Op Ed: 'Deja Vu' Again: Party Collapse Echoes 1800 Vote

(EUGENE, Ore.) - Our nation’s third Presidential vote, in 1800, brought on a 35-day Congressional struggle to break a tie-vote between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. This Constitutional flaw meant for “wise choice” forced furious confrontations and collapsed the reigning Federalists, triggering potent national party organization --anointing many controversial practices and policies with malign consequences felt ever since.

Burr’s loss fueled Hamilton’s death-by-duel, seen as assassination at the time: He was indicted by two Colonial states, fleeing to personal and political dissolution in the new West.

Recent events emphasize similar intensely-felt situations impacting crucial public issues today. (Pick your own current “Aaron Burr” from several candidates in both politics and the Far Right media.)

The unforeseen consequences of that historic election shaped our just-beginning/then political partysystem. Examination NOW clearly illuminates sharply the beginnings of corruption, competition, and dangerous complacencies --by both citizens AND politicians and their developing parties-- the bane of our system ever since.

Early, uninhibited public opinion forced full action leading to Constitutional change in 1804: the Twelfth Amendment. But that complacent Amendment left unremedied recurring massive machinations now making many major reforms essential for truly effective 21st Century democracy.

Parallels to present-day political-pandering -- distorting and perverting political process at tdemocracy’s heart-- are widely apparent today.

Typical comments are especially encountered on Internet channels; the high-volume is known noisemachine/ initiated, by “eager volunteers” and party-paid shills. The same sinister seductive forces are further promoted by embarrassing actions of politicians, made e more potent, perverse and prevalent by easy access to extremely potent Internet channels. (See any emailer from local, state, national politicos: excruciating examples abound.)

The huge piles of political cash under concentrated transfer to our honestly-elected representatives -- ostensibly by corporate right to free speech as if a human being-- supplement abuse by notorious noise machine under rigid party control. (Part Two will review initiation and “emoluments employed” to win controversial corporate “right”.)

Every one of those so-called “modern political communications techniques” was in early usage in that historic 1800 election. The only exception is actual access to the Internet, sure to have been used, if invented-then ! The burgeoning “free press” was an effective substitute --so widely-read that it multiplied political impacts as never before. Hamilton, Jay and Madison --authors of those classic “Op Eds”, the 85 Federalist Papers-- presented them to new thousands of citizens eager for the latest in burgeoning political developments.

All 85 were delivered --in sometimes florid but often flaming rhetoric and debilitating detail-- in nearly all early-Colonial newspapers. Journalism’s historians credit that period for our tradition of challenging, independent newspapers and complementary media, bearing Constitutional responsibilities for complex information guiding citizens on crucial public issues.

What’s decisively different today, unmatched in any previous century, is lush, lavish, lasting, enslaving impact of billions upon billions laid on the line for political purposes. (Different, too, is disappeared dominance of daily newspapers for that essential duty, far weaker by other media.) That irresponsible, unaccountable, overwhelming cash-flow alone -- aside from multiple, massive. mostly malign manipulation-- is the unnerving, inevitable, insatiable, truly destroying difference. Our prescient Founders foresaw most of these issue/problems, in passages published widely then. (See Reader’s Note for extensive documentation, since detail here demands too much space.)

President Obama faces an onslaught/attack -- largely funded by “corporate campaign contributions”-- like the world has never seen and is unlikely ever to see again --an unforeseeable consequence of the current worldwide economic crisis, broadly viewed as caused by American apathy, inaction and incompetences.

For the first time in fifty eventful years-- the American political panoply of corporate gurus, in healthcare, oil, automobiles, banks, insurance, stock tradeing at all levels, are finding themselves faced with ferociously, furiously growing public demand for full public accountability.

Many who never wondered before are now openly, deeply, some desperately, seeking to understand from whence cometh those millions adding up to billions. for “war-chest working-funds”.

