Freedom Force International -

ARE THOSE WHO OPPOSE GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE RICH, HEARTLESS CAPITALISTS?
2009 October 6 by G. Edward Griffin

Dear Mr Griffin,
From reading other's various responses to your criticism of the NHS, and reading the headline over my posted comment, I can only assume that you are of that noble American type - Seldom Right but Never Wrong. At no point in my original letter did I say, or give an inclination that "I like Socialized Medicine because it's free." I like the idea of The Government being involved in medicine, as I pointed out, not because pharmaceutical companies have greater reign to peddle their wares, but because anyone, no matter how poor, destitute or what colour they are will never be left lying on the side of a road if they can't afford medical insurance. Leaving aside the Pharmaceutical companies' inroads into the NHS, anyone who refuses to take dangerous prescriptions will not be criminalized either. Perhaps your hatred for "Socialized Medicine" means you would like to see a Neo-Liberal Capitalist Medicine system, something similar to what's in the US at the moment. Or maybe you would like to see a free market medical system where only the advantaged can afford it, then those pesky serfs won't be in your way!

Damien, I am a little put off by your personal attack on my character and intelligence. You have written: "I can only assume that you are of that noble American type - Seldom Right but Never Wrong" and "Maybe you would like to see a free market medical system where only the advantaged can afford it, then those pesky serfs won't be in your way!"

I can see that you are not very fond of Americans, but that's understandable because, at present, I am not too fond of some of them, either, especially the ones that are leading our nation and the rest of the world into war and bondage. However, statements like these tell me you don't really have much to say in the form of rational critique but have fallen to the level of character assault to make your point. My first reaction was to just send your email to the Trash Bin but, on second thought, I have decided to overlook your attitude and just answer your points as best I can. Perhaps others can benefit from the exchange.

The first thing that you need to do is re-read your original email dated September 18. It stated in its entirety: "I really don't see your problem with Socialized medicine, and your rantings against it are starting to turn me off your newsletter. Your trip to England was 40 years ago for God's sake. Just because something has 'socialized' in it doesn't mean its bad. I'm a foreign student living in England and entitled to free GP visits and pretty much free everything. Many other countries say that??"

Now you say: "At no point in my original letter did I say, or give an inclination that "I like Socialized Medicine because it's free." Really! Let's analyze. Your original email conveyed only two thoughts. One was a complaint that I did not like government health care. The second was that government health care is free in the UK. You emphasize that fact with the concluding remark: "Many other countries say that??" If that isn't an inclination that you like socialized medicine because it's free, then it has no meaning at all. Furthermore, that it is free is the only positive thing you had to say about government health care, so I stand without apology behind my headline: STUDENT SEES NOTHING WRONG WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. AFTER ALL, IT'S "FREE"

The next curious portion of your statement is: "Perhaps your hatred for "Socialized Medicine" means you would like to see a Neo-Liberal Capitalist Medicine system, something similar to what's in the US at the moment." First off, we learn from this that, although you are a foreign student in the UK benefiting from the tax subsidies of working-class British citizens, you are not from the United States; but what on Earth is "a Neo-Liberal Capitalist Medicine system?"

This gibberish leads me to suspect that your education has been strongly influenced by fuzzy-minded Marxist ideology. I say fuzzy-minded because these words have absolutely no broadly accepted definition and are typical of Left-Wing propaganda designed to instill hatred against everything that smacks of private ownership and private control. I know it well, because I have read their books. My guess is that you are a passionate advocate of collectivism and, as such, are ready to do battle with anyone who sees individualism as a superior social and economic model. If I am correct in this, there is no single argument I can present here to change your mind, but I urge you (and anyone else grappling with these underlying principles) to allow me to at least present the case for individualism by reading my essay entitled The Chasm, available as a free download here.

Now we come to the crux of your position. You state: "I like the idea of The Government being involved in medicine ... because anyone, no matter how poor, destitute or what colour they are will never be left lying on the side of a road if they can't afford medical insurance." This is the greatest myth of all, and it is based on the assumption that, under private health care, the destitute are left by the side of the road to die. Hogwash!. In truth, it's the other way around. The medical care for the destitute in America has consistently been superior to care for the destitute in any country where health care is provided by the government. True, there are horrific stories of people left to die because they lacked insurance, but each of those can be matched by a hundred horrific stories of people who have been left to die at home or in waiting lines or in a unattended hospital beds waiting for their "free" government care.

Prior to the arrival of government intrusion into U.S. medical care several decades ago in the form of Medicare and various similar programs at the state level, it was customary for doctors and hospitals to allocate a significant portion of their services to those who could not pay. Extensive charity was the norm, but was soon replaced by government funding, rules, regulations, quotas, and guidelines so that medical charity now is all but gone.

By the way, Damien, I hope you realize that the word free is absurd. It merely means free to you at the expense of someone else. Actually, it's not even free to you because, eventually, you are going to pay those costs either by taxation when you join the work force, by inflation even if you never pay taxes, and by loss of personal freedom-of-choice, not only in health care, but in all walks of life - because collectivism knows no boundaries. It does not stay restricted to just health care but seeps into every aspect of human life.

Back to the main point. The destitute will always be better served under individualism via charity and freedom than under collectivism via political expediency and coercion. Therefore, you and your fellow collectivists, although high minded and with the finest humanitarian instincts, have been fooled by Marxist slogans into supporting just the opposite of what you seek.

Finally, you wrote: "Maybe you would like to see a free market medical system where only the advantaged can afford it, then those pesky serfs won't be in your way!" I have already addressed the issue of the advantaged vs. the disadvantaged, but the innuendo that my motive is to not let those pesky serfs get in my way is too insulting to ignore. I will not bore you with the story of my middle-class origin, but I will state as emphatically as I can that the ideology of collectivism, with which you are enamored, is leading inexorably to the greatest serfdom the world has ever seen. If you wish to avoid being a pesky serf forever, I urge you to study further and consider the alternative: individualism. It will set you free.