“Chris” called today and asked Jay Severin if this country has the best police forces in the world. (Yes.) Do we have the best firefighters in the world? (Yes.) Then why the great concern over government involvement in health care, Chris asks. And aren’t police and fire departments examples of socialism?
Jay was clearly uncomfortable with the direction of the conversation, so he tried to make it sound that Chris’s question was so absurd that there was no way to respond to it, and Chris was sent packing.
Perhaps a Severin defender would like to use this space to explain exactly why complete governmental over our foreign and domestic defense services are perfectly fine and not at all “socialist” whereas the slightest government intervention in health care is socialist, dangerous, and stupid? All comments responding to this post will be approved as soon as possible.
14 Comments
Because Jay can afford to pay for decent coverage under the current system (with the ridiculous salary he makes for working part-time and having most callers whom he has tricked into thinking that he is one of them agree with him). I find it amazing how people who make millions can convince those who make modest salaries that they are the victims of big government.
Severin is incapable of carrying on a thoughtful conversation with someone that has an opposing point of view. When challenged, he merely resorts to name calling or ridicules the caller and then quickly cuts off the line. At this point he usually then says that the caller has hung up because he was afraid of the host.
lynnrockets.com
What you people fail to realize is that neither the police nor the firefighters are controlled by the federal government. They are in fact controlled by local governments, thereby, requiring decentralized planning and decentralized execution because each local community have different needs. Centralized planning of local police and firefighters would be disastrous.
In addition, the absence of local police and firefighters is an inherent risk to the overall safety of the entire population. That’s why communities invest to have them instituted. This has nothing to do with socialism, it’s just basic common sense.
This question is a “red-herring”. And if you don’t understand why perhaps you should revisit the definition of “socialism” yourselves.
David, I wanted to mention (since I did not in the last post) that I have been reading and enjoying your comments and those of others the past year. I simply cannot believe at the times the idiocy of these supporters of Jay Severin who literally take anything he says as gospel.
Publius: Where in the definition of socialism is there a distinction made between local, regional, and national government? And as to the “disastrous” idea of a centrally-planned police force … ever hear of the FBI?
The absence of adequate health care services is ALSO an inherent risk to the overall safety of the population. In some cases the risk is directly to health (think epidemics) and in other cases there is a large-scale economic impact (lost productivity).
So publius, please try again. Explain why it is OK for governments to directly employ public safety personnel but not OK for government to even regulate the health care industry.
Indeed, David. The health care debate forces you to answer the question: does one think that health care is something that every citizen deserves/needs. I happen to think that it is. Opponents to nationalized health care take the “I got mine and screw everyone else” attitude (and do not realize that a healthy nation is a productive nation).
The government does a lousy job of everything, except for law enforcement and military.
I am proud that we don’t have any of those socialist, government programs here in America. I’m proud that we can have Medicare and Social Security for our seniors, but do so with a private system, not government run.
I am also angry at the incompetence of our federal government in running the Internal Revenue Service. I wish they would do a much better job at collecting the taxes, in particular by auditing my own arse to collect all those back taxes I owe. The government can’t do anything right, those idiots.
“Jeff,” I am afraid that the subtle sarcasm of your remarks will be lost on most Severinophiles. It would be amusing to hear you call Jay with such sentiments to see how he would respond.
DavidFromBrighton
There is no distinction made among local, regional, and national governments in socialism, that is why they call it “centralized planning’ … duh …
However, I believe in the “USA”, you know the country we live in … there is a clear distinction between Federal, State, and local governments. We are after all talking about the USA … right?!
Why stop at the FBI, why not include the CIA, the NSA, and various other “thought police”. That, by the way, it’s a “1984” reference for you big government type illuminatis. All these intelligence agencies failed to respond to 9/11 and you want a centralized police force to not only police local communities but also the entire country … ha … ha … good luck with that.
