As much as any other issues that will affect people’s lives if the Democrats win are socialized medicine, by any other name, domestically, and the War on Terror, whether fought – or not fought -- in Iraq, Iran, Israel and/or the U.S., internationally. Many people don’t connect the dots, but this article points out how these topics relate to each other and how important it is to make sure that socialized medicine won’t be allowed to divert funding away from the War on Terror and ruin our health care system, let alone our whole economy in the process.
Virtually every advocate of throwing more money at health care also advocates spending less money -- if any -- on the War on Terror, and especially the War against the terrorists in Iraq, which has evolved from the War against Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction that the leading Democrats as well as the leading Republicans believed were in Iraq throughout the Clinton years and beyond. The first Iraq War also served as the war to prevent Hussein from having the capability to overrun not just Kuwait but also Saudi Arabia, and thereby control enough oil to push the United States back into the Dark Ages. No matter who is to blame and no matter what the intentions were of the Democrats and the Republicans who authorized the War in Iraq, the fact remains that it has evolved into one of the main battlefields in the universal war against terror. Regardless of whether we agree with every aspect or even any aspect of any battle, we must be united in the overall War Against Terror, and terrorists.
At the outset, the number of uninsured “Americans” estimated and set forth by the universal health care Sickos in our midst includes millions of illegal aliens who are not rightfully in the United States in the first place, let alone do they have rights to free benefits that millions of hard-working tax-paying Americans do not even get.
Only naïve fools are likely to believe that countries with socialized medicine are really as depicted by Michael Moore in “Sicko.” It is common knowledge that Canadians who are duly taxed for their universal health care routinely cross the border into the United States nevertheless and pay top dollar for their major health care procedures, because medical care delayed is not much better than justice delayed, and, of course, denied, and because they will benefit from the superior medical treatment in our free market system. And Canada, of course, is one of the richer countries.
As to the poorer countries, Moore and other advocates of universal health care would have us believe that Castro’s Cuba is so rich and idealistic that its clinics treat not just their own citizens, but strangers from enemy countries, for free. Were places like Cuba really as utopian as Mr. Moore and others would have us believe, why have so many of its citizens been so desperate to leave that they have routinely risked their lives on rafts and flimsy boats, without any moorings, just to attempt to escape?
Many, if not most of the universal health care advocates make it seem like American pharmaceutical companies are just greedy blood suckers, without the positive connotation of the medicinal leaches that sucked blood in earlier times, when in fact the leading American pharmaceutical companies sacrifice short-term profits by making long-term commitments to research and development, leading to more medical breakthroughs than their competitors in most other countries, but with less government subsidies than the comparable companies in other countries. Then the people in other countries purchase our medications without having to invest in and risk the results of comparable research and development. Is it any wonder that the costs are greater in our country?
The United States is the police force that intervenes on behalf of human rights throughout the world
The United States’ lack of socialized medicine is also due at least partly to its broader policies of idealism and responsibility. Many of the countries that have socialized medicine are run by governments that not only show little if any idealism in foreign affairs, and little if any attempts to play even a minimal role in the War on Terror, but they are led by leaders -- or, more accurately, MIS-leaders -- who condemn only the victims of terror, so that the misleaders can justify to their misled citizens, and to supporters of Arab regimes, their failure to pay a single Euro or to send a single soldier to fight the War on Terror
American health care costs are influenced at least in part by the fact that the United States is the benefactor of victims of acts of G-d and of inhuman humans around the globe; The United States is the police force that intervenes on behalf of human rights throughout the world, directly and through the United Nations which the United States supports more than does any other country; and the United States absorbs the costs of caring for a huge welfare roll and beneficiaries of Medicare and Medicaid (granted to citizens – including legal immigrants who came as already incapacitated and/or retired people), and goods and services provided to 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants.
