Faria: ObamaCare — Toward Free Market or Socialized Medicine?

Journal/Website: 
GOPUSA.com
Article Type: 
Commentary
Published Date: 
Monday, September 26, 2011

In a recent letter to the editor published in my local newspaper, the Macon Telegraph (9/16/11), Jack Bernard, a self-described "Republican,” retired health care executive, was "disconcerted by the ideological free market rigidity” that he observed during a debate by the Republican presidential candidates concerning “the health care reform question.”

Moreover, Mr. Bernard asserted, “If the free market were going to take care of access issues, it would have already done so.” He then took a back-handed swipe at the candidates by second-guessing them: “Herman Cain and Gov. Rick Perry seem to be OK with over a quarter Obama with Pelosi and Reidof all Texans being uninsured. Former Gov. Mitt Romney is running as fast as he can from Romneycare, although it has reduced the uninsured to 4 percent in Massachusetts.”

The "Republican" executive did not forget Rep. Michelle Bachmann. He decried the Minnesota Congresswoman’s alleged “attempt to tar ObamaCare as a socialist plot.” The health care executive’s unimaginative, collectivist solution was simply "to copy the health care of other developed [socialized] nations” and use more "regulatory authority to cover everyone and hold down costs."

The retired executive then mentioned the Veteran Administration (VA) program as a “socialist health care program” that “his Republican friends like and use.” He also mentioned Medicare as a form of national health insurance that presumably we have accepted but, he laments, “it starts at 65 instead of covering everyone as it does in most other developed nations.” Let me pause here just to say that as far as Medicare goes, we were not given the freedom to choose but forced to contribute, and therefore it’s not surprising that we participate in it; as to the VA hospitals, Republican administrations improved the system by modernizing it, computerizing it, and bringing it up to private hospital standards. Our veterans pre-paid with their service and blood, and deserved better!

But worst of all, Mr. Bernard attributes the problems of health care delivery to the free market. He should know better! Today's medical care is largely under managed care, already a highly regulated, collectivist ethic, whose raison d’etre is to contain costs, enlarge the coffers of the managed care entities, empower government and health bureaucrats to make life and death decisions formerly made by doctors and their patients — and the individual patient be damned.(1)

We only have a partial free market in medical care, and it must be understood that what is considered “free market” is largely not so because it is controlled by third parties under the rubrics of managed care. And managed care was not the marvelous creation of laissez faire capitalism and Adam Smith's invisible hand of supply and demand, or a derivation of the ancient and beneficent precepts of Hippocrates, but an invention of politicians and academicians acting as central planners, working under the auspices of Republican President Richard Nixon and Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy in the early 1970s.

If we had a truly, completely free market in medical care, unfettered economics would have decreased cost via competition as well as increased access, either privately or through charity, as it had done prior to World War II. Beginning with the exemption of insurance companies from antitrust laws and the linking of health care to place of employment; the inception of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, which like it or not are (and will) remain in place(2); the Nixon-Kennedy cooperation (1973) in establishing HMOs as state policy with tax breaks, a preferential policy that did not reach fruition until the 1990s(3) — all attest to the fact that we only have a partial free market in medical care. Nevertheless, it is still the best system in the world.

ObamaCare (2011), another attempt at HillaryCare (1993), is one more giant step toward theHilary Clinton implementation of even greater government involvement in the medical marketplace and magnification of government regulatory authority — all at the expense of sacrificing individual patient care and what remains of the patient-doctor relationship.

This new version, ObamaCare, prominently includes compulsion and fines to make all Americans submit to a public-private system, managed care in cahoots with government — in which health care executives make a good living, while having a captive population with less and less freedom to choose. Once in place, rationing then would become more and more commonplace, as in the other "developed countries," such as Canada and the United Kingdom.

The managed care executives in cahoots with the government bureaucrats both win because rationed care means more profits in the coffers of the managed care entities and in the pockets of the managed care CEOs. The government wins because it can then claim it has “reduced costs” and achieved “universal coverage.” The doctor and the patients lose because of the loss of the autonomy of the former and the loss of choice in the latter!

