Posts

Ronald Reagan on Socialized Medicine

If you have ten minutes, please watch/listen to the following speech by Ronald Reagan on socialized medicine. The speech comes from a 1961 campaign against government run health care and was distributed via a long play (LP) record album called Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine. It’s amazing how prescient his comments were. And now, nearly 50 years later, his logic and reasoning are just as applicable to the political battle currently being waged on this same subject.

Here is the transcript:

My name is Ronald Reagan. I have been asked to talk on several subjects that have to do with the problems of the day. It must seem presumptuous to some of you that a member of my profession would stand here and attempt to talk to anyone on serious problems that face the nation and the world. It would be strange if it were otherwise.

Most of us in Hollywood are very well aware of the concept or the misconception that many people, our fellow citizens, have about people in show business. It was only a generation ago that people of my profession couldn’t be buried in the churchyard. Of course the world has improved since then, we can be buried now. As a matter of fact, the eagerness of somebody to perform that service gets frightening at times.

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent of owing more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way, because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Furan introduced the Furan Bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance.

Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled. This would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now Congressman Furan brought the program out on that idea of just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Furan was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

Walter Ruether said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance he meant socialized medicine for every American.

Well let’s see what the Socialists themselves had to say about it. They say, “Once the Furan Bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.” Well, we can’t say that we haven’t been warned.

Now Congressman Furan is no longer a Congressman of the United States Government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California.

It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade 127 million of our citizens, in just ten years, have come under the protection of some kind of privately owned or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis, they say what would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?

That’s ridiculous, and of course no one has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works they have introduced this King Bill, which is really the Furan Bill.

What is the Kerr/Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of our senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it has provided from the federal government money to the states and local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.

Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone, regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.

I think we can be excused for believing, that as ex-Congressman Furan said, “This was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time, socialized medicine.”

James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

They want to attach this bill to Social Security, and they say here is a great insurance program now instituted now working.

Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.

Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you fellow citizens decided that to be an actor I had to become a government employee and work in a national theater.

Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.

In this country of ours took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in worlds history, the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another.

But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God-given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards.

We talk democracy today, and strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.

Now you may think that when I say write to the Congressman or Senator that this is like writing fan mail to a television program, it isn’t. In Washington today 40,000 letters, less than one hundred per Congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.

Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”

So write, it’s as simple as finding just the name of your Congressman, or your Senator. Then you address your letter to that individuals name, if he’s a Congressman, to the House Office Building, Washington D.C. If he’s a Senator, to the Senate Office Building, Washington D.C.

And if this man writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know that governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”

Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. Until, one day, as Normal Thomas said we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.

Source: Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum

Labor Statistics and Jobs Effect Elections

With much news recently about raising unemployment rates (California’s Unemployment Rate Hits Highest Point Since 1994, Microsoft announces first massive layoff in company history), I wondered if I could determine a relationship between employment rates and the outcome of presidential elections. As you will see below, the correlation turns out to be quite strong (data below comes from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics).


1980 Election
The incumbent party, the Democrats, lost to Republican Ronald Reagan. In the six months leading up to the election there was a net loss of half a million jobs, which did not bode well for Jimmy Carter.

1984 Election
The first two years of Reagan’s presidency was pretty rocky, but he finished strong with a net gain of 3.8 million jobs during his fourth year. This made him a pretty formidable opponent for Democrat Walter Mondale. The incumbent Republican party won in a land slide.

1988 Election
Reagan ended his presidency with a net increase during his two terms of almost 16 million jobs. The incumbent party, Republicans, and their nominee, George H. W. Bush, had little trouble beating the Democrats nominee, Michael Dukakis.

1992 Election
The six months leading up to the election saw a net gain of only 600,000 jobs, which was relatively weak growth. Combine that with a net loss of half a million jobs from 1990 to 1991, and it was enough for the incumbent Republican party to lose to Democrat Bill Clinton.

1996 Election
With stellar job growth only rivaled by Reagan’s second term, Bill Clinton’s first term saw 11 million new jobs produced and he had no trouble staying in power and defeating the Republican challenger, Bob Dole.

2000 Election
Though another 11 million new jobs were created during Clinton’s second term, the lackluster 456,000 new jobs in the six months prior to the election to not bode well for the incumbent party and Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore.

2004 Election
George W. Bush’s first term started out rough and got even worse after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Overall, his first term had flat job growth, but the six months prior to the election saw a healthy 1.1 million new jobs created. This was enough to keep the incumbent Republican party in power and defeat Democrat John Kerry.

2008 Election
With monthly job loss numbers that had not been seen since 1980 when Jimmy Carter was in the White House, things did not look good for the incumbent Republican party in 2008. And indeed, with a loss of 1.1 million jobs in the six months prior to the election, the Democrats and Barack Obama had no trouble defeating John McCain.

Conclusion
It’s pretty clear from the data that as jobs go, so goes the White House.

Reagan’s Four Essential Economic Freedoms Contrasted to Obama’s Economic Plan

I have often thought that political freedoms and economic freedoms are connected: you can’t have one without the other, or at least, not for long. On this very subject, I recently came across a speech by Ronald Reagan from July 3rd, 1987:

Inextricably linked to these political freedoms are protections for the economic freedoms envisioned by those Americans who went before us. While the Constitution sets our political freedoms in greater detail, these economic freedoms are part and parcel of it. During this bicentennial year, we have the opportunity to recognize anew the economic freedoms of our people and, with the Founding Fathers, declare them as sacred and sacrosanct as the political freedoms of speech, press, religion, and assembly. There are four essential economic freedoms. They are what links life inseparably to liberty, what enables an individual to control his own destiny, what makes self-government and personal independence part of the American experience.

First is the freedom to work — to pursue one’s livelihood in one’s own way, to choose where one will locate and what one will do to sustain individual and family needs and desires.

Second of those freedoms is the freedom to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor — to keep for oneself and one’s family the profit or gain earned by honest effort.

Third is the freedom to own and control one’s property — to trade or exchange it and not to have it taken through threat or coercion.

Fourth is the freedom to participate in a free market — to contract freely for goods and services and to achieve one’s full potential without government limits on opportunity, economic independence, and growth.

Source: http://www.villagesoup.com/Forums/letters.cfm?TopicID=10748

I thought it would be fun to contrast Reagan’s economic principles with those of Barack Obama. Each of the following comes directly from Obama’s Web site.

Reagan’s Economic Principles Obama’s Economic Plan
The freedom to work “Extend and Expand Unemployment Insurance.” More incentives to NOT work.
The freedom to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor “$20 billion in new tax rebates.” Money for nothing. If the rebate went to actual tax payers, 97% of it would have go to the rich. But Obama’s proposal is to give this money to “America’s workers” He doesn’t clarify exactly who that is, but it sounds like a big redistribution of wealth, i.e. enjoying the fruits of someone else’s labor.
The freedom to own and control one’s property “Barack Obama’s Plan to Jumpstart the Economy”: $50 billion in new government spending. And bigger government, of course, means less control you and I have over our own property, including our income, which Obama will be taking more of to pay for his big government programs.
The freedom to participate in a free market “a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund” and “$10 billion in Relief for State and Local Governments Hardest-Hit by the Housing Crisis.” This is more meddling by the government and anything but free market economics.

Wow, what a contrast! It’s too bad the Republicans didn’t nominate a candidate with Reagan’s views on economics. I guess John McCain will have to do; he is certainly much better on economics than Barack Obama.