American emergency rooms already serve every emergency victim – even murderous participants in shoot-outs with the police -- and universal health care is already provided by the United States to all the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and criminals at other prisons, regardless of whether they have forfeited their rights to be treated as civilized human beings, and regardless of insurance coverage, so that the United States already provides various forms of socialized medicine. Even now, many American states have adopted no-fault laws, for the victims of car accidents, characterized by “no pay” decisions whereby physicians decide there is no need for necessary treatment, on one hand; to “no justice” decisions, whereby corrupt medical practitioners bill for “no shows.” One set of statistics that the universal health care advocates almost universally fail to cite is that even without universal health care, the United States spends more money per capita and cumulatively on health care than any other country. Imagine the costs, the overcrowding, and the waiting times, were American taxpayers compelled to pay for batteries of often unnecessary and/or counterproductive tests and/or treatments for every little twinge, and an office visit for every little hiccup of every citizen as well as of every illegal immigrant!
Since there aren’t nearly enough general and specialized medical professionals, medical facilities, medical machinery, and medications to deal with preventive, traditional, holistic, and alternative medicine and every conceivable medical condition of every legal and illegal American, from cradle to deathbed, with hospitals and hospices in between, without even considering the costs of training, construction, manufacturing, and maintenance, socialized medicine will inevitably make medical treatment universal in theory, but supply and demand will inevitable drive costs up to enable only the rich, in the “best” case scenario, to pay for excellent and timely care, while the middle class and maybe even “upper class” and “upper middle class” people will have to join the poorer class on line for delayed and subpar care, as is the case in countries with socialized medicine. Triage may result in illegal immigrants, especially young ones, obtaining priority in health treatment over legal citizens, especially old and frail ones. Who knows whether this slippery slope will lead to euthanasia? Even an attempt to meet the overly ambitious goals of socialized medicine will undoubtedly jeopardize the health of our already strained economy as well as of our citizens individually, even without considering the costs necessary to fight the War on Terror.
Regardless of our positions on the War on Terror, which should be nearly unanimous (as opposed to the War in Iraq, where there is near unanimity that the War to Preserve the Peace has not been as effective as the original war), perhaps the debate should center, rather, on the values of the Wars Against Government Waste, Against Welfare Fraud, and Against Illegal Immigration, to free up resources for making health benefits more readily available to the people who at least attempt or attempted to do their fair share in contributing to the system. When money can be spent on closing loopholes, improving efficiency, and providing necessary health care for American citizens who work and pay their taxes, how many Americans really prefer spending government money on such projects as exhibits in public museums displaying pure elephant dung on religious figures (which actually happened in New York City)?
Moore and others of his ilk allege that the
life expectancy in the United States is less than that in many other countries, impliedly because of health care. What they fail to point out are other factors, such as, to name just a few,
(1) the fact that our figures, to begin with, are likely to be more reliable than the figures of many other countries, considering how many of them base their figures on propaganda rather than facts, while the United States has a vigorous and fearless free press in a free country, where figures are much more likely to be scrutinized for accuracy and accountability;
(2) To the extent that there is some truth to these figures, in a way they are a testament to our affluence. Just as gout is known as the rich man’s disease, so is obesity the rich man’s figure, and the rich country’s endowment. The United States’ affluence has resulted in our country’s having one of the greatest incidences of obesity in the world. Almost a third of U.S. adults are obese, and about two-thirds are overweight. More of us can afford drugs, cigarettes, and other health-damaging vices than the citizens in most other countries.
To a great extent, universal self-control is needed more than universal health care, and the bill for it is a whole lot lower. It has been said that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. It may now be said that pounds of prevention are better than millions in cures.
(3) Our policies that encourage illegal immigration result in many illegal immigrants coming into the country, who fail to avail themselves of proper health care, even if they can afford it, for fear of being discovered and deported (notwithstanding the lack of enforcement that often takes place – or fails to take place);
(4) our bilingual programs assure that many people are language delayed in English for generations, thereby depriving them of information available in English that could help them learn how to prevent the onset of diseases and the exacerbation of medical conditions, through traditional and alternative medicine, and how to treat them.
