By
Dr. A. H. Krieg
July
27, 2001
NewsWithViews.com
The
most dangerous tendency of the modern world is the way in which bogus
theories are given the force of dogma.
Jean
Daniellou 1958 (The Lord of History)
Many people are of the opinion that the concept of state sponsored
health care stemmed from the Fabian socialists of England, or from the
published works of Karl Marx. This in fact is a serious error. Because the
concept of governmental sponsored services including health care are
almost as old as civilization. Who the first monarch was that realized the
basic tenant as a ruler, that much political benefit could be attained,
and much support garnered, by offering “free medical” services will
probably never be known.
The present dispute in the United Kingdom in their May 2001
election debate concerns itself with three issues, health care, crime
and education. The very first item is health care. Labor, the socialist
champion of the “working classes”, has changed the way waiting list
people are counted by beginning the count with specialists rather than
with the original general practitioner. Thus they have reduced the waiting
list by almost 100,000. The actual waiting list for treatment in the UK
has over 380,000 paid up citizens awaiting medical services. Some waiting
times exceed one year. A good friend of 56 who required heart bypass
surgery died waiting. My father-in- law died while waiting to see a
specialist. Both the Tories as well as Labor do not debate the issue of
that there should be no waiting time, instead optioning a discussion of
how many are on the list. That’s how socialism works.
When
we listen to the Democrats we would assume that health care, in the form
of the welfare state, was a bright and new invention of Hillary’s. In
her conception and those of her friends heath care is a device of immense
complication, which can only be solved by the state with its vast
recourses. The general public as well as the media overlooks the fact that
the state inherently must first tax the people to get those necessary
funds to provide the service. The more serious fact, that the state is,
through its bureaucracy, the most inefficient vehicle to administer such
largess is also overlooked. In a demonstration of the states poor
management ability we must only look to the American Social Security
System, which consumes over 70 cents of every dollar collected in
administrative & management burden. A further demonstration is
apparent in Hillary’s Health Care Task Force, of the 90’s, that
illegally instituted group, which wasted over $25 million without one
single positive result, and in which not one insurance carrier, doctor, or
nurse (people who actually know something of health care) was impaneled.
Many governments in past history have come to the realization that
the “Welfare State” may be used as the beginning of a
“Police State” and this in fact is the end of a long process of
governmental usurpation of individual rights. The rulers for their own
perpetuation and exaltation take these rights from the people.
For those who may not agree with my statement I give you the
following recent examples:
Otto
V. Bismark Gernman Chancellor 1884
Franz
Joseph I Emperor of Austria
1888
Franz
Joseph I King of Hungary 1891
Nicholas
II Czar of Russia 1911
Vladimir
Lennin Russia
J.
B. Stalin Dictator USSR
Marshal
J. Pulsudski Poland 1920
A.
de, O. Salazar Dictator Portugal
1919-33
Benito
Mussolini Duce, Italy 1932-45
G.
Hirohito Emperor,
In the 16th century France’s Henry IV promised his
citizens a chicken in every pot. With him began the process by which
rulers called themselves the servants of the people. Where have we heard
that before? Most of the aforementioned dictators came to power by
promising the populace state largess in the form of social, educational,
and health care benefits, which all subsequently turned into police states
over which they ruled with iron fists. Do consider every time a politician
promises you something; where is he getting it?
In the twentieth century, in which the foundations of
social governmental responsibility theories were hatched, we can clearly
see the German Weimar republic as our modern starting point. In fact the
phrase “welfare state” stems from the German Wolfahrt
Schtaht. Interestingly the phrase “police state” is also German Polizei
Schtaht. Bismarck, not FDR, was the founder of the modern concept of the
welfare state. He thought, that he could, through a mild form of socialism,
link the established economic and social interests with the progressing
power of the people. Industrialization had elevated many in income and
status into a new structure to be called the middle class. Ruling
elite’s have, throughout 20th century history, looked upon this class with
suspicion and fear. In the Austria and Germany of that period an entirely new
method of humanitarian governance was developed. That system called kameralist
taught a method of civil government with the specific purpose of
attaining a welfare state structure. This, in the plan was designed to
turn to a police state at its pinnacle. Bismarck clearly understood the
relationships between free market economies, the welfare state, and the
police state. The first step in the procedure is to offer the people
services from the state, usurping previously established channels like
organized religion, family and charities. The second is to develop a
dependency class who will then, out of self-interest, support the in
powered administration. The third step is the reduction of services that
is dictated by the fact that the state lacks the income to sustain the
promised services. The last and final act is the institution of police
state authority to quell the popular opposition to the reduction of
services. We could possibly add the institutionalized act of creating a
scapegoat to blame for the inability to provide the promised services.
[Orthodox Christians by the Soviets, Jews by the Nazis, the militias
by Clinton, etc.] It can be shown in every instance of the aforementioned
rulers; that this was the exact way in which events transpired.
America is now very close to police state status. Consider the fact
of 190,000 illegally armed federal police in 1997, with the promise to
great public acclaim of an additional 30,000 in each of the coming year,
and a promised increase of this by the president in his State of The Union
speech of 1998 an additional 50,000 above the 100,000 promised. Gore
promised more police if elected, fortunately that did not take place.
That is a total increase of 240,000 armed federal police on top of
the 130,000 we already have. That would have given America a total of
370,000 armed federal police (commissars) above those employed by states
and communities. Federal police are not allowed in the Constitution. The welfare state enforcement portion of this cabal is the
fastest growing segment of law enforcement. Consider armed FDA, EPA, and
Farm Agency employees. Along with this is the rapidly growing tax burden.
The largest segment of the economy at 49.20% (2) is comprised of state and
federal taxes, which is omitted from inflation statistics by the
government, along with energy costs and housing costs and for good reason. The raiding of health food stores by armed jack booted FDA
agents in black uniforms wearing ski masks. Without digressing the
expansion of such police forces is touted to be for the prevention of
violent crime, and the enforcement of health care laws. The fact that the
majority of violent crime is drug related, and at least partially
government sponsored, or at least carried out with state approval is
unquestionable. The fact the EPA and FDA have nothing to do with violent
crime, and in fact represent benign infractions of labeling rules at
worst, is also overlooked. This is one of the current scapegoats utilized
for police force expansion, which by the way is selling very well to our
citizens. When considering illegal drugs i.e. narcotics; we are faced with
a $ 850 billion industry per year; if anyone reading this actually believes
that our Federal Reserve (FRS) is unaware of who, how and when such money
transfers occur should just stop reading at this point.
What Bismarck accomplished was changing the old authoritarian
Prussian Junker class into
accepting a quasi-democratic, and well organized bureaucracy. Citizens of all classes were enthralled with this new form of
governance, which was then copied by numerous others. Mussolini and Franco for example. Later it made power
assumption by the NSAP (National Socialist Workers Party) in
Germany an easier effort. The police state followed in every instance. One
of the first to warn about this was Prof. Lujo Brentano who warned as
early as 1880 that adventures into state controlled medicine would
ultimately lead to a Neo-Welfare state and was not about providing a
service, but in fact a hidden method for state control of the private
citizen, his vote, and the socialization of the state.
The most remarkable fact when we review all the past social welfare
schemes which deal with the medical establishment is that: In every single
case private insurances which in almost all cases paralleled the public
ones were substantially cheaper, served their clients better, and reacted
quicker. Notable recently in the UK; is that government health care as
instituted in Great Britain now has paralleled private coverage which is
preferred by an overwhelming majority of over 84% of the citizens, who can
afford it, primarily due to better service provided.
Clearly understand that all this social welfare propaganda is just
exactly that, propaganda. It has nothing whatever to do with the welfare
of the targeted citizen, and everything to do with political control of
society. Let us look at the Weimar republic one more time. Germany's NSAP
headed by Hitler was only able to garnish one third of the vote. Ten
percent went to the communists. The great German middle class had the
power to oppose but did nothing. Why did they do nothing? Why do Americans
and Englishmen do nothing today in opposition to the same form of
tyrannical development? In the Weimar republic the government catered to
the unions through artificially higher wages, and to industry though
protective tariffs. To both
by offering state sponsored welfare.
In America and the UK our governments undeniably cater to unions,
and at least one party is substantially funded as well as materially
helped by them, and visa versa. Big business is allowed to produce off
shore [NAFTA] [EU] without restraint. Both benefit in various ways from
the welfare state. Americans are, we are informed, and by the state, do
nothing even when treason of the executive is obvious beyond any doubt.
The fact that we are as a nation not prosperous and have been slipping
down for the past 50 years is another matter.
