The landing page sells a shirt whose design is meant to “encourage people to question whether socialist ideals and practices are as destructive as some would lead you to believe.”

The design includes the phonetic spelling of socialism, ˈsō-shəli-zəm, followed by what appears to be a tag cloud with the following words:

Support, Liberty, Compassion, Unity, Wealth, Public Parks, School Breakfast Program, Potential, Empowerment, Equality, Freedom, Community, Medicare, United States Postal Service, Opportunity, Justice, Cooperation, Veterans Affairs, Highways

Now, are the tags supposed to be characteristics of socialism? Because if they are… they seem closer to a random bunch of nouns than to socialism in practice.

So I thought I’d throw some nouns out there and try a little design of my own:

(big ˈgəvər(n)mənt):
Efficiency, Daffy Duck, Honesty, Wile E. Coyote, Low Costs, Bugs Bunny, Compassion, Elmer Fudd, Low Middle Class Taxes, Yosemite Sam, Balanced Budget, Porky Pig, Fairness, Marvin the Martian, Equality, Sylvester the Cat, Freedom, Tweety Bird

Now go ahead, take a peek at Change Clothez and see the original.

Who knows, the owner of that site might see some traffic coming in from here and stop by.

Denmark, as you may know, is a country with quite a lot of social programs. And so the argument goes: Denmark has a lot of socialism and is a successful country, therefore socialism is good.

There are two main problems with this argument:
1. Is socialism the cause of Denmark’s relative success? Or are there other more significant contributing factors? (Answer: Yes there are.)
2. Is Denmark really such a smashing success? (Answer: No, it’s not.)

Let’s look at problem #1:

Denmark’s population consists of no more than two guys named Bjorn for crying out loud! Yet people are so ready to use it as a general example with comparisons to the U.S.

Thought Experiment: Let’s just try Denmark’s policies in the U.S. and see how it all works out… will it work out the same way?

Denmark is a tiny country with a homogeneous society, which has been settled in the same place for many generations. It’s of a specific European culture and ethnicity, and has a uniform mindset with strong collectivist tendencies that look down upon extraordinary success.

Now, *WITH SARCASM* I can’t possibly imagine why similar collectivist welfare policies won’t work the same in the U.S.?

The United States, in contrast to Denmark, is a huge country with an extremely diverse population. It has very large population segments originating from very poor 3rd world countries, and a much more individualistic mindset. Therefore, any socialist program implemented in the U.S. has a much greater potential of becoming an unsustainable burden on (the productive part of) society.

Comparing Denmark to the U.S. is essentially equivalent to cherry-picking the best working tiny part of European socialism and facing it off with the whole U.S. This is like taking stats for just American Jews, for example, and comparing those to stats of Europe as a whole. Who do you think is going to come out ahead?

And now for problem #2:

Is Denmark really that successful? Despite its clear cultural advantages over the U.S. (from the perspective of making socialist policies work), and its “cherry picked” tiny size, it’s far from being a clear winner in standard of living and economics… to say the least!

The arguably most successful part of European socialism isn’t as great as many make it out to be.

Here are some stats:

The average (2007) full time wage in Denmark is $39,143. In the U.S. it’s $49,483. 26% more. (Source: Wikipedia)

It is also true that in the U.S. the average worker works 25% more hours than in Denmark. (Source: Wikipedia) So one may argue that most of the increase in earnings is due to more work and hence less free time. However, it’s also indicative of greater opportunity for full employment or more work if one should choose to. And furthermore, the total household income in the U.S. is more than that of Denmark’s over and above the 25% increase in working hours…

The average (2004) household income in Denmark is $22,524. In the U.S. it’s $32,195. 43% more. (Source: Wikipedia)

In Denmark people receive more services and assistance from the government than they do in the U.S., however, they also pay WAY more taxes, and material things are WAY more expensive.