Every dollar is clearly designated, designed, destined to protect, preserve and further project -- in ANY way, by ANY means-- that highly lucrative, profit-building and private-interest/promoting entire half-century. (It is ironic, if intriguing, to note that “politics is war, with a win by any means demanded” was initiated as basic political principle by those contending in this 1800 Presidential campaign.) Personal-plight desperation drives many now to resort to commonsense cogitation: Millions of ordinary Americans now contend that corporate profit levels must have been --and still remain-- “at top-line measure for all such legal-gains.” (National magazine reports confirm this as fact.)

How ELSE to supply such supremely massive dollarmaterial for even more --and more intense-- corporate campaign combat-considerations ? (Read: “contributions”) Facts on public record show well-maintained corporate profits plundered from equally-massive public consumption of all components deemed invaluable to pursuit of “the American Dream”.

That’s largely due to ubiquitous intensely-planned psychologically-shaped advertising impacts, in the millions every day, in every possible channel. Costs are seen as “what it takes to build business” --with no consideration for what that does to society via personal and ethical values, family life shaped by seductive consumption, and other entirely inescapable consequences. OR to rapidly growing demand for study to reshape corporate charters --the “social contract” for all corporate existence ever since initiation more than a century ago.

There’s little question from whence cometh that lavish laid-on lobbyist-layered bountiful bag of bilions in “corporate campaign contributions”: Like it or not, with or without your consent, YOU “contribute” to those “contributions.” (How can it be otherwise --given the ongoing citizen and Congressional complacencies permitting it to be so manipulated and maintained --ever since 1800 ??)

Here’s a rapid/summary “by-the-millions take-out” on WHO is putting up WHICH PART of those overwhelming-intended billions, complexifying both Congressional and President Obama’s possible responses: Healthcare industry: $127 Million, 1st 3-mo. ‘09 alone.

Conservatives for Patients’ Rights: $20 Million vs Obama’s reforms. Coalition for Democratic Workplace: $200 Million vs EFCA, union check-off reform vs corporate denials. Unions plan $100 Million in support, will be outspent TEN-to-ONE as this issue heats up. Oil, Big Coal: $76.1 Million, 1st 4-mo. ‘08 vs climate reforms via advertising alone. Ecology reformists expect to be outspent at least TEN-to-ONE, have already spent $28.6 Million in ads themselves in support of proposed reforms.

Climate lobbies on both sides already had four-toone status outnumbering legislators, up 300 PERCENT since ‘03. U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Multimillion-dollar program to “explain, protect and preserve American entrepreneurship” and its activities. (Paraphrased). Public and private groups are forced to develop “sophisticated independent coalitions” providing preventive muscle for offsetting actions, using the same channels, media and methods --”except for ethical limitations not hampering “the corporate side”, as one well-experienced lobbyist explained.

Any commonsense consideration of publicly stated massive money-resources amassed to confront the new President must consider --consistently and cautiously-- what is intended via expenditures of these clearly unmatched, overwhelming, and costly-to-consumers “warfare/resources.” Agains WHOM is that warfare truly aimed?

Reforms we MUST HAVE --starting with fiscal and financial, with the world watching while we work out ways to manage, oversee, supervise and regulate those whose meaningful machinations have caused the world economic crisis we now face. As Americans --learning from the long road begun in 1800-- we can surely do no less -- with world leaders watching as we work-- to protect, preserve, and AGAIN guarantee the integrity of our democracy.

Reader’s Note: Part Two will review and analyze initiation and crass development of the “corporate right” to political speech as if for a truly-human individual. More than 40 sources, from Internet, writer’s library, textbook, reference works, writer’s files and current media clips, were consulted for this content. Among the most useful books are: Adams and Jefferson: Tumultous Election of 1800 Why Americans Hate Politics Too Damned Much Money White House Ghosts Alexander Hamilton (Chernow biog.) FDR (Jean Edward Smith biog.) No Ordinary Time (FDR biog.- Doris Kearns Goodwin DUTCH (Edmund Morris biog.) Words That Make America Great:200 Timeless Documents That Define American Character. Complete ISBN information on all books is available on request to Editor with full ID and working phone.

