A woman I once dated had a seriously ill mother with lung disease. Her mother was wheelchair bound and required assistance in her daily life. The family was preparing for her eventual death. Then a lung specialist recommended a transplant. The woman was put on the list and had the operation. Today she is walking, lifting weights, and looks and feels like any other person her age. Thanks to modern American medical care, she was able to recover.
Thinking on the future, I am becoming convinced that a major issue of election 2008 will be health care nationalization. The reasons for my position are: because of increasing public dissatisfaction with managed care as it exists now, increasing medical expenditures, pressure to increase powers of the FDA, baby-boomers aging, increase of medical entitlement attitudes, and most of all, I suspect that Hillary Clinton, will be the Democratic candidate in 2008. Even if she does not emerge as the Democratic candidate, I am certain any nominee (Republican and Democrat) will adopt any health care platform she recommends.
All the 'voices of dissatisfaction' that are murmuring now will only increase as we near the next presidential election cycle. For example, Health Savings Accounts have already caused entitlelist medical workers to become upset because they allow people to choose the better doctors over the less competent. Don't disbelieve that Hillary's long-term goal of power thru medical entitlement will be easily given up. There are many Americans that want guaranteed healthcare paid by mandatory benefits from American employers. Also Republicans that once spoke out against socialized medicine in the early 90's are now silently voting for it.
I propose that Objectivists beat Hillary to the punch by doing some smart investment now in AFCM (Americans for Free Choice in Medicine). For those of you new to Objectivism, Health Savings Accounts were unknown just 10 years ago when AFCM began to champion them to Congress, medical PACS, and the public. Now HSA's are law, and President Bush is considering another AFCM goal: medical malpractice reform. (See the new White House Webmail Site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/webmail Look at the goals the president has for his next term and see two of the issues AFCM has been championing!) Even a half-done reform that limits lawsuits to set awards, will do some good in protecting doctors, but with smart activism we might even get better reform enacted.
If you know anybody among your friends or family that depends upon prescriptions or regular visits to a doctor to maintain their health, or even if you just want to protect your future access to quality health care, you should become involved. If you are a student and cannot afford to make a major donation, at least contribute the minimum amount to get on the email list.
When I was in college I discovered that being a minor ARI donor got me on the Impact mailing list, and got me lots of important information that I otherwise would have missed. The same is true of Pulse! (AFCM newsletter) and the most current information from AFCM. Here is a peek at their goals for 2005:
- Strengthened provisions for Health Savings Accounts.
- Tax deductibility for health premiums and all health care expenses
- Medical liability reform, to reduce medical cost and increase justice
- Education about new payment options (for medical care) that reduce costs via negotiated rates based on up-front payments (or planned payments).
Visit the AFCM website and make a donation. Also look into the Health Savings Accounts and see if it makes financial sense for you to get one. BTW, one of the better Health Savings Accounts is offered by Golden Rule insurance: their 'in-network' includes the United Healthcare network, and their 'non-network' covers the Mayo Clinic or most any doctor.
My prediction for the Bush presidency is that he will prevent any major new intrusion into health care freedom, but will not satisfactorily answer the entitlelists and control mongers. Alternatively Bush may try to enact some Hillary reforms to beat her to the punch, which will have to be repealed by the next president. As a result the Republican candidate in 2008 will have to come up with a platform to deal with all the unresolved anger over medical care. If the Republican candidate is not able to speak out against Hillary, it will be up to us. I believe that the election of 2008 may be the first election where the word 'Objectivist' is used in the news media.
Remember AFCM is the only voice advocating capitalism for the health care field. This is a cause for anybody concerned about how politicized the medical field has become, and how it will affect them. If you want to protect your right to the best medical care available, and assure the freedom of future medical development, join AFCM now and begin to prepare for the future.
------------------- # # # --------------------------
- Jan 8th, 2005
BTW, I just wanted to add that I do not think the American public will ever allow Hillary Clinton to be president. The primary danger is that her Republican opponent will enact the legislation that will nationalize the remaining medical freedoms we have. I have some particular evidence on why I think this may be a Republican strategy for 2008, that I am going to present in a future article. (John McCain already has outlined his plans to sacrifice drug patents to the Medicare administration, for example).
I just finished watching “3,†the new ESPN Dale Earnhardt documentary. Though I am not a NASCAR fan, I found it to be a great sports movie. Dale Earnhardt is portrayed as uncompromising egoist : racing is his life, and nothing less than perfection is acceptable – on the track, or in his personal life.
