The Republican Party’s Shift to Marxism

Brian Brady Brian Brady 23 Comments

Share

Republicans, we have a problem.  For over 50 years, the conservative movement has defined and branded our party.  Our return to total Republican control of the federal government was fueled by the “Property, Propriety and Prosperity” movement which we called “the tea party.”  Today, our hopes to reverse the march to Marxism are sacrificed upon the altar of “good enough.” I’m referring to the RyanCare plan, of course.

RyanCare is a two-bit shell game of wealth redistribution.  It rejects free market principles and is one more top-down, centrally-planned solution to a problem created by top-down centralized planning.  When I first read the details of it, I was reminded of Reagan’s criticism of “centralized planners” in his Time For Choosing Speech.

What’s wrong with RyanCare?  It’s the Marxism, stupid.

This is our generation’s “Time For Choosing” and if you are a Republican donor, activist, volunteer, or registered voter, I beg of you to choose freedom and revolt.  If you won’t revolt on principle, consider the practical reason for pushing back — Republicans will be blamed for the collapse of our health care system and the ultimate replacement of it; socialized medicine.

Consider this:

1- ObamaCare was designed to fail.  It, like all government schemes is beholden to political goals rather than market forces and is in a death spiral.

2- RyanCare is being triumphed as a solution which incorporates “free market, supply side principles” but rejects the free market and redistributes wealth through tax credits rather than subsidies.  It’s robbing Peter to reward Paul.

3- Republicans will rightfully lose for refusing to honor the promises of a full repeal of Obamcare.

When RyanCare collapses, the Democratic Party will hold a majority in the House and Senate and will send a socialized medicine bill to a Republican President, who has TOLD us that he supports socialized medicine.  That will happen and, to those of us in the “Property, Propriety and Prosperity” movement , it will feel like a betrayal. Memo to our crowd; they are already betraying us.

While Duncan Hunter fights reality television show arguments, and Darrell Issa panders to Marxist voters (by the way, that won’t work), the GOPe is breaking the promises they made to you.

Revolt if you have just ONE principled bone left in your body.  Revolt EVEN if you are just a tribal participant.  The Stupid Party is embracing Karl Marx instead of Russell Kirk,  We have a problem in the Republican Party; it’s the Marxism, stupid.

Share

Comments 23

  1. Mark Steyn warned us all eight years ago: The purpose of ObamaCare is to enshrine irrevocable Marxism as the economic system of the United States. If we do not reject Marxist premises root and branch right now, in one election the two parties will become one: Marxism Red and Marxism Lite, with all the tyranny at only 112% of the cost!

  2. Please give me one example of an existing “free market” health care system that you approve of.

  3. Post
    Author
  4. Paul found the crux question, and I’d also like to get a straight answer (although there won’t be one).

    Which countries around the world are getting healthcare right, in the eyes of the Right?

    American exceptionalism doesn’t require willful blindness to the world beyond the Mexican-funded wall, does it?

    I would imagine the process of crafting a GOP healthcare bill might begin with questions about which countries are getting better outcomes than us. Couple that with data on healthcare cost relative to GDP, and you’d pretty quickly develop a short list of role models to start learning what those countries have in common that makes their systems better and cheaper than what we’ve got.

    The alternative is to use what American business leaders call Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome. NIH is the arrogance of assuming that innovations that didn’t originate here must be rejected, because we are the best. If we didn’t think of it first, then it must be a bad idea. NIH kills companies.

  5. Post
    Author

    Optical care in America is a good example:
    -Transparency in pricing,
    -robust competition,
    -surgical procedures keep getting better and cheaper,
    –providers have good incentives to offer free screening
    -and there is a robust philanthropic push from civil society to care for those who can’t afford it.

  6. Post
    Author

    “Sadly, there is no cure for willful blindness, Brian.”

    Cute but still an ad hominem fallacy.

    “Paul found the crux question, and I’d also like to get a straight answer (although there won’t be one).”

    You asked a question and I answered. If you have an argument, make it (you can’t)

    The simple fact is that we haven’t had free market health care since pre-1964. We’ve layered Marxist schemes on top of Marxist schemes and the system is crashing as all Marxist schemes do.

