Posted on 12/10/2002 10:36:08 PM PST by Sir Gawain
|
Though it be distressing and dreadfully depressing, I have come to realize that my father is a terrorist, a member of a widespread network actively engaged in the ruination of America. With millions of members now, it will double and possibly triple in size within the next thirty years. Worse, it is likely that nearly every American will join this movement, including me. I recently came to this terrible realization when, while visiting my father, three of his collaborators trapped me at the end of a urine-scented corridor and, at that moment, I saw them for what they were — terrorists, whose overweening purpose was to devastate my life, my family’s life, and to destroy Western Civilization. I stood and faced them as they closed relentlessly on me, shuffling behind their walkers, mumbling, vacant-eyed, yet with bony hands grasping at me — the shock troops of the ill Qaeda. Later, I questioned my father about this movement and asked him if he really wanted to be one of them. He smiled and replied, "Alabama?" So I turned to the Net, to government sites for, if not intelligence, then for information and I found an amazing amount at many web sites:
My head swam in an endless sea of statistics. More than 45 million people receive social security today. More than 40 million enrolled in Medicare, more than 5 million disabled. $213 billion, $385 billion, $118 billion. I had found numbers, many large numbers, but clarity eluded me. I continued. $94 billion, $145.5 billion, $142 billion, $225.6 billion, $180.9 billion. 4 million. 7.2 million. 37 percent. 300 percent. 400 percent increase. My head spinning, I continued slogging.
The information seemed purposefully unclear. Data didn’t agree from site to site, as they used different measurements, different time frames and so developed different conclusions, and so many numbers. But an image began forming of the ill Qaeda’s extent and its explosive growth. In 1965, 9.4 percent of the population was over 65. In 1995, 13 percent was. In 2030, maybe 25 percent, and with more than 7.5 percent older than 80. And 54.5 percent of the over 65ers have some disabilities; 37 percent, have severe disabilities. And it is worsening. By 2040, perhaps 14 million people with Alzheimer’s. I stopped, and while endless figures marched through my brain, I experienced a series of realizations. First, the ill Qaeda in America is a massive movement and well funded, largely by taxpayers. Secondly, the aim of the movement is our economic ruin. And finally, support for the ill Qaeda stretches far beyond the elderly shock troops. Supporters obviously lurk throughout our government. Every government site I visited boasted of their massive staffs and mammoth budgets, touted the wonderful things they did for the aged and provided an abundance of happy numbers — how many people they served, how much they spent, how much longer people were living, how many were bedridden, how many lived with severe handicaps, how many with Alzheimer’s. Each agency seemed so proud of their ability to count, while ignoring their obfuscation and never questioning their activities. These venal bureaucrats not only keep themselves well-employed and well-pensioned, but are the paymasters of the ill Qaeda and see to it that the terrorists want for nothing, that no expense is too great, no demand too extreme. Their ultimate terror blow will not come from bombs or plagues, but from Social Security, the incredibly generous pensions for government employees, and worst of all, the fast approaching fiscal tsunami of Medicare and Medicaid. I decided to follow the money.
So many doing so much research with such large budgets. The money trail also led to thousands of profitable nursing homes and assisted living residences with staffs and management and, of course, to the pharmaceutical companies who develop, promote and sell drugs to the ill Qaeda while pocketing vast profits, largely lifted from taxpayers’ wallets. Bribes and campaign contributions led me to packs of politicians who promise to keep and expand the promises of previous politicians. Quite an extensive organization indeed. I also surveyed the roots of our ill Qaeda and found they can be traced back, like so many of our social and political problems, to the ludicrously ill-named "Progressive" movement of one hundred years ago, which had as its basic philosophy that "experts" know more than do citizens and so chosen "experts" should control the important parts of our social life. Incrementalism was their wont and, to their followers, it still is. Realizing that their goal of socialized medicine in a socialistic society would be impossible in an America where people still practiced individual responsibility, Progressives began to slowly inflict society with a complicated and expensive health care mess in the belief that people would eventually be compelled to turn to government and its experts for all medical care. This Progressive socialism was not of and by the workers, but of and by the experts. All power to the experts! Citizens merely need obey. The first step was the creation of the AMA’s medical monopoly and was soon followed with the granting of the power to dispense drugs to these state credentialed experts only, thereby removing much of the individual’s ability to self-medicate and turning the citizens, as well as their pharmacist allies, into medical nonentities. This movement inexorably progressed during the Twentieth Century. Care for Widows and Orphans mutated into Social Security, then disability insurance appeared, then tax breaks for business-provided health insurance and finally, with Medicare and Medicaid, the free market in medical care was all but destroyed and these Progressives had only to wait for their final victory. Progressives however have always ignored human nature and this penchant, plus an inability to imagine modern developments, such as astonishing medical advances, explosive growth in the power of lawyers and social advocates, and the Baby Boom, transformed