Socialist Security

The Sierra Times ^ | 01/05/04 | Lee Robinson

[o_zarkman44]

An inevitable consequence of socialism is the division of society into two groups; those who are consuming government ‘services’ and those who are paying for them. As the waning and collapse of socialist countries around the globe has clearly demonstrated, those who consume eventually overwhelm those who provide. And since the providers must be increasingly coerced to participate, in the long run you cannot have a hybrid free/socialist government. Socialism is a political cancer in which one entitlement program will ultimately have the same effect upon the country as one cancer cell will upon the body. The problem with both these diseases is that they take on lives of their own, independent of the host. Every entitlement program the government ever instituted has or soon will metastasize into an open ended endowment that politicians can incrementally expand to buy votes; “vote for me and we’ll take care of you, too.”

The best illustration of this point is the history of Social Security. Over the course of its existence this program has gone from an opportunistic excuse to institute a new tax during the depths of the great depression, to an out-of-control, inoperable political malignancy that has literally changed our entire system of government. Originally sold to the public as a way for each worker to financially invest in his or her own retirement it quickly degenerated into a means by which the federal government provides the basic necessities of existence to tens of millions of citizens using other people’s taxes to do so. In a nutshell, socialism. And now the Political Machine is going to add on a $400 billion entitlement to prescription medicine.

First of all, let’s be realistic. The $400 billion figure is a scam, a pipe dream. Medicare alone is almost 10 times more expensive than we were told it would be and the whole Social Security program must by now be over 100 times more costly then predicted. A far more likely estimate of this so-called ‘benefit’s’ cost would be at least two trillion dollars.

Worse yet is that the language of the prescription drug bill prohibits the government from using the scale of its enormous new pharmaceutical obligations as leverage to get a lower price from the manufacturers. It also maintains the current restrictions against importation of low cost foreign made generic drugs. The politically well connected drug and health care cartels have been guaranteed that America will buy their products no questions asked and that the market will remain closed to competition. It is of course no coincidence that these two industries are major contributors to the politicians in both the Republican and Democrat divisions of the American Political Machine. Once again it is much cheaper and enormously more profitable for the special interests to purchase the regulatory favors of Washington’s political harlots than to compete in a fair, unsubsidized, marketplace. The military-industrial complex has been joined by the Social Security-health care-pharmaceutical complex.

The 2002 annual report of The Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund suggests that today’s children could be paying more than 52 percent in payroll tax just to fund elderly benefits. And that does not include the financial disaster of the ‘prescription drug benefit’. We must also remember that, official titles aside, there is no Social Security and Medicare trust fund. There are no accounts anywhere containing the accumulated taxes already taken from earnings to fund Medicare, Medicaid or, indeed, any part of the Social Security program at all. All the money that was taken in was spent long ago. All the money that now must be raised will either come from borrowing or directly from future taxes.

Keeping in mind that drug and long term care providers will be sheltered from the realities of a free market, the logistics of the prescription drug benefit become even more frightening. Every prescription that is filled creates the need for the next one to be filled. Every malady that is relieved by our children’s taxes opens the door for the next, progressively more expensive infirmity. To be ‘saved’ from the ravages of heart ‘disease’ is to be almost guaranteed a case of cancer or the pathetic degeneration of Alzheimer’s; therefore the next entitlement that will have to be offered will be to nursing home and long term hospital care. After all, if the system has kept someone alive long enough to become utterly dependent upon others we can’t just leave them on the curb. Under the existing provisions of Medicare and Social Security the assets of these hordes who now exist on what is essentially government administered life support will be channeled away from the people and into the clutches of the Political Machine and its associates. Our children and grandchildren will not only be virtual tax slaves for the greater glory of socialism but the accumulated wealth and property of our families will be consumed by a system of forced dependence. About the only thing that could make such an exploited existence bearable would be a steady supply of some of those new, mood altering drugs that the pharmaceutical industry seems to come out with every week or so. Especially if they were ‘free’

Then there is the question of responsibility. Should those to whom self respect is a virtue be forced to pay the unending medical bills of the obese or the alcoholic or those addicted to tobacco? To be ‘fair’ the government must therefore regulate the individual’s life with an eye toward the political realities of socialism. The enormous expansion of medical entitlements will lead to an equally enormous assault upon the right of the individual to live as they wish. After all, if you choose to live in an unhealthy manner then you are forcing others to be taxed unfairly; hence, you only really have the ‘right’ to live in a way most convenient for others. And for the sake of simplicity, “a way most convenient for others” will mean “a way most convenient for the State.”