He joined Dr. Amo DeBernardis at PCC, helping establish, extend programs, facilities, Oregon/national public relations; moved to Chicago as Editor/Publisher of oldest educational-AV journal, reformed as AV GUIDE Magazine; then established and operated Learning Media Associates as general communications consultant group. Due to wife’s illness, he returned to Oregon in 1981, semi-retired, and has continued writing intermittently ever since, joining S-N in 2004. His Op Eds now total over 560 written since then.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Cutie pie April 7, 2011 2:22 pm (Pacific time)

I think it was mean of Aaron Burr to just kill Alexander Hamilton, even if he did kind of deserve it. That waz just mean.

Henry Ruark June 22, 2009 6:40 pm (Pacific time)

Vamdehoy: You wrote:"...we cannot afford national healthcare nor can we afford not to have it." That's the sharp, pointed kind of analysis that really helps elected officials do the sworn job of deciding for the commonweal. Using them, their only action needed is to toss a coin, using whatever comes up as surely incontrovertible guide. Fits beautifully with your previous, and also expands, extends, and multiplies the meaninglessness of yours re equating "Global Warming", a matter of scientific fact no longer open to doubt, and the people's opinion on healthcare action, which is complex, very costly, demands insights and creativity from experts, and fits precisely into the role a true deliberative assembly, elected by constituents who know what they need to know, should expect --informed,wise, economic, socially moral action on issue far too large for decision via distorted, perverted popular view paid for in the billions by those determined to multiply profits and corporate influence. Do you think we can now possibly move backwards to that plan, protocol and procedure, as Founders fully intended ? For documentation of that last, see any of whole slew of new books re election of 1800 and on the prescient, still provocative dialog and deep actions by which they chose to set our "200-year experiment in republican democracy" into full action. THAT should give you large target for links from some reputable sources beyond what you now show us here -personal feeling built on unknown life experience to qualify your rather incoherent statements.

Vandehey June 22, 2009 4:31 pm (Pacific time)

New York Times/CBS news polls historically have been highly inaccurate, especially in the last several presidential elections. Both these organizations have been losing cirrculation and viewership at a high pace, so maybe their population samples are skewed as they have been reported to be in the past by Gallup and Rasmussen. I would say that there are other pollsters that would provide a better picture, but what would be most encouraging that like Global Warming, national healthcare gets both a pro and con appraisal so the voters have diverse information to help them provide feedback to their elected officals, though they don't seem to care much about the voters anymore. It's really disappointing that the Congressional Budget Office, the gold standard for providing statistical information, is just ignored by the whitehouse, Reid and Pelosi. They use to always like them, maybe the agenda is such that "facts" just don't mean anything. As it is we cannot afford national healthcare nor can we afford not to have it. Not a good situation.

Henry Ruark June 22, 2009 10:43 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" evidence of strong public opinion re healthcare. Let it offset via factual analysis propaganda perpetrated by those seeking to preserved failed laissez faire economic approach, with fullscale attack on Obama agenda across the board. www.nytimes.com June 22, 2009 Health Care Showdown By PAUL KRUGMAN "America’s political scene has changed immensely since the last time a Democratic president tried to reform health care. So has the health care picture: with costs soaring and insurance dwindling, nobody can now say with a straight face that the U.S. health care system is O.K. "And if surveys like the New York Times/CBS News poll released last weekend are any indication, voters are ready for major change. "The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it’s 1993. "And yes, I mean Democratic senators. The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the health care debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogans — Government-run health care! Socialism! Europe! — hoping that someone still cares. "The polls suggest that hardly anyone does. Voters, it seems, strongly favor a universal guarantee of coverage, and they mostly accept the idea that higher taxes may be needed to achieve that guarantee. "What’s more, they overwhelmingly favor precisely the feature of Democratic plans that Republicans denounce most fiercely as “socialized medicine” — the creation of a public health insurance option that competes with private insurers." -------------- It's abundantly clear where large majority of citizens now suffering from serious dilemma caused by healthcare system failures really stand. For your own personal interest, speak up for what YOU believe -ONLY WAY to offset/counter/defeat those who will defy, deny, delay any reform of any kind on any of many issues, just so long as they can do so for THEIR personal interests. Note particularly continuing strong declarations here, all dependent solely on personal feeling with NO LINK nor any other evidence ever offered for "evaluate with own mind" assessment by YOU. THA should clearly tell you something essential to guide your own actions. Op Ed makes solid point with facts, details documented. WHERE'S THEIRS ??? Like two successive issues of TIME, and current issues of HARPERS and other respected, respectable national journals of opinion and factual analysis.

