Many people are of the opinion that the concept of state sponsored healthcare stemmed from the Fabian socialists of England, or from the published works of Karl Marx. This in fact is a serious error. Because the concept of governmental sponsored services including health care are almost as old as civilization. Who the first monarch was that realized the basic tenant as a ruler, that much political benefit could be attained, and much support garnered, by offering "free medical" services will probably never be known.

When we listen to the Democrats we would assume that health care, in the form of the welfare state, was a bright and new invention of Hillary's. In her conception and those of her friends heath care is a device of immense complication, which can only be solved by the state with its vast recourses. The fact that the state inherently must first tax the people to get those necessary a resources is usually overlooked by these short sighted do gooder's. The more serious fact, that the state is through its bureaucracy the most inefficient vehicle to administer such largess is also overlooked. In a demonstration of the states poor management ability we must only look to the American Social Security System, which consumes over 70 cents of every dollar collected in administrative & management burden. A further demonstration is apparent in Hillary's Health Care Task Force, of the 90's, that illegally instituted group, which wasted over $ 25 million without one single positive result, and in which not one insurance carrier, doctor, or nurse (people who actually know something of health care) was impaneled.
Many governments in past history have come to the realization that the "Welfare State" may be used as the beginning of a "Police State" and this in fact is the end of a long process of governmental usurpation of individual rights. The rulers for their own perpetuation and exaltation take these rights from the people. For those who may not agree with my statement I give you the following recent examples:

Otto V. Bismarck German Chancellor 1884
Franz Joseph I Emperor of Austria 1888
Franz Joseph I King of Hungary 1891
Nicholas II Czar of Russia 1911
Vladimir Lenin Russia 1922
J.B. Stalin Dictator USSR
Marshal J. Pilsudski Poland 1920
Kde, O. Salazar Dictator Portugal 1919-33
Benito Mussolini Duce Italy 1932-43
Q. Franco Dictator Spain 1942-45
W. Hirohito Emperor Japan 1934
CA Vargas Dictator Brazil 1944
Juan Peron Dictator Argentina 1944
DA Hitler Chancellor Germany 1933-
J.B. Tito Dictator Yugoslavia 1947

In the 16th century France's Henry IV promised his citizens a chicken in every pot. With him began the process by which rulers called themselves the servants of the people. Where have we heard that before? Most of the aforementioned dictators came to power by promising the populace state largess in the form of social, educational, and health care benefits, which all subsequently turned into police states over which they ruled with iron fists. Do consider every time a politician promises you something; where is he getting it?
In the twentieth century, in which the foundations of social governmental responsibility theories were hatched, we can clearly see the German Weimar republic as our modern starting point. In fact the phrase "welfare state" stems from the German wolfahrt staat. Interestingly the phrase "police state" is also German polizei staat. Bismarck not FDR was the founder of the modern concept of the welfare state. He thought, that he could, through a mild form of socialism link the established economic and social interests with the progressing power of the people. Industrialization had elevated many in income and status into a new structure to be called the middle class. Ruling elite's has throughout 20th century history looked upon this class with suspicion and fear. In the Austria and Germany of the period an entire new method of humanitarian governance was developed. That system called kameralist taught a method of civil government with the specific purpose of attaining a welfare state structure. This in the plan was designed to turn to a police state at its pinnacle. Bismarck clearly understood the relationships between free market economies, the welfare state, and the police state. The first step in the procedure is to offer the people services from the state, usurping previously established channels, like organized religion, family and charities. The second is to develop a dependency class, who will then out of self-interest support the in powered administration. The third step is the reduction of services that is dictated by the fact that the state lacks the income to sustain the promised services. The last and final act is the institution of police state authority to quell the popular opposition to the reduction of services. We could possibly add the institutionalized act of creating a scapegoat to blame for the inability to provide the promised services. [Orthodox Christians by the Soviets, Jews by the Nazis etc. the militias by Clinton] It can be shown in every instance of the aforementioned rulers; that this was the exact way in which events transpired.

America is now very close to police state status. Consider the fact of 190,000 illegally armed federal police in 1997, with the promise to great public acclaim of an additional 30,000 in each if the coming year, and a promised increase of this by the president in his State of the union speech of an additional 50,000 above the 100,000 of 1998. Gore promised more police if elected, fortunately that did not take place. That is a total increase of 240,000 on top of the 130,000 we already have. That would have given America a total of 370,000-armed federal police above those employed by states and communities. Federal police are not allowed in the constitution. The welfare state enforcement portion of this cabal is the fastest growing segment of law enforcement. Consider armed FDA, EPA, and Farm agency employees. Along with this is the rapidly growing tax burden. The largest segment of the economy at 49.20% is comprised of state and federal taxes, which is omitted from inflation statistics by the government, along with energy costs and housing costs and for good reason. The raiding of health food stores by armed jack booted FDA agents in black uniforms wearing ski masks. Without digressing the expansion of such police forces is touted to be for the prevention of violent crime. The fact that the majority of violent crime is drug related, and at least partially government sponsored, or at least carried out with state approval is unquestionable. The fact the EPA and FDA have nothing to do with violent crime, and in fact represent benign infractions of labeling rules at worst, is also overlooked. This is one of the current scapegoats utilized for police force expansion, which by the way is selling very well to our citizens. When considering illegal drugs i.e. narcotics; we are faced with a $ 850 billion industry per year if anyone reading this actually believes that our Federal Reserve is unaware of who, how and when such money transfers occur should just stop reading at this point.