Thus do people give up their liberty and the futures of their children in pursuit of the government handout. There is very little difference between the simple savage trading ancestral territories for shiny and colorful trinkets and the simple citizen who would trade their descendant’s birthrights for a chance to extend their dependent existence at the expense of anyone but themselves.

There is, of course, one difference; the simple savage doesn’t know any better.

[o_zarkman44]

Government entitlements are a form of vote getting. Beware of politician's promises in an election year. If the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is so good for Americans, why is it going to take 3 years before consumers benefit from the so called improvement? And why are drug companys and HMO's given immediate incentives? Where is the competition in a free market that allows consumers to shop around? And how much can we afford without raising taxes? Just some thoughts here for discussion.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
28	Maine	215.00	4	53.75	81	2.65	10.00	1

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[joesnuffy]

Dont worry...when those 8 Million + illegals start jumping up and down on the "entitlement bandwagon" SS will collapse from the weight..
IMO thats the plan...collapse it once in for all...its gone...start over....

[Mad Dawgg]

Bump For later read.

[rmmcdaniell]

Dont worry...when those 8 Million + illegals start jumping up and down on the "entitlement bandwagon" SS will collapse from the weight.. IMO thats the plan...collapse it once in for all...its gone...start over....

Your right, but I'll bet my life that taxes will be 90% before the "collapse." SS will collapse for sure, but not until the entire country collapses with it.

[o_zarkman44]

it almost seems like our government is promoting socialism instead of the capitalism that makes our country different from the rest of the generic world and our country worth defending. Government programs eliminate competition from the free market. I agree. Taxes will collapse our country.

[Nick Danger]

Every prescription that is filled creates the need for the next one to be filled.

Yeah, there are some serious ethical dilemmas coming up in the next ten or twenty years. We're about at the point where we can keep just about anyone alive for another ten minutes if we spend enough money. The sicker they get, the more expensive it becomes to keep them alive... but we can do it. It just costs a lot of money.

There is no reason to believe that health care expenditures could not someday consume every dollar earned in the economy. We could tax every working adult 100% of their earnings, throw it at keeping ever-sicker, ever-older adults alive another month or two... and still not really be done.

That's not really going to happen, of course, because it's a ridiculous result. People won't work anymore if they get taxed 100%. We have to feed those people, and we have to feed children, so we can't really spend all the money on the world on health care.

Which means that either some people are going to voluntarily choose to die, or there will be some really nasty picking-and-choosing going on to decide who will be forced to die.

We already have some of that in deciding who will get scarce transplant organs, and who will stay on the list... perhaps to die. But we are someday going to have that issue with everyone, because there is not one of us who, toward the end, could not be given another year to live for 5, 10, 25 million dollars in various "procedures."

Who will get those procedures? Who won't? Will the people who need them have the courage, and the selflessness necessary to get the Hell out of the way voluntarily, or will they insist on putting the onus for killing them on their children? It will come to that. We're almost there now.

[rmmcdaniell]

Who will get those procedures? Who won't?

Answer to #1: The elitists who control the system.

Answer to #2: Those who stand in the way or represent a threat, however small, to the elitists. Stalin will have nothing on the leaders of tomorrow.

[Sgt_Schultze]

It's not that our "leaders" want the system to collapse, the clamor for amnesty for illegals, and the refusal to stem the influx is an attempt on the part of the "leaders" to infuse new capital into the system. The US population is not building enough naurally to sustain the Ponzi Security scheme. The newly naturalized citizens incomes will be mined for their appropriate "contribution." That will buy more time before the eventual collapse.

