Steyn On Fire
Mark Steyn gave an inspired talk at Michigan's Hillsdale College, a private school my parents used to go to in the summers for their lecture series. An excerpt:
In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood--health care, child care, care of the elderly--to the point where it's effectively severed its citizens from humanity's primal instincts, not least the survival instinct....Europe's addiction to big government, unaffordable entitlements, cradle-to-grave welfare, and a dependence on mass immigration needed to sustain it has become an existential threat to some of the oldest nation-states in the world.
And now the last holdout, the United States, is embarking on the same grim path: After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it's another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ's Great Society, or the new New Deal. You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that's underway. The 44th president's multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can't make that math add up. In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34%--ten years ago. Today, it's about 40%. In four years' time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.
But forget the money, the deficit, the debt, the big numbers with the 12 zeroes on the end of them. So-called fiscal conservatives often miss the point. The problem isn't the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They're wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That's the stage where Europe is.
I don't understand why people can find giving up their autonomy and being bled for tax dollars so attractive. Well, I do -- it's the antithesis of the entrepreneurial spirit -- it's the delusion that government will take care of you better than you can. It's those who don't really understand government and what's possible who can cling to that delusion.
Gregg and I had dinner with my wonderful, brilliant friend Barb Oakley, an engineering prof from Michigan's Oakland University, and her husband Philip last night. At one point, Barb, who worked as a translator on a Russian trawler in the Bering Sea, was noting that the people who find communism or socialism appealing are those who have zero experience with it. I think she's right -- it's like the lettuce-for-brains types running around in Che shirts.
I have a few friends who are Russian and one friend who's Cuban, and if you think they have any sort of sentimentality or anything but loathing for communism and all it brings with it, you're out of your gourd.
And about Barb, if you want a great read, pick up her book Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend. I have 30 more pages to go, and it's absolutely fantastic science writing, plus history and family intrigue.
Love this blog. We musta found that speech at the same hour.
Listen, old people (as I are about to become) are always saying the world's going to Hell. But this guy Obama has taken us about four trillion $teps from the sheer animal love of excellence that made America attractive to the best people in the world for many, many years.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 14, 2009 11:57 PM
More:
"Thatcher believed, in a kind of mirror-image Marxist way, that the market automatically made men virtuous. Unfortunately, she did not so much restore a market economy as promote a consumer society, which is not quite the same thing. It was a society in which most of the really difficult aspects of existence in the modern world - education, health care, social security and many others - remained in the hands of the state. This meant that consumer choice was largely limited to matters of pocket money: whether to ruin Ibiza by your behaviour on holiday, or Crete. The resultant combination of consumer choice and deep irresponsibility was not an attractive one, to say the least. A large part of the population became selfish, egotistical, childish, petulant, demanding and whimsical."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 15, 2009 2:39 AM
Don't know where to put this - maybe you can write this up.
In time for Netanyahu's meeting with Obama, the Israeli cartoonist Dry Bones has redone a seminal, era-defining cartoon from the Carter years.
A picture that's really worth a thousand words
Spread these link far and wide:
http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/pages/D09510_3600.html
http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/when-bibi-meets-obama.html
Ben-David at May 15, 2009 2:47 AM
Socialism is an attempt to subjugate the labor of other men to your own benefit by unfair force or coercion - i.e. it is a form of slavery. It is thus appealing for the same reason slavery has been appealing to man in various other forms throughout history; it satisfies our ugly inner instinct to subjugate others. Socialism is worse than slavery because at least slavery was overt - socialism, however, attempts to put a veneer of legitimacy on this primitive, immoral behavior.
People point at Europe and say, but it's modern and developed, therefore socialism works. I've lived among many cultures, and have grown to realize that socialism will only ever "work" in Europe, and that it will only work for a historically short time period; this is because most Western Europeans simply culturally have a work ethic drilled into them whereby most of them work hard and thoughtfully 'anyway' (because *someone* has to work hard to support the leeches socialist systems naturally and by definition will attract). This basis is rapidly crumbling in the face of a new generation and immigration.