The income tax in Denmark goes up to 63%, the highest rate in the world. (Source: Wikipedia) And don’t think that it’s only a few rich people who pay that tax rate. The highest tax bracket in Denmark starts at 347,200 DKK (2009), which is about $66,000 per year. (Source: TaxInDenmark.com)

Denmark has a value added tax (a.k.a VAT, which is similar to sales tax) of 25%, again the highest in the world. By comparison, the highest sales tax levied in the U.S. is about 10%. (Source: Wikipedia) But it doesn’t end there. In addition to the general VAT, citizens are required to part with more of their money for special things the government targets for extra taxation. Cars, for example, are taxed at around a 200% level, making 2/3 of the cost of a car in Denmark go to taxes. This is effectively like paying for a luxury car and getting a compact.

So first the major portion of your income is taken away, and then to add insult to injury, the government makes sure that whatever you can buy with the measly remnants of your money is much more expensive.

Now, with all that in mind, I think it’s instructive to watch Oprah’s profile of “wonderful” Denmark. Notice how when Oprah visits a “typical” Danish family’s apartment, she keeps repeating stuff like, “this is your whole bedroom?”, “that’s your whole refrigerator?”, “this is the whole bathroom?”, “this is the bed?”, etc. Oprah is shocked at how small and spartan everything is. And that apartment is actually rather upscale as far as Copenhagen apartments go.

Here is a link to the video of Oprah’s Danish apartment tour on her Web site.

In addition to the austere, but supposedly happy lifestyle of its people, Denmark is facing long term problems.

The citizens of Denmark are reportedly among the happiest in the world. They are so happy, in fact, that young educated people who have a shot at earning a good salary are leaving Denmark in large numbers to work and earn elsewhere.

They get a government paid education in Denmark, and then leave to work where taxes are lower. How can this possibly be sustainable? This New York Times article describes the ramifications of the problem, which include a skilled labor shortage.

This is a parody of the Master Card commercials dealing with the federal government’s wasteful spending habits. These are actual federal expenditures for the years 2008-2009. Film director Ray Griggs is currently in production on a documentary film dealing with the perils of Big Government. Coming to theaters in late summer of 2010.

Video by IWantYourMoney.net.

So much of a crisis that labor unions, big supporters of the Democratic Party, have struck a deal, whereby their members would be exempt from a tax on high cost “Cadillac” health care plans designed to help pay for this expansion of government. (More on this here.)

Socialism is for equality right? Apparently those the Democrats need in order to stay in power are more equal than others.

This is a classic example of how government sponsored redistribution of wealth, redistributes it to those with political power.

1. Government Service X works, and that’s socialism, therefore socialism works/is great.
2. You wouldn’t want to not have Government Service X? No you wouldn’t! And Government Service X is socialist, therefore, you can’t say you don’t want socialism.

Where in the above, Government Service X is one or more basic safety, infrastructure, or a limited government service, such as police, fire department or road construction.

Before I even discuss why these arguments are wrong, I will point out that even if they are 100% correct, they are completely moot, i.e. have no practical significance. To see why, let me agree with those arguments for a moment:

Fine, Government Service X (read police, departments fire, road construction, etc.) works great, we have to have it, and it’s socialist. In fact, Government Service X is so great, let’s have socialism only like that! Let’s limit our government services to basic safety and infrastructure.

But if we do that, we’ll have a whole lot less socialism here and maybe even less than anywhere else in the world. Clearly that’s not what proponents of socialism have in mind! (Socialists, let me know if I’m wrong here.) So if socialism is to be a whole lot more than the likes of Government Service X, Government Service X is irrelevant in support of what socialist really want.

And we’re done! Thank you and good night everybody.

Here is an example of the above, where Government Service X is the government’s development of the early Internet. This discussion transpired in the Facebook page of “Socialism Does’t Work”:

Some Proponent of Socialism:

Socialism DOES work folks–you’re using the Internet developed by the US gov. However, two cups and a string are non-gov. Use them as you see fit.

Me:

Of course, that the government developed the Internet is proof socialism is great. Why didn’t I think of that before? Everybody, as of tomorrow I’m changing the name of this page to “Socialism Does Work”. Oh, and it wasn’t until the government opened the Internet for private use that pretty much everything people think of as the “Internet” today really happened.

Some Proponent of Socialism:

Perhaps the groups name should be “Socialism, like the Free Market, has its Strengths and Weaknesses.”
As to the last few sentences, the private sector would never have taken the colossal risk to build it. Same for the highway system, the Louisiana Purchase, government range lands, and the land to build the early railroads . Government builds the slate and the private sector then writes on it. The private sector cannot exist without government, and vice versa.

Me:

I repeat, it wasn’t until the government opened the Internet for private use that pretty much everything people think of as the “Internet” today really happened.

If your example of the Internet, where the government took a relatively small initiative and then stood out of the way of the private sector to see huge growth over and beyond government control, is what you call “socialism” then I’m all for it! Why don’t we try that with health care? But I think those who want more socialism in the US will strongly object to that charactization of it.

And that was the end of it.

In this December ‘09 podcast, Scientific American reports how “recent research finds that a feeling of entitlement to power can inspire hypocrisy.”

And hypocrisy, as we may recall, happens when those in power make up rules for the “common people” but don’t feel those same rules apply to them as well.

Go here to hear/read the report.

This is dedicated to all those who think big government social programs, which are run by self interested politicians and driven by lobbyist, can bring “fairness” to the world. With a special dedication to those who still think Obama is the one to pull it off. And a super-duper special dedication to all those who think Obama’s health care reform will be different.

Senator Ben Nelson for example, got a $100,000,000 exemption from new state Medicaid spending mandated by the bill for his state of Nebraska. How swell for just those living in Nebraska. Hurray for the liberal principle of equality!

These political bribes are a glimpse into how this type of health care legislation is going to transform the handling of health care in the U.S.

If you’re a liberal thinking that the ends justify the means, consider this:

The UK first passed its National Health Service Act, nationalizing health care, in 1946. And until this day they are still constantly debating, legislating, and changing how the National Health Service works.

If we go down this path in the U.S., there will be no end to health care legislation, and this wheeling-and-dealing bribery type government spending will go on forever.

But, but, but… the Republicans do it too you may say. Yes, that’s right, and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, seems to agree…

From the Wall Street Journal:

Democrats defended the provisions and said this was how lawmaking has always worked, including when Republicans controlled Congress. “That’s what legislation is all about — it’s the art of compromise,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.). “It’s no different than other pieces of legislation.”

Wow, that’s an amazing revelation, Mr. Reid! “It’s no different than other pieces of legislation.” So this means this is how government normally operates… on special interests and political bribes! Who would have thought! And with Obamacare we’re going for a WHOLE lot more of that.

So now we’re supposed to believe that legislation born in special interest and political bribes that mandates there would be no limits on health insurance payments and “insurance” of preexisting conditions would somehow cut the budget deficit and reduce premium costs.

To anyone who does believe that, I have some highly desirable beach front property to sell you in Nebraska… for 10 cents on the dollar… a real bargain!

The result? Opinion polls in the Middle East show that Obama’s apology tour did not improve the image of the U.S. in the Middle East. On top of that, now they view it as a weak adversary.

Fouad Ajami writes in his November 29, 2009 Wall Street Journal article, The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama:

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn’t seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that’s reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

Mr. Obama’s election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.

We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.

Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one’s own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.

To answer this question, first let’s put the size of the healthcare problem in the U.S. into perspective.

Counting the Number of the Uninsured in America

When Obama ran for president, he touted health care reform as a big issue because there were 47 million people uninsured in America.

This figure comes from the Census Bureau. And according to the Census Bureau there were 47 million people without health insurance in the United States in 2006.

But out of those, 9.3 million live in a household with an income of $75,000 a year or more, and also 10.2 million are not citizens of the U.S.