Earnhardt’s success is presented not as a matter of luck, but of dedication, innovation in technique and technology, and the highest expectations from his team. “It ain’t about the guy with the fastest carâ€, he says, “– it’s about the one who refuses to lose.†He’s not out for the fame, and he doesn’t change attitude his even after he achieves greatness – it’s always about the racing, and pursuing one’s passions: “They can’t put it in ya.. and they can’t take it out.â€
Another important quality is his attitude towards tragedy on the track: he recognizes the possibility, and takes precautions, but never allows it to assume a metaphysical importance for him, even after his close friend dies. Nor does the movie allow his untimely death to overshadow his successes, as the final moments of the movie show.
The documentary reminded me of why people find spectator sports so inspiring: by dramatizing the process of goal-achievement, they inspire us to success in our own lives. There are few other arenas in our society where such inspiration can be found.
Its time for some letters to the editor, and letters to politicians, speaking out on the need to expand the War on Terror. Public discussion is becoming bogged down on silliness like the Intelligence Reform Bill, and rehashing of the arguments over Iraq. Meanwhile events are moving us forward to a very dangerous time for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Americans have moved us part of the way by re-electing George Bush, they just need to see that this will not be adequate. If we lose too many young Marines and Army in Iraq, and then later lose Iraq to factional splits and the devout Muslims, I am concerned it will make Americans too cynical to consider further involvement in the Middle-East. The danger of a withdrawal and isolationism that we avoided in the Nov election, could eventually befall us anyway. (And those of us that voted for Bush knew that his re-election would still involve more work in moving forward the war.)
We have the best men in Iraq, and the state-of-the-art military technology, but we also need to back it up with the best in military strategy. I propose that we make some demands now of the neighboring nations regarding their stand on America's interests that will make it easier on our troops this coming January:
For starters, lets work to undo some of the anti-American propoganda distributed by the Arab news media. For state controlled media (are any Arab media not state controlled?), let's demand equal time to present our views, or withhold all assistance and diplomatic relations with nations that refuse.
Let's also make further demands of borderline nations such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, that they repeal policies that favor the Muslim factions attempting to control their citizens. For example, the early 90's policies that forbade Arab children from attending American schools or learning from American teachers. Parents who want to have their children educated outside the religious schools should not have to fear reprecussions of their choices. We may wish to consider establishing a secular nation apart from current Arab nations where those who wish to distance themselves from the muslims may settle. This may be easier to do than fighting the corruption within Saudi and Turkey. United Arab Emirates may be the ideal nation for this purpose because of our current establishment there. Regardless we should ask that our government focus more demands on boderline nations as a part of policy.
There needs to be more criticism of the PC idea of protecting non-combatants, and some serious editing of the overdone engagement rules. See US Rules Distributed to Forces and notice how limiting the rules are for "Positive Identification" and also care in protecting certain buildings. Given the nature of our enemies, is this really realistic? This sounds more like the sort of military sense that led the British Empire to send its 18th century troops parading around in brightly colored uniforms to be picked off by snipers.
The American public must be further made aware of Iran's role in terror.
We should encourage the Bush administration to make public the information they have on anti-American activities by Muslim clerics.
Our Army and Marines currently bear the brunt of the cost of the war. The psychological pressure they face is hard to imagine. Those of us who do not think they have a religious 'duty to die' should continue to speak out against policies that will use them as a bulwark without military purpose. The plan in Iraq must be to respond to attacks with overwelming force. The simple message that enemies of the US will die, could save many young lives in the coming months. Rather than just sending gifts to the troops abroad lets do something that will give them a real morale boost.
Here are some links that may provide additional ideas:
What kind of Intelligence Needs Reforming?
Marines killing 'Unarmed Men in Cold Blood'?
Moral Killing in Fallujah
America's Compassion is self-destructive or anything by Yaron Brook.
------------
Now John McCain has weighed in on the upcoming Iraqi elections.
McCain, No Confidence in Rumsfeld
What he is saying is basically that Rumsfeld is wrong because of the particular types of soldiers, and the lack of more bodies. He has no criticism for the manner in which the war is being fought however, which would be a real fresh voice worth hearing.
I suspect his public criticism is both an attempt to further his candidacy in 2008, and test the waters for the kind of campaign he intends to run. He needs to see now if the American people will respond to a personality driven campaign. What McCain is saying here is: "Iraq is a disaster, because the personality in charge 'Rumsfeld' has not inserted enough bodies. If the 'McCain' personality were in charge, the trains would run on time." This further goes along with his public criticisms of President Bush on issues like Medicare and health policy. John McCain's primary argument in all these cases is explicitly non-principled, and could be summed up with: "My gang can do it better, if you let me try."