And please don't misunderstand me: I don't object to anyone making profits in a free, competitive marketplace where there is freedom of choice, and small businesses, small entrepreneurs, independent physicians and pharmacists compete on an even playing-field, but that is not what is taking place under the rubric of managed care. And it appears all of this unfairness will only worsen under ObamaCare.

ObamaCare, like HillaryCare, creates another unholy partnership of corporate entities with government bureaucrats, setting compulsory public policy at the expense of the captive patient population. Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian economist, referred to this relationship as corporatism. I call it Corporate Socialized Medicine.

The direction in which we are headed is leading us relentlessly toward the destruction of still the best medical care system in the world for the higher purpose of the State forging another keystone in the arch of compulsory socialism, ObamaCare.

References and Notes

1) Faria, MA. Corporate Socialized Medicine Threatens Medical Profession. Human Events, August 15, 1997.

2) The McCarran Ferguson Law of 1946, a law that permits insurance companies to be the only industry given significant exemptions from antitrust laws (and therefore, of itself monopolistic), allows managed care/HMOs to set doctors' and hospital fees (including capitation), reimbursements, benefits, insurance premiums, etc. If two or more physicians were alleged to have discussed fees, in any way, shape or form, the hand of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would fall heavily on them.

3) Under President Nixon's policy of wage and price controls, the revised Health Manpower Act of 1971 essentially adopted HMOs as state policy and favored by tax policy. Further legislation, the HMO Act of 1973, mandated businesses with more than 25 employees to offer HMOs to their employees and provided for special government-backed grants and loans for federally qualified HMOs. Yet, despite all the favorable government legislation initiated then, this collectivist vision did not take hold until the 1990s.

Moreover, the ERISA laws (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) of 1974, which were set up to protect employee pension funds in employer-provided, self-insured plans, has until recently been used effectively by managed care and HMOs as a shield to protect themselves against medical liability lawsuits. In other words, in cases of medical malpractice, the HMOs are not liable; only the individual physicians involved are medically liable and accountable, so that when managed care bureaucrats deny the use of certain diagnostic procedures or therapeutic techniques for cost-containment (the hallmark of managed care), the plans and their administrators, are exempted from lawsuits of medical malpractice.

---------------

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. is Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine
Member, Editorial Board member of Surgical Neurology International (SNI), and an Ex-member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002-05; Former Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002), Editor Emeritus, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS); Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002).

Copyright ©2011 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD

Your rating: None Average: 5 (9 votes)
Comments on this post

Letter triggers ObamaCare debate!

Interesting debate in the Macon Telegraph triggered by a Letter to the Editor (Macon Telegraph 10-16-13) — "ObamaCare Misconceptions" by Jack Bernard to which Dr. Faria's article above refers!

Jack Bernard: "...This week, I did a very informal focus group among the patrons of my barbershop, white men and women. They were universally opposed to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which they call ObamaCare. They never even heard of the ACA.

"These people gave the usual reasons, all which are 100 percent incorrect. The ACA: A. Rations care so that you cannot get needed life or death procedures (it does not); B. Takes away your choice of physicians (again, no); C. Forces low income people to buy unaffordable insurance (there are subsidies for most low income people and our GOP governor is stopping the expansion of Medicaid, paid for by the feds for others); and D. Is “socialized medicine” (it is exactly the opposite, requiring private insurance, not government insurance). Per these ordinary Georgians, they obtained these views from right wing radio and TV..."

Robert Brooks: "Well said Mr. Bernard. The Tea party are little more than mass schadenfreude not unlike mass hysteria. They promised a shutdown and delivered. They do not see reason and to them negotiation or compromise is treason. Most of them do not have a clue what ACA actually consists of and when asked which they prefer choose ACA over ObamaCare because they don't even have a clue it is the same thing. They talk about death panels that do not exist. America is not a democracy or a republic it is an idiocracy held hostage by the fringe...Bernie Sanders is a great example of this new reality and I wish he would run for president. He would offer a refreshing change."

Ben Damron: Bernie (Bernard) Sanders is an openly socialist Independent member of the United States Senate. After one year at Brooklyn College, Sanders spent four years at the University of Chicago, where he joined the Young Peoples Socialist League, youth wing of the Socialist Party USA, the Congress on Racial Equality and the Student Peace Union. He also worked briefly for the communist led United Packinghouse Workers Union. At the end of his junior year Sanders worked in a mental hospital in California as part of a project for the American. In 1971, he became a candidate for the U.S. Senate for the far-left Liberty Union Party. Sanders ran as candidate for Liberty Union three more times, achieving 6 percent of the vote before finally quitting. Sanders promoting programs that included nationalizing all U.S. banks, public ownership of all... utilities, ending of compulsory education and establishing a worker-controlled government.[ Sanders hung the Soviet flag in the mayoral office in Burlington, in honor the city's Soviet sister city Yaroslav. In 1985, while mayor of Burlington, Sanders celebrated the sixth anniversary of the Sandinista victory in Managua, with Daniel Ortega. In October 1988, journalist I. F. Stone, a former secret Communist Party USA member and Soviet agent, wrote a letter endorsing Burlington mayor Bernie Sanders' congressional run. There are currently 70 members of Congress or Senate that are members of the Democratic Socialists Party of America and yes, the Hon. Bernie Sanders is one of them!

Fred Dixon: Ben Damron, Good post. Bernie Sanders could only win a seat in Vermont, and maybe a couple of other of our most far left states. But to cite him as an example of moderation does tell us something about his supporters.

Daisy Jonesing: To Jack Bernard; I say you have your wires crossed. ObamaCare will indeed do quite the opposite and so does EVERY single socialist program.

The Push by the Left for ObamaCare (ACA) is nothing more than MORE socialism in this country. ObamaCare = Socialism!

Obama intends to completely socialize this country and THAT IS THE ISSUE! HOW? By continuing to EXPAND government into every corner of our PRIVATE lives; Cap and Trade, ObamaCare, and EDUCATION policies. That is called "increasing his base for those DEPENDENT upon Government for EVERYTHING!

ObamaCare Ride

That Mr. Bernard creates a TOTAL Democratic majority. And people in this country are FINALLY realizing it. Our Military FIGHTS and DIES daily for the cause of FREEDOM, FREEDOM FROM a MONARCH like the one we left in England.

Obama's goal with the money of George Soros and his backing is to establish a SOCIALIST STATE, A WELFARE STATE.

And that Mr. Bernard is why the AMERICAN people are not going to settle for anything except a TOTAL REPEAL of ObamaCare whether it's this year or five from now!

Health Care REFORM has NEVER been about Health Care. It's about More government in our PRIVATE lives, taking MORE of OUR property, STRIPPING us of our Constitutional Freedoms, Saddling us with MORE and MORE Debt.

So we can be a second rate country like the socialist run European debt laden countries. You attribute the problems in health care to "free market." If you're so smart you should know our 'free market' health care is run under MANAGED CARE!

So "PLACE blame" where it is due...Clintons' MANAGED CARE which is a precursor of ObamaCare. And I can promise you ObamaCare will be worse than MANAGED CARE! It's just a darn common sense thing along with bus loads of data to prove you wrong.

Spyros Alvonellos: Say it Sister! It has NEVER been about health care is a FACT. It is about taking more from your pocket. By the time this is all in more than 75% of our check will be paid in taxes. It's already 50% now. That is unless you don't work and have an Obamaphone!

Daisy Jonesing: Spyros Alvonellos, I literally thank GOD daily for those like YOU that continue to fight this cause.

Fred Dixon: Don't know why the left can't be satisfied with a Federalism that allows state and local governments to be as far left as their citizens desire, as long as they don't violate the Constitution. Any state can have a single payer HC if they desire, or any number of redistribution schemes. Liberals that don't like Georgia or Arizona or Montana are free to move to Vermont, California, etc. Since there is no federal limit on a state's ability to tax, they could easily rid themselves of the rich and the evil for-profit corporations.

The beauty of the Constitution was the right of the states to self-government within generous limits. We have states with economies as big as some small European countries, so be Europe, or Canada, or Russia, or what ever you prefer. Don't know why the left has a problem with this, unless there is some inclination to dictate policy to others.

