Email
Print
SyndicateWhen the Truth Hurts
By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, December 29, 2009
By Robert Ringer
When Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar and North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad recently appeared on Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday, Wallace said to Senator Klobuchar:
“According to the latest Rasmussen poll — and let’s put it up on the screen — 57 percent of voters given a choice between do nothing … or pass this bill … say it would be better to pass no health-care reform bill. Only 34 percent say it would be better to pass the bill. Senator, don’t Democrats run a considerable political risk when you’re going to pass major legislation with no bipartisan support over what seems to be almost a 2-1 opposition from the American people?”
To which Senator Klobuchar responded, “Do you know what the poll numbers were on Medicare when they voted for Medicare decades and decades ago? Like 28 percent of the people favored it. Now, 96 percent do.”
Her comment was intended to be a spin of the hard fact that a majority of Americans do not want government to pass a health-care bill. But, without realizing it, she made a very important point that we should all be concerned about: Government programs that give lots of people lots of free stuff are always popular.
The hooligans in D.C. know that all they need to do is get their foot in the door with a new bill, then, through their own arbitrary interpretation, have it evolve into what they want it to be. Further, once enough people are benefiting (or think they are) from the largesse that flows from the new program, it will, of course, become popular.
As my friend Judge Andrew Napolitano would say, it’s the wrong debate. The debate should not be over whether a program is or is not popular. Having the top 1 percent of income earners hand over 100 percent of their earnings to the bottom 50 percent of income earners would be popular, too. But that doesn’t mean it would be legal — and certainly not moral.
The real debate that should have been taking place in Congress these past months is whether or not government has a Constitutional right to be involved in health care in any way.
It’s another reminder of how important it is to always check your premises. Most of the Congressional debates that go on in the Capitol Building are based on the false premise that the government has a right to do things that are not called for in the Constitution. As BHO himself has admitted, to his dismay, the Constitution “doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” The question of Constitutional authority should always be first on the debate list, which, in the vast majority of cases, would eliminate the need for further debate.
If you start with a false premise, you will always arrive at a false conclusion. That government has a right to impose “cap and trade” rules (and taxes) on individuals or companies is a false premise. That government has a right to force people to buy health insurance is a false premise. That government has a right to redistribute wealth is a false premise.
Howard Dean and other socialists who are angry about the Senate health-care bill not being generous enough are getting upset over nothing. The fact is that it doesn’t matter what’s in the final bill. As so many radicals have said over the years, all Congress needs to do is just get involved in a targeted area in a small way, then, over a period of time, it can change the rules and up the ante as it pleases.
The truth hurts, but, sadly, Senator Klobuchar is actually right: As more and more people — especially new generations — get in on the receiving end of a wealth-transfer program like health care, it will become more and more popular with the passage of time. Which is why, as the 2010 elections draw near, repeal should become the laser focus of those of us who truly believe in liberty.
_______________________________________
Liberty Education Interview Series
Please encourage your family, friends, and coworkers to listen to the Liberty Education Interview Series. Liberty needs all the support it can get right now.
_______________________________________
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
7 Responses to “When the Truth Hurts”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
The entire scenario described, reminds me of the Monty Python sketch of Dennis Moore…the highwayman.
Initially he starts out stealing lupins (flowers) to give to the “poor” but as they receive more and more “freebies” from the well meaning “Robin Hood”-like character exemplified by Dennis Moore, these so called “poor” peasants become more and more demanding of better and better “freebies” (of course at the expense and theft from others….
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Etcetera, etcetera…
(He leaps off his horse and runs to the door of the hut, throws the door open and enters. The little hut is now stuffed with all possible signs of wealth and all imaginable treasures.)
Male Peasant:
What you got for us today then.
Dennis Moore:
Well I’ve managed to find you four very nice
silver spoons Mr Jenkins.
Male Peasant:
(snatching them rudely.)
Who do you think you are giving us poor this rubbish?
Female Peasant:
Bloody silver. Won’t have it in the house.
(throws it away)
And those candlesticks you got us last week were only sixteen carat.
Male Peasant:
Yes, why don’t you go out and steal something nice like some Venetian silver.
Female Peasant:
Or a Velasquez for the outside loo.
Dennis Moore:
Oh all right. (turns purposefully)
Where does it all end when the government starts to determine what is “fair” and tries to impose some sort of economic equality in it’s various forms, on all of the citizens in the society. Politicians have an invested interest…to get elected. Giving out freebies to people who do not want to work hard for their means of support, has always been a very slippery slope in undermining the overall work ethic of a country.
I recently was reading a history of what happened to the economy of Argentina in the 20th century, as politicians tried to ignore the laws of reality and spend money they did not have to provide goodies in order to be re-elected. We are following in the very same path and it is not unlikely we will see the same results. Unfortunately, it does not seem that the people in Argentina have learned from their experiences. So, too, it seems very unlikely that the people here will learn. What is one to do?
Robert,
While I’m a capitalist through and through, and believe a smaller government is best, I cannot agree with anyone not having access to Health care.
