The Quiet Conservative March 4, 2009
The Fraternity of the Waiting Room
Nationalized health care, what’s not to like? It means everyone gets affordable coverage. No one
is left out. It is the only compassionate, moral, American thing to do. It is coming. This has been the
goal by the Democratic Party for a long time. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it her priority in
1992 as First Lady, it is now the prevailing view of her entire party. The Democratic Party is the
party of compassion for the poor and downtrodden. They are the ones looking out for the
defenseless. Not the big corporation fat cat Republicans. Not the private health care sector. Now
with two of the three branches of government in Democratic hands it is time to finally move on this
compassionate measure.
But this presents a problem. The very people that wish to promote nationalized health care do not
want to define anything about “life” to begin with. It is hard to agree on the value of a single human
life when you can’t even define its beginning. Life begins at conception. That is the only current
definition available. Therefore, it becomes the default definition. Should anyone come up with a
different definition, it can be discussed. But no one who wants nationalized health care wants that
discussion. They will ignore the default definition. They will also fight against its use and attempt to
marginalize anyone using the definition. They have to destroy the definition. Or, they will be forced to
acknowledge that definition in all its implications.
If there is no definition on when life begins allowed, can we define the value of a single human life?
This value should be clear one would think. Life is precious. Life is sacred. Our nation is founded on
the fact. The morality of our nation has always stood for the fact. Americans cherish life. From the
beginning the call was for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Do those who want nationalized health care agree with the definition that life is sacred? There is
every indication they do not. Just as the left does not want to define when life begins, they do not
want to define the right to keep that life either. But they know it is a harder sell to allow someone to
die who has a voice, than it is to kill someone who never had a voice to begin with.
The very same people who promote abortion by not defining life are all too willing to promote
euthanasia on those whose quality of life they question. They just go about it a different way. In
nationalized health care the way to kill off the sick and elderly isn't to stick a needle in their arms and
put them out of their misery, it is to refuse to allow a needle to be stuck in their arms in the first place
to save their lives. It is a clever way to murder. You don’t put a gun to someone’s head and pull the
trigger; you simply set up a bureaucracy.
So that is exactly what we are doing.
Nationalized health care will not work. It hasn't anywhere it has been tried and it shows no signs of
being any more successful here. In England the conditions in the hospitals are poor and there is no
incentive for improvement. Long lines and poorly maintained hospitals are the result of the lack of
choice for patients. You get what they give you. There is no consumer choice. A study of English
universal health care was titled “Delay, Denial, and Dilution” and has been picked up on by the US
media. The report shows 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year from denial of treatment due to
economic rationing of care. This is the fact of nationalized health care. What sounds good in theory
may mean in practicality you are one of the ones denied care, or delayed care, until it is too late.
Here is an example of health care costs in the US. Say a procedure costs $100. Medicaid or
insurance will cover $40. The doctor or the hospital knows the cost is $100 and there might be every
chance the patient will not pay the rest. Therefore they set the price of the procedure at $300. Then
the doctor or the hospital will receive the 40% of the new cost, or $120. They made their money back
and a modest profit even if the patient never pays. If the patient does pay, they make a larger profit.
Therefore there is no incentive to decrease the cost of the procedure. Plus, to be fair, how many
patients won’t pay anything and don’t have any coverage? Therefore those that do pay the $300 are
also paying for those who pay nothing. Neither the doctor nor the hospital is in this to lose money. So
costs stay high.
Ah, you say, but by making it nationalized then the cost is $100. Everyone is charged the same
amount and you have just justified universal health care.
No, in fact this is the trap set to justify the artificial controls of the price. The price is $100 dollars
set by the market. But, once the government interferes there is no telling what the price will be. Who
sets the price now? Will the procedure even be available? Will the procedure be given to a company
who has connections with the right official? What if a new procedure comes along that supplants the
old procedure? Will this even be allowed? The government dictates what procedures are available and
at what cost. Not the doctors, not the hospitals, and most pointedly not you, the patient. Don’t be
fooled into surrendering your freedom for a leaf bowl in a cage.
Here is an example of how the market sets a price: When DVD players first came on the market,
they cost up to $735 in the US. Now, eleven years later, they can be found for as little as $27 new.
