This must be a week for letters. Today I received an email from a fellow who read one of my posts here about Ayn Rand. This post was previously published in 2009 on subject was Obamacare and health insurance, but was updated, as at that point Obamacare was merely a bill. For the sake of revealing how someone of Socialist ideology thinks, I thought it might be educational to post his email and my response to it for you.

His email:

Ms. Pass:

Having read your blog about Ayn Rand and the execrable parasites known as health insurance companies, I would appreciate it if you would kindly explain why we should mourn their demise.

The good capitalist steals the best ideas of competitors, and the rest of the world has proven beyond cavil that socialized health care is more efficient than our bloated system, producing equivalent outcomes for a third of the cost. Why is this such a bad thing? What value do these bureaucratic behemoths add?

The short definition of a modern Republican is a man who is more faithful to his dogma than his wife. I would counter with a line from one of my other favorite atheist authors, Isaac Asimov: "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Regards, Dissenter

My reply:

Dissenter,
The piece re: Ayn Rand that you have just seen was republished recently by Freedom Outpost. I am assuming that is where you saw it.

From the tenor of your comments I am sure your question is not an honest one. From what you say in your email, your mind is made up and you have demonized not only insurance companies, but capitalism and Republicans as a monolithic group. Nevertheless, I will give you my best answers if you will take the time to read and study this issue.

Your statement here for instance: "The short definition of a modern Republican is a man who is more faithful to his dogma than his wife,"
would cause me to ask you if the same applies to FDR, Kennedy, and Clinton? Each of these men were Democrats with mistresses and peccadilloes.

You ask me to defend the insurance industry and then you proceed to defend socialism, which is responsible for the direct and indirect murders of millions of people throughout its history. Efficiency in killing people would be attributable to the purveyors of totalitarian control, not capitalism. Do you really need proof of this? If so, I will give you documentation to read.

The concept of the insurance industry is the creation of a "risk pool." Replacing the private insurance industry with socialized insurance by government is, nonetheless, a "risk pool." Whether or not you agree with a third-party payer system, you must decide if you wish the force of the government to control your healthcare providers or whether you would rather choose your own insurance and healthcare providers. Private insurance by choice? Or government insurance by force? I can only conclude from your email, your response is that you think force is better than choice.

You ask this: "What value do these bureaucratic behemoths add?" If bureaucracy is your objection, replacing one bureaucracy with an even larger, less personal, government bureaucracy cannot be your solution. In what universe does that make any logical sense?

Then there is this statement: "The rest of the world has proven beyond cavil that socialized health care is more efficient than our bloated system, producing equivalent outcomes for a third of the cost." I'm assuming from that you must have been locked in a room watching Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" in a repeating loop ad infinitum for you to say such a thing. A different question to ask yourself would be: Why do socialist government officials not have to live under the same health care laws that they have put in place for everyone else? If Obamacare is so great, why have our politicians exempted themselves from it?

To answer this presumption of yours, I refer you to several links which I hope you will take the time to read. The first one is regarding Ezekiel Emanuel, White House health care policy advisor to Barack Obama and author of much of Obamacare.

Wall Street Journal post on Ezekiel Emanuel
The Guardian - UK - on rationing healthcare

Below is an example of Canada's Socialized Health Care which you say is "more efficient?"

The typical wait for hip surgery in Canada is 14 months.
In Canada’s Province of Quebec, patients in need of a 30 minute procedure to cure urinary tract infections are on a three year waiting list!
Children with significant hearing problems are denied access to cochlear implants.
Arthritis treatment in the United Kingdom has a waiting period of up to nine months. Also in the UK, a 22 year old man just passed away because the government refused to allow him to receive a liver transplant.
Patients across the spectrum are denied access to thousands of necessary medications, which are deemed “too costly” or “unnecessary” by non-doctor bureaucrats.

Then there is this article by Ileana Johnson on Communist Health Care in Bucharest, Hungary.

In closing: Prior to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, the medical industry was providing adequate and accessible health care to all and at reasonable costs. Insurance was a catastrophic safety net, while normal health care was an out of pocket expense, affordable to most all Americans. Pro-bono work by hospitals and doctors took up the rest for the needy. Churches and community charities took care of those who could not pay. After Lyndon Johnson involved the government as a third party to the elderly and the poor, the entire situation devolved into a more corrupt money grab, which tells you exactly what government intervention does to pulverize reason and sanity, care and due diligence, compassion and charity.

Americans have been blessed with the best health care in the world which is now going to be degraded into the lowest common denominators due to socialism by those who think government is the answer, not the problem. I take the opposite view because I have lived through the success of a substantial amount of freedom. Moving toward totalitarian control over our every personal decision is not going to bring prosperity and happiness, or good health care to anyone but the political elitists who eliminate the inferior outcomes of socialism from their own lives. In case you haven't noticed, they vote the best for themselves and the least for the society they govern. Not much different from the monarchical rulers of the past, eh?

So, Dissenter, march along to your masters' drum beat. You contacted me with questions and statements. I hope you understand why I took the time to answer you.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Pass

P.S. I notice you quoted Isaac Asimov. I'm sorry to say your favorite "atheist," also a Fabian Socialist, would only view you as a "useful idiot." If you are trying to equate Ayn Rand with him and with Socialism due to atheism, that would be a canard. Rand lived in and saw the horrors of Socialism and hence decided to warn Americans of the possible harm that ideology would bring upon us.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.