all of their citizens. They have equal coverage, equal access, high quality care, a longer life expectancy than in the U.S., and their health care is free.
But if Sweden’s health system is so great, then why are they privatizing parts of it? The reality is their health system is fading. Proponents for universal care point out that Sweden’s experiment with profit driven health care is not working. They are right. But not because competition fails. The reason for its failure is that the bits of privatization in Sweden’s health care system are not truly private. They are still heavily regulated by the government.
Sweden only spends about 8.4% of their GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on their health care. But GDP alone is not a measure of how well a country is performing. Health care in Sweden suffers from increase costs, lack of doctors, and long waiting lines. In a ten year period, 1980-1990, the cost of Sweden’s healthcare rose by 145%. Despite price controls on the cost of drugs, doctor visits, and medical procedures, the cost of healthcare in Sweden is increasing.
Sweden suffers from long waiting lists. Patients stand in long lines to see a doctor. Security guards are common in their clinics to ensure there are no riots. They also refuse to let new people enter if the clinic is full. Patients are denied newer, better medicines because they cost more than the older prescriptions. Patients are denied the option of paying for prescription drugs themselves because it would cause “unequal access”.
Great Britain was one of the first countries of western culture to institute nationalized healthcare. They have had it since 1948. The people there suffer from long lines, denied medical procedures, denied drugs, and inferior equipment. English hospitals are routinely over crowded causing a shortage of beds, which in turn means that patients are turned away. Overcrowded hospitals increase the risk of infections spreading from patient to patient. It is reported that at least 7,000 patients suffer from infections and that 5,000 of those die from them. One of the reasons for overcrowded hospitals is England’s attempt to cut the waiting lines. They have passed reforms to cut back on the time people spend waiting to have surgery or see a specialist. There are many stories about patients not receiving the care they need. Many cancer patients are unable to see a surgeon or receive the medication they need.
And then there’s Canada. Our neighbor to the north. Everyone talks about Canada’s health whether they are pro or con nationalization of health care. Canada spends about 10% of their GDP on health care. We see news reports about how Canadians love their health care system. They’re smiling. They cannot understand us Americans and why we resist such a great system. People only wait 30 minutes at a clinic to see a doctor. They don’t have to pay for the visit or the prescription. They don’t pay for surgery. Canadians do not pay for one cent of their healthcare needs. At least, this is what we are told. And this is what many people believe. The truth is, Canada’s health care is not free. It never was. Canadians do pay for their health care. They just pay for it indirectly through taxes.
At least 22% of all taxes collected go to health care in Canada. Canadians pay an income and sales tax and employer based premiums to generate revenue for their healthcare. In 2005 citizens from Ontario pay 40% of their tax dollars toward healthcare and the figure is on the rise. The costs are borne by the federal and provincial levels in Canada. But lately Canada’s federal government has had to cut back on how much they spend on healthcare. Much of the responsibility is being shifted to the provinces. Of all the industrialized countries that have universal healthcare, Canada spends the most. But it ranks at the bottom for access to healthcare, according to the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). “It is 17th out of 20 for its doctor/patient ratio—only 1.8 doctors per 1,000 citizens, 17th for availability of CAT scanners, and 18th for MRIs.” Here is a table of average wait times:

Wait Time (Weeks) Procedure Waiting For
16.5                                    Time between referral from a general practitioner & treatment
8.5                                      To see a radiation oncologist
5.2                                      For a CT scan
12.4                                    For and MRI
3.2                                      For an ultrasound
20                                       Time between seeing specialist to surgery for hip replacement (after waiting
13 weeks to see the specialist in the first place)

(Houston Kerri, Acces Denied: Canada’s Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims, December 2003, The Center For Civic, Family, and Social Progress Policy Perspectives, vol. 10, Issue 6. http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-PP-Winter-03.pdf (I put the figures in a table to make them easier to read.)

