Some Thoughts on Single Payer Health Care

Just a few thoughts on the advantages of a single payer system, which seems to be the intellectual version of kryptonite to many left of center thinkers these days. In the interests of full disclosure, I am in favor of a single payer, government run health care system and not afraid to say it.

To come out swinging, I would just like to immediately dismiss any thoughts that "the government" can't do anything. For perpetuating this myth I would like to thank Ronald Reagan, and state he has done his fellow Americans a terrible disservice with his quip that the most terrifying thing is to hear "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." What a champ.

Anyway, if the government can't do anything, I guess landing on the Moon's surface was a fluke. And defeating those nasty fascists in the 40's. And staving off national collapse during the Great Depression. By the way, the Second World War was an enormous socialist undertaking, with everyone pitching in, saving, being paid by and resources rationed through the government. Who paid for all those refrigerator factories to produce propeller heads? Government bonds, that's who. Maybe private enterprise could have done it quicker. Or maybe we'd be speaking a mishmash of Japanese and German.

Can anyone seriously argue with a straight face that capitalism was responsible for the Normandy D-Day landings or the manufacturing of the atom bomb? Please. In fact, some might argue that the Second World War was a fight between national socialism, aka fascism, international socialism, aka soviet style communism, and democratic socialism, aka the U.S.A., U.K. and Canada.

Anyway, consider these advantages to a single payer system that no one is speaking about: first, there would be no need to purchase certain types of mandated insurance, like we have these days. If you want to drive a car, you have to have no-fault insurance in case someone gets hurt in connection with the operation of that automobile. In a single payer system, no-fault insurance is wholly obviated, at least when it comes to providing medical care [I suppose it would not cover lost earnings as a result of an accident]. Inasmuch as there are tens of millions of cars on the road, all of which are supposed to have no-fault insurance, this would save Americans somewhere in the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. This is one way to offset any increased taxes needed to pay for a single payer system.

The same could be said for mandatory workmen's compensation insurance. In most locales companies with more than a certain number of non-owner employees are mandated to carry workmen's compensation to cover work related accidents. To the extent that a single payer system would cover the medical costs of workers injured on the job, again mandated workmen's compensation would be obviated. Though I do not know the hard numbers, I am guessing that would be a savings of many billions of dollars a year, and would especially help small businesses whose bottom lines are tighter.

The same would be true for big businesses, like General Motors, especially in the union retirement packages which cover retired employees until they are dead. In fact, it has been this kind of massive overhead which has destroyed much of the financial strength of GM, as well as the other Detroit Big Three.

In fact, all union health plans would be obviated.

And here's one for the right wing: inasmuch as any lawsuit for medical malpractice or personal injury would no longer have to include the costs of passed and future medical expenses, the single payer system is de facto tort reform. Bam! Suddenly, those liability insurance premiums for Ob-Gyns plummet, all because of a single payer system.

So there we have it: the single payer system would give us many advantages that are not being spoken out loud.

Liberty University - Putting the Moron in Oxymoron

It was reported over the weekend that the bastion of a solid liberal arts education, Liberty University, founded by the corpulent Jerry Falwell, has ordered its nascent College Democrats Club to disband.

While the club may still meet on campus, Liberty U., as poorly named a school as there ever was, will not lend its name or school funds to the club.

As the Associated Press reported, Vice president of student affairs, Mark Hine, sent an email to the club's president that the decision was made due the the national Democratic Party's support of abortion, socialism, and the "LGBT Agenda."

The school's Chancellor and President [hmmm, what other famous person held both of those titles...?] Jerry Falwell, Jr., in defending the decision, quixotically stated, among other things:

"To blindly support any candidate solely because of party affiliation irrespective of moral values is wrong. Liberty would never endorse a Republican student group that supported abortion rights."

However, Mr. Falwell, Jr., is apparently not proof reading his online statements, as a mere five paragraphs above this statement Mr. Falwell, Jr., stated:

"The students who formed the Democrat club last October are good students. They are pro-life and believe in traditional marriage."

So, which is it, Mr. Falwell, Jr. Please don't tell me you haven't brushed
up on your Exodus in a while. It appears you re bearing false witness against thy students, and you should be ashamed for a) talking out of both sides of your mouth, and b) making an issue of this magnitude over a Democrat Club. Not all Democrats support abortion rights, nor gay marriage rights, and you admit this. Yet you have stuffed YOUR OWN VIEWS of the Democratic party down the throats of your own young Democrats.

If I were their parents I would be demanding a refund.

Now, let's take a real look at the reasoning given for the ban. Seeing as abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the nation, and sound minded persons can disagree, I will give this issue a pass, for now.

That brings socialism up to bat. Pray tell, Mr. Falwell, Jr., where does Jesus come out against socialism? Where is it bad to share? Was it when he tossed the money changers out of the temple? Are there money changers in your temple, sir?

How about when he commanded to render unto Caesar? Or when he said that bit about a rich man, a camel, and an eye of a needle? Answers, please?

And I haven't even brought up any of the commands to charity Jesus issued.

Moving on, please tell me what's the lesbian, gay, and the transgendered agenda? That they want equal rights? What would Jesus say about that? As far as I know, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, or really anything about the prohibitions contained in Leviticus.

Speaking of Leviticus, where homosexuality is referred to as an abomination, isn't it also true that shrimp scampi and cotton-rayon blends are also abominations? I just want to make sure you are following ALL the words of the Bible, not just the ones you WANT to. I'm sure you aren't prideful enough to wear more than one type of thread, like a monogrammed shirt or something.

I think Jesus, who is oft equated with love, would not deny equality to any of his brothers and sisters, nor conflate religious institutions with secular ones for the sake of a remunerative wedge issue. You might want to fight me on this, but I will remind you to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto the Lord what is the Lord's. I believe you have transposed one for the other, and your soul has become unclean.

And if all this isn't enough, wait until the first Young Republicans' Club is thrown off a campus for being a hate group.