Let’s discount those from the uninsured figure to arrive at a number encompassing those people I’d sanely expect to have any claim for receiving government assistance, (which is always funded by money that’s reluctantly taken away from someone else.)

47 – 9.3 – 10.2 = 27.5 million.

However, there may be some who are non-citizens and are in households making more that $75,000 a year, and we don’t want to double subtract those. Since the latter are 1/3 of the population, with no further information, we can expect the double counting is 3.3 million. So 27.5 + 3.3 = 30.7 million.

So now we’re at a point where the number of the uninsured I’d sanely expect to receive government assistance in the matter is no more than 30.7 million or about 10% of the population in the United States.

But the problem posed by the above figure of 10% is much further diminished by the following fact:

Not Having Health Insurance Does Not Necessarily Mean You Are Sick or Can’t Get Healthcare If You Are!

Let’s see why:

• 8.5 million of the uninsured live in households of incomes between $50,000 and $74,999. Like those in households making over $75,000 per year, at least some are able to afford insurance, but just choose not to get it. Still others in America, especially those making between $50,000 and $74,999, may also afford to pay for doctor visits and medication out of their own pocket should the need arise, though admittedly probably not for major illnesses.
• 19 million of the uninsured are young adults between the ages of 18-34. I would venture to guess that most won’t encounter anything but a minor illness until they’re older, at which point many would be earning more money and able to afford insurance anyway.
• By law, emergency room care has to be provided to anyone walking in. The patient is still liable for the expenses incurred, and often hospitals work out discounts and financing, but good luck to hospitals trying to collect from those who truly can’t afford it.
• Many government assistance programs, provide healthcare to the uninsured. Those don’t count as insurance, but still give healthcare in certain instances.

  For example, the Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) in New York, is a “comprehensive prenatal care program that offers complete pregnancy care and other health services to women and teens who live in New York State.” To qualify, the woman can earn up to 200% of the federal poverty level, which means this is available to many who don’t qualify for Medicare.

  Another example is the HIV Uninsured Care Programs (ADAP), which provides “access to free healthcare (HIV Drugs, Primary Care, Home Care, and APIC) for New York State residents with HIV infection who are uninsured or underinsured.”

• There are clinics across the USA providing free healthcare for the uninsured.

  For example, the New York City Free Health Clinic is a private clinic providing healthcare to uninsured people in NYC.

  Here’s the Web site of Georgia’s free clinic network.

  And here’s the Web site of the National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC), “whose mission is solely focused on the issues and needs of the more than 1,200 free clinics and the people they serve in the United States.”

• There are resources of financial aid for those who are uninsured and fall victim to serious illness.

  For example see the Memorial Solan-Kettering Cancer Center’s finanical assistance program.

Therefore, the problems with the healthcare system in the U.S. may be a government actionable “crisis” for a percentage of the population that’s well into the… single digits!

Just looking at the Census Bureau report, it’s not possible to calculate exactly for how many of the 10%, not having insurance is a big problem or a problem at all, but one thing is for sure, all the above factors mean that for quite a large number of the uninsured, not having insurance is NOT a big problem. Therefore, for simplicity, let’s say of the 10%, it’s a problem for half. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less.

Therefore, all the panic, crisis, “people are dying on the streets”, “we should join every other civilized nation”, “in America people have to choose between food and healthcare” rhetoric of the left, in reality is actually referring to about 5% of the population who don’t have access to all the healthcare they need, but they do have access to some!

Reality Check: What This Debate Really Comes Down To

We all know that liberals and socialists demand government intervention in private industry because of their compassion for others, or at least that’s what some of them claim.

And as such, the following sentence comes out the mouths of proponents of national healthcare very frequently: “How can we live in a country where some people don’t have access to basic healthcare?”

First of all, the premise of the question is flawed. As shown above, you’d be hard pressed to find people unable to receive any basic healthcare at all in the U.S. should they seek it.

Is it good that 5% have problems getting full access to healthcare they need? Of course not.