Ben Damron: Jack Bernard, Brandon Moseley, Jr. and Robert Brooks: This is not Mr Bernard's first attempt to disparage our health care (prior to ObamaCare), he submitted a similar article in 2011 which was responded to by a friend of mine who is a retired Doctor and the link is here:

Dr. Miguel Faria: ObamaCare — Toward Free Market or Socialized Medicine?

Maybe Mr Bernard has short term memory loss and may have forgotten this article but it's eloquently written and fully explains the history of our health care in this Country as well as distinctly showing that ObamaCare is a socialist program. Anytime you force people to do something against their will it's socialism!

Two pertinent factors if I may: 1) Over 20 million Americans will still not have insurance as depicted by figures from our CBO, and 2) more than half the people in this Country (now around 73% last I saw the figure) do not support ObamaCare but our Congressional representatives forced it down our throats anyway but using illegal tactics to get it passed! It's also the biggest tax increase in our Country's history!

And for Mr Bernard, I hardly think the Republican party would claim you today, so maybe you need to go change your political affiliation as soon as possible! A lotta folks like you we call RINOs!

Daisy Jonesing: That is a GREAT article. And I will take Dr. Miguel Faria and Dr. Ben Carson advice (both Well known Neurosurgeons) on "HEALTH CARE" and the signs and symptoms of Socialism and How to TREAT IT...over a bunch of arm chair Doctors any day. Thanks for posting that Ben.

Det Cord: Jack Bernard, so ObamaCare is the opposite of Socialism and Medicaid is private care? I've never heard of the private market imposing the mandatory purchase or fines on those that did not purchase their products or services. The Opposite of Socialism is free-market Capitalism, you know, where millions of people make billions of decisions in their own self interest? Thousands, or maybe only hundreds of people making decisions in their own self interest that affects millions is something other than Capitalism. It's more akin to central planning.

Unholy Partnership

Another wonderful article on the subject of "socialized medicine".
You know I will 'use' portions of this article on MT to fight my battles. It is a battle I can NOT seem to 'give up on'!

I must admit (like you don't already know it); I am Most passionate about America.

I consistently go to Macon Telegraph because it is my home town paper. Do I argue with those people? Of course I do. I know what I'm talking about when it comes to health care and they don't! And most of them are so socialist themselves 'they don't care'. But the people around them that they influence just MIGHT hear something I say that will open their eyes.

I can not 'tolerate' ignorant people arguing a topic they know nothing about.
I consistently tell them DON'T Go to the NuWay to order a steak ;so I can not understand people listening to folks that have no Idea about the subject. There again I tell them, If they want to know about Health Care ASK a (REAL) Doctor or Nurse. Dag nab it all.

Yes I do 'love' to argue about that subject and I always appreciate your articles because they ARM me with the weapons I need to continue fighting an area of our lives that I am again most passionate about ;"Medicine and Health Care". And I feel it is my DUTY as a Nurse to continue fighting that battle.
Thank you for Always continuing to fight the same battles.
I know I'm not alone. But I darn sure feel like it right now.
I want the entire bill defunded;I know that's not happening. BUT, it could be delayed and the Govt. employees forced on it with no subsidies. I don't believe that's too much to ask of them since we're being FORCED!

Thank you!

Thank you so much uneed! We are glad to have you back! You are an extremely well-informed citizen, a great American, and a fine debater — so your praise is greatly appreciated. It is a pleasure to count you and Mr. U as two of our closest friends.

Canadian Medicine

Canadian medicine submitted by Ben D. in the MT:

"Report: Thousands fled Canada for health care in 2011

"A Canadian study released last year found that many provinces in our neighbor to the north have seen patients fleeing the country and opting for medical treatment in the United States. The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993. Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 provinces reported an average total wait time of 19 weeks between the time a general practitioner refers a patient and the time a specialist provides elective treatment — the longest they have ever recorded.