    Let me guess… it’s time for single-payer?

    (eyeroll) Maybe this time it won’t end up in piles of dead bodies (as Marxist schemes always do)

  7. Clarifying and simplifying (although the question was already clear and simple):

    Brian, in your estimation, which are the top 5 countries doing the best job of overall healthcare today, and what measures do you use to select/rank them?

    If it’s too much work, then just list the most important measures one should use to evaluate the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of any national approach to healthcare in any country.

    Spoiler alert: you won’t answer, because even these very rational and innocuous questions lead to logical conclusions you don’t like.

  8. Brian,

    “Transparency in pricing.”

    Who do you know who takes the time to shop price when they are having a medical emergency?

    California passed a law requiring that hospital post their charges (transparency in pricing). It was completely ineffective because people simple do not have the time to comparison shop when in the middle of a medical emergency.

  9. Brian, Which European nation leads the world in “piles of dead bodies” as a result of their socialist health care?

  10. Post
    Author

    “just list the most important measures one should use to evaluate the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of any national approach to healthcare in any country.”

    This is a simple answer–the question is flawed. If you read my article, you would see that I reject the premise of “a national approach”.

    Your question is like… “Well Brian, which city approaches taco distribution better than the Encinitas Taco Commission?” after I explicitly rejected the efficacy of a city taco commission.

    Taco shops and consumers know better how to price tacos in Encinitas, or Topeka, than a federal commission does. Likewise, doctors and patients know how to better price medical services than the government does.

    “It was completely ineffective because people simple do not have the time to comparison shop when in the middle of a medical emergency.”

    Sure they do. I know of a few instances, in my life, where family members have said, “Oh, don’t go to THAT Emergency Room” and we avoided that certain hospital. Other times, I’ve called my doctor and she has said, “come right in” rather than running to an emergency room.

    Price is not ALWAYS the consideration in a purchase decision, HQ. I know men who will only buy their suits from a certain tailor in New York. I know men who will run to Men’s Wearhouse, buy a suit, and run to a local tailor and pay a premium to get alterations done quickly. I also know men who will buy a suit on eBay, wait for it to be delivered, then have it altered and wait two weeks for it to be done. If you had a “suit emergency”, I could probably get you properly and smartly outfitted in 3-4 hours.

    Pricing information distribution is the problem and presently, there is no real incentive to solve that problem (and make a profit). Unleash the power of the market and you’ll see apps which solve that problem (think Yelp) on everybody’s smart phone. You’ll see apps like Uber for ambulances too.

    I would argue that the government control of medical insurance and takeover of medical services has inhibited the type of innovation we so sorely need to improve quality and lower prices. The only reason we can’t imagine the “what if?” scenarios is because our incentive to imagine, to innovate, and to solve these problems has been inhibited by apparatchiks.

    We go through “emergencies” every day when we need water, food, or need to go to the bathroom and we solve these problem without the apparatchiks. Think creatively. Think boldly. Think with optimism. Marxism doesn’t work; markets do.

    We can stand on the shoulders of giants gentlemen and, rather than handing us ladders, our government kicks them out from under us because a few dullards desperately want to retain control.

  11. I understand your objection, but I’m a very patient person (pun intended).

    What if we rephrased the questions for you:

    1) Brian, in your estimation, which are the top 5 countries doing the best job of overall healthcare today? (let me know if you have any philosophical objection to the phrasing here)

    AND

    2) What measures would you suggest to assess (a) quality and (b) cost efficiency of healthcare generally, among any given population? (same comment)

    Brian, this is hard work!

    It’s almost like you understand, but will do everything possible to avoid answering.

  12. Post
    Author

    “Which European nation leads the world in “piles of dead bodies” as a result of their socialist health care?”

    The Soviet Union had tens of millions of piled up bodies.

    Romania had hundreds of thousands.

    Nazi Germany had millions.

    East Germany had tens of thousands.

    Hungary had thousands.

    Poland had tens of thousands.

    Estonia had thousands.

    I gotta stop at Europe, right?

    “It’s almost like you understand, but will do everything possible to avoid answering.”