Regardless of whether or not it "works", it remains immoral to take the fruits of one person's labor by force and give it to another. America used to be shining example of a society based on freedom; I'm befuddled at how so many Americans are suddenly crying for nanny socialist states in such a short period of time historically.
Mouse at May 15, 2009 5:22 AM
People love socialism because it promises them something for nothing (and they're too think to understand the flawed economics). Politicians like promoting a socialist agenda because they know voters like to be promised something for nothing.
Mouse at May 15, 2009 5:35 AM
Great column.
Mark Steyn is very insightful love listening to him.
I to wish people would listen to people that have come from other countries where the government "takes care of them."
Americans are spoiled and have no foresight and have been dumbed down in the last two generations.
The writing is on the wall... are enough people listening?
David M. at May 15, 2009 6:08 AM
I went to pick up daughter #1 at a friend's house last night in BF's truck, and his radio was tuned to a talk station. The commentator was making the point that the United States government has been taking on more and more repsonsibilities that it was NOT created to take on. Such as education (the federal office of education wasn't even established until 1979) and health care. He said that both of these were, and should remain, under the jurisdiction of each state, and/or counties of those states. Guy was totally freaked out that the erosion of our freedoms is taking place so alarmingly fast. And he blames the liberals, gods bless him! o.O
Flynne at May 15, 2009 6:33 AM
Socialism requires an oppressive state to work. The shit back fires horrible otherwise. If an engineer, scientist, gardener, and garbage man make the same amount of money what is there to motivate the engineer to spend 7 years in school or the scientist 9 years? When you reward lazy you get more lazy, how do people miss this. Unless the state assigns your task to you and kills you for refusing.
The progressives fail to see this and I'm not sure why.
vlad at May 15, 2009 6:42 AM
The US has had socialized health care for the poor for decades I still see Blue Cross Blue Shield doing very well financially. Now when they start trying to ban private health care I'll agree. However politicians do what is in their best interest and slitting your own financial throat goes against the grain.
vlad at May 15, 2009 6:50 AM
"The progressives fail to see this and I'm not sure why."
Because they imagine they and theirs will be in charge. I have not doubt that the Devil considers Hell a paradise, since *he* could not possibly be a bad ruler who causes suffering to the people he loves so much...and rules absolutely, lest the poor dears stray from the path he selects for them.
Spartee at May 15, 2009 6:54 AM
Exactly, vlad!! This is what I've been trying to tell people - Affirmative Action did nothing but increase peoples' senses of entitlement. It didn't teach anyone how to work hard and get good grades for the sheer satisfaction of knowing you, yourself, did a good job; it taught people that they could do whatever they want and still get a pass. Same thing for welfare. All that did was enable people to be lazy and not give a damn about making things better for themselves. If anything, it took away their sense of pride and accomplishment. And they cry "foul" because they're being "kept down", while collecting their checks and free health care and housing. If you don't want to be "kept down" why are you taking a hand-out? Don't you realize that's what's keeping you down? o.O
Flynne at May 15, 2009 6:55 AM
"Regardless of whether or not it "works", it remains immoral to take the fruits of one person's labor by force and give it to another. America used to be shining example of a society based on freedom; I'm befuddled at how so many Americans are suddenly crying for nanny socialist states in such a short period of time historically."
It's because health insurance has gotten ridiculously expensive over the last 10 years or so.
Of course, it's easy to blame the big, bad insurance companies if you're ignorant of the fact that the insurance companies get soaked by the hospitals ($100 for two aspirins, $50 for an ace bandage, etc.) to cover the cost of the hospitals treating uninsured people.
This causes insurance premiums to rise, thus rendering health insurance unaffordable, thus causing more people to go without health insurance, etc.
That and doctors, pharmacies and clinics endlessly demanding more money is why your health insurance premiums are so high.
Not that I'd want to live in Canada where there's no air ambulance transport available and hospitals don't have CT machines to treat you if you have a head injury and you have to wait months for basic procedures either.