"In 2011, Canadians enrolled in the nation’s government-dominated health service waited long periods of time for an estimated 941,321 procedures. As many as 2.8 percent of Canadians were waiting for treatment at any given time, according to the Institute. 'In some cases, these patients needed to leave Canada due to a lack of available resources or a lack of appropriate procedure/technology,' according to the Institute. 'In others, their departure will have been driven by a desire to return more quickly to their lives, to seek out superior quality care, or perhaps to save their own lives or avoid the risk of disability.'

"Increases in the number of patients leaving Canada for treatment were seen in seven of the ten Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador." Love that socialized health care! Ben D. Macon, http://dailycaller.com/2012/07...

Interesting health statistics

The following health statistics should be of interest to the readers of this website. I believe they will also be eye-opening!

"A recent 'Investor's Business Daily' article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization. 
 
"Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
 
U.S. 65% 
England     46%  
Canada      42% 
 
 
"Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: 

U.S.        93%  
England     15% 
Canada      43% 
 
 
"Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: 

U.S.         90% 
England     15%  
Canada      43% 
 
 
"Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: 

U.S.         77%  
England     40%  
Canada      43% 
 
 
"Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: 

U.S.          71  
England      14  
Canada       18 
 
 
"Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in 'excellent health': 

U.S.          12%  
England       2%  
Canada        6% 
 
 
"And now for the last statistic: National Health Insurance? 

U.S.           NO  
England      YES  
Canada       YES" 

ObamaCare = HillaryCare

ObamaCare, like HillaryCare, creates another unholy partnership of corporate entities with government bureaucrats. thank you for the article

Socialized medical systems

Socialized medical systems are designed to eliminate the insurance industry and marginalize profit while providing health care for all. According to many recent studies, socialized systems outperform free-market profit-driven systems in terms of availability, quality, and cost of care. Thanks a lot.

Regards,
hcg

Socialized medicine doesn't work!

I doubt if your employer, who is an entrepreneur, will agree with you about socialized medicine.

First, regulatory agencies friendly to government and socialized medicine have been attempting to regulate nutritional products and medical devices for years. And if they could get away with it, they would end all internet transactions of this kind as well making the government the sole provider!

Second, there have been no such "recent studies were socialized systems outperform free-market profit-driven systems." Frankly, that is a bogus assertion. I invite you to come back and post such a study.

On the other hand, socialized medicine in Great Britain and Canada are plagued with problems of low availability, rationing, and low quality.

The article links listed below support the inadequacies of socialized medicine in Canada. They were written by Canadian experts!

Read:

Re-privatizing Medicine in Canada --- By the Back Door

Canadian Medicine



And the "free" health care system in Cuba, which is also touted by some ill-informed proponents of socialized medicine, including Michael Moore, is also a disaster. The links provided below were written by experts!

Read:

Socialized Medicine in Cuba 2002 (Part I): A Poor State of Health!

Socialized Medicine in Cuba 2002 (Part II): Other Hidden Faces of Cuban Medicine




I look forward to further engaging discussions on this interesting topic.

Where do we go from here?

Yes, our healthcare already is regulated by government, and what a mess they have made of it. So you are quite accurate in pointing out this regarding Bernard. I also agree that we need more competition in healthcare, which is currently very limited within many states, instead of more government. In fact the reason so many people are against the government takeover of our healthcare is, I believe, because we know the danger of relinquishing our freedom to the government. Simply put, we don’t trust the government, because we know their history. Why should we trust the government with our healthcare when they have robbed our retirement (SSI)?

As for his decrying Rep. Bachmann’s allegation that ” ObamaCare as a socialist plot,” I would say that his employer must have been an incredibly poor one if they could not even afford to pay the healthcare executive enough for the purchase of a dictionary. Collective ownership—here by the government—of the means of producing and distributing goods—in this case private health care—is socialism. This bill is not about passing a few provisions; this bill is about the eventual takeover of private healthcare by finacially damaging private healthcare providers. By having the fine lower than the cost of providing health insurance, employers will likely chose to drop health care for the employees. The scheme is too set up companies to fail, and then the government can step in and save the day. Remember too that initially the government was so bold as to put forward their own “option.” There are already over 1000 or so healthcare providers, so one asks how is one more going to help this situation? Well, only the government can insure that their option will survive, since they are capable of passing laws and taking our money to ensure that the government option succeeds. Private companies cannot do this. Nor can they operate in the red, as this administration has strived with all of its power to do.