As far as the absence of adequate healthcare, don’t we already have a form of socialized medicine. Aren’t they called Medicare and Medicaid … oh wait a minute they probably don’t count because they’re failures. As far as the 50 million people who don’t have health insurance, how many of these people simply choose not to have health insurance. Obviously, you chose not to develop that foresight because you just chug the kool-aid that CNN and MSNBC keep giving you. Talk about being brainwashed. And when it comes to personal health, it is both a right and a privilege, and with that comes great personal responsibility. Are you familiar with the phrase “personal responsibility”?
Let me just give you an example of a government run health facility. I’m sure you’ve heard of it, they’re called VA hospitals … Have you heard what happened to the thousands of vets that decided to get colonoscopies in a VA hospital in Miami and Virginia
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/16/health/main5091478.shtml)…
some of them have been reported to contract HIV and hepatitis because the VA hospital failed to sanitize the equipment they used to do the procedures. Talk about criminal negligence. Don’t even get me started on other negligent acts of VA hospitals. What a way to treat the vets who give up life and limb for this country. And you want the government to run the healthcare system? Ha .. ha .. ha ..
The last time this level of government intervention occurred was when the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei – Nazi) was in charge, basically opposed to any form of economic, political, and classical liberalism, all major tenets of a limited government.
Publius, the state/local/federal distinction is really separate from the main issue of whether government involvement in the provision of services is necessarily a bad thing. You still haven’t explained to me the logical distinction between government involvement in public safety and government involvement in public health.
As for Medicare being a “failure,” tell that to Betsy McCaughey, Jay Severin’s go-to gal on health care. She thinks Medicare is one of the best things that’s ever happened in this country and her worry is that the proposed reforms will weaken the program.
To my knowledge, NOTHING in the proposed reform would lead to additional government ownership and operation of health care facilities, as in the VA. Prove me wrong, if you can. My understanding of the bill is that it would (a) impose stricter regulations on the private health insurance industry; (b) make reforms to the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs; and (c) ease the acquisition of health insurance outside of employer-based plans by creating a governent-supervised health care program to compete with (not replace) private insurance.
I should also point out that I am not a very strong proponent of the reform bill. I think any health care system that is based on the concept of “insurance” is doomed to fail. For more on that, see http://davidschrag.com/schrug/2009/07/27/the-fundamental-problems-with-health-insurance/.
DavidFromBrighton,
I believe I did explain to you the distinction between the government’s involvement in public safety and government involvement in public health. But let me break it down for you … the preamble of the Constitution sums it up pretty well, I think
The preamble of the constitution says … “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, etc … etc … etc … In other words, the government set up by “the people” is responsible for insuring the general populace from direct intentional harm brought about by enemies both foreign and domestic. This is why ‘we the people” establish local militias (i.e. national guard), the military, and local police. I believe the FBI, the CIA, and the military was established because of the “Constitution of the United States” not because of “socialism”. The flaw in your logic is you think that just because the FBI is a shared good, it means that it’s a product of socialism. Your employing a “fallacy of false cause” i.e. Non-sequitur. When in fact, the FBI (or military, CIA, etc .., etc …) was established because it’s supposed to promote the general welfare of “the people” as stated in the Constitution of the United States.
As for the bill itself … Point (1) impose stricter regulation on the private health insurance industry. Why? If there’s a public option (i.e. gov’t taxpayer subsidized option) and let’s assume it’s “efficient” (Ha … ha … ha), why do we need to regulate private insurance companies? Why waste the money? Most people would say “screw” the private insurance companies (they’ve been screwing me all this time), I’m going with the public option. Point (2) Make reforms to medicare and medicaid. Why? Shouldn’t the gov’t be doing this anyway? You mean they’ve been wasting my tax payer dollars all this time. Why are these “socialist” programs not working? Maybe because they are managed by Washington bureaucrats all this time? Point(3) Ease the acquisition of health insurance outside of employer-based plans by creating a supervised health care program. Great. Why pay twice? My tax payer dollars are already subsidizing the public option. I’ll just use the public option, I already paid for it! Screw the private option. So how is this fair competition again?
As you pointed out you’re not a proponent of the current bill. So what are you a proponent of? I also detest “insurance programs”, but wait a minute … isn’t this public option also a big insurance program paid for by the taxpayers? What are you a proponent of again? This 1000 page bill is a farce. You know it, and I know it.
In summary, our healthcare system is the worst in the world, except for all others.
P.S.
Please read my comments in its entirety … you might learn something.
Publius: Believe me, I read all comments in their entirety.
As you yourself have now pointed out, a program can be funded with tax dollars and administered by the government without being “socialist.” Furthermore, direct government provision of goods and services — which is, by definition, socialism — is not necessarily anti-American nor necessarily doomed to failure.
Now you know as well as I do that the preamble to the Constitution is not binding law, but let’s stipulate that it is. Where do you see that the “common defense” or “general welfare” must be limited to protection against intentional acts by human beings? Are you saying it is unconstitutional (or otherwise un-American) for the police or the military to provide assistance to citizens after an earthquake or hurricane? How about taxpayer-funded building of dams and levees? Also unconstitutional?
What about municipal or state-funded ambulance services? Is that socialized medicine? If not, why not? Are you suggesting that we would be better off if we did away with all government-run ambulances and replaced them with for-profit ambulance companies? I suppose one could make that argument and have some evidence to prove it, but I don’t hear anyone advocating for that idea.
Why do we need to regulate insurance companies? For the same reason we need to regulate any private industry: to protect individuals from getting shafted by profit-seeking enterprises. In the long run, a company that lowered the cost of their baby food by buying diseased and dangerous raw materials might be forced out of business, but in the short run they might find it more profitable to keep using the harmful ingredients. Great for shareholders, not so great for babies. I cannot think of any country that I’d want to live in that does not have fairly strong regulation of the important consumer-facing industries: food, finance, health, law, building, housing, etc. If you think that any government regulation of these industries is unwarranted, then it’s no longer worth pursuing this discussion because you are so radically anti-government that we are never going to find common ground for discussion.
Shouldn’t the government be reforming Medicare and Medicaid anyway? Yes. Even George Bush made Medicare reform a big priority, and now Obama is trying to make the Medicare drug benefit work even better.
As for public vs private options in the insurance market, there still seems to be a thriving market for private schools and universities despite the presence of public competition. There are even private police forces and private roads. The cries of unfair competition seem a little premature.
My solution would be to provide everyone in the country with “health stamps” that could be used to obtain a minimal but tolerable level of health care services without regard to income, assets, or employment. Then I would let the private sector figure out a way for people to buy more than the minimum, according to their ability and desire to pay. Unfortunately, this concept seems so radically different from any of the proposals that have been suggested in recent times that I have little hope in seeing it come to pass. So for now I’ll support the next best thing, which is the Obama plan.
DavidFromBrighton,
Direct government provision of goods and services should be done based on the overarching ideals of the US Constitution not socialism. Remember, what I said about the “fallacy of false cause” or non-sequitur. More specifically your using the “fallacy of the undistributed middle”. The logic goes like this …
(1) all men are humans,
(2) Women are humans,
(3) Therefore all women are men. Which is clearly false.
Now let us apply it to our argument.
(1) all government provided goods and services are socialist.
(2) The FBI (or the military) is a government provided good.
(3) Therefore the FBI (or the military) must be a socialist program.
Which is clearly false. Why? Because local militias and the military are instituted based on the ideals of the US Contitution, which by the way, predates the advent of socialism. Unless Karl Mark and Friedrich Engels rented a time machine and went back in time and adviced our Founding Fathers to ignore Adam Smith and John Locke and abandon the ideals of life, liberty, and property.
Unfortunately, no one really pays attention to the US Constitution, especially the politicians and bureaucrats who run this country. So you’re not alone in that regard.
The preamble is not binding law? What? Maybe if you’re from Cuba. If it’s not binding law, then why is it that courts have often cited it to try several cases. Do some research on it. It is an introduction to the “Supreme law of the land” i.e. the Constitution of the United States. It, in fact, captures the spirit of the US Constitution. And since it is the “supreme law of the land” you take it in its entirety not just pieces of it.
On the subject of, what’s constitutional and what’s not. Since when did I say that it’s unconstitutional to provide assistance to earthquake victims, or to build levees and dams. We do that now.
Besides, how can you write a constitution that protects the citinzenry from events (i.e. non-entities). An earthquake is an event, an epidemic is an event. We can have the best emergency responders in the world. But how would that prevent an earthquake? Heck, we could have the most efficient government run healthcare system (ha … ha … ha, again) in the world but how would that stop a world wide epidemic. An epidemic is a malady, you can only hope to contain it, but it will not stop until it has ran its course. Think swine flu. Furthermore, I only used the preamble in this instance in the general sense, not in a particular sense. Are you that narrow minded that you fail to see that? Lastly, my interpretation of the Constitution is not incongruent with the provision of these type of services, it does, in fact promote it.
Socialism is not doomed to failure. Tell that to the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Cambodia and Laos. Christ, Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB apparatchik from old Russia, was warning us about extensive government intervention. If that’s not a warning shot fired across the bow of the ship, then what is?
David … we do in fact have private for profit ambulance companies. They offer more services than EMS does for a better price. They will even drop you off at the hospital of your choice. No one advocates for it because no one knows exactly what the difference is. Besides, if EMS is socialized in this country, why is it that we still have to pay for EMS services. Aren’t they already funded by taxpayers. Don’t spew facts you know nothing about. You only sound ignorant and I’m assuming you aren’t.
When I refuted your argument about regulation, I was refuting the points that you yourself brought. My point is, why regulate private insurance companies when the bill says that the public option is so much better. It is after all designed to compete with the private option, right?! And this is, in fact, the point of pushing the bill, right? Because if it’s not better than the private option then why have it at all? Why compete? For you to over-generalize that I’m against all types of regulation is nonsensical. And for you to suggest that I’m radically anti-government is even more nonsensical. I am for limited government, and limited government does “NOT” mean no government. Why do you think I cite the US Constitution? I believe in the rule of law and the rule of government as outlined in the Constitution. My only intent was to refute the points you brought up about the bill since you challenged me. You even brought up the fact that you’re not a strong proponent of the bill. Well. guess what I just gave you another example of why this bill is so inefficient. Why go off on tangents about things not related to this discussion, you could barely challenge me on the current topic (although I would be happy to demolish your arguments about the current state of government regulations as well). Stick to the topic.
Private vs Public schools and universities. Again apples and oranges. What does this have to do with healthcare. But I’ll oblige you. State universities are managed at the state level not the federal level. In socialism there is no such thing as a state level nor is there such a thing as free and independent states. There is only one state. And in that regard both the University of California system and UMass system will both be under the jurisdiction of the know-nothing bureaucrats in the District of Corruption .. err .. D.C. We both know this is not the case. Also, when it comes to choosing universities students prioritize degrees and ROI over tuition costs. So there’s another level of complexity to it. In other words, if an aspiring engineering student got accepted to MIT, why would he choose to go to Suffolk, when the prospects of success and ROI associated with an MIT degree is so much better. There are also issues on acceptance rates and the like. An institution like UC Berkley (a public school) is much more competitive than a Suffolk University (private). So you see, it’s not that simple.
“Health Stamps” … minimal but tolerable level of healthcare services … what does that mean? … what is a tolerable level of healthcare? … that’s all relative, and is dependent on personal issues and circumstances. What makes you think that you and your ilk know what is good for me and my family and what level of healthcare we need. My exceptional doctor has a hard time keeping track of all of his patients’ medical conditions and he’s turning down new patients because of this … what makes you think the government can do a better job.
I have refuted all of your points but you have yet to refute mine. Are you not capable of mustering your powers of deductive reasoning? I am left with no choice but to make this assumption about your level of reasoning because you have yet to prove me wrong.
Publius, your comments merit their own blog post. See http://severinwatch.com/2009/08/07/the-publius-manifesto/
One Trackback
[...] have been thoroughly enjoying my debate with “Publius” in the comments to my recent post on Jay Severin’s conception of socialism. Publius’s most recent comments are [...]