(5) Our policies that encourage illegal immigration also result in our importing of many criminals who kill American citizens and fill American jails (although, as indicated above, the liberals in our midst make sure to give the criminals the rights they deprive their victims of, including health care);
(6) Our country loses more soldiers and support personnel fighting for the freedom of citizens around the world than any other country; and finally,
(7) Our country loses more people to acts of terrorism than most other countries, except, proportionally, Israel, because countries that export terrorists and these terrorists themselves view our western values of freedom and democracy as a threat to their repressive values.
As to America’s rankings in terms of infant mortality, many of the factors enumerated with respect to life expectancy in the immediately preceding paragraph apply, most notably, points 1, 3, and 4.
Supporters of universal health care try to make it seem as if they alone care about their fellow human beings, while those who oppose universal health care are allegedly morally bankrupt. Yet the most effective spokesperson on behalf of universal health care in America, Michael Moore, inadvertently showed his moral bankruptcy in his generally misleading but wildly successful recent movie, Sicko. It includes the ultimate example of cynical hypocrisy. On the surface, Moore did a magnanimous deed by giving money to one of his most outspoken Internet critics when this critic revealed he might have to stop sponsoring his anti-Moore website because of uninsured health problems. Moore’s official reason for giving him the money was to enhance freedom of expression. An analysis of the apparently good deed, however, reveals that the irony and the silver lining are tarnished.
Moore converted a charitable act into a humiliating one
One of the most famous philosopher/physicians in history, Moses Maimonides, described eight levels of charity, the lowest resulting in feelings of self-consciousness, with one of the highest being keeping the recipient unaware of his benefactor (and thereby not embarrassed or obligated in his presence), and “the greatest level… is to strengthen the name of another by… finding him a job…” so that he will regain his self-respect. Moore, however, managed to find and follow a lower form than any of these eight levels, misusing the positive act of charity by weakening the name of the suffering person, and turning the superficial act of charity into a clear act of humiliation and hypocrisy.
Had Moore truly wanted to help a critic to be able to continue to exercise his right to free speech, as
Moore claimed (in the movie and in interviews), Moore would have simply sent him an anonymous check, and left it that way. Moore’s decision, however, to send an anonymous check, and then to reveal its sinister source in a feature film shows that his real motive was precisely the opposite of his expressed motive, since by revealing the source, Moore converted a charitable act into a humiliating one.
On a practical level,
Moore’s decision to reveal the source of his gift did not advance free speech (as Moore claimed it was designed to do);
it did precisely the opposite; it increased the chances that the recipient might stop or tone down criticism of Moore and/or Moore’s works in appreciation or because of humiliation. The grant was really a business expense of manufacturing a clever and controversial scene for the movie. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, “You can fool many pseudo-liberals all of the time, and even some moderates some of the time, but even Michael Moore, Obama, and the other proponents of universal health care can’t fool people with facts at their fingertips, and a head clear enough to understand them."
Universal Health Care will threaten the American economy and overburden the American taxpayer
If Moore’s track record on the major issues discussed above is so questionable, can there really be any reasonable question as to the probability of his being more accurate and less misleading on other issues?
The bottom line is that universal health care will not only make health care worse for most legal American citizens, but it will also threaten the American economy and overburden the American taxpayer. The increased costs of health care will surely increase the clamor for the reduction of funds set aside for antiterrorism and the global war against the terrorists of al Qaeda, Iran, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, and other countries and entities whose main current targets are Israel and the United States, and whose ultimate targets include all non-Muslims wherever they may be found. Let us hope that all people of good will find their senses before it is too late, and make sure that the War on Terror remains the main priority of non-Muslims, which includes the more insidious attempts to undermine this War by causing it to lose its support, whether directly or indirectly.
Aaron I. Reichel, Esq., is the author of Fahrenheit 9-12 -- A Rebuttal to Fahrenheit 9/11, the movie written and produced by Michael Moore, the same person who wrote and produced Sicko, the most popular presentation in favor of universal health care.
