This is a message for all Americans: Free healthcare for life truly can be yours, unless you accept the Big Lie.
Unfortunately, you are treated to the Big Lie almost everywhere. Case in point: Here are excerpts from a typical, Big Lie article that appeared in the 11/25/2019 issue of Reason.com.
More Americans Want Bigger Government—If It’s Free
A more active government wins growing approval, but only so long as it doesn’t raise taxes, require tradeoffs, or interfere with private enterprise.
J.D. Tuccille | 11.25.2019 7:30 AM
Good news for control freaks and nanny-staters across the U.S.: Americans’ support for a bigger, more active government is edging up, potentially creating an opening for politicians and activists who want their countrymen to snuggle in the warm bosom of a nurturing state that provides an ever-greater variety of goods, services, and rules for people’s lives.
There’s just one catch: Americans don’t want to pay for it.
Support for a big, muscular government falls off a cliff if it comes with a price tag.
Consider that the article was published by the “any-government-is-too-much-government” Reason.com, don’t be surprised at the sarcasm delivered by such phrasing as “control-freaks,” “nanny-staters,” “warm bosom of a nurturing state,” and “ever variety of . . . rules for people’s lives.”
If one is blessed with the notion that good people need or want no help, and that only the lazy and indolent ask for it, one can sneer smugly, as J.D. Tuccille does, at those less fortunate.
And when one also is blessed with the abject ignorance of the federal government’s Monetary Sovereignty, one can declare, “Americans don’t want to pay for it” without disclosing that Americans do not pay for any federal spending.
That is why net federal deficits now total more than $20 trillion, and neither the government, nor the economy, nor the federal taxpayers have suffered any ill effects.
On the contrary, the economy has been booming since 2008 because the federal government has pumped trillions of dollars into consumers’ pockets (aka “running trillions of dollars in deficits”).
The article continues:
“Since 2010, the percentage of Americans saying government should do more to solve the country’s problems has increased 11 percentage points, to 47%, and the percentage wanting government to take active steps to improve people’s lives is up eight points, to 42%,” Gallup reported last week.
Forty-nine percent think the government is doing too much, and 29 percent prefer a government that provides just basic services.
It gets back to the question, “What is the purpose of our government?”
The answer is:
“The purpose of our government is to protect us and to improve our lives.”
Why else would we, and people all over the world, create governments?
Yes, bad government can be burdensome, but bad anything is burdensome: Bad police, bad roads, bad banks, and bad phones, etc. But we don’t suggest doing without police, roads, banks, and phones. Similarly, it is foolish to suggest doing without government.
Can there be “too much” government? Yes, if the government interferes with the economy, negatively. But even then, it’s not a matter of “too much,” but rather “bad.”
A tiny government can be bad and a huge government can be good. Or vice versa. It’s not quantity; it’s quality that matters.
Here’s the opportunity politicians—especially Democrats—have been looking for as they promise “Medicare for All,” student loan forgiveness, universal basic income, government-supported housing, subsidized child care, and more.
And what is wrong with that? Are we to believe that Americans must suffer in order to be “good”? Must life be difficult so that we may “earn” a decent life?
If so, why then do the rich seem to avoid the miseries we foist upon ourselves?
Why do we allow ourselves to accept the myth that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and so we must sweat and hurt, and strain, while the rich glide through life blissfully?
Though the rich do not want you to know this, our government really does have the ability to provide a “free lunch.” You simply need to understand the facts of Monetary Sovereignty.
The Reason.com article continues:
Progressive standard-bearers Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have made particular waves with their plans for government largesse, but Pete Buttigieg and others have their own schemes for turning the federal government into Santa Claus with a bottomless bag of gifts.
To continue the sarcastic analogy, I don’t hear anyone asking Santa for fewer gifts. The author doesn’t believe the government should provide anything that benefits the poor and middle classes.
Apparently, he believes Medicare should be ended, and students should be burdened with loans. And as for the poor, why give them any help, because it’s their own fault. Right?
But tax cuts for big business and for the very rich are just fine. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Tuccile?
But a government that provides everything to everybody is going to run up some bills.
Oh, you can cut some existing programs and transfer the funds to other programs, but that’s hardly going to satisfy the demands of “Americans saying government should do more.”
Or, you simply can provide programs without cutting anything. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, is perfectly capable of doing that.
More programs and spending will require more resources that have to come from somewhere.
And since bake sales usually fall a bit short when you’re talking about funding government takeovers of large segments of the economy and extensive new programs, that’s going to mean turning tax collectors into busy beavers.
“Whoops,” indeed. Clearly, J.D. Tuccille, the author, is ignorant of the difference between state/local governments’ finances, vs. the federal government’s finances.