JoJo at May 15, 2009 7:48 AM
I have to agree with JoJo on that one. In my opinion, one of the killers of the entrepreneurial spirit is fear of working without health care.
In New York City if you're job isn't providing you health care and you're not in the freelancer's union (which I just got into thank god) I couldn't find health care cheaper than $600/month. And I'm in very good health, don't smoke and in my 20's!
I always wonder how many more people would do great things or take more time to find better jobs or simply take more risks on their passions if they didn't fear not having health care.
flighty at May 15, 2009 8:05 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/15/steyn_on_fire.html#comment-1648635">comment from flightyHealth care must be untied from employment. Mine is. I've had Kaiser (HMO) since I was in my 20s, I'm 45, and have the TOP level of care, and pay around $300 a month. I could pay much less, but I chose the Cadillac of Kaiser plans in case anything happens to me.
Amy Alkon at May 15, 2009 8:18 AM
Health care must be untied from employment.
And from state-by-state regulation. Not government run, but transportable between states.
Conan the Grammarian at May 15, 2009 8:30 AM
"I have a few friends who are Russian and one friend who's Cuban, and if you think they have any sort of sentimentality or anything but loathing for communism and all it brings with it, you're out of your gourd"
I grew up under communism in Czechoslovakia, and I know some Czechs who are indeed full of sentimental nostalgia for communism, and who keep voting for the Communist Party in every election. In the old days, being a Party member gave plenty of dull, stupid, or evil people endless opportunities for limitless power over the lives of other people brighter, better, and more talented & hard-working than them. Example: a friend of my father's, after many years of hard work as an engineer, managed to get a new car (yes, it was a puny Czech-made car with a lawnmower engine, but still). He took great pride in it, and always kept it shiny. A party member living in the same apartment building, who had no car, got jealous & denounced him to higher officials on phony charges of spying. My father never saw him or his car again. You can see why some people would miss having that kind of power.
The difference is that Czechs had no choice. Communism was forced on their tiny country by the might of the Red Army. No conquering army is forcing Americans (or Britons, Canadians, etc.) to do anything. That makes their rush towards the Nanny State more tragic, even if there are some understandable reasons for it, like the high cost of health care.
Martin at May 15, 2009 10:12 AM
I'm curious. Amy, what would your insurance cost if you were applying to Kaiser for the first time today?
Cheezburg at May 15, 2009 10:18 AM
Yep, despite how indubitably noble they sound on paper, it turns out these "isms" turn out disastrously just about ALL of the time -- primarily because "ists" end up in charge, and THEY turn out to be a bunch of self-interested, greedy, extremist shits.
I won't elaborate, lest I am viewed as overly-focused. ;)
Jay R at May 15, 2009 11:50 AM
My family on my Mother's side immigrated here from Argentina (Che's country of origin)and my Father's side from Sicily.
Socialism(/Communism/Fascism) is something my family of origin knows all too well. This is the system which destroyed my ancestor’s homes, their hopes, their ability to thrive and in some cases, even their own lives (five family members of mine were victims of the "Dirty War" in Argentina in the late 70's). My friend's family was from Nicaragua. They lost everything to the Sandanista's who raped, pillaged, stole and killed for their ideology.
What Amy says is true about folks from countries that come from Socialist systems. The only people that seem to get warm and fuzzy about them are people who have not witnessed or seen or lived the oppression first hand themselves.
We are lucky here in America, which is why so many of my relatives and friends from these countries did any and everything they could to get here before they no longer had the opportunity. They were grateful for a country which could provide them with the opportunity to create wealth through hard work and determination.
I have a very dear friend of mine who once told me something about people who espouse socialist idea's and society (who never lived in one). "All is well and good until they realize 'Who dies first' in their system."
One example would be food shortages (a VERY common problem in socialist systems), or another, Healthcare.
"Who dies first?"
It will be the poor, the elderly, the underprivileged, and those most dependent on the government that will be feeling the pain of inequities provided by a socialist system. History rhymes, and I’ve heard this story over and over again. Socialism doesn’t work and our Friendly Fascists in their pin-stripe empty suits in our Government will put it silently in place if people in this country don't start waking up to reality.