Living in the UK, our National Health Service is far from perfect, but I’ve also travelled to much poorer countries and it’s shocking to see people suffer because of not being able to pay for medical help.
And living, as we do, in the richest countries in the world (we’re all millionaires compared to 95% of the world’s population) how can we deny anyone basic help ?
Bottomline, it’s inhuman.
And although I’ve been a lifelong opponent of taxes, I’d much rather pay a bit more than to see people suffer.
Yes, I’m sure there’s ways to be smarter in the detail of the health care plans, and helping people to help themselves (maybe via loans etc) is much better than giving.
Besides, healthy people can contribute more.
All the best,
Steve W
Repeated Government largesse by its very nature is designed to addict the receiver which leads to dependency and a sure vote for more.
What is happening today is a grab for power in broad day light. It has nothing to do with giving the people better health care. That is the excuse or emergency to ram the bill through without reading it all. Government knows exactly what they are doing; they are not that stupid or they shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Washington is full of politicians but lacking statesmen. Who is defending the constitution anymore? Where do these politicians get the power to betray the very people who are paying their salaries? Where are the attornies to sue Congress for their misdeads? Where is the class action law suit defending the future of this country? This reeks like FRAUD committed onto the people of the United States by pretending that this entitlement will bring costs down and improve health care when the facts prove the opposite. Be aware of the enemy within!
Here is truth that is going to hurt the feelings of all the conservatives and liberials. This Bill was written By and For the Health insurance and Pharmasutical Idustries. everyone is getting scrwed on this one.
I am surprised I assumed Mr. Ringer would be happy that these two industries were making profit, at any cost.
Dear Moderator, I made an error in the first submission. Please substitute this one in place of it. Thank you
Dear Mr. Steve W,
Excuse me please, but I so often hear or read someone making the same type of shallow argument that you make. You are not a capitalist, not even close, if you believe in big government healthcare. I suggest that you educate yourself by reading some of Mr. Ringers books, and then rethink your position.
For all those who think like Mr. W. I’m reposting part of something that I posted almost a year ago on this very blog. By the way, I was born in the USA, but I also have a UK citizenship; however, that doesn’t mean I know any better than the next man about socialized medicine. Reason and experience are more powerful than a birth right. And reason and experience are what really matters most when making an evaluation on healthcare or any issue regarding the poor.
True story: Once upon a time while I was living in Asia, I happened to be spending some time on the Cambodian border when I pondered an idea I call “Some people will breed themselves into poverty no matter how much of anything you give them theory.” After giving food, cloths, fresh water, medicine, and money directly to numerous starving children ( whom I truly felt sorry for) and their families, I started to think deeply about what caused their plight and how I might help with the underlying cause. In my investigations, what I found was that bad government, war, climate, and poor economic conditions were not the main cause of so many children starving to death. After living with one of those poor families for nearly three months and learning about their perspective, I came to the conclusion that the main cause of so much of the rampant poverty was mainly due to a man and his wife[or his wives] breeding themselves and their offspring into starvation. ( i.e having wagon-loads of children with little or no resources to raise them.)
Moreover, no matter how much time, effort, and money that I spent in attempting to help, it did not, and would not, really solve the long term problem. The people themselves( how they thought and acted) were the main problem, and they simply did not want to change their foolish breeding habits or educate themselves.
Later, I traveled around the world and witnessed more abject poverty; then by chance I read the works of English political economist and demographer Thomas R Malthus which caused me to refine my view even further.
Now, I have come to firmly believe that if America gave all it’s wealth to the Third World, then they would just turn around and squander it—and simply breed themselves right back into poverty.
The theory can be applied right here in American. No matter how much you give, they will simply breed themselves( and you, if you let them) right back into poverty. Over the years this theory has been refined into the ” charity from government, group, or individual tends to fertilize the problem rather than solve it theory.” America the beautiful has become America the enabler of welfare cases.
I can’t begin to tell you how many starving children I’ve in my travels. Sometimes I still give, but mainly I just walk on by. Education is the key, if they would only listen. I focus my charitable donations on education now.
In conclusion, I truly believe that Americans should have been preparing themselves for a rainy economic day. Those who can’t feed their children should not expect the government to coerce me or anyone else into transferring money into their pockets. All such transfers should be voluntary even if the life of a child is at stake. If someone is unemployed and I decide to help, then fine, but don’t force me. I’m the “Decider.”
“The hooligans in D.C. know that all they need to do is get their foot in the door with a new bill, then, through their own arbitrary interpretation, have it evolve into what they want it to be….” Truer words were never spoken. Nobody should be counting on commie Dems in the House to revolt against this because the bill doesn’t thieve and maul enough in its present form or any conferenced version. The only hope is getting enough congressional candidates in 2010 and 2012 to run on a campaign of repealing whatever mess gets passed. As well, Obama must get kicked out in 2012 by someone who won’t veto the repeal.
Teddyboy46 is a smear artist, although without much artistry. Why would Ringer support “profits for the pharmaceutical industry” at “any cost”? The remark is dishonest. There is no conceivable basis for it. Ringer supports honest profit-making in a free-market context, not profit–or looting–at the point of a gun.