Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 7:34am

Ronald Reagan Warns Against ObamaCare

This is a clip of Ronald Reagan warning us of socialized medicine, the very same bill that President Obama and the Democratic Party are trying to ram through congress.

Reagan warns us of how people such as six-time presidential Socialist Party candidate Norman Thomas, and many others, explained how to move their agenda of achieving a socialist state by a Foot-in-the-Door policy of socialized medicine.  Which is eerily similar to what President Obama and the Democrats are doing, against the will of the people with their European socialized health care bill.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
40 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DreadPirateRoberts
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 5:19pm

I love that clip. It shows why Ronald Reagan will always be “The Great Communicator”. Clear, factual, and with his own depth of Philosophical belief. Unlike most politicians, what Reagan said, he believed.

After watching the “Bipartisan Healthcare Summit” I was truly astounded at how poor Obama is at communicating without a pre-prepared speech and a teleprompter. The man is rude, cuts people off, stutters and stammers, and has trouble forming thoughts about his beliefs.

Basically, to anyone who watched the BHS (no, not Barack Has to Stutter) this was a wake up call–Barry isn’t a good speaker, he is a good reader.

Morning's Minion
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 7:33pm

Is this a real or a parody post? If the latter, well the joke’s on me then…

But assuming it isn’t – I assume you realize that Reagan was making all kinds of outlandish claims about Medicare, including that it tell doctors where they had to live? I think history had proved him a tint bit wrong – so much so that the party that now idolizes his memory is fighting tooth and nail against “cuts” in this very same Medicare..

Oh, and as superior as single payer is (and Medicare is single payer by the way), the Obama bill retains the current system of privaet insurers. There is nothing “socialistic” about it. Of course, it attempts to regulate private insurers, including (by the way) how they must deal with abortion – something no Republican has ever supported.

Tito Edwards
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 7:44pm

MM,

He was talking about the slow descent to socialism, or does this escape you?

As for abortion, no matter your hollow arguments, you still voted for the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States of America.

Morning's Minion
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 8:51pm

You need to study more on what Reagan actually predicted pertaining to Medicare. Also, tell me why his acolytes currently are its biggest defenders? Also, please tell me what abortion protections were put into the Republican-sponsored Medicare Advantage expansion? And please tell me what exactly is “socialist” in the HCR bill?

Of course, having a policy debate would require moving past mindless slogans – “socialist”, “most pro-abortion president”. Of course, I could also point out to your that your own ideology is almost identical to the liberalism opposed by the Vatican for quite a long time.

WJ
WJ
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 8:52pm

Awesome Post!

Reagan also signed the UN declaration against torture and his DOJ successfully tried and convicted a Texas sheriff for waterboarding prisoners, so I guess that he solved those current debates as well!

WJ
WJ
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 8:57pm

Oh No! But I just realized that Ronald Reagan might disagree with Friedrich von Hayek on this question, who wrote, in his Road to Serfdom, that “Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.”

And now I don’t know WHAT to think!?!

Morning's Minion
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:04pm

We could also say that Reagan raised taxes pretty much every year of his presidency, and pushed for a very ambitious arms control deal! The modern GOP would denounce him a “lib-uh-ral socialist”!

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:06pm

Here is the text of the speech:

http://www.elephantowners.com/?page_id=68

Reagan’s warnings have proven prescient. Medicare and Medicaid have grown and grown. We cannot pay for them just as we cannot pay for Obamacare. The government as an insurer has driven up the costs of medicine for all.

Oh and Tony, the most pro-abortion President in our history isn’t a slogan, but a reality. You supported him and now you aren’t even going to get health care. He is also producing a political reaction which is going to sweep the Democrats from power in November in Congress and across the country. As a Republican I would like to thank you. Obama is the best thing that has happened to the GOP since Jimmy Carter!

WJ
WJ
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:15pm

“Reagan’s warnings have proven prescient. Medicare and Medicaid have grown and grown. We cannot pay for them just as we cannot pay for Obamacare.”

As have Eisenhower’s regarding the military-industrial complex. But few “conservatives” seem to think that that is much of a problem.