What Bismarck accomplished was changing the old authoritarian Prussian Junker class into accepting a quasi-democratic, and well organized bureaucracy. Citizens of all classes were enthralled with this new form of governance, which was then copied by numerous others. Mussolini and Franco per example. Later it made power assumption by the NSAP in Germany an easy effort. The police state followed in every instance. One of the first to warn about this was Prof. Lujo Brentano who warned as early as 1880 that adventures into state controlled medicine would ultimately lead to a Neo-Welfare state and was not about providing a service, but in fact a hidden method for state control of the private citizen his vote, and the socialization of the state.

The most remarkable fact when we review all the past social welfare schemes which deal with the medical establishment is that: In every single case private insurance's which in almost all cases paralleled the public ones were substantially cheaper, served their clients better, and reacted quicker. Notable recently; is that the scheme as instituted in Great Britain now has parallel private coverage which is preferred by an overwhelming majority of over 84% of the citizens of the UK.

Clearly understand that all this social welfare propaganda is just exactly that; propaganda. It has nothing whatever to do with the welfare of the targeted citizen, and everything to do with political control of society. Let us look at the Weimar republic one more time. Germanys NSAP headed by Hitler was only able to garnish one third of the vote. Ten percent went to the communists. The great German middle class had the power to oppose but did nothing. Why did they do nothing? Why do Americans do nothing today in opposition to the same form of tyrannical development? In the Weimar republic the government catered to the unions, through artificially higher wage, and to industry though protective tariffs. To both by offering state sponsored welfare. In America our government undeniably caters to unions, and at least one party is substantially funded as well as materially helped by them, and visa versa. Big business is allowed to produce off shore [NAFTA] without restraint. Both benefit in various ways from the welfare state. Americans are, we are informed, and by the state, prosperous and the citizens do nothing even when treason of the executive is obvious beyond any doubt. The fact that we are as a nation not prosperous and have been slipping down for the past 50 years is another matter. Once state paternalism is established and the number of government employees plus the number of welfare state dependent citizens reach 50% or more the political system becomes self-perpetuating. This is how the Nazis took control of the Weimar Republic, and it is exactly how the Republocrat parties stay in power in Washington, and has attained their unparalleled control of our nation.

The turbulent time of the Second World War stopped all social engineering. The basic structure as instituted by Bismarck in Germany, FDR in America, as well as similar laws instituted in 1944 after the war in Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Austria, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Portugal and Spain all set the foundation for troubled economies and in most cases police states. All these efforts were strongly tainted by the communists and national socialists, who along with the socialists are the ever-present cheerleaders behind the efforts to [verstaalichen]. (Place the state in charge of everything)

Lenin is the twentieth centuries most prominent proponent of a cradle to grave socialist welfare system relating to medicine and health care. The catastrophic effect of Russian system that now boasts the lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world is un-deniable. Projections into 2000 indicate that Russian life expectancy which under the Czar was one of the longest in the world will be fewer than 50 for a male. This is when most other nations with private health care can boast annually increasing life expectancies projected to the upper 70ies by 2000. Worst of course is the fact that the same kind of system was instituted in every single nation that was subjugated by the Soviets. Thus we now have half the world dependent upon the state largess, and lacking the initiative and self-reliance to see to their own healthcare. With the unilateral collapse of these entire state social plan systems and the inability by individual citizens to remember how to cope on their own, everything has degenerated into total failure.

