Blumner speaking up for socialism

The latest Robyn Blumner (St. Petersburg Times) editorial has the former ACLU lawyer and current self-described atheist pimping single-payer healthcare.

She kicks off her column with a reference to Michael Moore's "Sicko" film, and apparently can't bring herself to criticize Moore or the film.

But the column's about attacking free market capitalism, not about Moore.

I think it is undisputable that this nation's greatness emanated from its cultural roots in the Enlightenment. We as a people have few outward characteristics in common, but we share a set of understandings that have largely liberated human beings to live up to their potential. This includes a fealty to reason, the rule of law, individual rights, popular sovereignty, the common good and equal opportunity.
(St. Petersburg Times)

Equal opportunity? I'm afraid I haven't yet encountered that one in a list of Enlightenment values.

Here's a list from Temple University.

• a deep commitment to reason,
• a trust in the emerging modern sciences to solve problems and provide control over nature,
• a commitment to the idea of progress in material wealth and in human civility,
• a belief in the essential goodness of human nature,
• an emphasis upon the individual as master of his fate and fortune, and
• an engagement with the public sphere of discussion and action.

I suppose that "equal opportunity" can be twisted somehow out of "an emphasis upon the individual as master of his fate and fortune," eh?

The Reformation probably had no less influence on the early nation, but Blumner's on a roll, and we don't want to have to play catch-up.

But these ideas almost sound quaint today. The Bush administration has done more damage to our national identity than any one before it. You can't be a nation of equal justice when the president has eyes only for the fairness of process for loyalists like Scooter Libby. You can't have the rule of law when the vice president claims laws don't apply to him. You can't have a nation of reason when the government elevates faith and politics over fact and science.

Blumner slips very naturally into the Bush's fault refrain modern liberals love so well. Clinton's many pardons somehow did not undermine equal justice; nor did his perjury (the same crime of which Libby was accused). And having the Senate refuse to convict Clinton even though he was plainly guilty apparently didn't harm our national identity, either.
Same with the Cheney example. Congress is effectively exempt from laws to which the rest of us are subject, and that type of thing is rife in the government right on down the line (you'll be reminded of it the next time you see a police officer gratuitously running a red light).
Blumner doesn't appear to have an example backing her claim about "faith and politics over fact and science." Pity.

Moore clues us in to how Americans have been scared off of single-payer health care, one of the government benefits that gives Canadians and Europeans great peace of mind. The medical establishment called it "socialized medicine" raising the specter of Communism.

Blumner apparently wants her readers to think of communist gulags rather than communist mismanagement of the economy. But the latter is exactly the problem with single-payer health, along with well-known (to everyone except Blumner, apparently) drawbacks of third-party payment for services.

Communism and socialism share economic inefficiency, and it is not part of the traditional American value system to put one's reliance in the government ("an emphasis upon the individual as master of his fate and fortune"--not an emphasis upon the government as mater of his fate and fortune).

Take away market incentives, and health care will get worse--it's a solid prediction of economics, and the only check on the prediction is the government's potential to put limits on services--as is traditionally the case in nations with single-payer systems.

The median waiting times for specialized services was 4.0 weeks for specialist visits, 4.3 weeks for non-emergency surgery, and 3.0 weeks for diagnostic tests.
(statcan.ca)

Oh, Canada!

Total number of patients waiting for admissions: 822,545
(doh.gov.uk)

That's for the first quarter of 2005-2006. Of those 822,545 there were 438,128 who waited less than 2 months. In other words, the median wait time was in the same ballpark as for Canada's national health system.

In the free market system, those who can afford expensive procedures subsidize those who can't easily afford those procedures, and the profits allow individuals to decide on whom to bestow services provided free or under cost.
Nationalized health care removes that freedom. So much for that "Enlightenment value."