How did this happen? The free market. Competition. There was no government interference in how
prices were set. Therefore whoever made a better DVD player and marketed it better made money
and now everyone benefits. New makers came on the market. More features were added. New
technology was invented. Everyone looked for the next big thing. You can now choose any number
of options and features and there are plenty of companies vying for the chance for the next big
advancement.
This won’t happen in the health care sector if the only buyer is the government. To a company this
means if they don’t choose your product, you have no other outlet. Therefore your company would
do better to get out of the health field all together. This means less competition for the remainder and
no incentive for improvement or quality control. There is no rush to find the next medical
breakthrough because there is no money to be made. No innovation, no improvement, no anything.
The medical product selected by the government might not be effective or the newest either. The
product selected will go to the company with the best lobbyist or the best connections. It will go to the
company with a senator’s family member on the board or the one the congressman’s relative has stock
in.
The staff providing medical care will change also. If you look at who will go into the medical field,
will the best go in knowing it is a dead end job with a fixed salary? Why make the effort? Research
companies will leave, med schools will close, people will choose other fields in college to major in.
England went through this and ended up importing third world doctors to work in their hospitals. Six
of these imports ended up to be terrorists involved in the “Doctor’s Plot” that culminated with the
bombing of the Glasgow Airport. Treat a person one day, the next day try and murder him as an
infidel. Welcome to the British NHS.
But you know that already. It is common sense that government run universal health care is destined
to fail. The government doesn't run anything efficiently or well. The Senate couldn't even run the
Senate cafeteria without lousy food and huge deficits that ran into the millions. Gordon Ramsey would
have shut the place down and told the senators to get out of the restaurant business. We should tell
them to get out of the health care business for the very same reasons.
But why is it so important for liberals to control health care? It is a sure loser economically. People
will be incensed with the poor care, long lines, and inconvenience. Why do they want it so bad? It is
not an obvious field for people who will not define when life begins or if life is sacred. So why is it
one of their core efforts? Power. It comes down to the same despotic goals totalitarians have always
had. If they control health care, they control you.
Cradle to the Grave is more than an expression given to socialism, it is a philosophy of control.
When President Bush pushed for health savings accounts during a State of the Union address, the
entire Democratic side of Congress sat on their hands. They are vehemently opposed to you having
independence. They are vehemently opposed to you controlling your own lives and destiny. If
government got out of the health care business all together including Medicare and Medicaid, then
prices in the health sector would drop like a stone. This won’t happen. Now with an ardent
progressive in the White House the consolidation of power over you is moving forward unchecked.
Here is a final example. This one you will experience personally. You are sitting by the bedside of
your family member. It is your wife, or your father, or your child. You love them with all your heart
and are destroyed by the suffering they are going through. Inside you tremble with fear they will fade
away. You hold their hand feeling their frailty while the monitor runs numbers across the screen
above the bed. You can’t determine if the readouts bode good or ill. They sleep while you sit there
helpless beside the bed wishing to trade everything you own just to have them well again.
When the doctors come in you are sent to the waiting room where you see others sitting alone or in
small groups. All wear the same look of fear and sorrow. Sometimes you talk and get their names. In
the late of night when most have gone home the family members of the sickest will stay just to be
there if something happens in the night. If it does, then they are gone after the cry and the tears. You
watch and wonder how you would take the news. Sometimes they go when things are better and the
relief is on their faces as the weight is lifted off and hope floods their eyes. You are relieved for them
and pray this is your path also. This is the fraternity of the waiting room.
Still, as they go you remain waiting to see how the fate of your loved one will turn. You hold the
hand, feed them from the hospital tray, help them with the bathroom or wash their faces and think of
them outside, when they were brimming with life and your love. They are the fathers that gave you
the piggy back ride. They are the mothers that kissed you goodnight. They are the children you read
bedtime stories to. They are the toddlers who held your hand. They are the husband or wife who you
pledged to spend the rest of your life loving.
Do you think a progressive values them? The people that will not define when life begins, that will
not define life as sacred, that do not believe in the sacredness of the individual but instead believe in
the promotion of the group, want to decide the treatment of your family member who you cherish with
all your heart.
They will not kill your family member. That would be too….direct. They will simply decide not to
treat them. They will set up a board to determine how health care should be allocated. They will
decide what procedures will be approved. They will decide what diseases receive care and which will
not. They will decide what the cost/benefit ratio is when examining whether your loved one will be
allowed to be treated.
(page 2)