However, and this is key, in contries that have a national healthcare service, a.k.a. single payer systems, people do not get access to all the healthcare they need either! Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a need for private supplemental health insurance in the U.K., and there wouldn’t be a need for average Canadian citizens to seek treatment across the border in the United States at their own expense.

No government healthcare program we can implement is ever going to give all the healthcare anyone needs to everybody. The NHS (National Healthcare Service) in the U.K. doesn’t do it, the Canadian system doesn’t do it, the French don’t do it, and Medicare and Medicaid in the U.S. don’t provide comprehensive healthcare for those who are covered.

Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, writes the following points about government controlled healthcare systems around the world:

• Health insurance does not mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have long waiting lists for treatment.
• Rising health care costs are not a uniquely American phenomenon. Although other countries spend considerably less than the United States on health care, both as a percentage of GDP and per capita, costs are rising almost everywhere, leading to budget deficits, tax increases, and benefit reductions.
• In countries weighted heavily toward government control, people are most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on physician choice, and other obstacles to care.
• Countries with more effective national health care systems are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost sharing, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.

You can access Tanner’s full analysis of international health systems here on the Cato Institute’s Web site.

You may also read this December 2008 New York Times article about Bruce Hardy, an NHS cancer patient in the United Kingdom, who was deprived of life saving, yet costly, medicine because “at that price, Mr. Hardy’s life is not worth prolonging.”

I suppose the British government just doesn’t have enough money to pay for everyone’s care after all!

Therefore this debate is really about whether approximately 5% of the population in the United States should receive somewhat more healthcare than they do now. And it’s not whether they would go from no healthcare to complete coverage, just whether they’ll get somewhat more… at the expense of others. No, not the rich “others”, everybody! That includes you and me and all of middle class America.

So What’s Wrong With Providing More Healthcare to Those 5%?

There’s nothing wrong, as long as you can actually do it in a way that doesn’t make things worse overall. And, experience has shown this is extremely difficult or impossible to do so with more government involvement in the health care industry.

I just gave an example of a cancer patient in the U.K. being denied care by the NHS. But, as some may say, healthcare is also being denied by the “evil” insurance companies in America. That sometimes happens, however despite that “evil”, cancer treatment outcomes, for example, are better in the United States than anywhere else in the world, even if you count those with no insurance.

The following is from the National Center for Policy Analysis Web site:

According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology:

• American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.
• American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
• Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
• For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.

These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal healthcare system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

You can find the full article here.

U.S. cancer survival rates are also higher than those in Canada.

So I suppose the “evil” private insurance industry indeed fairs better at providing care than the “benevolent” governments around the world.

And there are concrete reasons for that. Primary among those is that once the health care system is opened up to strong government influence, the decision making process starts running on political merits and not on the merits of science or quality of care.

Obamacare isn’t even law and this is already happening! This past week, the vote of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana (to start debate on the Senate health care bill) was bought off with $300,000,000 of state aid. The following is from a Wall Street Journal article dated November 22, 2009:

Take Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu, who claims to have grave concerns about the bill’s cost. Those worries became less pressing when Majority Leader Harry Reid added language on page 432 of the 2,074-page opus that would raise the bill’s cost by increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.” Guess which state is the only one that would qualify under that wording?

This political gratuity was quickly reported as costing $100 million, but Senator Landrieu made clear after her floor speech that her vote couldn’t be bought that cheaply. “I will correct something. It’s not $100 million, it’s $300 million, and I’m proud of it and will keep fighting for it,” she told reporters.

Was Senator Landrieu’s vote cast on the health care quality or finance merits of the bill? No! It was cast on the merits of a dollar taken from each and every person in the United States to increase her chances of reelection in Louisiana. So that’s how socialized health care reduces costs! What a plan!

I can already hear liberals saying “but private health care isn’t about quality care either, it’s all about PROFIT!” To that I say that even assuming the motivation is all about profit, there is far more direct connection between profit and quality of product in private industry than between political gain and quality of product in the government sector. And I dare anyone to say otherwise!