Once state paternalism is established and the number of government
employees plus the number of welfare state dependent citizens reach 50% or
more the political system becomes self-perpetuating. This is how the Nazis
took control of the Weimar Republic, and it is exactly how the Republocrat
& LabTories parties stay in power in Washington and London, and have
attained such unparalleled control of our nations.
The turbulent time of the Second World War stopped all this social
engineering. The basic structure as instituted by Bismarck in Germany, FDR
in America, as well as similar laws instituted in 1944 after the war in
Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Portugal and Spain all set the foundation for troubled economies and in
most cases police states. All these efforts were strongly tainted by the
communists and national socialists, who, along with the socialists, are the
ever-present cheerleaders behind the efforts to [verstaalichen].
(Place the state in charge of everything)
Lenin is the twentieth century's most prominent proponent of a 'cradle to grave' socialist welfare system relating to medicine and health
care. The catastrophic effect of Russia's system that now boasts one of the
lowest life expectancies in the world is undeniable. Projections into
2000 indicate that Russian life expectancy which under the Czar was one of
the longest in the world will be fewer than 50 for a male. This is when
most other nations with private health care (males) can boast annually
increasing life expectancies projected to the upper 70's by 2000. Worse
of course is the fact that the same kind of system was instituted in every
single nation that was subjugated by the Soviets. Thus we now have half
the world's citizens dependent on state largess, and lacking the initiative
and self-reliance to see to their own health care. With the unilateral
collapse of these entire state social plan systems and the inability by
individual citizens to remember how to cope on their own, everything has
degenerated into total failure.
Now it behooves us to examine how this most benevolent of Soviet
plans was in fact applied. The propagandists have informed us that all
were covered cradle to grave. In fact nothing is further from the truth.
From 1922 to 1938 Russia under the soviets nationalized everything. They
then instituted a 6.5 % payroll tax for health care, in fact an overall
social services tax of 25%. The national budget was used to cover any
actual deficits in financing the health system. In 1938 the health care
tax percentage increased to 8%. Then they instituted different classes of
coverage depending on a governmental grading system, benefits were
curtailed to most, and the number of participants was drastically
decreased. The social security benefits were then re-graded from 50%
retirement benefit to 100% with only upper government functionaries
getting the top benefit scale. Health care was likewise a great deal for
those in power, and a very bad deal for the populace in general. Birthing
benefits for example were available only to mothers who had worked for a
minimum of 7 months in the same job. This in fact violated the Russian
constitution that guaranteed such rights. Like in any autocratic
dictatorship the upper echelon of government had Dachas in the Caucasus,
spas on the Crimea, and any service they could ever think of, even
department stores with western goods, while the balance of the population
languished in abject poverty. This
is important to consider because it clearly demonstrates exactly what I
have said from the beginning: Namely that social services are simply a
means to an end, and have nothing whatever to do with any humanitarian
concepts, that these systems are instituted by those in power to retain
and expand that power, and that the ultimate outcome is a police state
which will then eventually collapse through its inability to
financially sustain momentum in financing that system.
It may be useful to examine the general effect of the socialist
welfare state’s effect on a country’s economy, and how that impacts on
individual citizen's personal standard of living. Perhaps standard of
living is not exactly the correct phrase. What I’m getting at is more
the state of personal happiness, the buying power of the moneys earned,
and how we fare in comparison to previous generations. Due to social costs
Germany [the portion that was previously West Germany] has for the sixth
year in a row the highest cost of manufacture in the world, at $ 27.70 per
hour. Followed by Norway with $ 25.20. The US comes in at $18.40. Now the
big question is do we jointly have a higher standard of living than did
previous generations. This due to the Second World War represents a
difficult problem so let’s examine 30 years ago. The astounding
information found indicated that as a whole people in all three nations
were better off 20 years ago than they are today. The majority of
households did well with only one parent working. The buying power of the
currency was substantially higher. Crime was lower. The drug epidemic was
only in the starting phase, but government action was drosling it. Overall
everyone was better off, worse if we compare the present to the 50ies it
gets really dim. While the welfare state, and healthcare in particular, has
expanded unchecked the standard of living as well as the availability of
medical services have both deteriorated. It is my contention that there is
a close link between socialization of services and the general
deteriorating welfare of the population, and reduction in the overall
standard of living. The Canadian dollar was at parity with the American
dollar before the Canadian health care system was developed; it is down
over 30% in 2001. Does anyone reading this think that the Canadian people
obtained parity with other economic systems at a cost of 30% in general
loss of purchasing power of their income? Could Canadians with a payroll
increase of 30% purchase more effective and cheaper healthcare than is
provided by their government?