Jack Vandehey June 22, 2009 8:54 am (Pacific time)

I recently wrote one of my state's U.S. Senators objecting to President Obama's national health plan. In my letter, I pointed out that we do not have the doctor base to add millions of patients. We will end up with rationed care like they have in Canada and England, where only the wealthy can afford private care. Everyone else will be asked to take a number and go to the back of the line. I went on to point out that today, many doctors will not take medicare patients. Further, that more doctors are dropping Medicare patients unless they pay a up-front, out-of-pocket fee to be treated by that doctor under Medicare. While this is going on, Obama proposes to partially fund his folly with more than $300 billion in cuts from Medicare. My letter was answered by thanking me for my support for a public health insurance program. He went on to say the window of opportunity is now open and we must seize it. Now I no longer wonder why they are ignoring the Congressional Budget Office numbers, they ignore that actuary input just like my constituent input.

Henry Ruark June 21, 2009 6:28 pm (Pacific time)

Martin et al: Re mine to you on healthcare, do not miss TIME 6/29, "More Data+Less Care =Lower Cost + Better Health", pp.36-41, with examples, costs, state stats, and much else,making clear what mine generalized for you. Full of actualities and realities now, presaging precisely the steps generalized in mine;"see with own eyes" for current history well reviewed for future applications.

Henry Ruark June 20, 2009 10:53 am (Pacific time)

To all:
Explicit to many Op Ed analyses here is the Reagan era "miracle of the markets" as determiner of social and economic policy.
For latest information on WHY this is so far off the mark, and background on who took it that far from reality of 21st Century economics, see TIME 6/22: "The Myth of the Rational Market" by Justin Fox, pp. 44/46, sub-headed "...why a seductive idea keeps leading us to disaster."
Fox has new book just out by same title; will report on it in depth soon !!

Henry Ruark June 21, 2009 2:01 pm (Pacific time)

Martin: Basic action will come from far stronger preventive care, from huge wastes now, from re-deployment of active professionals, from strong efforts already underway to produce more staffers, from electronic isolation of both cause and cure spreading those that work, eliminating those that don't -- ie., tremendous, costly effort just starting. WHAT ELSE ? We did it for Wars I and II, for New Deal, we can do it AGAIN ! WHAT ELSE do you recommend ? Shall we let pivotal moment pass us all by, AGAIN ? Have done so three times now...we cannot afford NOT to ACT since healthcare about to engulf huger section of gross national production than anything else...outrun all our contracts owed to every citizen now and in the future. IF you have other-plan, NOW IS THE TIME to set it out in detail for national consideration.

Martin June 21, 2009 8:25 am (Pacific time)

If nearly 50 million people enter the current health care system where do all the medical resources come from? Even now there is a significant stress on doctors, nurses, other medical personnel and eqipment. All newly insured patients will need to see a primary care MD, they are in very short supply, because most doctors go into different specialties. Obama is trying to ram a policy through similar to the Stimulus Policy, and no one even read that, so this will break the economic system in my opinion. Does anyone know where all the new medical staffing will come from? Right now 5 out of 6 Americans have coverage, are we going to destroy what we have to help the one out of 6 who don't have coverage, plus many of them chose not to carry insurance as per the CBO? Sure we need to do something, but not at a cost of destroying what we have now. One simple question, since are medical services are stressed now, how are we going to accomodate the millions who would be entering our stressed health care system? Until one can address that, then we need to keep the debate moving. We have smart people out there, much smarter than anyone in congress and the whitehouse, so let's get good ol'American synergy a chance to develop and solve this problem.

Henry Ruark June 20, 2009 8:55 am (Pacific time)

To all: Here's "see with own eyes" ending excerpt from Dionne WP column today. Note emphasis on "win in any way possible" on healthcare, rather than sworn duty to work for commonweal via rational, reasonable commonsense and honest compromise. With healthcare ONLY ONE of many major massively damaging problem-issues today, and with 21st Century already ongoing, we MUST seek sensible rational solution to save remnants of democracy --OR see Founders fine experiment collapse into same chaos as predecessors. www.wpost.com "What this means is that most Republicans want to take themselves out of the health-care discussion altogether. For reasons of principle as well as politics, they want to rail against the costs of government action and assert -- against what I would insist is overwhelming evidence -- that somehow we can find a way for the market to solve our health-care problems. Republicans have every right to do this. But they can't refuse to play the game and then go on to condemn Obama and the Democrats for being insufficiently bipartisan. It's one thing to compromise to pick up votes, which, one hopes, is what Baucus is doing. It's another to compromise in exchange for nothing at all. The first is bipartisanship with a purpose. The second is the bipartisanship of fools." ----------------- Surely fair enough to point out that's precisely the full impact of Op Ed review on the Election of 1800, pivotal to this political-warfare failure of democracy, now fueling the threatenting multi-billons attacks on Obama agenda. Are we well on the way to another Civil War, with small remaining remnant of honest conservatism distorting, perverting any possible move simply to preserve vaunted "principle", failed and now collapsed after 50-year full trial ??

Henry Ruark June 20, 2009 8:38 am (Pacific time)

Friend Henson: Please understand nothing here "personal" since we've never met except via dialog. Our use of "Uninformed, Misinformed or Malign"in word or by implication emphasizes millions of impacts of very professional noise machine propaganda now wellknown and even admitted by ongoing perpetrators still seeking to seduce many as strong way to sabotage absolutely rational, reasonable and realistically now required reforms in local, state and national policies shaped over past 50 years by neocon cabal now well recognized historically. Your participation here well appreciated, providing strong background for reflection of realities as shown in Op Eds. You as citizen operate from personal experience and own sources; professional reporter MUST seek many more, then reflect facts and realities as discovered, to best of honest "informed opinion" built from that solid foundation.

Henry Clay Ruark June 19, 2009 1:23 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Here's excerpt as "see with own eyes" from AP story carried today in leading Oregon dailies: "The healthcare system is dysfunctional and full of waste, as much as 30 percent o f all spending":Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard Professor of Health Economics and Policy. Consumers rarely know which doctors or treatments are best for them, don't price shop, and, if they are insured, don't know the full cost of care. That all can lead to uncessary spending. ---------- Excerpt from "U.S. Burden: Expert Says 30 percent of $2.5 trillion spent annually is wasted. Sory by-lined by Linda A Johnson, major AP reporter on issue, reviews q.and a. about major healthcare issues, with strong approval of Obama agenda by many experts speaking for their particular specialties. Total-content available later via ID to Editor Tim with working phone. Problem NOT with facts here, but with desperate, determined effort to derail demanded action now after decades of indecent denial to millions. IS healthcare a "human right" or simply a commodity ruled by radical realities of the failed "miracle of the market" ? Do NOT overlook healthcare is ONLY ONE of multiple issues we now confront, with Obama leading the way for rational, reasonable, workable solutions arrived at by democratic means in our democratic governance system, demanding proper and full support from all thinking citizens via First Amendment contacts with elected representatives sworn to uphold the commonweal.