Canada also suffers from long lines, lack of access to newer and better technology, hospital beds, and prescriptions medication. However, Canada also suffers from a shortage of physicians. Doctors are leaving Canada. They cannot charge more than what the state allows for their services meaning that they are paid the same no matter how many patients they see or the quality of care they provide. Sometimes doctors have to send payment back to the government because they saw more patients than what the government mandated they could tend. As a result, doctors quit caring about their patients’ well-being. There’s no need to. Those physicians who truly want to help people have been prevented from doing so. In the 1990s roughly 10,000 Canadian doctors left the country.
On top of doctors leaving, there are few replacements graduating from medical schools. The Canadian government has put limits on the amount of enrollments for medical schools. Only 1,530 people graduated from Canadian medical schools in 2002. There are not enough doctors to replace those who leave or retire. Ontario alone claims that “nearly 80% of its regional communities are listed by the provincial government as being ‘underserviced’ due to physician shortages”.
Prescription drug coverage in Canada is no better. Drug prices are controlled by the state. Drugs are also approved by the government. This makes it difficult to get newer drugs on the market since in an effort to control cost the government will not approve them. These new drugs may be more effective, but they are also more expensive. Canadians only have access to the drugs allowed by the government. Even if they are willing to pay for the medicine themselves, they are not allowed to buy it. So, many Canadians come to the United States for their medicine. Another problem with mandated drugs by the state is that the government can change a person’s prescription to something more generic and cheaper without consulting the patient or the physician. Many Canadian are hospitalized because of a sudden change in their prescription and the side effects that occur. Drugs are not cheaper in Canada. They appear to be because of price controls, but their prices are higher than what we pay in the United States.

Obama’s appointment of a cyber czar, and his other government take overs, are very similar to what has happened from past dictators.  Two most notable examples are Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Hitler was elected by the German people.  With his foot in the door, he was well able to take over the German governmnet.  After securing his power with the Nazi win of the Reichstag election, Adolf Hitler outlawed Communist/Socialist writings and took control of all radio stations. This made it where his propaganda was heard and no dissenting views. Afterwards he proceeded to outlaw the Weimar Constitution of Germany and got rid of any rivals securing his power as dictator of Germany.

Here Hitler began taking control of the social and economical aspects of Germany. He outlawed religion replacing it with the worship of the Third Reich and its leader, him. He controlled the media so the people were unable to have access to any views other than those supported by the state. He provided jobs for the German people by outlawing the Jews from working. Many Germans were also sent to work in public works projects or conscripted in the German Army. Hitler also took over the education system in the country by requiring all children to be involved in the Hitler Youth where they received a steady dose of indoctrination and became good little Nazis. As Hitler changed the German identity and formed the country into what he thought it should be, the German people found themselves with less freedom and no security. Any dissent was squashed by the Gestapo. If suspected of helping a Jew a person and his entire family would be arrested without charge and without warrant. The people quickly discovered that they had been duped by Hitler and the Nazi Party. Hitler promised change and restoration of Aryan glory. The people voted for him as they were desperate for change.

The same thing happened in Russia. Life under the Czars was no picnic. Many people lived in poverty. They were sick and tired. So along come Lenin, and the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks won their revolution, Czar Nikolas and his family were killed and Lenin became the leader of Russia, which was renamed the USSR.

Lenin pushed his communist agenda through economic means. He nationalized all farms making it where the state owned all of the land in the country, the farmers were just allowed to work on it. They took what they thought was excess food and purchased crop at such low prices that the farmers lived in poverty. Some burned their crops and destroyed livestock rather than have it all go to the government. They were severely punished. Lenin also took over ownership of industry and abolished all private trade. Workers were paid with food ration cards instead of cash and even then it was never enough to feed a family.

The result of these two economic changes was continued poverty for the Russian people and famine. So Lenin had to change his policy slightly allowing ownership of private industry.

When Stalin took over the USSR he set about modernizing it. It is because of Stalin the Russia became industrialized, however, everything was owned by the state. He repealed any private ownership allowed by Lenin. He instituted a State Planning Commission which issued orders to industries, small businesses, and farms. In an effort to increase food production, Stalin had all farm collectivized. Farmers pooled their resources and labor, whatever crops produced were sold to the government at less than market price. Any surpluses they were allowed to keep and share among themselves.

Stalin had three five year plans he used to achieve his goals of industrializing the USSR. Though his plan did create roads, dams, and infrastructure necessary in the Soviet Union, it took its toll on the people. People worked in harsh conditions, punished severely for absenteeism, and paid little. This influx of forced industrialization forced many people to move into the cities where there was inadequate housing, poor medical facilities and schools. Consumer goods were in short supply, shops were empty, clothing was scarce, and everyday household items were nowhere to be found. Basically, the standard of living under Stalin’s five year plan fell as people were forced to live in a lower state of poverty than they did under the Czars.

Stalin also took over education. Children were required to go to government run schools where they learned to be good communists. There were also taught to spy on their family, their friends, and anyone they came across. Children made excellent informers when someone refused to worship the state or voiced their discontent with Stalin.

It was only a matter of time until President Obama took over the internet by appointing a Cyber Czar. The name couldn’t be more fitting. Czars are in complete control of things and answer to no one. This Cyber Czar will answer only to Obama, not Congress, not the courts and certainly not the people. In fact the people have no say in this.

Obama says that the cyber czar will monitor online threats from terrorists and keep our internet networks safe. Admirable, but the government already has securities measures in place to keep our internet software safe. “It’s now clear this cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation,” Obama said, adding, “We’re not as prepared as we should be, as a government or as a country.”[i] Obama fails to mention who will be heading this new position and whom he will answer to. Another problem is the chance of this being abused. Too often people have been given positions of great power, such as this, and abused it. This is nothing more than another expansion of the federal government. Once it starts it does not end. We have witnessed this pattern for the last 40 years.

Obama is attempting to frighten the people into giving the government more power. Whenever he opens his mouth and attempts to sell the us on the idea of more government control, he poses a crisis. First it was the auto industry heading toward bankruptcy. Obama promised that if we allowed the federal government to give billions of dollars that it doesn’t have to GM, Chrysler, and Ford then we would save the American auto industry and be spared from an impending crisis. Well, GM and Chrysler have both declared bankruptcy, our money is gone. Obama expanded the power of the government and prevented nothing. He has also presented us with other crises: Americans have no access to health care, global warming rampant, a mounting deficit. His solution: government run health care (it has never worked in any country that implemented it), Cap and Tax (i.e. cape and trade), and introduce more taxes (while at the same time spending uncontrollably).

But we have another threat. A more sinister and dangerous plot. A major crisis! The terrorists might use our digitalized services and our internet against us! Our online services: banking, bill paying, etc. are not safe. Our way of life may be at risk. So Obama dons his red cape and swoops in to save us from another crisis. He will appoint someone to monitor the internet for such threats. Ladies and Gentlemen, do you honestly think that our way of life, our usage of cyber space will be any safer with the government in control of the internet?

We have become so afraid as a society that we are allowing the federal government to assume whatever powers they want because we have been duped into believing it will protect us. We run to our congressmen, our president, even our justices whenever we stub our toe. As a society we fear losing what we have that we allow the government to expand its “protective” arm over us. Just one problem: the government never holds its end of the bargain. When governments get as big and powerful as ours, we will lose everything that we hope to protect. I do not mean material wealth, though we will lose that too. But most importantly we will lose our freedom to do as we choose, to strive for a better life, and to just live. Benjamin Franklin wisely said, “Those that give up liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He is absolutely right.

Oh, Obama assures us that the new czar will not monitor private networks or email accounts, nor will he dictate to private businesses how they will conduct their affairs or tighten their digital security. But we have heard these assurances before from past dictators. Remember Hitler, Stalin. They promised their people that there was nothing to fear from the government. The government was going to right wrongs and improve their lives. Millions of innocent lives paid for those assurances.