[JSteff]

"when those 8 Million + illegals start jumping up and down on the "entitlement bandwagon"

They already are, it is just that when the become "legal" we will need to create more government jobs to administer them.

It is a case of government creating more government jobs and many already in the government take one step up the ladder leaning on our backs.

[JSteff]

What is worse is over the last 5 years there has been a serious attempt, backed by the big drug companies, to prevent access to herbs, vitamins... even regular dietary supplements. Attempts to make it necessary to have a doctor prescribe vitamins!!!

Once they get that the layman's options are sunk. It will all be government controlled. It is already happening in Europe.

Actually doctors will be one of the groups to suffer the worse. There is no way that will be free market (or any semblance of it as it is now) because the money will be going to pay for the regulated drugs and supplements. Doctors will no longer have any incentive to open a practice because it will be a government agency.

Look at the rest of the world. Name the large medical discoveries or techniques discovered or pioneered in England, France, Scandinavia, etc. Times up. We all know it is a fraction of what is discovered in the USA. The brilliant medical minds come to the US where they can earn a good living.... just look at Canada.

My parents (retired) were just up in Canada in their motor home for 6 months. My mom who used to lean towards a liberal democratic type stance was shocked. She said they drove for days, and except in the larger cities there is no doctors practices, few hospitals or emergency health care facilities, not even dentist offices.

She said "if that is what socialized health care is... I don't want it." "In most places we could not see where to go for medical treatment of emergency or any other kind." At their ages I guess they notice that sort of thing, but from talking to them both said the thought of the USA ending up like that concerned them.

[Way2Serious]

Which means that either some people are going to voluntarily choose to die, or there will be some really nasty picking-and-choosing going on to decide who will be forced to die.

In one form or another, that's been going on for as long as Professional Health Care has existed. Have you ever cared for a terminally ill loved one? The TV version is where the doctors tell the patient that there's nothing that can be done, that it's time to get one's affairs in order and go home to die, under the loving care of Mucus Welby, MD. The end of the house call was the end of that scenario. The reality is that the doctor simply stops seeing the patient. No more appointments. Then, a social worker shows up with a business card for the local hospice care facility. From that point on, the chances of even getting the patient past the emergency room doors of a hospital are practically nil. Health insurance very conveniently pays for hospice care.

If we ever get to Soylent Green and "Deathing Centers" like the one Edward G. Robinson checked into in the movie (his last film btw, he knew he was terminally ill during filming), it will be the doing of the Anointed do-gooders. It won't be via some geometrical Malthusian max point where healthcare supply can't keep up with demand. Everybody who has ever waved that boogeyman in any free market economic argument has been wrong.

[Nick Danger]

It won't be via some geometrical Malthusian max point where healthcare supply can't keep up with demand. Everybody who has ever waved that boogeyman in any free market economic argument has been wrong.

The hidden assumption in the idea that supply will increase to meet demand is that the people doing the demanding have money to pay. It is not true that supply rises to meet the demand of people who have no money, or insufficient money.

Someone who "demands" a $3 million medical procedure, who does not have $3 million dollars, does not constitute a "demand" that the supply will rise to meet.

The issue here is that the government has set out to take the $3 million from other people, and will then offer to pay for the procedure. This only works so long as the government does not require 60, 70, or 80 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product in order to pay for all the procedures being demanded. As medical technology improves and the number of retirees increases, we could, in theory, keep lots of people around for a very long time, if only we tax everyone into poverty. I don't think people will accept that. So, some of the people who want the procedures, and could benefit from them, will die instead. Who does the picking-and-choosing is going to be an issue. If you think it will left up to individual MD's, you haven't factored in the lawyers.

[Way2Serious]

As medical technology improves and the number of retirees increases, we could, in theory, keep lots of people around for a very long time, if only we tax everyone into poverty. I don't think people will accept that. So, some of the people who want the procedures, and could benefit from them, will die instead. Who does the picking-and-choosing is going to be an issue. If you think it will left up to individual MD's, you haven't factored in the lawyers.