Henry Ruark June 19, 2009 12:59 pm (Pacific time)

Henson et al: You make horrendous error of commoditizing healthcare as if it were ruled entirely by the market --playing right into hands of those who thus profit greatly. International consensus, shown by actions taken long ago by many other countries, has certified it as "human right". Yr numbers on costs also echo those from sources known now as desperate to preserve laissez-faire status defying longtime will of Americans,who know score far better than you understand. Waste of 35 percent-plus now openly admitted in current market-ruled plan, with the provider often making decision on dollar basis re really desperate needs, per AP reports. ANY huge plan sure to have negativities seized on by avid press for pure propaganda purposes. IF you believe in our current representative republic government via elected reps., you must agree decision on why, what, when now forced by demonstrated deficit-forcing dilemma must somehow be remedied... How do you propose to do so better than by those we choose by vote ? Just leave it to the mercy of the "market miracle" ?? ANYone can shriek in horror re horrible hollowed-out status created by profit-planned present system, but few have anything positive to give re solution. Where's YOURS ? Do we continue as is, via same failed laissez-faire ? Do we ignore for another 40 years demanded necessities for those deprived by circumstance and market failures and greed of suppliers ? Does "human right" overcome profiteering and private-gain provisions, re Constitutional statements still "under more study" and further delay ? We went that way on slavery too, with consequences resonating through society even after Civil War fought to set moral matters straight... Do we need to "change the system" ? SO...let's get at the job ! That's what Founders taught us starting in '76 --long before 1800-vote in Op Ed, clearly pivotal for all events since. SO, where's YOURS re how to provide healthcare ? OR do you now decide to deride and belittle the demonstrated widespread necessitis, inflating our E/Room costs more every day ? Would you prefer suffering deprived simply to "quietly go to sleep" in some odd corner ? Many millions, deprived of daily dose of essential meds, may find themselves in just that predicament. Have YOU ever "been there" ? What's YOUR meds status ?? Now on S/S=Medicare=Medicade for day-to-day necessities for life ? OR private plan paid for and allowing profit-taking ? Do you hold ANY stock in similar providers ? Have you read any one of the source-items cited ? What else have you read ? What sources, other than news/clip,did you seek ? If any, why NOT cite by links for "see with own eyes, evaluate with own mind", usual routine here ?!...which is why we use multiple sources, so report, list on request. We emphasize that approach even for our own stuff. It works well when given any chance to do so...

Henson June 18, 2009 9:17 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson here is the link referencing Canadian health care as per ABC television/network news (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3580676andpage=1). Also in regards to the approximately 50 million, a number reported by some, uninsured Americans who will require at least a barebones type of coverage at the minimum will come at a projected cost of 1.75 trillion dollars per year in a government health care scheme. With a private sector plan, even if we were to take the cost of a fairly decent family insurance plan of about $15,000 per year and assume a family of 3, we have a per individual cost of $5000 for health coverage. The total private sector cost adds up to less than 250 billion dollars compared with these multiple trillions of dollars plans that are coming out of the halls of government. America is not just QUALITY OF CARE nuts if it goes with government health care, it is also FINANCIALLY INSANE.

Henry Ruark June 18, 2009 1:44 pm (Pacific time)

To all: For detailed documentation in depth impossible here for space reasons, "see also": NEWSWEEK (6/22/09) cover feature "GREED Is Good (To A Point");Fareed Zakariah; and HARPERS (July 09);"Barack Hoover Obama";Kevin Baker; and in same issue: "Labor's Last Stand""; Ken Silverstein. Some slight cogitation will clarify for you WHY and HOW all three are key to "seeing with own eyes" as concentrated venomous attack on Obama's agenda --now beginning to gain better understandings by new millions, as stilumus impacts begin to surface-- is the last desperate help of corporate and other perpetrators highly active over the past 40 years. Oh, too ! --Be sure to "evaluate with own minds" once begun by cogitation...first step in offsetting allathat heavy propaganda machine- delivered allathose years...

