Printed letters, September 18, 2012

Thanks for visiting The Daily Sentinel

Subscribers and registered users, log in to continue reading for free*


Forgot your password?    

Register to read for free! Become a subscriber

* 7-day subscribers have unlimited access to online content.
Registered users may read 12 articles per month.

COMMENTS

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

While we can all agree with the caption of Monday’s letter from Dr. Stephen Samuelson that “Seniors need to understand ramifications of health plans”, the contents of that letter indicate that Dr. Samuelson himself does not adequately grasp those same ramifications.

Fortunately, Monday’s Sentinel clearly explained them in “Why it matters:  stance on health” (AP) – which entirely confirmed Dr. Michael Pramenko’s informed analysis: “Voters face major election choice when it comes to fixing Medicare” (Sep. 2, 2012).

Thus, first, there is no real “Romney-Ryan plan to reform Medicare”.  “Reform” means improving the existing program; Ryan would begin replacing Medicare with an entirely different “voucher” program in ten years; Romney would offer potentially confused seniors a “choice” between Medicare (“as we know it”) and Ryan’s “VoucherCare”.

Second, while President Obama has already begun “reforming” Medicare and extending its viability, Romney-Ryan defer their “reforms” for ten years.  Thus, pressing as the Medicare funding problem may be, President Obama is already doing what Romney-Ryan only talk about doing in the future – when the problem will be much worse.

Third, as the AP explanation concludes, only ten years from now would the Romney-Ryan “approach” begin to “rein in the growth of federal health care costs” by leaving more people uninsured, eroding Medicaid, and shifting Medicare costs onto seniors – because “vouchers” will not pay the full cost of equivalent guaranteed coverage.

Dr. Samuelson’s reliance on conservative columnist David Brook’s disingenuously titled column:  “Guide for the Perplexed” (August 20, 2012) is also quite revealing.  Since its publication, Brooks has been both widely criticized for misrepresenting what is actually known about the Romney-Ryan “plan” and lampooned for praising their “secret plan”.

Thus, my advice to Dr. Samuelson (and his patients) is to heed Dr. Pramenko’s diagnosis – because he knows what he is talking about (while Samuelson doesn’t).

                Bill Hugenberg

RE: the letters of Messrs Pramenko, Samuelson, and Hugenberg.
Dr. Samuelson is too kind. Combating sophistry requires blunt tit-for-tat rhetorical brinksmanship.
For starters, Justice Roberts’ disgraceful sophistry notwithstanding, it is universally self-evident that forcing people to buy a product is NOT the same as forcing them to pay a tax, either logically or constitutionally.
As Ron Paul and many others have correctly pointed out, legal tender laws are unsustainable, especially when the substance of the money is political-manipulation-based instead of market-commodity-based. That’s obviously relevant because one pays medical bills with money.
Lib collectivists don’t want to understand that whatever you tax you get less of, and whatever you subsidize you get more of.
When in doubt, follow the money. The medical industry, complete with doctors’ “unauthorized practice of medicine” monopoly on effective pain control, has led inflation for forty years.
To dispell the cultural religious awe many people have for the legal and medical professions, one need only remember that if humans knew how to stay well and at peace, doctors and lawyers would have to find some other way to spend their time. Again, follow the money.
Instead of stumbling along in an illusory world of funny money, political manipulation and government coercion, it would behoove us to consider studying the REAL material cause-and-effect universe around us.
Some libertarian physicians have estimated that medical costs could be reduced by 80% simply by abolishing the FDA and letting small drug companies compete with the politically-connected giants. If we would combine that with a “Freedom Of Self-Medication” amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving the individual legal right of access to the same tools and meds as docs use, that would allow the individual to do (ONLY) for himself (NOT for 3rd parties) 95% of what docs do in their offices.
The market would solve the health care “crisis” by allowing people their constitutional freedom to not buy things they can’t afford.

Libs may find my previous post offensive. Too bad. To them I say, “Fire when ready!”
I would expect to be accused by libs of “not caring” about the elderly, children, minorities, etc. Novel as the concept might appear to some, it would be nice if collectivists could recognize when people are discussing reality-based IDEAS, not fencing with demonization-based talking points, jingles and slogans. In other words, regarding the so-called health-care “crisis”, it is necessary to discuss the arithmetic of fiscal policies, such as whether 1 + 1 = 2 or 3. It is also necessary to agree with such things as that the atomic number (Z) of Oxygen is 8, etc.
During such a discussion process as the health-care debate, unfortunately, one can always count on those who desire to live off the labor of others to defend their loot with deception, demonization and political manipulation.
I have always sympathized with the Makers more than the Takers. At some point, common sense must prevail. At some point, it is necessary to recognize the unsustainability of a paradigm in which the recipient of charity has an “equal” vote as to how much charity the donor is required by government coercion to pay. (Mandatory charity is an oxymoron.) At some point, it must be admitted that if you subsidize joblessness, disease and destructive behavior choices, you are going to get nothing but more of those same “commodities”.
I am 68, and on SS and Medicare. My excuse is that, just as my parents before me did, I paid in. Nevertheless, my dear old deceased granny was correct back in the 1950s when she said that nobody who is receiving any government money should have a vote, period. It’s a conflict of interests, just as the elderly living off the enslavement of their grandchildren.
Frédéric Bastiat, who said, “government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else,” defines two forms of plunder, “stupid greed and false philanthropy”. He also said: “Socialists seek to obliterate the distinction between government and society. Consequentially, every time we object to a given government activity, the socialists allege that we object to its being done at all, and we are therefore selfish and unpatriotic citizens. To the contrary: we ... reject the charity, education, and organization that we are forced to pay for. We do not reject natural charity, education, and organization.”
It is my hope and intent to ridicule obfuscating sophistry as harshly as I can whenever I see it. And I see a lot of it in the ongoing health care debate.



TOP JOBS
Search More Jobs





THE DAILY SENTINEL
734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050
Editions
Subscribe to print edition
E-edition
Advertisers
Sign in to your account
Information

© 2014 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy