National Healthcare - Is it Socialized Medicine?

What needs to be stressed in the debate on the future of healthcare is the obvious, but rarely spoken truth: We already HAVE socialized medicine. Only, because we have failed to institute a comprehensive policy on how to manage it, we end up paying far more than necessary, and have more inadequate care than necessary as a result.

Example, uninsured person has a heart attack in downtown Anytown, USA. Ambulance is called, person is brought to the local hospital, is treated in the ER, is admitted to CICU, and receives days of expensive treatment. Who do you think is paying for all this?
1) Taxpayers ... through a variety of provisions for indigent care.
2) The insured. Yes, we "voluntary" participants get the double shaft. Why? Medical costs are figured taking into account the work that is done without compensation. These higher costs show up as higher fees and higher premiums.
3) The uninsured. You should see the "non-negotiated" rates charged to those who actually pay for their own medical care. Mostly for the reasons cited in #2.
4) Taxpayers ... through higher rates than necessary charged to Medicare and Medicaid due to reasons in #2.

So long as we're not willing to lock the ER door to the uninsured, and let them die in the street, we have socialized medicine. I don't think a nation such as ours can morally bar the uninsured, so we have to face reality. We have socialized medicine. Now what are we going to do about managing it properly?

European nations and Canada's total spending on medicine per capita is close to 1/2 the United States's. Yet they have: lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, generally better quality of care. They spend around $3,700 per year per person. We spend $7,600. That's $2.3 TRILLION! Per year! Imagine what could be done for the US economy, and the wealth of Americans, if that money was not wasted as it is today.

Somehow, we have developed a boogeyman of what a national health care system would mean. But what it realistically could mean is more quality care to more people for less money. We've been sold a bill of goods about why we need to hold onto the system we have. How's that working for you?

Our man dying in the street might rather have had a checkup, caught his condition early, and managed it with medicine, and never cost any of us anything for an ER visit at all. He's much happier, I'm happier. Seems worth looking into.

The Truth About Taxing, Spending, and Stealing from the Future

For all the rhetoric about what party "will raise taxes" and which will cut them, which is dubbed "tax and spend," and which casts that aspersion, I thought it important to take a look at the real numbers. My source is the Government Printing Office, and the raw data is available for download from them. The numbers are also available from the White House in this document. For years 2004 - 2009, I used the White House data. 2008 is estimated, and this data was generated prior to the bailout. The truth will be far worse.

So, looking back to 1940, here are the facts. I will list all numbers in 2000 dollars, to remove the distorting effect of inflation:
Size of Federal Government (spending):


What does this table say?
The government spent 38.5% less in Truman's last year than in Roosevelt/Truman's last year.
The government spent 0.4% less in Eisenhower's last year than in Truman's last year.
Kennedy/Johnson 18.4% more (1 term)
Johnson 35.8% more (1 term)
Nixon/Ford 20.6% more (1.3% and 19.1% in 1st and 2nd term, respectively)
Carter 15.0% more (1 term)
Reagan 23.1% more (10.6% and 11.3% in 1st and 2nd term, respectively)
Bush 12.3% more (1 term)
Clinton 10.2% more (3.0% and 6.9% in 1st and 2nd term, respectively)
Bush "W" 32.2% more (16.4% and 13.6% in 1st and 2nd term, respectively)

So... in the last 40 years, the 3 presidents having the largest increases in government, in order:
George W. Bush (32.2%)
Ronald Reagan (23.1%)
Richard Nixon (20.6%)

and the 3 presidents having the smallest increases in government, in order:
Bill Clinton (10.2%)
George H.W. Bush (12.3%)
Jimmy Carter (15.0%)

If we count each four year term as a separate presidency:
in the last 40 years, the 5 presidents terms having the largest increases in government, in order:
Richard Nixon (2nd term 19.1%)
George W. Bush (1st term 16.4%)
Jimmy Carter (15.0%)
George W. Bush (2nd term 13.6%)
George H.W. Bush (12.3%)

and the 5 presidents terms having the smallest increases in government, in order:
Richard Nixon (1st term 1.3%)
Bill Clinton (1st term 3.0%)
Bill Clinton (2nd term 6.9%)
Ronald Reagan (1st term 10.6%)
Ronald Reagan (2nd term 11.3%)

If you look at actual federal budget, the winner for increasing the size of government the fastest? Ronald Reagan. Carter's last budget was $591 Billion. Reagan's last budget was $1,064 Billion. Almost double.

Ronald Reagan came into office in large part due to his lambasting President Carter's deficits, which amounted to $74 Billion in his last year. Reagan's last year's deficit was $155 Billion. More than double.

Which brings me to taxation.
In the last 40 years, the 3 presidents having the largest increases in taxes collected, in order:
Bill Clinton (42.1%)
Richard Nixon (20.6%)
Ronald Reagan (21.4%)

and the 3 presidents having the smallest increases in taxes collected, in order:
George W. Bush (10.0%)
George H.W. Bush (11.9%)
Jimmy Carter (17.7%)

If we count each four year term as a separate presidency:
in the last 40 years, the 5 presidents terms having the largest increases in taxes collected, in order:
Bill Clinton (2nd term 27.3%)
Jimmy Carter (17.7%)
Richard Nixon (16.0%)
George W. Bush (13.7%)
Ronald Reagan (12.9%)

and the 5 presidents terms having the smallest increases in taxes collected, in order:
George W. Bush (-3.3%)
Richard Nixon (2nd term 4.7%)
Ronald Reagan (1st term 4.9%)
Bill Clinton (1st term 11.7%)
Ronald Reagan (2nd term 12.9%)

And finally ...

How do you reconcile these numbers? How is it that Republicans can profess to cut taxes, when they are responsible for increasing spending the most?

Borrowing. Lots of it.
Carter increased the national debt by 40.8% ($288 billion)
Reagan increased the national debt 188.4% ($1,873 billion)
Bush increased the national debt 51.7% ($1,484 billion in 4 years)
Clinton increased the national debt 32.6% ($1,418 billion)
And ... our current president has increased the national debt 82.5% ... $4,761 billion and counting!

Yes, our current president has increased the national debt more than all presidents from Washington to George H.W. Bush ... combined!

Again, to listen to the rhetoric, I don't think one would come away understanding that:
- The largest increases in government have come under "W" and Reagan;
- The smallest increases in government were under Nixon and Clinton;
- President Reagan increased the national debt in percentage terms more than any other president;
- President Bush has increased the national debt in absolute terms more than any other president.

What voters must ask themselves, is whether they believe cutting taxes by borrowing from our children, grandchildren, and further into the future is sound government, or what they really thought they were voting for? Hopefully some facts will help light the way in your analysis of this question.

An excellent treatment in more depth, and with more analysis at "An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing."

This is an excellent article on Wikipedia too.