We can clearly recognize that the concepts of socialization of
services under a governmental authority is a wholly European concept, and
is in fact very foreign to American governance. Americans of the past were
all rugged individualists who were never interested in accepting
gratuitous governmental largess. FDR and the banker's implemented
depression brought an end to that and he began to create the modern
welfare state along the lines of the Fabian Labor movement in England,
which was in fact patterned after the German model of Bismarck. It can be
stated and frankly so that all these programs are nothing more than wealth
re-distribution schemes. This is of course where Lenin comes into the
picture. FDR was our first socialist president who was followed by the
socialists LBJ, Carter and Clinton. A communist, by the way, is a socialist
in a hurry. Likewise in Europe numerous socialist and communist
governments came into being. Willie Brandt in Germany (who was a known
soviet spy) as well as governments in France, Italy, Greece, Austria etc.
At the present time 3/4 of the EU nations are under socialist rule.
Socialists get political power through, and only through, wealth
re-distribution schemes. In essence they take moneys from those who work
hard and give it to those who loaf. This creates dis-incentive, and
everything that goes along with it: lost opportunities, reduced R&D,
lower expectations, less industrial development, reduced employment
growth, and last but not least less tax income for government and higher
taxes for the people. We should also clearly remember that the Nazi’s
were the NSAPD Die Nazional Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei Deutschland’s
(The Nationalist Socialist Workers Party of Germany) and the
Communists in Russia were the USSR Union of Socialist Republics.
Both were socialist, not communist.
In every instituted governmental welfare system, without exception,
promised and given benefits at the outset of the programs are
systematically reduced as time progresses. American Social Security, USSR
Social Security, French, German, every single instituted system has seen
it’s benefits reduced as time marched on. Socialists must first hook
their dependent class by setting the hook. This they do by offering an
apparently wonderful valuable package of benefits, all the time knowing
full well that they will not be able to sustain the program over any
prolonged period of time. Ponzy schemes each and every one of them. Then
they begin the program reductions. In American Social Security this has
been accomplished by; increasing the age for benefits, and reducing the
actual inflation increases by reporting false inflation figures. (1) And
by reduction of benefits of the paid in recipient if he has earnings above
the poverty level.
In
the scheme of health care there are three different options that are on
the table.
1) Private free market insurance for those who want it.
[Lazier fare solution]
2) Government mandated private insurance mandated for all citizens [free market solution]
3) Government issued and instituted
insurance. [Communist
solution]
The first of these is the private plan for those who want it. This
does represent a problem because some few people will option not to obtain
health insurance, and thereby shift
the cost to society in case of serious illness. So the cost will wind up being paid by others
than the beneficiary. I am opposed to such a scheme because we are all apt
to become ill at some point, and refusal of service by a hospital or
doctor is not an option. Health care should be universal and mandated law
should cover all. The third option is government insurance that I strongly
oppose. Government is a much to expensive and inefficient manager. The
second option is the only one, which is logical; namely the mandatory by
law private insurance paid for by the insured. In this way the competitive
free market will keep costs down. It is further imperative that the
present practice of employer health insurance be outlawed. It is the cause
of the drastic increases of medical costs; when the recipient is not tied
to the payment, costs always go haywire.
Only by insured paying for their own health insurance will costs
reduce. Insurance companies will rate their clients on a sliding cost
scale based on past experience and through it those who insist on
unhealthy lifestyles will pay the ultimate price, and not their neighbors.
I do not mean that there should not be a safety net for those unable, due
to illness or poverty, to be protected by a health care plan. What I
strongly oppose is a government solution to this problem. We already have
laws on the portability of plans. It would not be unreasonable to have the
state co-pay the insurance premium for those unable to do so due to
previous ailment or inability to earn sufficiently to pay for their
insurance; Co-pay being the key word.
Furthermore no insurance carrier should be forced by statute to
cover any self-inflicted illness caused by such as drug addiction,
alcoholism, and smoking related diseases. Such coverage should be up to
the individual, who should be able to purchase same as an optional rider.
Such acts will force individuals to act in more healthy and sensible
lifestyles to the benefit of society as a whole, and the reduction of
overall health benefit costs to the majority. Without penalizing the rest
of us.
Health
care in England The
Socialist model
After
arduous lengthy infighting and debate Lloyd George succeeded in 1911 with
his national healthcare insurance plan. The resulting insurance scheme
funded through taxes was as most political plans the result of numerous
compromises. It provided cash benefits with some medical services offered.
It considered politicians, recipient’s loafers and workers, but just
like the planned Hillary health care gave no consideration to the planned
providers, doctors nurses, or private insurance carriers. Predictably
management and operational costs in England were 17 ½ % while in Ireland
20%. Private carries of the
time operated their systems on a total overhead of less than 10% while
government consumed over 40%. Benefits were poor, and the national improvement in healthcare,
touted by George, went the other way. Doctors were
furious, many departing to other commonwealth nations. Soon insurance
carriers were through unions and associations offering additional
coverage. The entire fiasco led to the development of the Bevan Plan a
cradle to grave plan that was popularly supported due to the great
dissatisfaction of the George plan. This was a time in England when many
were enthralled with the Soviets who were British allies in the Second
World War. Churchill did his best to support the utopian rubbish, which
kept the home fires burning and the spirits of the British populace up in
the face of terrible wartime losses. By adopting the Fabian socialist plan
for national health care the Tories under Churchill were able to get
re-elected in 1945. Thus they found themselves unable due to previous
support to oppose the Bevan legislation of 1946. Does this perhaps ring
some bells with you? What about the Kennedy-Katzenbaum health care
legislation? What about Gingrich’s tacit support of bi-partisan health
care? What about the phony
bail out of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?
It is amazing that not one journalist had come to the conclusion
that all this is part of a well planed and orchestrated socialist
sponsored system, and blown the whistle on the perpetrators. With the 1948
election labor was desperate to get back into power, thus they offered
what not even Lenin did complete medical care for everything from cradle
to grave for everyone, and free of charge to boot. Eventually it led to
the “Brain Drain” loss of governance by Labor, and the longest time of
Conservative rule in British history, (Lady Thatcher) and a financial and
political decline of England that has proven unrelenting.
Thus
we clearly can show that the concept of nationalized healthcare stems from
Germany, was adopted by England, and is being applied by the all after war
Democrat administrations with ample help from the Republicans, and is used
as the model for the currently planed system in America. Further we can
see by plans in every nation to date that adopted national healthcare that
the outcome of the adoption of any such system resulted in:
1) The general lowering of medical service quality.
2) Substantial overall cost increases for medical services.
3) The inability of government to financially sustain promised
services.
4) The appliance by politicians to use plans to develop a dependency
class, which can easily thereafter be used for political fodder.
5) The degeneration of services with the increase of police authority
and in many
cases eventual development of a police state.
6) The development of a scrape goat to blame for the inability to
deliver the promised service. (As in SS: they are living longer!)
7) Reduction of services and long awaiting times for services. (not
life critical services in Canada and England up to one year in some
instances)
8) Shortages of doctors and nurses.
When you think on this issue you will do well to remember the
resultant effect of nationalized health care upon other nations. Look to
our neighbors in Canada whose favorite healthcare suppliers are across the
border in America. Canada and England where you can wait up to eight
months for an operation, where if you are over a certain age numerous
medical procedures are forbidden. Canada where the present medical debate
is turning towards privatization of medical services. England where the
presently most popular option is private health insurance, due to long
waiting times, curtailment of services, and deterioration of state health
care across the board. Sure it’s free; but if you have to wait until you’re six
feet under free is of little benefit.
(1) Reported inflation figures exclude the cost of taxes 49.20% of
family expenditure, and as of 2001 eliminates the cost of housing and
energy that has gone up 75% since 1999. Interestingly while
congressmen’s inflation increase was 7.5% SS recipients were fewer than
3.5%
(2) Average family of four 2001 statistic.
©
Dr. Adrian Krieg - All Rights Reserved
Dr.
Krieg is an inventor and author, of "Satori & The New
Mandarins", "July
4th 2016 The Last Independence Day". His
books may be found on www.kriegbooks.com
or from your local bookstore, or Amazon.com & Barnes&Noble.com His
latest book is "Our Party Systems."
