American Elephants


What Do Doctors Think of ObamaCare? by The Elephant's Child
September 30, 2012, 11:16 pm
Filed under: Election 2012, Health Care, Law, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes | Tags: , ,

Dr, Jill Vecchio, speaking to an Americans for Prosperity rally

From a new report by the Physicians Foundation:

— 52% of physicians have already limited the access of Medicare patients to their practices or are planning to do so.

— 26% have already closed their practices to Medicaid patients.

— More than 50% of physicians will cut back on patients seen, will switch to part-time, switch to concierge medicine, or retire within the next four years.

— 62% believe Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are either unlikely to increase healthcare quality and decrease costs.

— 59% say PPACA has made them less positive about the future of healthcare in America.

— 57.9% would not recommend medicine as a career to their children or other young people.

— Over one-third of physicians would not choose medicine if they had their careers to do over.

— 77% percent are somewhat pessimistic or very pessimistic about the future of the medical profession.

ADDENDUM: Did anyone think that ObamaCare was going to save us money? Aside from the 158 new departments, bureaus, agencies and offices?  The Tax Foundation has estimated that compliance with ObamaCare is estimated at eight million man-hours.  It will keep 40,000 workers busy doing paperwork and sorting through a confusing pile of government regulations. And Obama claims that regulation is not a problem— just that Republicans are trying to de-regulate Wall Street so they can do it all over again. (No explanation of what he thinks “it” is.)



Four More Years? by The Elephant's Child

The Dismantling of American Culture and What to Do About It by The Elephant's Child

From David Mamet’s The Secret Knowledge:

Let us assume, then, that each party partakes equally of the human capacity for good and bad, for corruption, for misguided compassion, and of overweening cupidity; and that each will suffer failures of projects both good-willed and merely monstrously self-serving.

The question as posed by Milton Friedman, was not “What are the decisions?” — any human or conglomeration is capable of decisions both good and bad — but “Who makes the decisions?” Shall it be the Government, that is, the State, or shall it be the Individual?

In some cases it must be the Government, which is, in these, the only organ capable of serving and protecting individual  liberty and freedom; notably, in defense, the administration of justice, and maintenance of and oversight of Federal Infrastructure, e.g. Roads, Interstate Travel, Waterways, Parks, and so on. But what in the world is the Government doing meddling in Education, Health Care, automobile Production, and the promotion of dubious, arguable or absurd programs designed to bring about “equality”? Should these decisions not be left to the Individual or to a Free Market, in which forces compete, to serve the Individual who will be the arbiter of their success?

“But which system,” Mamet asks, “Free Enterprise, or the State, is better able to correct itself?”

Nothing is free.  All  human interactions are tradeoffs.  One may figure out a way to (theoretically) offer cheap health insurance to the twenty million supposedly uninsured members of our society.  But at what cost — the dismantling of the health care system of the remaining three-hundred-million-plus? What of the inevitable reduction, shortages, abuses, delay and injustice caused by all State rationing?

All civilizations need and get Government. But how much and at what cost? Many governments began as Welfare States dedicated, they claimed to distributing the lands abundance to all. And as redistribution  increases, so does resistance to those choices, and the Welfare State descends into dictatorship. The cost of all this benevolently intended redistribution is shortage, famine, murder, and the eventual collapse of the state.

We are in the process of choosing, as a society, between Liberty— the freedom to pursue happiness free from the State — and Equality, which can only be brought about by a State empowered to function in all facets of  life which means totalitarianism and dictatorship.

Does the State decide for the citizen? Or does the individual insist on a reduction of State powers to that point at which the power is reserved only for the application as specified by law, where one individual or group abridges the liberty of another?

The latter is the revolutionary understanding of government spelled out in that Constitution elected officials swear to defend.  They are elected as public servants, the public granting them only that freedom of action necessary to fulfill that oath.  Is it not time for a return to that revolutionary understanding?

David Mamet is the noted playwright, author, director and filmmaker, Pulitzer prizewinner, and former liberal, who awakened,  examined his politics seriously and at great depth, and wrote a highly entertaining and enjoyable book about his conversion.




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,505 other followers

%d bloggers like this: