Say No

Socialist Lures

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory is a psychological model proposed by Abraham Maslow in 1943, in which he established human needs in a hierarchy. The first and most basic of all needs are those to do with physical survival.

This is why Socialism at its most basic level is mining with the end in mind of those suffering. It is an appeal to their vulnerability. Ask anyone who suffered an unexpected hospitalization or surgical procedure and ended receiving a bill for unintended services and fees. It will quickly impact your view of health care in America and a need for Health Care Reform. Americans often feel vulnerable and anxious by the inability to predict sudden failures of health and the intended financial consequences that it may entail.  Therefore, health care coverage directly threatens the first principle of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: physical survival, the # 1-factor impacting human survival instincts.

Democrat’s Healthcare for All, Single-Payer, and Medicare for All proposals are deceitful, unaffordable, and lead to the disadvantage of the poor and sicker communities. Democrats have measured their political advantage by mining the psychological impact that physical survival plays in Americans’ minds. In a nutshell, Medicare for All is simply a euphemism that translates into votes. If they could not gain a vote and move the heart of many vulnerable Americans that given dire-straight circumstances, health care places them at a disadvantage, we can rest assured this would never be a subject for political debate. One would argue that if they are genuinely interested in Americans, why are Democrat ran cities plagued with homelessness as CA and NY?  However, socialist ideas as Health Care for All proposed by Democrats will always come dressed as a noble and good societal ideal. It is often said that the greatest lies are generally disguised with the truth. So why wouldn’t a proposal to a provision of health care to every American not be appealing! Nevertheless, it is a poisoned apple we should never take.

According to a study by the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund, $32+ trillion in new federal revenue will be needed to pay for the plan, as proposed by the Democratic socialist ideas. Even more outlandish is the cost for the proposed program by a leading Democratic candidate of $52 trillion. How can America afford this as deceitfully proposed by these Democratic candidates? To place these numbers into proper perspective, our surmountable present National Debt exceeds $22 trillion, and 77% is directly related to mandatory government social programs that include healthcare programs as Medicaid and Medicare costs. Therefore, as much as socialists claim to be affordable, if we could afford $32-52 trillion, why not propose the cancellation of our National Debt? 

These socialist ideas are utterly a path to our country’s demise and, clearly, unaffordable. Not even the Obama Magic Wand could help them. We could not have a better example of the failure of Single-Payer health care than the living example of failure in Bernie Sander’s state of Vermont. Speaking of the attempt to implement Single-Payer Health Care in Vermont, Peter Suderman, for the NYT, stated, “Yet despite strong support from the legislature and the governor’s office, not to mention Mr. Sanders himself, the effort failed.”

We have ample experience in the United States with poor and substandard service rendered by government agencies like the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Veteran Affairs. First, it does not cease to amaze us that those who fight for the right to kill babies in the womb would appeal to a misguided “choice to choose” by appealing that health care should be nobody’s business but, one owns, yet, see them give up every right to choose health care and trust politicians without health care experience to make those choices for them. Placing all your healthcare choices in the Affordable Care Act, one would hope that the evidence-based process of measurements dictating reimbursement should always be linked to better outcomes. 

To simplify the process, the healthier the patients are after service, the higher the potential for reimbursement.  However, for example, how is this fair to a facility located in a poor demographics area where the community patients are less prone to follow good health care practices, may be affected by social-economic issues that make them more susceptible to lower health care outcomes.  A facility located in this area will be at a financial reimbursement disadvantage, as the patients may be sicker or more prone to lesser health care status. A cookie-cutter system as a single-payer program will not work.

“Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of life? Lenin thought so. He declared socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state”

Quality measures need to be predictive and addressed in these areas, but a single-payer program will place them at a disadvantage if reimbursement must always be linked to better outcomes. Ultimately, nonpayment due to socio-economic outcomes will close a distressed hospital. The marginalized will be the first target of the concept and lead to the disadvantage of American citizens’ poor and sicker communities. Do not be lured by false claims and pay attention to the words of one of the fathers of Socialism, Vladamir Lenin. “Would socialized medicine lead to socialization of other phases of life? Lenin thought so. He declared socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state” (1945 AMA Pamphlet Warning).


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on linkedin
Share on telegram
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print


Comments are closed.