Now it behooves us to examine how this most benevolent of Soviet plans was in fact applied. The propagandists have informed us that all were covered cradle to grave. In fact nothing is further from the truth. From 1922 to 1938 Russia under the soviets nationalized everything. They then instituted a 6.5 % payroll tax for healthcare, in fact an overall social services tax of 25%. The national budget was used to cover any probable deficits in financing the health system. In 1938 the health care percentage increased to 8%. Then they instituted different classes of coverage depending on a governmental grading system, benefits were curtailed to most, and the number of participants was drastically decreased. The social security benefits were then re-graded from 50% retirement benefit to 100% with only upper government functionaries getting the top benefit scale. Healthcare was likewise a great deal for those in power, and a very bad deal for the populace in general. Birthing benefits for example were available only to mothers who had worked for a minimum of 7 months in the same job. This in fact violated the constitution that guaranteed such right. Like in any autocratic dictatorship the upper echelon of government had Dachas in the Caucasus, spas on the Crimea, and any service they could ever think of, even department stores with western goods, while the balance of the population languished in abject poverty. This is important to consider because it clearly demonstrates exactly what I have said from the beginning: Namely that social services are simply a means to an end, and have nothing whatever to do with any humanitarian concepts, that these systems are instituted by those in power to retain and expand that power, and that the ultimate outcome is a police state which will then eventually collapse through it's inability to financially sustain momentum in financing that system.

It may be useful to examine the general effect of the socialist welfare state's effect on a country's economy, and how that impacts on individual citizens personal standard of living. Perhaps standard of living is not exactly the correct phrase. What I'm getting at is more the state of personal happiness, the buying power of the moneys earned, and how we fare in comparison to previous generations. Due to social costs Germany [the portion that was previously west Germany] has for the sixth year in a row the highest cost of manufacture in the world, at $ 27.70 per hour. Followed by Norway with $ 25.20. The US comes in at $18.40. Now the big question is do we jointly have a higher standard of living than did previous generations. This due to the Second World War represents a difficult problem so let's examine 20 years ago. The astounding information found indicated that as a whole people in all three nations were better off 20 years ago than they are today. The majority of households did well with only one parent working. The buying power of the currency was substantially higher. Crime was lower. The drug epidemic was only in the starting phase, but government action was drosling it. Overall everyone was better off, worse if we compare the present to the 50ies it gets rally dim. While the welfare state, and healthcare in particular, has expanded unchecked the standard of living as well as the availability of medical services have both deteriorated. It is my contention that there is a close link between socialization of services and the generally deteriorating welfare of the population, and reduction in the overall standard of living.

We can clearly recognize that the concepts of socialization of services under a governmental authority is a wholly European concept, and is in fact very foreign to American governance. Americans of the past were all rugged individualists who were never interested in accepting gratuitous governmental largess. FDR and the depression brought an end to that and he began to create the modern welfare state along the lines of the Fabian Labor movement in England, which was in fact patterned after the German model of Bismarck. It can be stated and frankly so that all these programs are nothing more than wealth re-distribution schemes. This is of course where Lenin comes into the picture. FDR was our first communist president who was followed by the socialists LBJ, Carter and Clinton. A communist, by the way is a socialist in a hurry. Likewise in Europe numerous socialist and communist governments came into being. Willie Brandt in Germany (who was a known soviet spy) as well as governments in France, Italy, Greece, Austria etc. At the present time 3/4 of the twelve EC nations are under socialist rule. Socialists get political power through and only through wealth re-distribution schemes. In essence they take moneys from those who work hard and give it to those who loaf. This creates dis-incentive, and everything that goes along with it: lost opportunities, reduced R&D, lower expectations, less industrial development, reduced employment growth, and last but not least less tax income for government and higher taxes for the people. We should also clearly remember that the Nazi's were the NSAPD Die Nazional Sozialistische Arbeiter Partei Deutschland's (The Nationalist Socialist Workers Party of Germany) and the Communists in Russia were the USSR Union of Socialist Republics. Both were socialist not communist.

In every instituted governmental welfare system, without exception, promised and given benefits at the outset of the programs are systematically reduced as time progresses. American social security, USSR social Security, French, German, every single instituted system has seen it's benefits reduced as time marched on. Socialists must first hook their dependent class by setting the hook. This they do by offering an apparently wonderful valuable package of benefits, all the time knowing full well that they will not be able to sustain the program over any prolonged period of time. Pozy schemes each and every one of them. Then they begin the program reductions. In American Social Security this has been accomplished by; increasing the age for benefits, and reducing the mandated inflation increases by reporting false inflation figures.
(1) In the scheme of health care there are three different options that are on the table.
31 Private free market insurance for those who want it. [Laze fare solution]
32 Government mandated private insurance mandated for all citizens [free market solution]
33 Government issued and instituted insurance. [Communist solution]
The first of these is the private plan for those who want it. This does represent a problem because some few people will option not to obtain health insurance, and thereby shift the cost to society in case of serious illness. So the cost will wind up being paid by others than the beneficiary. I am opposed to such a scheme because we are all apt to become ill at some point, and refusal of service by a hospital or doctor is not an option. Health care should be universal and mandated law should cover all. The third option is government insurance that I strongly oppose. Government is a much to expensive and an inefficient a manager. The second option is the only one, which is logical; namely the mandatory by law private insurance paid for by the insured. In this way the competitive free market will keep costs down. It is further imperative that the present practice of employer health insurance be outlawed. It is the cause of the drastic increases of medical costs; when the recipient is not tied to the payment, costs always go haywire. Only by insured paying for their own health insurance will costs reduce. Insurance companies will rate their clients on a sliding cost scale based on passed experience and through it those who insist on unhealthy lifestyles will pay the ultimate price, and not their neighbors. I do not mean that there should not be a safety net for those unable due to illness or poverty to be protected by a health care plan. What I strongly oppose is a government solution to this problem. We already have laws on the portability of plans. It would not be unreasonable to have the state co-pay the insurance premium for those unable to do so due to previous ailment or inability to earn sufficiently to pay for their insurance; Co-pay being the key word.