The point of all this, of course, is that it’s rather silly to think that the policy positions of American politicians–Republican or Democrat–should have any bearing on arguments (rather than sloganeering) about what is actually beneficial to the commonweal.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:23pm

However plausible Reagan’s predictions may have been at the time, they have not been borne out by subsequent events. It’s been 45 years since Medicare was enacted, and it hasn’t led to a total government takeover of medicine. In fact, I think there’s a plausible argument to be made that Medicare is one of the main impediments to passing a universal health care plan today.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:25pm

Instituting programs that we cannot pay for is not beneficial to the commonweal, but rather bankrupts the commonweal. As for Defense, that thing that gives you the freedom to comment on blogs, it took up 23% of the federal budget in 2009. Social Security took up 20% and Medicare and Medicaid 19%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

Medicare and Medicaid are going to explode in costs over the next two decades and there is no clue how to pay for them other than for the government to continue to borrow until—well, I guess until we can’t borrow anymore or our economy collapses under the debt burden.

Eric Brown
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:26pm

I’m not sure how mandating that people purchase something from the private sector constitutes “socialism”?

Eric Brown
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:26pm

And that’s not even to say it is a good idea. This is strictly speaking toward definition.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:28pm

Wj,

If you think that Hayek quote is amazing, check out this one (from the Constitution of Liberty):

Once it becomes the recognized duty of the public to provide for the extreme needs of old age, unemployment, sickness, etc., irrespective of whether the individuals could and ought to have made provision themselves and particularly once help is assured to such an extent that it is apt to reduce individuals’ efforts, it seems an obvious corollary to compel them to insure (or otherwise provide) against those common hazards of life. The justification in this case is not that people should be coerced to do what is in their individual interest but that, by neglecting to make provision, they would become a charge to the public. Similarly, we require motorists to insure against third-party risks, not in their interest but in the interest of others who might be harmed by their action.

Finally, once the state requires everybody to make provisions of a kind which only some had made before, it seems reasonable enough that the state should also assist in the development of appropriate institutions . . .

Up to this point the justification for the whole apparatus of “social security” can probably be accepted by the most consistent defenders of liberty. Though many may think it unwise to go so far, it cannot be said that this would be in conflict with the principles we have stated . . . It is only when the proponents of “social security” go a step further that the crucial issues arise. Even at the beginning state of “social insurance” in Germany in the 1880’s, individuals were not merely required to make provision against those risks which, if they did not, the state would have to provide for, but were compelled to obtain this protection through a unitary organization run by the government.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:30pm

Reagan’s warnings have proven prescient. Medicare and Medicaid have grown and grown.

Reagan was warning that eligibility for the programs would expand, not cost. That hasn’t happened.

WJ
WJ
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:30pm

“As for Defense, that thing that gives you the freedom to comment on blogs….”

Funny, I thought that was the Constitution. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance!

Tito Edwards
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:37pm

Eric,

The moment congress passes this bill, within a generation, we will no longer have what you refer to as the “private sector”.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:40pm

The moment congress passes this bill, within a generation, we will no longer have what you refer to as the “private sector”.

This strikes me as unlikely. What in the bill do you think will do away with private sector health care?

Tito Edwards
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:42pm

It’s not in the bill.

But succeeding congresses will expand the bill to include a government option. Will ultimately be a single payer “option”.

I probably should have said an incremental march towards the elimination of private health insurance.

WJ
WJ
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:45pm

Blackadder,

Yes, that quote is amazing. I am always impressed by the clarity and nuance of Hayek’s thinking; if Republicans were more consistently Hayekian and Democrats were more consistently social democratic then we might have actual arguments about policy! We would also be living on another planet, of course.

Blackadder
Blackadder
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:46pm

Tito,

Why do you think passing this bill now will make passing those bills in the future any more likely? Usually passing a bill on a subject makes it harder to revisit that subject legislatively, not easier.

Tito Edwards
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:48pm

BA,

They would not necessarily pass more bills, but it can happen.

They would also expand the power of said agencies that would squeeze the private sector more and more.

