Reagan Speaks Out On Socialized Medicine
Posted on July 3, 2007
We’ve heard it from Hillary, Obama, Edwards and more. The Democrats finally have what they think is a positive election platform….”Universal Healthcare”, or in other words…socialized medicine. The Gipper explains in this clip just why this idea is so dangerous. Found via Hot Air through Beyond the News.
» Filed Under Communism, History, News, Politics As Usual
Trackback URL
Comments
6 Responses to “Reagan Speaks Out On Socialized Medicine”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Almost* every word of that was and is true, Jay. Now, I have a challenge for you. Listen to that again (especially the Madison quote) and tell me the same reasoning doesn’t apply against many of Bush’s “national security” decisions.
*I would support a limited national health insurance program if it met several conditions which are never discussed. Feel free to ask if you care about the details.
Jeff, I’ve always held that you are more thought out and reasonable on many issues than others that frequently disagree here. I’m sure your views, despite whether I will agree with them or not, have been thought out. Feel free to express your thoughts in this thread if you feel like it.
No Jeff, the same reasoning doesn’t apply. Nationalization of health care, which is one seventh of the U.S. GDP, is government control of an inherently private service. National security is a primary, if not the primary, function of the federal government, protecting the citizen’s right to live and work as he or she sees fit. By the way, the Patriot Act was passed by Congress. Is “Bush” exceeding it’s provisions? Then the courts will decide. That’s the way things work in the U.S., Jeff.
Jay:
I didn’t really intend to discuss my health care position at this point, since it’s not yet complete. I just wanted to make a note that I agree with Reagan’s principles, if not his entire position.
What I was really hoping to do was encourage you to reexamine the past six years using Reagan’s lens.
You see, the biggest problem with this country is that we don’t have a firm understanding of what freedom means. Hear me out. The Republicans promise economic freedom; that’s good. I love economic freedom. The Democrats promise social freedom; that’s good too. I love social freedom. But neither of the major parties offer both forms of freedom, so we steadily march down the following path:
Democrats gain power and restrict economic freedom by taxing and spending. They’ll spend a minority portion of time trying to increase social freedom, but the Republicans will fight hard to protect existing legislation, so they don’t get very far.
Eventually, the Republicans gain power and restrict social freedom* by making choices for us for our own good. They’ll also spend some time trying to increase economic freedom, but the Democrats will fight hard to protect existing legislation, so they don’t get very far.
In the end, we yield some freedoms to the “Left”. Then we switch it up and yield some freedoms to the “Right”. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
So where are the people that want to protect all of their freedoms? Well, on our dumbed-down political spectrum, they’re called centrists, along with the people that don’t care about any of their freedoms. These are your swing voters, so they get a lot of attention during campaign season, but no one actually legislates for them. That’s why they keep swinging back and forth.
Maybe if we stopped thinking of the political spectrum in one dimension, we could start electing reps that serve us better. Good reading can be found here and here.
Enjoy the rest of your holiday!
*Seat belt laws. helmet laws. My saturday night has to end at 2 am. I can’t buy a beer on Sunday until after everyone has gone to church. Many, many more.
John:
I agree on both counts.
Thanks, John. I accidentally sold my elementary civics book at my last garage sale, so I wasn’t sure. There’s one other thing, though. I remember hearing about some rather important document (and some modifications made to it along the way) that was intend to limit the scope of congress’ authority to dole out authority to the other branches. I forget what that document was called though. Perhaps you could look it up for me?
Now let’s revisit some of your own words: “the citizen’s right to live and work as he or she sees fit”
- Would that include the right to speak out against the government?
- How about just having a private conversation with someone in a different country?
- How about the right to travel abroad and return?
- Aren’t there some due process requirements before the government can deprive someone of life, liberty, or property?
- Does one still have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense?
I could go on, but you’ve probably already written me off as a “typical leftist” or some other ad hominem.
The bottom line here is that all of the above items can be rationalized in the name of “national security” and none of them, alone, would destroy our freedom, but all of them are unconstitutional and the totality of this administration’s policies (and congress was complicit in many of them, I don’t have much love for them either) amount to a great acceleration of the “gradual and silent encroachments” of which Madison spoke.
Jeff, you sound like you have a libertarian attitude about things. I also disagree with seat belt and helmet laws. I think these things should be left to the individuals and insurance companies to duke out.
That’s correct, Jay. I’ve always been a libertarian, but I didn’t realize it until these past couple years.
That’s why I hate the one-dimensional political spectrum so much. It took a lot of studying to even realize there were other options. In a typical poll, only 2% will self-identify as libertarians, yet if you question people on various issues, around 20% will take libertarian positions. In the same polls, liberals will get 18%, conservatives 35% and centrists 12%. Libertarians could easily have a strong voice if it wasn’t for the plurality voting method (and poor education) reducing the options to the typical Republicrats.
You should take this test to see where you fall on a real spectrum.