Feebie at May 15, 2009 12:22 PM
Cheezburg, I've been looking into applying to Kaiser as an individual, because I'm looking for a new job and want to be informed in case I'm interested in a job without benefits.
I'm 24 year old woman, and for me, the least expensive plan (one with a 2700 deductible) is $84 dollars per month and the best plan, with full coverage and minimal limitations was $237 per month. Those rates are, of course, only applicable if you are accepted; I know a healthy 24 year old friend who was rejected because we were collegiate athletes and had high utlization (bone scans, MRI's) under the university plan as a result, and a 26 year old friend who was rejected due to a prior STI diagnosis.
I just looked up quotes for a 40 year old woman too in my area (Northern California), cheapest plan is 136 ($5000 deductible, with $50 copays for "preventive care" that are not applied toward deductible, and no maternity or prescription coverage.) Most expensive plan is $358 per month, and I imagine that it would be much more difficult to be accepted with a longer medical history.
Sam at May 15, 2009 12:34 PM
"Who dies first?"
If I were subject to thoughts of paranoia, I might conclude that both the government and corporate suits have also considered exactly that.
Just sayin'.
o.O
Flynne at May 15, 2009 1:05 PM
Well, if we don't want to take care of all our useless old and sick people, euthanasia would be a low-cost alternative. I'm serious... pre-existing conditions? BLAM! Cancer? BLAM! Alzheimer's? BLAM! BLAM!!
Refusing to pay for other people's health care is all very well, until something happens to YOU. I don't want to pay for diabetics who eat too much, and they don't want to pay maternity if I decide to have a baby. After all... what's that baby going to do for THEM when it grows up?
Having said that, I don't agree with spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in expensive interventions to prolong a terminal cancer patient's life for another 4 weeks. Life is for the living.
And you know what? This whole scam of "saving a life". We're all going to die. So even if my life is "saved", it's still finite. If we reduce heart attacks so that people eventually die of something else, were their lives really "saved"?
vi at May 15, 2009 3:41 PM
Sam -
Pardon the interjection, but have you heard of a Flexible Spending/Cafeteria account plan. It may be something you can also look into.
If you did wind up with a health plan with a $2700 dedictible (or chose not to have one at all) there is the option of having the $2,700 - or whatever amount you decide on in advance (if you plan on exhausting it) taken out in monthly incriments (pre-tax) which does two things:
1) reduces taxable income (Yeeaahhh)
2) gives you a discount advantage on health care costs.
By number two, I mean that you submit reciepts for items that fall within the deductible and receive immediate reimbursement for the full amount (regardless of what has been taken so long as it does not exceed the total amount alloted for the year- in this case $2,700).
Since it was taken pre-tax, you are actually saving like what? 25-30% of the item/service.
Just something to think about. If it looks like you werent going to hit your deductible it doesnt roll over (downside) However, asprin, ace bandages, allergy medicine, over the counter items, orthodic shoes etc. are all reimburseable. So you dont have to designate it specifically to this or that and you still get taxed on a lower income.
Best of luck in the job hunt.
Feebie at May 15, 2009 3:57 PM
I'm curious. Amy, what would your insurance cost if you were applying to Kaiser for the first time today?
Exact same. Just looked it up. Lowest would be $145 for $5K deductible, 30% in network hospitals (meaning, I guess, you pay 30 percent of the cost of hospitalization).
Amy Alkon at May 15, 2009 4:03 PM
This idea that health care insurance costs are out of control in the U.S. is pure fantasy IMO.
Amy is 45 and pays $300 per month.
I'm 44 years old and pay $52 per month here in Canuckistan. I don't have a personal doctor because when my last one moved away it has become exceedingly impossible to find one who will take patients (and I live in a very urban area!). So if I get sick my alternatives are to go to a clinic or go to the Emergency at the local hospital. From anecdotal evidence from friends, I know that the wait each time will be in the order of 2 - 6 hours. Is that the "great" health care system you Americans are looking for?