Henry Ruark June 18, 2009 1:03 pm (Pacific time)

Henson et al: Your anguished pastiche projects every Far Right distortion/perversion but collapses completely on any remediation for 46 million now known to be unable to assume posture demanded by current "miracle of the markets" which has caused this horrendous debacle now debilitating the nation and threatening final wreck of economy if not now conquered once and for all. Millions now have come to know that there is a right role for government to manage when all else has gone kaput, destroyed by the inevitable confusion between the commonweal and the corporate profit drive for dollars uber alles. Despite your professed anguish, all other modern nations except ours have long ago set up and are still using multiple formats to furnish their citizens with often strong and usually far more comprehensive care than our deprived, desperate, dispossessed-of-human-right co-citizens here. We need to concentrate on supplying SOMETHING for those so despicably now deprived, with all means/methods/modes now possible, we can reap the dual benefits of careful and close supervision by citizens and the resulting massive impacts of impressive public opinion to remedy our whole system for representative choice by elected persons we can trust and change as demanded. That's known as democracy, and if we fail at any level, as is inevitable in 21st Century situations, the right and reasonable answer is more democracy, rationally and reasonably applied. Negative nonentity neither illuminates nor will it ever solve these situations; it serves only to stimulate even moreofthesame corporate components which brought us to this brink since that key Presidential vote of 1800.

Daniel Johnson June 18, 2009 1:02 pm (Pacific time)

I'm a Canadian and unless you provide some references to your assertions, it will be pretty obvious that you're just blowing smoke to confuse the issue.

Henson June 18, 2009 10:51 am (Pacific time)

The current batch of DC leaders is about to embark on the biggest injury to our economy if we do not get real facts out there to the voters. There are many problems with health insurance, but that doesn’t mean we should put the government in control. If it’s decided that health care should be paid for with tax dollars, then it’s up to the government to decide how that money should be spent. There’s only so much money to go around, so the inevitable result is rationing. It’s just the law of supply and demand. Lowering prices increases demand. Lowering the price to nothing pushes demand through the roof. Author P.J. O’Rourke said it best: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.” When health care is free, governments deal with all that increased demand by limiting what’s available. The reality of “free” health care is that people wait. In the United Kingdom, one in eight patients waits more than a year for hospital treatment and the British government recently set its goal to keep wait times to less than 18 weeks that’s more than four months! In Canada, almost a million citizens are waiting for necessary surgery and more than a million Canadians can’t find a regular doctor. In the small town of Norwood, Ontario, a weekly drawing is held in which a townsperson wins the right to access the town’s one family doctor. Governments ratchet down health-care costs in different ways. Doctors went on strike last year in Germany because their government’s system pays them less than they thought they deserved and forces them to work thousands of hours of unpaid overtime. In the United Kingdom, one hospital was inspired to save money money by not changing sheets daily. British papers report that instead of washing the linens, nurses were told to just turn the bedsheets over. Government is less the answer to our health-care crisis than the problem. It was our government that helped to create the absurd system in which two out of three Americans get health insurance through their employer. In a country where four in 10 Americans change their job every year, this system makes little sense; it leaves people like Readling without coverage when they need it most. The government also makes insurance expensive by mandating the medical services that policies must cover. Required services vary state by state and include massage therapy, pastoral counseling, acupuncture, hair prosthesis and dentures. Such mandates are a reason why an individual policy in New Jersey costs around $4,000 a year while a policy in Iowa costs only a third of that. Yet insurance regulations make it illegal for someone in New Jersey to buy a policy from out of state… …The more people control the money they spend on their own health care, the more people shop around and the more providers compete to attract patients by lowering prices while improving quality. It’s putting individuals in control that could turn our health-care sector into the vibrant, competitive marketplace that we see in nearly every other area of our economy. After all, it’s our body and our health. Shouldn’t we be in control of how our health-care dollars are spent? Harvard’s Herzlinger said, “Who should decide whether you live or die? Do you want the government to decide? Do you want a health insurer to decide? Who’s gonna make that decision? Is it gonna be a government? Is it gonna be an insurer? Or is it gonna be you and me?” Putting individuals in control of our health rather than our employers or the government is a better way to cure what ails America’s health system.

[Return to Top]

Op Ed: 'Deja Vu' Again:
Party Collapse
Echoes 1800 Vote

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News