Not to mention executive orders that can expand the powers of said agencies and restrict those of the private sector.

WJ
WJ
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:49pm

Well, what do you mean by “private sector” anyway?

Blackadder
Blackadder
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:49pm

Tito,

Okay, but all that stuff could happen regardless of whether the current bill is passed. Why is this an argument against the current bill?

WJ
WJ
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 9:54pm

I ask because it seems that, in your mind, there are these two abstract entities–the “private sector” on the one hand, and “government” on the other–that are necessarily in opposition. But this over-simple characterization does not fit the *actual* way in which the health-care industry (and, for that matter, most other large industries) operates in America.

Tito Edwards
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 10:15pm

BA,

Because it is a slippery slope of creeping government involvement in people’s lives.

WJ,

Please explain.

Wj
Wj
Sunday, February 28, AD 2010 10:33pm

Can’t–going to bed; briefly, though, I understand your distinction to hold for small businesses, relatively local economies, etc. but not for huge corporate enterprises which sometimes enjoy monopolist status and have the clout to influence legislation in their interests; for such enterprises, any simple distinction like the one you draw seems inadequate for accounting for the facts on the ground.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 5:22am

“Funny, I thought that was the Constitution. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance!”

You are welcome. Without military force to back it up, the Constitution is just another piece of paper.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:21am

As have Eisenhower’s regarding the military-industrial complex. But few “conservatives” seem to think that that is much of a problem.

Perhaps becuase the allocation of available resources to military expenditure fluctuates up and down in response to external conditions and is lower now than was the case in 1960.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:23am

which sometimes enjoy monopolist status and have the clout to influence legislation in their interests;

The only monopolists in our economy are gas and electric companies and (to some extent) the postal service.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:35am

(and, for that matter, most other large industries) operates in America.

That’s just what we need, more crony capitalism.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:36am

Well, what do you mean by “private sector” anyway?

Never mind.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:38am

We could also say that Reagan raised taxes pretty much every year of his presidency,

You could say that, if you’ve forgotten that legislation is enacted by Congress and that legislative initiative in matters of taxation and appropriation rests with the lower house of Congress, and that the lower house of Congress was controlled by the political opposition for all eight years he was in office.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:39am

Of course, having a policy debate would require moving past mindless slogans – “socialist”, “most pro-abortion president”.

Those are not slogans, those are characterizations (the latter quite accurate).

Morning's Minion
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:47am

Tito: “we will no longer have what you refer to as the “private sector”…slippery slope of creeping government involvement in people’s lives.

So, the government should not regulate anything that privaet insurers do? So you are fine with them covering abortion, I take it?

Blackadder
Blackadder
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 8:55am

As for Defense, that thing that gives you the freedom to comment on blogs, it took up 23% of the federal budget in 2009.

I’m reminded here of an old Lincoln quote:

All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

We don’t need to spend anywhere near 23% of the budget on defense to ensure freedom of blogging in the U.S.

WJ
WJ
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 9:10am

Blackadder,

You’re being much too reasonable to be taken seriously on this thread.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 9:40am

We don’t need to spend anywhere near 23% of the budget on defense to ensure freedom of blogging in the U.S.

Just out of curiosity, do you have in mind a scenario of what occurs given particular levels of American military spending?

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Monday, March 1, AD 2010 10:09am

“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.”

Considering how fearful Lincoln was during the Trent Affair of the possibility of British intervention, I doubt if he meant that statement literally. Additionally, in an age of ICBMs and the coming age of portable nukes by non-state terrorist groups, things have changed militarily a tad since Lincoln gave that speech.

DreadPirateRoberts
Tuesday, March 2, AD 2010 9:41am

Anyone who cannot see that Reagan was right about his beliefs needs to answer these questions:

1. Did Medicare achieve the goals intended at the costs it promised? Further, is it almost broke now?

2. Was Reagan right that Medicare was just a preemptive move to pass Socialized Healthcare?

My answers for those questions are:

1. No, it has exploded in size, cost, and is rife with Govt corruption and inefficiency.

2. Obamacare anyone?

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top