The flaw in your argument is that the price of your "$3 million medical procedure" stays fixed at $3 million indefinitely. I still maintain that the only answer to the dilemma is the free market. Take heart transplants. The first one may have cost tens - if not hundreds - of millions of dollars, if one factors in the medical research leading up to it. Nowadays, you looking at about $250,000, well within the realm of any half decent insurance or co-op plan or even the procedes of one "Beef and Beer" night at the local church. Cutting edge procedures not involving the removal, storage, transportation and preparation of donor organs can cost half that. The same can be said for cancer and other treatments as they proceed from experimental to practically routine. The market has responded to insurance and hospital red tape by opening up commercial centers for many specialized procedures. Doctors now routinely advertise their laser vision treatments, "stand up" MRIs, and non-invasive colonoscopies on talk radio stations. I can't think of an example of a healthcare treatment or medicine that doesn't go down in cost with increased availability.

Your nightmare scenario is the stuff of socialized medicine run amok, and I think you meant it that way. It's an unavoidable flaw of capitalism that only the rich can afford cutting edge life saving medical treatments. Traditionally, charities have made up for the "inequities" that would otherwise put the poor at the medical disadvantage. The democrats know this. One of the things the Democrats tried to do "under the radar" during the push for HillaryCare is to make charity hospitals like Deborah ineligible from collecting insurance payments. If that doesn't give one a clue that the democrat party has anything but the well being of the American poor at heart, I don't know what would.

[Nick Danger]

The flaw in your argument is that the price of your "$3 million medical procedure" stays fixed at $3 million indefinitely.

You don't get to hold the technology constant any more than I get to hold the price of any given technology constant. No matter what wonders become routine, there will always be some new wonder that costs $3 million, and there will always be people who need whatever it is.

In the past, doctors really could say, truthfully, "I'm sorry, nothing can be done." We are approaching an era where there will always be something that could be tried, the only brake on using it will be cost. This is a new thing for most humans to have to face. It will be gut-wrenching for many.

[Way2Serious]

No matter what wonders become routine, there will always be some new wonder that costs $3 million, and there will always be people who need whatever it is.

Allowing for your monetary inflation, and my advancing technology, I'm still trying to fathom how the impact of, say, brain transplant surgery in the year 2070, will present a different moral, ethical, and social challenges than did heart transplant surgery did in 1970. The for-profit and the non-profit sectors of healthcare each did their part to bring the procedure to Joe Blow when the needed skills rippled through the medical profession.

We are approaching an era where there will always be something that could be tried, the only brake on using it will be cost.

The development costs for wiping out every disease, infirmity, and malady known to man will have approached infinity long before point-of-service treatment costs will even be a consideration. By then, we'll be using magical Federation "credits" like on Star Trek. 'Til then, we just need to minimize the interaction between the legal and medical professions and hope for the best.

[thesharkboy]

under the loving care of Mucus Welby, MD.

He was always too snotty for me.

[Mikey]

"Once politics become a tug-of-war for shares in the income pie, decent government is impossible."
Friedrich A. Hayek

[Way2Serious]

...Mucus Welby, MD.

Which us, of course, the answer to the age old question "What's green, slimy, and carries a black bag?"

[o_zarkman44]

"Traditionally, charities have made up for the "inequities" that would otherwise put the poor at the medical disadvantage." you stated.

Interestingly enough, many people percieve "taxation" as their contribution to charity since government has become the clearinghouse for charity. But unlike charity, government continues to tap the donors instead of the realization that there is no such thing as being able to afford to grant each and every request for assistance. That is the harsh reality of life that not everyone, no matter how worthy their request is, will recieve assistance. Problem with government administered charity is they are afraid to say no because the Government give back is always tied to the gain of or loss of votes. The powers that be exist on the basis that controlling the purse strings controls the favor of the constituency, and thus, the ability to continue to exert control over the people.