their socialistic dream into an ill Qaeda nightmare. Progressives, ignoring human nature, assumed that professionals, including physicians and bureaucrats, would always act in the interests of society and of the needy, and that their citizen wards would be passive, dependent and thankful. A fact painfully obvious to all, save these reformers of humanity, is that if you give people something for nothing, they will overuse and abuse it, For instance, in 1964, prior to Medicaid, the poor saw physicians 20 percent less frequently than the non-poor; by 1973, after Medicaid, the poor visited physicians 18 percent more often than the non-poor. In 1963, the poor had only half as many surgical procedures per 100 people as those with above-average incomes; by 1970, the rate for the low-income was 40 percent higher. Ignoring this facet of human nature has cost taxpayers dearly as has disregarding that the medical industry would rationally decide to maximize income and not be selfless professionals. As long as insurance companies or the government reimburses, as long as the patient or the family pays, as long as the bed cannot be used more profitably, then there is an obvious economic incentive to keep oldsters alive, regardless of quality of life. Physicians, of course, claim that due to their sacred oath, they could not do otherwise. Understandably, over the past three decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of physicians in America, more than doubling the ratio of doctors to the population, and every physician expects financial success. When the Progressives began their meddling, life expectancy in America was under 50 years; by the New Deal era, expectancy had grown to 60; by 1960, it was nearly 70. These advances were tied to improved sanitation and relatively inexpensive drugs. Life expectancy today nears 80 years, but this latest increase has been due largely to expensive equipment and procedures. Intensive care units overcome heart attacks and sudden fevers, veins are cleaned out or replaced, organs scanned, intrusive tests run, potent drug regimens prescribed. Therapeutic relentlessness has become our medical credo, a total commitment to the preservation of life that has often turned medical care into a form of modern torture. The long-held fear that modern medical science would create a terrifying monster has been realized, not as a solitary creation of a Dr. Frankenstein, but rather as millions of rapacious retirees and their support staff. Only recently, since government regulations and paperwork have cut into profits, have doctors begun to rethink their Hippocratic oath, only they find themselves confronted by an array of social advocates keen to protect and promote the equal rights of every patient, regardless of age or physical condition, and synergetic schools of attack lawyers keen to litigate. They have succeeded in making therapeutic relentlessness required treatment for all. Our modern Progressive, democratic view no longer demands that everyone be one’s own physician and accept responsibility for one’s health, but rather insists that every facet of medical science be available to all, regardless of cost, demanding cradle-to-grave security for all, only the graves must be constantly cheated, while the ill Qaeda slowly drains our financial and emotional treasuries. We now have an expensive, highly litigious, semi-socialistic and complicated medical system — a cruelty beyond even Stalin’s imagination. This advocate class goes beyond mere medical "rights." They demand that government protect the citizenry from smoke, alcohol, drugs, too much fun, bad air, bad water, bad food, bad breath; they want government to treat the public as children to be protected; they demand it remove all risk from life, intending to thereby postpone indefinitely our human finale and allow everyone to happily gambol forever, disregarding the fact that the extensive woes of senescence have not been conquered and ignoring the conspicuous reality of countless mindless zombie seniors. Do they believe zombies enjoy themselves? I urge all people to visit homes for the aged and the infirm of body and mind. Go to such a place, spend time there and realize that there are things worse than death. Decide which is worse, to have an intact mind trapped in a feeble, uncooperative body or, like my father, possess a body capable of movement, function and control, but with a mind shrunken or short-circuited. Enjoy the sight of aged children visiting and tending an ancient parent. Ninety year olds can and do have children who too reside in retirement homes. Some blame must also resound to ourselves and our feeling that death has become totally unacceptable. Life today is generally easy and pleasant and people are in less of a hurry to depart this vale than in times of suffering, poverty and hard labor, and mix this with the rampant narcissism of modern America which has us view ourselves, and by a common belief in social equality, to view everyone as too damned wonderful and too important to ever lose. Or maybe Americans are so naturally naive and optimistic that we have grave trouble accepting the grim reality of death. I find it especially despicable when those who so loudly aver Christian beliefs, including eternal bliss in heaven, and who, in their own eyes lead blameless lives, still clutch frantically to this life, no matter how miserable it might be, and appear so terrified of the next. Whatever the reason, America seems no longer willing to accept death as part of life, but have come to believe they possess the "right" to unlimited, unremitting care, which fits the plan of the ill Qaeda — squeeze the taxpayers until the economy collapses or until our society crumbles in inter-generational disputations. The plan is brilliantly clever. Who after all would oppose the old, the sick, the infirm? Today the ill Qaeda claim nearly one-third of the bloated federal budget, but their full terror is yet to come. In a dozen years, the Baby Boomers will begin enlisting, and in ever increasing numbers. The thought of elderly Boomers makes a most upsetting picture. Many are so corpulent and flaccid that they can barely hoist their sedentary bulk up from the couch and waddle to the fridge for more snacks. They will certainly keep the medical industry busy for decades. The local Fliberal (Frisco liberal) Boomers however are different; many have spent decades doing penance for their youthful drug and disco decadence — jogging, yoga, working-out, dieting, intending to keep their bodies fit forever, and have taken their constant self-righteous whining to Olympic levels, but their minds . . . ? Many Boomers destroyed millions of brain cells back then and might live to regret it, but they rarely used the cells they had. Boomers have spent their lives believing in angels, free lunches, UFOs, channeling, Marxism, global warming, the Social Security lockbox, Bill Clinton and more. They are already too near senility and the future . . . Thirty five years ago was the Summer of Love. Thirty five years ahead could be the Winter of Resentment. I can picture hordes of wrinkly Fliberal Boomers shuffling along, clutching vinyl LP’s and lava lamps, heading for Strawberry Fields forever, imagining no money, while trying to get satisfaction, and demanding it all be paid for by the government. Within decades, the ill Qaeda will be devouring the equivalent of two-thirds of the present federal budget and add to that financial stress an expensive and ever-increasing, never-ending, worldwide war against evil plus another mammoth and alarming bureaucracy aiming for homeland security, and it becomes clear how near the ill Qaeda is to victory. What can possibly be done? Buy stock in Depends and industrial-strength walkers. Or we could insert the free-market into the medical system which would increase competition and personal responsibility and ultimately lower costs, but this won’t happen until after we reach financial crisis and that will be too late. Or free cigarettes could be dispensed to everyone and smoking made mandatory for all retirees. Or require exciting, fresh-air outings for all Medicare recipients — downhill skiing, skateboarding, mountain climbing, skydiving, all of which would increase their enjoyment while decreasing their numbers. Or we could promote a change in the social perception of suicide. Too many American religions decry suicide and so condemn their elderly, infirm, suffering and disconcerted believers to extended, expensive, exhausting deterioration. If we can change this adverse view and instead portray suicide as possibly heroic, as a soldier who flings himself upon a grenade in order to save others is not denounced, perhaps portraying a similar brave act in the suffering and the infirm elderly could offer an honorable exit to many. Or we could embrace and encourage ever increasing immigration, bringing in millions of Hispanic, Asian and even Arab workers annually to not only care for the aging Boomers but to pay the ever increasing taxes required for this care. What will be done? They will increase taxes and increase and increase and increase them. Many of the taxes will be levied directly upon businesses so that they can be hidden from the eyes and the pay stubs of most voters, but this tax drain will retard our economy and eventually force the curtailment of retirees’ benefits. We will then reach a future where American workers will experience poorer economic lives so the retirees can live in worsening economic conditions. Our national peril might even become obvious to Boomer Fliberals, but perhaps not until they look up from their broken wheelchairs and see their immigrant care-givers scowling at pay stubs and turning irate glares upon wheezing and whining Whitey. But by that time, the ill Qaeda will have triumphed. As my sister points out, I am undoubtably in shock over the final stages of my father’s life and my glib perspective assuages my pain, but the ill Qaeda exists nonetheless and waits patiently. There might be some serious solutions somewhere, but until someone unearths them, I think I’ll remain depressed. T. E. Ruppenthal lives in San Francisco, and may be reached at truppenthal@earthlink.net. |
I do not understand the question. You aren't suggesting being a successful parent doesn't produce anything of value are you? Or are you suggesting that my enjoyment of my children and the pleasure of seeing them develop and enjoy their lives is not a real value? Or maybe you are suggesting that now they are grown productive citizens, raising their own families and producing more decent self-sufficient productive citizens has no practical value?
If this is what you are suggesting, I guess I can't answer the question.
Hank
Disagree.
All families that function properly are authoritarian.
I wish I had my Keunnelt-Leddihn with me ... I'd quote him on the "experiment in democracy" taking place in American families (c. late 60's) that was such a dismal failure.
The family is the perfect relationship on which to draw the exact distinctions between equality and liberty which confuse so many people who mistakenly equate communism with Christianity or state-enforced altruism with the human virtue that is charity.
It was your comments on materialism that confused me ... they didn't quite jibe with your admirable take on your kids.
I was thinking today that any trial attorney worth his salt should take a page from the "non-judgmental latest data" with which our government and their interlock of Experts and Consultants and Advocacy Groups inundates us.
Any parents claiming pain and suffering for the death of their unborn child and able to put a price on that should be confronted with the real economic liability -- much less Pain and Suffering -- that each child poses.
There's no guarantee whatsoever a child's going to repay his parents' economic investment in him. Even a cursory glance at the child support figures for which men with no Choice are tracked like dogs and imprisoned, even, suggests that monetary damages for the loss of a child are ludicrous at best.
Your comments are sincere and you have raised my interest. Why do you say you are not a materialist?
Is this a religious conviction, or a philosophical one? I would like to know, because many Christians, for example, believe their religion and materialism are in conflict.
C.S. Lewis said a very wise thing. "God loves matter, else He would not have made so much of it."
I have more to say on this subject, but until I know what your position is, there is not much point. Matter is not an evil thing. There is no possible virtue that can be realized except by material people acting in a material world with material things.
Enough! I really would like to know why you seem to despise matter. (I use despise in the sense of "regard as having no value".)
Hank
It's no secret we agree very seldom (and it's true I really had no desire to waste my time ever again with you or SoL after the other day) but I suspect much of that's just the breaks of being born when you were.
(I sit exactly on the cusp of Boomers and Gen-X so I relate to both sides but don't exactly claim either ... =)
Take care.
This earth is a magnificent reminder of God's providence and His desire for us to be happy ... the happiest among us being those, generally, who can live on the same as the sparrows rather than get caught in the trap of materialism.
My faith and my philosophy are never in conflict so long as my philosophy remains in comport with objective truth.
(Another great thing about the material world is that it "fleshes out" or consistently confirms for us certain truths it points to which go well beyond the laws of physics by which the matter of reality is bound. Natural moral rests on what Is, not how you Feel or the fact that on occasion there are Accidents and aberrations in nature.
In fact, it was reading about quantum physics -- the math and the hard science -- what redirected me back toward the Church. The truth generally is staring one right in the face the whole time ... just like my housekeys.)
To call the family authoritarian and socialistic is to describe two facets of the same institution. To call the family authoritarian rather than socialistic is to confuse its distribution of power with its economics. There are authoritarian structures that are essentially capitalist -- Pinochet's Chile, Singapore, and organized crime come to mind -- so this is not a necessary association.
However, to be fair, authoritarian capitalisms seem to be unstable in the socialist direction, so there is room to argue the point just on the grounds of stability.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Stability? As in some Economic System or another?
How about justice or integrity?
One reason no socialist has genuine authority (other than the jackboot will he can force upon you as a fascist, the utopian dreams with which he'll seduce you as a Christian socialist or the shrill doctrine he'll shove down your throat as communist convert) is that socialism is not premised on tenets of enduring and self evident justice.
(Capitalism does incorporate a few but I think surely it is becoming obvious that it can be every bit as oppressive and unjust in the hands of men with no scruples and too stupid to prevent its inbuilt errors -- the sort the likes of Rand glorify -- from rendering it every bit as useful to the evil state as any socialist regime ... the only difference being the illusion of "choice" or "market" by which folks have the opportunity to will the Greater or the Lesser evil at all times.)
So ... I think you are confusing the imperialistic with the authoritarian.
Socialists, communists AND our current oligarchy of capitalist "leadership" in the west are imperialistic. (Only an imperialistic nation could wage "moral wars" that are absolutely unjust or announce that its executive leadership is now equipped with execution squads -- human and drone -- to assassinate whatever individuals it deems terrorists, at home or abroad.)
Instead, I'm talking about genuine authority ... the sort that naturally flows from a man of integrity and especially from the father in the family.
Of course, sometimes -- when there is no father -- the woman assumes the authority in direct proportion to her assumption of responsibility for the family's welfare.
This is one reason the State seeks to enfold single mothers in its arms and
-- by proclaiming their "right" to abort and/or to have children with or without fathers and lesbian partners, their "rights" to housing and equal pay for unequal work and by offering them some pittance payment from the Welfare State to grease the wheels of self-delusion in all these regards --
manages to usurp essential responsibility for the family.
I think you are confusing the imperialistic with the authoritarian.
Not at all. Authoritarian capitalisms such as the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos degenerate first to "crony capitalisms" -- states in which economic privileges are dispensed by the Authority to its favored friends -- and thence to ever-more-fully State-directed economies, after the Hitlerian pattern. This appears to occur more frequently than not -- and regardless of any expansionist tendency, or lack thereof, on the part of the country concerned. The Philippines were certainly not expansionist.
The propulsion changes over time, of course. The original dictator will die or be unseated, reducing the influence of his cronies. But the cronies will have become a sizable fraction of the economy, with many workers dependent on their continued success. Therefore, "to prevent economic chaos," the succeeding dictator or authority will institute policies that protect categories of companies broadly enough specified to encompass the former cronies. Von Mises and Hayek have described how the process is driven from there by the many ills that State-managed enterprise is heir to, including economic connectedness, divergence of incentives between the market and the government's economic managers, the information problem, and the desire to placate interest groups.
With regard to the rest of your comment, I have nothing to say, as it appears to be mostly about your religious beliefs, and I was talking about economics. I prefer not to argue religion. I have no expertise there, only my personal convictions.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.