Any insurance carrier should not mandatorially cover any self-inflicted illness caused by such as drug addiction, alcoholism, and smoking related diseases. Such coverage should be up to the individual, who should be able to purchase same as an optional rider. Such acts will force individuals to act in more healthy and sensible lifestyles to the benefit of society as a whole, and the reduction of overall health benefit cost to the majority. Without penalizing the rest of us.

Health care in England
The Socialist model

After arduous lengthy infighting and debate Lloyd George succeed in 1911 with his national healthcare insurance plan. The resulting insurance scheme funded through taxes was as most political plans the result of numerous compromises. It provided cash benefits with some medical services offered. It considered politicians, recipient's loafers and workers, but just like the planned Hillary health care gave no consideration to the planned providers, doctors nurses, or private insurance carriers. Predictably management and operational costs in England were 17 _ % while in Ireland 20%. Private carries of the time operated their systems on a total overhead of less than 10%. Benefits were poor, and the touted by George national improvement in healthcare went the other way. Doctors were furious, many departing to other commonwealth nations. Soon insurance carriers were through unions and associations offering additional coverage. The entire fiasco led to the development of the Bevan Plan a cradle to grave plan that was popularly supported due to the great dissatisfaction of the George plan. This was a time in England when many were enthralled with the Soviets who were British allies in the Second World War. Churchill did his best to support the utopian rubbish, which kept the home fires burning and the spirits of the British populace up in the face of terrible wartime losses. By adopting the Fabian socialist plan for national health care the Conservatives under Churchill were able to get re-elected in 1945. Thus they found themselves unable due to previous support to oppose the Bevan legislation of 1946. Does this perhaps ring some bells with you? What about the Kennedy Kasenbaum health care legislation? What about Gingrich'es tacit support of bi-partisan health care? What about the phony bail out of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? It is amazing that not one journalist has come to the conclusion that all this is part of a well planed and orchestrated socialist sponsored system, and blown the whistle on the perpetrators. With the 1948 election labor was desperate to get back into power, thus they offered what not even Lenin did complete medical care for everything from cradle to grave for everyone, and free of charge to boot. Eventually it led to the "Brain Drain" loss of governance by Labor, and the longest time of Conservative rule in British history, and a financial and political decline of England that was unrelenting.

Thus we clearly can show that the concept of nationalized healthcare stems from Germany, was adopted by England, and is being applied by the all after war Democrat administrations with ample help from the Republicans, and is used as the model for the currently planed system in America. Further we can see by plans in every nation to date that adopted national healthcare that the outcome of the adoption of any such system resulted in:

1) The general lowering of medical service quality.
2) Substantial overall cost increases for medical services.
3) The inability of government to financially sustain promised services.
4) The appliance by politicians to use plans to develop a dependency class, which can easily thereafter be used for political fodder.
5) The degeneration of services with the increase of police authority and in
many cases eventual development of a police state.
6) The development of a scrape goat to blame for the inability to deliver the promised service. (As in SS: they are living longer!)
7) Reduction of services and long awaiting times for services. (not life critical services in Canada and England up to one year in some instances)

When you think on this issue you will do well to remember the resultant effect of nationalized health care upon other nations. Look to our neighbors in Canada whose favorite healthcare suppliers are across the border in America. Canada and England where you can wait up to eight months for an operation, where if you are over a certain age numerous medical procedures are forbidden. Canada where the present medical debate is turning towards privatization of medical services. England where the presently most popular option is private health insurance, due to long waiting times, curtailment of services, and deterioration of state health care across the board. Sure it's free; but if you have to wait until you're six feet under free is of little benefit.

1) Reported inflation figures exclude the cost of taxes 49.20% of family expenditure, and as of 2000 eliminates the cost of housing and energy that has gone up 75% since 1999. Interestingly while congressmen's inflation increase was 7.5% SS recipients was fewer than 3.5%

Page URL: http://www.kriegbooks.com/health_care_and_the_state.html
Host Web site: http://www.kriegbooks.com/