    I am avoiding your question and for good reason; Reading is Fundamental, ED

    You’re asking the wrong question (for the third time).

  13. I think you honestly believe those are the wrong questions, Brian, and that’s the problem.

    If your goal was to implement reforms resulting in a higher standard of care at a lower cost, then it would be relevant to discuss how to quantify quality and cost efficiency.

    If your goal was to provide the best healthcare at reasonable cost for Americans, then you would want to benchmark against the top performers, even if you decide to do things differently from them.

    The only reasonable conclusion is that these are not your goals. Nor are they the goals of the GOP in DC. Apparently, the goal is to implement reforms that conform to political dogma, irrespective of how those reforms affect the quality and cost of healthcare for Americans.

    This explains perfectly why the internecine fighting about the form and shape of Trumpcare doesn’t center on how we expand coverage, improve outcomes, lower cost, and how we should quantify progress and become accountable for benchmarking our healthcare against other countries who are currently outperforming us.

  14. Post
    Author

    “If your goal was to provide the best healthcare at reasonable cost for Americans, then you would want to benchmark against the top performers, even if you decide to do things differently from them.”

    Okay…you might not like the answer ED but I”ll pay you the compliment of an explanation.

    I want to benchmark the mobile phone business when deciding what success looks like in health care :

    – 92% coverage.
    –technological advances every 2-3 years which increase functionality
    — voluntary participation
    — cost reductions every 2-3 years
    — lots of options to cater to different income levels but even the premium plans (smartphones) are owned by 70% of the country

    We might have been talking past one another. I don’t want to compare to other failed systems; I want to benchmark success to the most successful industry in the past three decades

  15. This is the sausage making that is not pretty, I am trusting that we’re going for the means to the end that will eventually fix this Obamacare atrocity. I’m sure there was a lot of criticism with the federalist papers and Constitution in the past. As making law is not perfect as we are not perfect, it’s better than keeping Obamacare. We have an action President right now, let’s support change that is positive, as little or more than expected. It’s in the best direction as far as I’m concerned. Please disagree as you like. Thanks.

  16. Post
    Author

    “I am trusting that we’re going for the means to the end that will eventually fix this Obamacare atrocity.”

    Here is how you fix it. You send a bill to the President’s desk which says, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed in Congress on March 22, 2010, is immediately repealed in its entirety”

    Anything less is ownership of Obamacare.

  17. Good post Brian. Los Angeles Times reported that Duncan Hunter is planning to support this bill. Although that is not a surprise it demonstrates how shallow the conservative movement is especially in the 50th Congressional where Hunter is in a safe seat by more than 20 pts. This is not just a reflection on Hunter but the San Diego GOP, the Tea Party, RFW groups and central committee members who are just content to be able to take selfies from time to time with their elected reps.

  18. Therrio and Encinitas – why does Brian need to give examples? There are many demonstrating the principles of free markets are not only more ethical and moral but increase prosperity. Where are the economic systems that demonstrate violations of natural rights decrease the cost of goods for the masses? Seems to me if free market principles lower the cost of zucchini and smart phones the same will work for health care. Why do you disagree?

  19. Eric, The problem with the “free market health care” is that it has been rigged for decades. The reason most states require “hangnail” coverage is because the insurance lobby paid good money to make it happen. The root problem in this country is systematic bribery. Perhaps Brian would agree with my opinion on this. If the government requirement was reduced to covering high cost issues the price options would be reduced greatly. Until campaign finance laws are drastically changed we will continue to have a parade of whores in government. Take the money out of Washington and these whores (like D. Hunter) will slither away.

  20. Brian,

    Here is how you fix it. You send a bill to the President’s desk which says, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed in Congress on March 22, 2010, is immediately repealed in its entirety”

    I may be mistaken but I think that would take 60 votes in the Senate and that isn’t going to happen.

  21. Post
    Author

    “The root problem in this country is systematic bribery.”

    We agree on the problem.

    “Take the money out of Washington and these whores will slither away.”

    We disagree here. You’re still hacking at the branches.
    Take Washington DC out of the money business and political prostitution will be impossible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *