Anything peaceful and voluntary.

Blind spots in the coverage …

I’m hearing a loud silence on two issues regarding Obama’s medical leviathan.

1)    The Blind Spot for Liberals is the distinction between coverage and care

2)    The Blind Spot for Conservatives is Obama’s ultimate goal

#1 Coverage vs Care

CNN seems to have discovered, for the umpteenth time, that Europeans have universal medical coverage.  The neglected aspect fallacy is in full bloom—it’s not coverage they lack: it’s medical care.  You know—treatment?

When I was in the medical device industry, I visited a neurosurgeon in London in the 1990’s.  I learned that the waiting time for an MRI then was months—not days or hours.  I learned that beyond the age of 55, loyal British subjects do not qualify for kidney dialysis.  What was shocking to me was that the doctors there didn’t find this offensive.

They don’t have enough technology, enough doctors. They  lack access to actual medical care.

Who cares if you have coverage if the coverage does not buy diagnostics and treatment? People are cured by care, not coverage.

#2 : The Goal of Obama’s program

I read a lively commentary by Mark Steyn  in the National Review Online– (June 30)  :

“It is the perverse genius of Obamacare that it will kill off what’s left of a truly private health sector without leading to a truly universal system. However, it will be catastrophically unaffordable, hideously bureaucratic, and ever more coercive. So what’s not to like?”

To echo a line from Atlas Shrugged, “What makes you think Obama is interested in a truly universal system of medical coverage?   (Or energy conservation, or job growth or any other positive human value you care to name?) “

Mark Steyn has the truth but not the whole truth.  Ayn Rand had noted that few people really understand nihilism when they encounter it.  They can’t see that the envious man in power doesn’t want to succeed: he wants everyone else to fail—even when it means his own demise.

Take energy, for example. Obama was quoted prior to his election to the effect that if he had his way, energy prices would…. “skyrocket”… Journalists, like the doctors in London, failed to be offended.

Obama may be crazy but he’s not stupid…he can’t be unaware of what “skyrocketing” energy prices will do to jobs, medical care, and living standards in general.

It’s time to consider that Mr. Obama is in agreement with his colleagues and mentors in the radical movements—the Midwest Academy, ACORN, and so forth (documented in the book Radical in Chief, by Stanley Kurtz).

In other words: Obama talks like a Progressive, but he is probably a Radical. Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive.  Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe are Radicals.

The difference is that a Progressive is happy to expand government control in order to help people out and make the economy grow. A Radical is willing to shrink the economy and make people suffer — in order to expand government control.

To a Radical, power is the highest moral value.  Energy, medical care, and wealth are dispensable.   And, of course, liberty is a downright obstacle.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s