If he had even a modicum of understanding about federal finances, he would know that not only does the government not need bake sales, it doesn’t need tax collectors.
And as a further demonstration of his economic ignorance, Medicare for All does not involve a government “takeover of a large segment of the economy,” or a takeover of any segment of the economy.
Like the current Medicare, which Tuccille clearly hates, Medicare for All simply would pay for medical care, not take it over.
“A more active government would almost certainly result in higher taxes,” Gallup adds.
“However, relatively few Americans favor that approach… In the latest poll, 25% would opt for increased taxes and services, 32% want no change and 42% prefer smaller government.”
Support for higher taxes to pay for expanded government is up a bit in the survey from years past, but it remains a distinctly minority taste.
And here is the crux of the problem: The very rich, who control the government, want you to believe that the only way you can have the same benefits the rich and the politicians have (paid-for healthcare, no need for college loans, plenty of money for retirement, etc.) is for you to pay more taxes — and that idea is a gigantic, smelly pile of bull poop.
Keeping you down is the easiest way for the rich to lift themselves up (See: Gap Psychology), and the easiest way to keep you down is to indoctrinate you with the false belief that your taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.
That means Americans are growing increasingly enthusiastic about placing orders for health care, higher education, housing, and more from the government—for free.
But when they see prices on the menu, they balk, big time.
And balk they should, for the “prices on the menu” are a lie. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Period.
You, as a federal taxpayer, do not pay for anything. Not only are your tax dollars not used by the federal government, but they are destroyed upon receipt.
Once your tax dollars are received by the U.S. Treasury, they cease to exists in any money supply measure. To pay it’ s bills, the federal government creates brand new dollars. That is how the federal government can continue to deficit spend without ever running short of money.
Medicare for All gains overwhelming support—as high as 71 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation survey—from Americans so long as they think it’s entirely cost-free and devoid of tradeoffs.
But throw in some real-world qualifiers, and that support erodes.
Unfortunately, those “real-world qualifiers” are as “real-world” as the bogey man meets the tooth fairy.
But this does demonstrate the strong desire for free medical availability. It’s want Americans want, and it is what Americans should receive from an infinitely wealthy government.
“Net favorability drops as low as -44 percentage points when people hear the argument that this would lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” the Kaiser survey adds.
The notion that there would be “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments” is based on one truth and one fiction.
The truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatment, which is a wonderful thing. Every year, literally millions of poor and middle-income Americans stay sick too long and die too early for lack of funds.
“Net favorability is also negative if people hear it would threaten the current Medicare program (-28 percentage points), require most Americans to pay more in taxes (-23 percentage points), or eliminate private health insurance companies (-21 percentage points).”
Those so-called “real-world qualifiers” are about as “real-world” as the bogey-man meets the tooth fairy.
The argument about “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” is based on one implied truth and one implied fiction.
The implied truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatments, which is a wonderful thing.
Today, millions of Americans stay sick too long and die too early because they can’t afford medical tests and treatments. Apparently, some (i.e. rich) Americans think this is a good idea, so that doctors and hospitals will be freed up to treat the rich.
So yes, when medical tests and treatments are free, more Americans would use them and live better, longer lives. Isn’t this what we should want?
The implied fiction is that there is a fixed number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. to go around, so if the poor start to make use of them, that will cause a shortage, and there won’t be enough for wealthier patients.
Utter nonsense. The creation of today’s Medicare made it possible for millions of the elderly, who formerly could not afford medical care, now to enjoy it. That has not caused a shortage of medical tests and treatment.
On the contrary, the additional money that Medicare has pumped into the medical field has caused a massive expansion of medical resources.
And the expansion would be even greater if Medicare stopped cutting doctors’ fees so much, didn’t require deductibles, and fully funded pharmaceuticals.
Availability follows money. The more money, the more availability. Medicare for all, properly done, would increase the availability of medical tests and treatment.
Costs for these plans are unavoidable.
Warren’s spending schemes would run to at least $26 trillion in new taxes, although she likes to pretend that her scheme would be paid for by a wealth tax that would simultaneously extract funds from successful people while punishing them for their success.
Sanders himself concedes that his plan for government-run health care would cost between $30-$40 trillion over ten years. He honestly admits that it would be the middle class that constitutes the majority of the population—not just some rich people somewhere—who would foot the bill.
Tens of trillions of dollars in new taxes are likely to prove a bit of a hurdle for Americans who want lots of new goodies from the government only if they’re entirely free.
Anyone who understands Monetary Sovereignty knows the above is “The Big Lie,” that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.
It should be obvious, even to the ill-informed, that the federal government continually deficits spends and never seems to have any trouble paying its bills.
You can’t do that. Your state, county, and city can’t do that. Your business can’t do that. But the federal government uniquely can.
Why? It is Monetarily Sovereign. It created the very first dollars simply by creating laws from thin air. And those laws allowed the federal government to continue creating dollars from thin air.
The federal government simply cannot run short of its own sovereign currency.
It has no need for tax dollars. It has no need to borrow. Even if all federal taxes and all issuance of Treasury Certificates totaled $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.
Despite Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s ridiculous and ironic statements that Medicare for All would require an increase in federal taxes, it simply is not true.
The U.S. government easily could provide a no-deductible, comprehensive Medicare for All, that covered 100% of all hospital, doctor, drug, and equipment costs, along with long-term care, without collecting a single penny in taxes.
If you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans about the widely reported growing enthusiasm for socialism.
Capitalism—the free market—remains the preferred choice of 60 percent of respondents, with 39 percent having a positive view of socialism, according to Gallup.
As with everything in this country, the division is increasingly partisan: Positive views of socialism have risen to 65 percent among Democrats and declined to 9 percent among Republicans. Fifty-two percent of Democrats have a positive view of capitalism vs. 78 percent of Republicans.
No, if you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans, “What is socialism?”
Contrary to popular wisdom, Medicare is not socialism. Neither is Social Security. Neither are food stamps and other poverty aids.
The word “socialism” is the handy pejorative the rich like to use whenever federal spending for benefits are discussed. So if anything helps the middle or the poor, the rich shout “socialism.” (Of course, benefits to the rich, like special tax breaks, never are called “socialism.”)
Socialism is government ownership and administration of production and distribution.
The Veterans Administration hospitals, which are owned and administered by the federal government, are socialist. The military is socialist. The federal highway system is socialist. In many communities, the water system is socialist. Most dams are socialist. NASA, the U.S. Treasury, and the Lincoln Memorial are socialist. Your street probably is socialist.
But Medicare is not. Medicare does not own anything. It merely pays for things. The same with Social Security and food stamps and other poverty aids. Paying for things is what all governments do, socialist or not.
Why does the article’s author introduce the word, “socialism”? Either he truly is ignorant of what “socialism” means, which seems impossible considering that he is a former managing editor of Reason.com and current contributing editor. Or, knowing that the word “socialism” has negative connotations to most Americans, he is trying to con you into believing Medicare for All is a bad idea, and that only the rich deserve the best possible medical care.
Don’t fall for the con. Don’t fall for the Big Lie. Medicare for All could be a free blessing upon you and this nation if you understand the truth: The federal government has unlimited control over its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. That means it can control both the supply and the value of the dollar.
It never can run short of dollars; it can pay for anything, even without collecting taxes; it can prevent and cure inflation.
If you don’t believe me, believe them:
Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”
Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”
St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.
Yes, America, free healthcare for life can be yours . . . unless you accept the Big Lie.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
The most important problems in economics involve:
- Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
- Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.
Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
5. Salary for attending school
6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
9. Federal ownership of all banks
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
5 thoughts on “Would you like free healthcare for life? Don’t accept the Big Lie”
From THE WEEK Magazine, November 29, 2019: “A new Gallup poll shows 34 million Americans reported having had a friend or family member who died in the past five years because they could not afford needed medical treatment or medications.
“Meanwhile, nearly 23 percent of American adults – about 58 million people – said they were unable to pay for a medication their doctor had deemed necessary in the past year.”
There’s a difference between socialism and socialiZED. Socialism is ownership by the state. Socialized means money disbursed by the state w/o ownership. This all began 87 years ago.
When the New Deal was introduced, communism was gaining a foothold in America due to capitalism’s failure at the time. Republicans jumped at the chance to push the communism-socialism label on FDR and started a whispering campaign among themselves to always refer to him publically as that “Son-of-a-bitch in the White House” even though they had no better, or any, economic solution–similar to today’s GOP attempt to rewrite Obamacare to no avail, except complain.
The New Deal is a Socialized government program, which means INdirect socialism. The state did not own USA businesses that collapsed, but supported them to keep them profitable by indirect means, because the FDR administration wanted America to avoid the “Socialism Label.” Meanwhile GOP businessmen continued their smear campaign of Roosevelt while ALSO refusing to turn down his financial help.
I thought socialism was workers owning and operating the means of production, with government as the people’s central representative authority?
Yes, that too — communism — as opposed to businesses being owned by businesspeople — capitalism.
Just gonna leave this here:
Lenin: “The petty bourgeoisie oppose EVERY KIND of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state-capitalist or state-socialist. This is an unquestionable fact of reality whose misunderstanding lies at the root of many economic mistakes. …
Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm