Watch Your Tail

Don A. Bright
 

A man and his dog have been inseparable for the many years of the dog’s life. Once, on a hunting trip a snow storm stranded them deep in the woods. Although the man had a sleeping bag into which they could both share warmth at night and a canteen of water he had packed no food for the trip.

Concerned about the dog more than himself the man assured the dog that he would provide food for him. In order to accomplish this the man cut a piece of the dog’s tail off, heated it over the fire and fed it to the dog. Question: Could this program be sustained over a long period? Of course not.

The above tale describes socialism perfectly. Can the concept and practice of socialism sustain itself? Of course not.

Who suffered the most in the story of the man and his dog? Of course the dog did. Who paid more than planned when they left for the trip? Of course the dog did. Was the dog better off then he was before the trip? Of course not. Was the man guilty of winning the dog’s vote, as it were, out of compassion? If he did he was either ignorant, vain or extremely diabolical. And that gets us to the point of this commentary.

One has to accept the fact that our President and his liberal sycophants in congress fall under the third option above, extremely diabolical. (Although, as is the case in all liberals, vanity would play a large role.) These people are not ignorant. Even if they are not the straightest nail in the bin, they know - just like in the man and dog story - that socialism isn’t sustainable. These people are more interested in staying in power than they are in what’s best for American citizens. Diabolical? I can’t think of a better example. Vain? Same answer. Ignorant? You can’t be that diabolical without adequate brain-power.

As Obama and his troops set about destroying the best health care system in the history of man by socializing it they are very aware of the destructive force they are bring upon the American people. They have to be because understanding socialism at this point in history is as simple, if not simpler, than the story I began with. Here’s why:

Socialism has one very empirically evident fault. Is it logical that a government can take your money through taxes and save you money on your medical bills? In fact, that is turning logic on its head. Any - I repeat - any program run by the government is operating on a false premise; that it will cheapen things or make things on the market cost less.

Let’s examine why socialism is nothing but a pipedream cloaked in diabolical dishonesty.

If a person finds himself without the money to pay his medical bills and turns to the government to pay for them he is handing his tail to the bureaucrats so they can use a huge chunk of it to pay themselves and send dribbles of it back to him. When the government pays for your goods or services it can do so only if you give them the money to do so.

For every dollar you are now paying to a medical caregiver you will have to send at least two dollars to the government for them to pay it. While the proponents of the ponzi scam of socialism will have you believe so, the government cannot work like an insurance company. In any socialized program the government must - or always does - make it available to non premium paying customers. An insurance company is responsible only to its subscribers and thus reduces its overhead.

Another problem with government “give-away” programs is the complete lack of oversight. None of our politicians holding office would cut the services of the program for fear of losing votes. The way they handle hurdles along the road is to ignore them and throw more of the money they have taken from us at the program. This, in reality, raises the price of medical service to the individual through more taxes.

The old saying about getting a free lunch goes into play here. If a friend told you he would buy you lunch but only if you give him 10 dollars, not order anything over four dollars and also pay the tip I think you would just say no thank you because it would be much cheaper to pay for your own lunch.

Many years ago I debated a woman from England who thought she had been getting “free” medical care. During my research I discovered a little secret about the “free” care she had been getting. Her main defense of her system was the claim that for a “few schillings a week” all her medical care was provided for her. The secret was that the” few schillings” a week paid for only about 10% of the health care system. The British government had to pass a VAT (value added tax) of 33 % on all retail sales in order to pay for the system. In other words a $21,000 automobile would cost her $28,000. Of course the government over there did not inform the people that this was needed to pay for the health care system. Hardly a “free” program.

I promise you that the same thing will happen in America. No matter what socialized medicine will end up costing the answer will always be to pour more money down the government-dug hole.

Does the British healthcare system work today? You be the judge: (With thanks to Merrill Matthews at Town Hall.)

“…anyone who reads the English press will find a different message, including waiting lines, angry patients, rationed and often subquality care. Consider these recent news stories about England’s National Health Service (NHS) quoted directly from the British press.”

If you want more horror stories go to The Problems with Socialized Health Care at www.liberty-page.com