Although the “plot” was not secretive--remember Pelosi cried: “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it,” many aspects were unknown so in effect it was: “a secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose” (American Heritage 3rd edition). It was essentially secret since most citizens and even lawmakers themselves did not know what was in it, as Pelosi proudly promulgated. Moreover, every poll taken has proven overwhelmingly just how “hostile” this action was to the will of the American people. As to the legality of Obamacare, why that was just settled last week. Moreover, it may just become “unsettled” in a few months after the election.

This brings me to my main query: Where do we go from here? From what I have read, if the Republicans win in November then Obamacare can be repealed in the House and voted down in the Senate with a simple majority using the same means that the Democrats used to infect us with Obamacare in 2010 by “reconciliation.” Since reconciliation only applies to revenue, can this process defeat Obamacare by essentially cutting off funding for it and thus ensuring the act effectively dies? Also, let us assume that this occurs and Obamacare is thrown out with the garbage. What prevents this from getting appealed to The Supreme Court again with the same results? I know that the court is in theory supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the new law, but we have seen how the little regard the radical left—and now Roberts—have for the constitution. Can the Supreme Court agree to repeal an act that it has already declared legal, albeit by the slimmest of margins?

A Mitt Romney victory and ObamaCare

Precisely so Koba. And "Romney's victory" is a big "if."

I submit to you that this Supreme Court victory for President Obama, which was due only to Chief Justice John Roberts' constitutional betrayal, makes it more likely that Obama will be re-elected because many Americans, precisely those "moderates" and "independents," who increasingly decide elections– prefer empty and even deadly "victories" to constitutional principles or moral substance propounded by those they judge to be likely "losers."

I do believe if Romney wins, and he has sizable majorities in the House and Senate, that ObamaCare will be repealed, and that John Roberts and his newly found friends on the left side of the Court will have a difficult time declaring the new act unconstitutional. I do still see a ray of hope if there is a Mitt Romney victory!

ObamaCare Discussion

Apparently, the Supreme Court has several options for ruling on ObamaCare. Here is a good summary as to what lies ahead depending on how they rule, and I recommend it to the discerning readers of Hacienda Publishing:

"High Court Has Options on Health Care Law"by Mark Sherman and Ricardo Alonso Zalvidar, posted on GOPUSA, March 20, 2012.

I was also surprised to hear several media pundits candidly discussing ObamaCare recently on ABC News, of all places. For a moment I thought I was watching Fox, the fair and balanced network! Below is the link to that incredibly frank discussion:

"The Court Case that Could Cost Obama the Election," by Amy Walter, David Chalian and Rick Klein. Power Players, ABC News, March 21, 2012.

Socialized Medicine

Dr Faria
A wonderful article that is right on target.
I pray this Socialist Agenda against 'medical care' in this country will be stopped. I believe once our government can truly control more of our 'destination' ;the closer we get to rationed care.

Yes they are 'holding a Captive Population hostage'.

Captive= Trapped
Compulsory= forced
Fines= Punishment

Less Freedom to Choose=Dictation
Loss of Autonomy = Forced Dependence

Thank you for continuing the fight against this Agenda.
uneed

ObamaCare---Socialized medicine

Dear uneed,

You caught the essence of the article. Indeed:

"ObamaCare (2011), another attempt at HillaryCare (1993), is one more giant step toward the implementation of even greater government involvement in the medical marketplace and magnification of government regulatory authority — all at the expense of sacrificing individual patient care and what remains of the patient-doctor relationship."

They want to hold a captive population hostage; it is also called economic fascism by a friend of mine, Prof. Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola University in the great Windy city of Chicago.

Lenin said that the arch of socialism is built upon socialized medical care; the central planners received his cue, and they have been trying for decades.

We all have to do what we can to preserve our freedom.

Thank you for coming back. You are always very welcomed!
MAF