"If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute." --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791 (italics added)
The Founding Fathers considered socialism, and rejected it.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Socialized Medicine
Socialism is not a new idea; it is as old as freedom. It is its opposition and has existed since the beginning of government. This is not something that the prophets of our church have ignored or not taken a position on. Prophets and apostles including J. Reuben Clark, Heber J. Grant, David O. McKay, Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, and Ezra Taft Benson have all fervently warned against socialism. I am not sure how we can ignore these warnings. They are specific and consequences are laid out if we do not heed their warnings. I highly recommend listening to the following clips, they are a bit dry in spots but well worth the 12 or so minutes (notice the mention to socialized medicine at the end of the first clip):
Quotes from audio:
"There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: “I said I did not believe the doctrine” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33)."
"Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s socialists–who call themselves egalitarians–are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right."
"Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program–a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government–precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency." (italics added)
"Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced–that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest."
Me again: Today's recent discussion on socialized medicine motivated this post. We have been warned against all socialism. Today's proponents of socialized medicine think they are helping the poor by making health care more accessible. And it sounds pretty good, but it's not the way it is supposed to be. Charities and church's are supposed to care for the needy, it was never intended that government should take care of the poor. Government sponsored welfare enslaves the recipients and robs others of opportunities to reach out and help those in need.
Socialized medicine is not the answer to our health care mess.
Quotes from audio:
"There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: “I said I did not believe the doctrine” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33)."
"Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today’s socialists–who call themselves egalitarians–are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right."
"Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program–a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government–precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency." (italics added)
"Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced–that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest."
Me again: Today's recent discussion on socialized medicine motivated this post. We have been warned against all socialism. Today's proponents of socialized medicine think they are helping the poor by making health care more accessible. And it sounds pretty good, but it's not the way it is supposed to be. Charities and church's are supposed to care for the needy, it was never intended that government should take care of the poor. Government sponsored welfare enslaves the recipients and robs others of opportunities to reach out and help those in need.
Socialized medicine is not the answer to our health care mess.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health Care and Mansfield, Ohio
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195673
Interesting article on health care reform (by Mitt Romney by the way). For me, still too much government involvement...but definitely heading in the right direction. Government run health care is not the answer. I just spent two weeks at a government subsidized dental clinic in Mansfield and saw some really shady stuff going on there. Granted, the comparison between that Mansfield dental clinic is not completely applicable to health care reform, but it does show how government involvement breeds inefficiency and unethical treatment. For example...
The Mansfield clinic does not get paid by procedure, but by appointment. For each appointment they get paid $120 for people who don't have Medicaid but qualify for assistance. So the clinic does one procedure per appointment (even if it only takes ten minutes) and schedules multiple appointments for every patient regardless of their need. Someone who needs full mouth extractions could theoretically have 32 appointments to get it done. Sometimes, if they are feeling generous, they will take out two teeth per appointment.
If a patient walks in with swelling from a tooth borne infection they do an emergency exam and prescribe antibiotics and pain meds. This is true no matter how simple the extraction would be, after all, two appointments is better than one in Mansfield. At any private practice in America, the tooth would immediately be taken out. It is unethical and wrong to send the patient away without removing the source of infection.
When treatment planning for a new patient, not all options are explained to patients. Why? Because some procedures are not profitable to the clinic. Fillings and extractions are the most profitable. Everything else, including crowns (which Medicaid sometimes covers) are hardly discussed or recognized as a possibility.
The result of government subsidizing the Mansfield clinic: everyone, including people with means to pay or insured, gets inefficient and lower quality care. When government takes over health care, we ALL will go to a Mansfield-like clinic for procedures far more critical than fillings.
Interesting article on health care reform (by Mitt Romney by the way). For me, still too much government involvement...but definitely heading in the right direction. Government run health care is not the answer. I just spent two weeks at a government subsidized dental clinic in Mansfield and saw some really shady stuff going on there. Granted, the comparison between that Mansfield dental clinic is not completely applicable to health care reform, but it does show how government involvement breeds inefficiency and unethical treatment. For example...
The Mansfield clinic does not get paid by procedure, but by appointment. For each appointment they get paid $120 for people who don't have Medicaid but qualify for assistance. So the clinic does one procedure per appointment (even if it only takes ten minutes) and schedules multiple appointments for every patient regardless of their need. Someone who needs full mouth extractions could theoretically have 32 appointments to get it done. Sometimes, if they are feeling generous, they will take out two teeth per appointment.
If a patient walks in with swelling from a tooth borne infection they do an emergency exam and prescribe antibiotics and pain meds. This is true no matter how simple the extraction would be, after all, two appointments is better than one in Mansfield. At any private practice in America, the tooth would immediately be taken out. It is unethical and wrong to send the patient away without removing the source of infection.
When treatment planning for a new patient, not all options are explained to patients. Why? Because some procedures are not profitable to the clinic. Fillings and extractions are the most profitable. Everything else, including crowns (which Medicaid sometimes covers) are hardly discussed or recognized as a possibility.
The result of government subsidizing the Mansfield clinic: everyone, including people with means to pay or insured, gets inefficient and lower quality care. When government takes over health care, we ALL will go to a Mansfield-like clinic for procedures far more critical than fillings.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Everybody is at Risk
"For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him." (italics and bold added)
Doctrine & Covenants 3:4
This applies even to powerful seminary teachers. When someone testifies of true principles, the Spirit bears witness of those principles. The Spirit teaches us of true doctrine, not of other people's worthiness. Unrighteous people can bear strong testimony of true principles, and the Spirit can testify of the truth of those principles. Great men can fall, the church is still true.
Doctrine & Covenants 3:4
This applies even to powerful seminary teachers. When someone testifies of true principles, the Spirit bears witness of those principles. The Spirit teaches us of true doctrine, not of other people's worthiness. Unrighteous people can bear strong testimony of true principles, and the Spirit can testify of the truth of those principles. Great men can fall, the church is still true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