Getting back to cost, here are some figures on what we pay in income tax here in BC: http://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/bc.htm
Plus we pay 12% sales tax (5% federal + 7% provincial) on most everything we buy.
How does our income & consumption tax compare with where you live?
Robert W. (Vancouver, BC) at May 15, 2009 4:43 PM
Hope you don't mind another link, but talk of fans of socialism who've never experienced it always makes me want to point out a long out-of-print book called The Red Primer for Children and Diplomats. It is being saved for all of those ignoramuses and the rest of us at redprimer.org (I have no affiliation with them).
Please read The Red Primer and share it far and wide! It's message is SO important!
Note: if you are on dial-up, make SURE you let the pictures load or else, well, you've read the opposite book that the author intended for you to read! Likewise, The Red Primer is not actually for children or others who can't "get" irony.
Karen at May 15, 2009 6:08 PM
Those rates are better than I would have expected. Are other states similar? I'd be shocked, shocked if something like insurance were relatively cheap in California.
Cheezburg at May 15, 2009 6:38 PM
It's always the people that I know with mega family money that are the biggest supporters of Statism. These people are always proud of their Socialist views. While they promote government control of our lives from cradle to grave they have to freedom to jet off to Lyford Cay or Switzerland.
belle de ville at May 15, 2009 7:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/05/15/steyn_on_fire.html#comment-1648795">comment from Robert W. (Vancouver, BC)This idea that health care insurance costs are out of control in the U.S. is pure fantasy IMO. Amy is 45 and pays $300 per month.
I only pay that much because I have the absolute highest level of care (and because, unfortunately, I can't untie maternity from that plan). For the $145 plan, I'd pay for 30 percent of hospitalization, and I would have a lifetime cap of $5 million on medical expenses. My plan is unlimited. Since I support myself and intend to keep doing so, that seems a prudent approach, in case I get cancer or some other dire disease.
I can e-mail my doctor and she responds usually in an hour or so. I can get appointments if there's something wrong right away, pretty much...maybe not with my primary care physician, but with some primary care physician. I wait usually about 20 minutes if they're backed up.
Amy Alkon at May 16, 2009 1:15 AM
I love Kaiser; I think they're effcient and I'm always happy with my care. But Amy, do you think if you were to apply to Kaiser right now, rather than in your 20's, that you'd be accepted? And my friends in their 20's right now are getting rejected! Even if the quoted rates are cheap for individuals, that means exactly jack if they won't accept you into their plan.
Sam at May 16, 2009 9:42 AM
Since we're talking about Kaiser, I have to say it was good for acute care, but really short on personal rapport, and in one case this meant that they couldn't tell me why I was sick for 2.5 months with the nastiest flu I'd ever had.
They checked me for pneumonia, and when they didn't find any they gave me Mucinex (not the 12 hour release either) and sent me home.
Needless to say I drowned in that Mucinex, which is an expectorant that loosens phlegm. The 12 hour release kind is worlds better, but they didn't even think to give me that.
Also, the issue turned out to be insufficient rest. A nurse would have asked that practically first thing, "Well... are you eating right? What about bed rest? What?? You're working out 2 hrs a day, performing in a show, working a full day in an office? Are you crazy? Get to bed!!!"
But for doctors, they only think to look for acute symptoms like fever, coughing up blood, etc. Of course it's important to establish whether there's a life threatening emergency, which a never-ending sinus infection is not.
But it looks like I'll be back on Kaiser soon enough, assuming they take me back (I passed a kidney stone 2 yrs ago - I hope it's illegal for HMOs to deny anyone by the time I have to move off Blue Cross, which I can no longer afford).
FLEXIBLE SPENDING - There is a catch to this one. If you set money aside in a year for medical expenses and don't use it, you lose it... I think. I think that sux. My kidney stone cost me personally $3000 - AFTER coverage, since the ER guys did a CT scan on me the night I came in, before we all knew what was wrong. That CT scan cost $8000 total. Plus there were visits to the urologist and several other X rays.
vi at May 16, 2009 10:50 AM
Leave a comment