COMMUNISM : STILL UNBEATABLE IN THEORY

AN ESSAY

During the Cold War, America faced a serious intellectual challenge. It fought several wars and invested its entire economy into proving that its free market economic system was superior to communism.

Between 1945 and 1990, communism appeared a viable alternative to the free market. In both theory and practice, the Soviet Union and China loomed as proof that major world powers could function under communist governments. During this era, America did what it could to demonize communist countries: They were repressive; they did not allow free expression; they made it hard to earn a living; they were gray, forbidding places; they did not offer limitless opportunities for wealth; you couldn't own a home. Yet until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, America did not have really tangible arguments to show that communism was ineffective. After 1991, it gained a valuable new rhetorical weapon. From then on, free market defenders could say: "See? Communism doesn't work. Look what happened in Russia. Our system is better. I told you so."

Many Americans accept this argument without further thought. If educational and social indoctrination did not suffice to bias them against communism, the "Soviet example" put the nail in the coffin. "Our system is better," goes the argument, "because the Russians lost and we won."

But why exactly did the Soviet Union "fail?" And why do Americans use the Soviet failure to claim that "communism does not work?" In my view, the answers are not so simple. To the contrary, the Soviet failure does not reflect that communism is theoretically flawed. It merely reflects that communism did not work in practice in Russia. More vexingly, Americans base their conclusion that the free market is "superior" to communism only after making some embarrassing assumptions about human nature. In a word, capitalist defenders must admit that human beings are greedy, rapacious, egotistical scoundrels in order to sustain their argument that "the free market is better" than communism.

Think about how Americans craft their traditional responses to the Soviet failure. They say: "Well, communism might be great in theory, but it doesn't work because of human nature." What exactly does that mean? After all, in theory, Marxism posits that every human being is equal and that every human being deserves dignity and respect. It warns against the divisive influence of private property on human relationships. It also posits that labor is free and that no man should exploit another for profit. Further, Marxism posits that government has a responsibility to care for people because government is essentially humanitarian. From a Marxist perspective, the people deserve care, not merely the freedom to exploit one another for money. Moreover, Marxism supports these principles by assuming that human beings are naturally good. It also places great emphasis on individual worth as opposed to economic "instrumentalization" that sacrifices individual identity for "usefulness."

Are these bad principles? Do they reflect a vicious attitude toward our fellow man? Certainly not. If anything, Marxism espouses an extremely positive--even brotherly--approach to human nature. Yet according to the capitalist defenders, this approach fails because it misapprehends what humans are "actually like." To defeat the Marxist vision, the capitalist defender must say: "No, this system does not work because humans are not brotherly. Rather, they are conniving rascals who seek at all times to enrich themselves, even if that means backstabbing and betraying their brothers. Individuality is only useful to the extent that some individuals can reduce other individuals to economic servitude. Additionally, this system does not work because humans do not live for equality and dignity, but rather for crass personal gain, even if that means oppressing and exploiting their fellow man. Finally, government does not exist to care for these rascals, but rather to allow them to engage freely in rascalry, because self-interested rascalry leads to economic prosperity."

In a word, the American response to communism confesses that human beings are ruthless, savage, insensate exploiters who have no duty to their fellow man. In a sense, it admits that the communist vision is admirable. But it discounts that vision by sighing: "We are not so noble." In a strangely depressing way, capitalist defenders take solace in the recognition that human beings are brutal competitors without decency or compassion. After all, that brutality and competitive spirit keep the shelves stocked and the children fed. Who cares about theoretical appeal when merciless self-interest gives you all the shaving creams, sneakers, steak varieties and breakfast cereals you could possibly desire?

In this light, I do not believe that the Soviet failure theoretically debunks communism. No historical event will ever discount Marx's hopeful vision of human society, nor will any one State's experience tarnish the communist ideal in theory. Perhaps communism will never escape its theoretical constraints. Perhaps no State will ever live up to its high theoretical ideals. Perhaps we are just not good enough.

But sometimes ideas are beautiful, even if they are not realizable in present circumstances. I think communism fits in that category. We can all dream about utopia, even if utopia is not attainable given our limitations. Still, that does not detract from the dream. If anything, it merely shows that we are not capable of living the dream. And that is not something to be proud of. It is just an embarrassing confession that highlights our weaknesses.

Maybe human beings will never successfully practice communism. But that does not prove that communism is "bad in theory." It merely proves that we are weak, selfish, fungible, vicious creatures. Non-communist governments accommodate that weakness and harness it to good effect. Yet I would argue that there is nothing laudable about our natural weakness. The sad truth is that free market prosperity depends on inequality, exploitation and savagery. Although the benefits might outweigh the burdens, it does not change the fact that it is an ugly business. And the individual only matters to the extent that he can use other individuals to enrich himself. That is pretty bleak.

But this is what makes America strong. What a strange business. In the end, the question is: "Who am I? What am I worth? Does anyone care about me?" The communist says: "You are a valuable individual. Everyone cares about you. If you are in need, you will receive help." The capitalist says: "You are nothing unless you make something of yourself. And if you don't, that's your fucking problem, because no one is going to help you, pal. So get out there and start earning."

Guess which perspective won? So much for humanity.

HEALTH INSURANCE BILLERS REFUSE TO GO QUIETLY

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA ON BEHALF OF ALL PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE BILLING PROFESSIONALS NATIONWIDE

Dear President Obama,

For months now, my colleagues and I have watched you with trepidation. We watched as you and your Democratic majority in Congress rammed through a health care reform bill that threatens to upend Americans' control over their lives. Although Scott Brown's amazing Senate victory in Massachusetts promises hope for the future, we nonetheless feel it necessary to voice our concerns as Americans and health care professionals.

During your State of the Union Address last night, you vowed to continue the fight to reform health care in America. You said that millions of Americans remain uninsured. You declared that "private health insurance companies" reap "massive" profits while "common people" struggle to pay inflated bills. You claimed that privately-administered health insurance is the reason why America fell into a "health care crisis." You even suggested that America must move closer toward government-run health care to curb the influence of insurance companies and lobbyists.

Mr. President, you are gravely mistaken. Government is never the answer. Only private enterprise can deliver quality goods and services to Americans at reasonable prices. Only vigorous competition between rival economic interests can ensure the innovation Americans expect from any industry. Just because the health care industry deals in human illness does not make it different from any other business enterprise. People who work in health care need incentives like anyone else. If government starts meddling in health care, doctors might not earn what they deserve. Inventors might not enjoy the protection they need to profitably guard their discoveries. And every day Americans will certainly lose the cherished freedom to choose where to seek health care. As Americans committed to liberty, we find this appalling.

But health care reform will not just destroy liberty. Health care reform will also destroy jobs. Mr. President, our American health care system works because it runs like a well-oiled business machine. Like any good business, the American health care system has great accountants. Everyone pays what they owe; no expense ever falls through the cracks. This encourages both responsibility and financial discipline. Americans know that they must pay for everything they receive in a hospital or at a doctor's visit. That encourages them to be judicious in seeking medical care, as well as to make prudent economic decisions when addressing their health care needs. Health care is a consumer product in America. And stringent health care billing practices are the reason why American health care is so good.

Health care reform will curtail private health care opportunities. If the government intervenes to pay medical bills, there will be little need for private health care insurance billing professionals. If government suddenly steps in and says: "This man has diabetes. We are handling his care and paying the bill," that man will not receive a private bill. Consequently, there will be little need for hospitals and insurance companies to employ hundreds of accountants, actuaries and typists to draft thousand-page itemized bills for every patient. Yet thousand-page itemized bills are precisely the things that make the American health care system so wonderful. Thousand-page itemized bills make the health care world go around in America. If health care reform succeeds, thousand-page itemized bills will become unnecessary. And so will the millions of American workers who make them possible.

We are Private Health Insurance Billing Professionals. We refuse to allow President Obama to destroy our jobs. We refuse to allow Obama-Care to eradicate our livelihoods. We refuse to stop itemizing charges for 5g of hospital pudding on 4/3/08 ($459.90), 30cc of Titrium Chloride on 4/4/08 ($1,983.08), one night, hospital room (standard special rate) on 4/4/08 ($7,000), and lower rhomboidal surgery plus anesthesia on 4/5/08 ($497,632.26). We went to school to do what we do. Billing is not easy. Yet it is essential to run any business, including the American health care business.

Mr. President, screw your health reform. As professional health billers, we say now: "Hell no, we won't go." If health reform means giving up our Excel® spreadsheets and expense logging software, we say: "Hell to the naw-naw, mah niz-aw."

Leave us alone. We are productive American workers. We stay up for days at a time tabulating hospital meal costs, hospital linen charges, surgery costs, financing charges for doctor visits and outpatient anesthesiology service payment schedules. We even tack on progressive interest rates for all this shit. We do not have an easy job. But we receive good wages and we pay good taxes. We support families on the wages we receive from sending angry collection letters to penniless amputees. We send children to school on the cash we receive for mailing book-sized bills to destitute underinsured cancer victims. And our taxes help keep this Nation strong. How dare you introduce reform that threatens our jobs?

Mr. President, you must not reform health care because reform impacts private health insurance billing professionals. American life is all about paying bills. Some even say that the meaning of life in this country is making timely monthly payments on this, that and the other thing. If you attack health insurance billing, you attack the very meaning of life in America. Where would Americans be if they no longer had to fret over insurmountable medical bills? What reason would they have to live? Health care bills dominate American lives. If your "reform efforts" sweep them away, you will open a tragic void in every American's life.

What good will flow from that void? After all, bills keep Americans honest. It keeps them at work. It keeps them responsible. If Americans no longer live to fear bills, they will lose all respect for authority. They will no longer look for employment. They will begin leading debauched, wasteful lives. Only bills maintain order in our society. Think seriously on it, Mr. President. Any effort that reduces the influence of bills on Americans chips away at our country's very core.

And any effort that eliminates bills means that important people don't get paid. When that happens, God help us: I quake to think what a radiologist would do if he knew he would no longer receive $925,000 a year due to "health care reform." Radiologists are not schmucks. As a Nation, we cannot allow radiologists to receive a meager $800,000 a year for their work.

Stop disrespecting professionals. We are private health care billing professionals. We might not be as important as radiologists, but we are nonetheless professionals. We learned how to meticulously track fees and expenses. We even read textbooks, listened to lectures and took exams. We went to school and we learned how to bill like pros. We don't deserve unemployment for our toil and study. No, we deserve a place in the economy. More to the point, we deserve a hallowed place because our efforts keep every American responsible. Our work reminds every American that there are no free lunches in this country. In fact, we remind every American that every little piece of the lunch has a specific price--and they need to pay every penny to avoid financial ruin.

Mr. President, we urge you to scrap health care reform at once. It makes no sense to sacrifice America's commitment to responsible free market principles in order to grant charity hospital stays to a few stinking beggars. More pragmatically, it makes no sense to destroy the private health insurance billing profession. Professions are valuable; government should support them, not destroy them. And our profession is much more significant than most people realize. Without us, no doctor would get paid and no American would fear bills.

For a moment, think about how dangerous our society would be if every American suddenly stopped worrying about bills. It is too terrifying to even consider. That is why you must abandon health care reform once and for all.

Defend private health insurance billers. We remind every American that everything has a price. We keep every American fixed on his duty: Paying prices. The next time you get a thousand-page bill for a two-day hospital stay, thank us. We are actually doing you a favor by maintaining the American economic system as we know it. And you have to admit: It's pretty damn good.

That's because everyone fears bills and works to pay them. You can thank professional billers for that.

Mr. President, forget about reform. Think about jobs and responsibility for once. Enough with the justice rhetoric. Americans don't want hope. They want accurate bills, secure services and competitive prices.

Think about your poll numbers. If you really want to be popular again, drop this foolish health care crusade. Give power back to the private health insurance billers. It is the only way to save America's economic soul.

Yours very sincerely and truly,

Prof. Gabriella F. Trackett-Goode, B.S. (Health Care Billing Systems)

Assistant Professor, Medical Accounting & Billing Science
Amboy Community College, Perth Amboy Twp., N.J.

Consultant, The Bayer Group LLC (a Fortune 100 Company Specializing in Effective Billing Strategies for the Pharmaceutical Industry)

AID TO HAITI IS AID TO AL QAEDA : DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES

DICK CHENEY SPEAKS OUT FOR AMERICA

By : Mr. Richard B. Cheney, Former Vice President of the United States of America (2001-2009); Chairman of the Board of Directors, Halliburton Co. (1993-2000); Secretary of Defense Under President George H.W. Bush (1989-1993); Energy Expert; Security Expert; Last Published Gross Income (2001): $36,100,000.

Two days ago, President Barack Hussien Obama pledged a fortune in U.S. aid to Haiti. He said that America "has not forsaken you" and that "the entire world stands with you in your hour of need." Even now, President Obama is earmarking huge shipments of American food and medicine to Haiti. He even sent 5,700 American soldiers and physicians to aid "relief efforts."

President Obama is treading dangerously close to treason. In a word, America must provide no aid to Haiti, because Haiti is a Caribbean al Qaeda stronghold. Al Qaeda caused this earthquake, not Mother Nature. America must not support countries that support terror, especially countries that commit geological genocide on their own people. Put simply, President Obama is to blame for failing to spot this disaster before it struck; intelligence sources clearly indicated that al Qaeda was planning a seismological attack. Now he seeks to deflect the blame by playing the "humanitarian."

In 2003, I said: "We know to a certainty that terrorists are doing everything they can to gain even deadlier means of striking us." See N.Y. Times, Cheney Defends Administration's Handling of Iraq, Oct. 10, 2003. As the case in Haiti shows, the terrorists recently learned how to cause earthquakes using sophisticated fault manipulation techniques. CIA reports indicate that Haitian al Qaeda cells obtained quake-inducing equipment from Osama bin Laden's deputy chief--Yasim bin al-Faqda--in December 2009. They then traveled to a remote site south of Port-au-Prince where they triggered the massive quake that left 100,000 dead.

It is unfortunate that so many people died. But we can take solace in the fact that Haitians are al Qaeda supporters who hate America. For that reason, we cannot send aid to our enemies. We are in a War; our enemies are prepared to harness geological power to kill us, just as I warned in 2003. How can we win this War if we try to save our enemies? For every Haitian we pull from twisted wreckage, we save a future underwear bomber. Every time we save an injured Haitian mother with free medical care, we allow her to bear yet another al Qaeda murderer in the future.

No matter what the networks say, this is no "humanitarian disaster." This is terrorism; and America must not support it. When terrorists die, no American should shed a tear--let alone send donations.

President Obama cannot handle the War on Terror. In just three months, President Obama has failed to act on credible intelligence that could have averted three major terror strikes. First, he failed to stop al Qaeda's Fort Hood shooter from killing soldiers in Texas. Second, he failed to prevent Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding plane in Holland with a bomb in his underwear. And last, he ignored clear warnings that al Qaeda possessed seismological terror weapons in Haiti.

Mr. President, when will you wake up? The American people refuse to live in fear. But they cannot live peacefully without protection from the Federal government. If President Obama continues to allow terrorists to strike freely, our entire country will collapse. Worse, President Obama perpetrates deliberate fraud on the American people by claiming that the attack in Haiti was actually a "natural disaster." Adding insult to injury, he now sends American treasure to the very people who mean to kill us.

Leaving terror to one side, America has no duty to help other countries in need. Even if Haiti were not a hornet's nest of anti-American Muslim extremism, America has no business solving other countries' problems. We do not provide free medical care to our own people. We expect self-reliance from them. Yet the moment some "disaster" strikes abroad, we immediately send elite American doctors and expensive pharmaceutical products to foreigners for free. I'm sure many Americans would like the same treatment that impoverished Sudanese and Haitians receive for nothing.

This is a national disgrace; it must stop. Health care is expensive enough for Americans. We can neither allow nor afford to waste resources on Caribbean geological thugs.

Furthermore, we cannot allow ourselves to pity people who could have protected themselves. Every human being has a duty to look out for his own safety. If people suffer injury because they put themselves in harm's way, they do not deserve sympathy. And they certainly do not deserve handouts.

Haitians should have known that they lived on a major fault line. They should have heeded warnings that al Qaeda was planning to cause an earthquake along that fault line. They should have purchased airline tickets to safely carry them from the danger zone. In short, they should have minded their own safety. Yet millions stayed put. Just as New Orleans residents had a chance to flee imminent danger before Hurricane Katrina struck, so too did the Haitians have a chance to leave Haiti before al Qaeda triggered the earthquake. The fact that they suffered reflects their own negligence and stupidity, not "random misfortune." In that light, it makes no sense to pity Haitians--or send them money--for deliberately ignoring clear warnings. We do not pity people who lay on railroad tracks, then complain that a train cut off their legs. They could have just gotten off the tracks.

In sum, we cannot tolerate aid to Haiti. Aid to Haiti rewards irresponsibility and supports al Qaeda. Aid to Haiti sends a message to our enemies that we not only tolerate their attacks, but also that we will even give them free money when they strike. At this dangerous moment, we cannot allow pity to blind us to the fact that al Qaeda is stronger than ever. The attack on Haiti was merely a test; if we let down our guard now, San Francisco might be the next city to crumble.

President Obama has betrayed the American people. He not only ignored intelligence that could have prevented three terror strikes, but now he even aids an entire Nation of terrorists by cynically labeling the effort "humanitarian support." This is not what a Commander-in-Chief does in wartime. A Commander-in-Chief punishes enemies; he does not feed them or give them free American medicine. At a time when millions of Americans desperately need health care, President Obama should be ashamed for wasting American medical expertise on terrorists.

We should not waste our time or our money saving Jihadists in Haiti. Rather, we should be searching worldwide for al Qaeda's weapons of tectonic destruction. Who knows what fault lines they are now reconnoitering. Who knows what geological terror they are now plotting. As the Haiti attack shows, we are in very real seismological danger.

We must remember that the War on Terror is very real. We must not allow President Obama and his fawning networks to mislead us into thinking that the Haiti attack was a "natural disaster." This was no "natural event." This was deliberate mass murder.

I believe it my duty to tell the American people the truth. I am--and always will be--a public servant. When I perceive threats to the country I love, I disclose them to the extent permitted by applicable Homeland Security protocols. And when I see the President of the United States defrauding the Nation by masking support for terror as "humanitarian aid," I must speak.

Stop pitying Haiti. When terrorists die, America takes one step closer to victory in the War on Terror. Not only that, America has no duty to help impoverished Caribbean islands when they suffer difficulty. Americans make their own way; other countries should, too. We don't get free lunches; and we don't give them away, either.

Turn off that television set. Stop listening to Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and Obama's other propagandists. Do not allow them to trick you into thinking that injured Haitians are worth saving. They are not. And don't even feel bad about it. It's not your responsibility to help them, even if they weren't terrorists.

Instead, listen to me. I was Vice President for eight years. I was Secretary of Defense for four. I led one of the Nation's most successful private corporations. I listen to CIA briefings. I care about this Nation's safety more than anyone else here. I know what I'm talking about. And I am looking out for you.

Protect yourself and your family. Stop worrying about Haiti. They got what was coming to them for supporting al Qaeda.

Now we must focus on ourselves. We must find al Qaeda's earthquake machine before bin Laden uses it on American fault lines. And we have no time to waste.

SOLDIERS ARE SOCIALISTS, EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT

AN ESSAY

Last summer, I wrote an essay arguing that the United States military is essentially a socialistic institution. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/06/military-is-socialistic-because-it_25.html. I made that conclusion because American military authorities "care about men under their command" both in war and peace. I pointed out that soldiers live a "rarefied" existence insulated from harsh commercial reality. That insulation allows them to focus on larger ideals, like "honor" and "political missions." Soldiers also receive free medical care, housing and living necessities from the government. As a whole, these characteristics led me to conclude that the military is "socialistic," even if its armed service protects a capitalistic society that condemns "socialism."

I continue to believe that the American military is a socialistic institution. In fact, I believe it more now than I ever did. When I wrote my previous essay, I focused primarily on larger themes to identify socialistic currents in American military life. But the military is not just abstractly socialistic; it is socialistic right down to the men themselves. It is socialistic in spirit as well as action.

To be clear, when I say "socialistic," I mean that the military provides a comprehensive security net for everyone under its control. But this means far more than merely providing tangible benefits. It also means that people in the military regard their fellow man differently than the way comparable civilians regard others. In commercial American civilian life, other human beings represent potential profits. Civilians have to think this way. Unlike soldiers, they do not get free rent, free health insurance or free child care. They have to fend for themselves. They cannot worry about their fellows too much or they will lose their own commercial struggle.

In the military, however, soldiers must care about each other. In combat, men treasure each other. They do not simply abandon their buddies when they get hurt. They are never indifferent. They put themselves in harm's way to ensure that their comrades survive. They even risk death to retrieve the bodies of friends killed in action.

I find this especially socialistic. Care for one's fellow man is a bedrock in socialist philosophy. In the military, individual soldiers practice that care every day. It is not obligatory care: Soldiers are not related by blood or even bound to each other by contract. No, they are simply comrades in arms. They refuse to allow ill to befall their fellows and they risk all to save them from it. The emphasis lies on one's fellow man, not on oneself. That marks a key distinction between both the military and civilian life, as well as between socialism and capitalism.

Karl Marx criticized capitalism because it tended to separate human beings from one another. When every man must selfishly pursue his own economic fortune in a free market system, he naturally begins to regard his fellow man as a commercial instrument, not as a human being with equal dignity. Although Marx wrote at length about economic esoterica, his main criticism was humanitarian: Capitalism distances human beings from one another and leads to human exploitation.

But in the military, soldiers learn to live with each other and depend on each other to an extent almost unrecognizable in civilian life. They do not distance themselves from each other; they come closer together. While such tight cooperation might reflect the most effective way to accomplish military missions, it also reflects a fundamentally humanitarian outlook. In the movie Black Hawk Down, for instance, one character echoes many "real" American soldiers when he explains why men serve in the military: "We're in this for the guy next to us." In other words, military life leads to a deep care for one's fellow man, no matter what the ultimate political objective may be. In fact, for individual soldiers in combat, "the guy next to us" is everything.

This is no Hollywood sentiment. This is really how soldiers think. They always have, and not just in the United States. Soldiers sign up for additional tours not because they care about the geopolitical ramifications of their deployment, but because they do not want to abandon their friends. They care that much. They care so much that they willingly face death in order to make sure their friends will not face death alone. "We're in this for the guy next to us."

That is a noble motivation. And that is why it is distinctly un-American. In American civilian life, no one really lives "for the guy next to us." No, most people live for "me." Think about catchphrases that encapsulate success in American civilian life: "It's all about me;" "I'm gonna do what I gotta do to make it;" "I need to think about Number One." These phrases might describe effective ways to achieve success in a capitalistic society. They might even yield riches and fame. But there is nothing noble about them. "The guy next to you" is irrelevant to the man who says "It's all about me." Yet that's what it takes to succeed in a society committed to individual profit. And that's the attitude people must take toward their fellows in order to survive. In the end, the motivation necessary for success in American civilian life leads precisely to the danger that concerned Marx: Human alienation and exploitation.

There is a strange irony in all this. Americans praise the military all the time. They thank soldiers for their service. They ascribe immensely positive results to their work. But military life could not be more different from the civilian society soldiers protect. It takes a fundamentally different outlook to be a soldier than it does to be an entrepreneur. What motivates a soldier does not motivate an entrepreneur. What matters to a civilian does not matter to a soldier. Strangely enough, conservatives are the first ones to talk about a "strong military," yet reject socialism across the board. If they just looked at the way military personnel think about their fellow men, they would see the foolishness in that position. The military does not just practice "economic socialism" by ensuring material welfare for its men. It also practices "individual socialism" by inculcating a spirit of concern in every man for the well-being of his fellows. Those sentiments should enrage an American conservative. Yet they keep on saying: "God bless our troops."

God bless those socialists? What a laugh.

In sum, there is more to socialism than tangible social welfare programs. Socialism means true respect for one's fellow man. A socialist does not just concern himself with spending money on people who ostensibly "don't deserve it." A socialist also thinks a certain way about other human beings. He refuses to leave anyone behind or let his neighbor suffer. He does not view him as a potential profit, but rather as a friend who needs help. There is a motivational element to socialism that is--in essence--very noble. There is nothing "evil" about it, no matter how much we learn that "socialism" is a "dirty word." After all, how could something be "un-American" if our own soldiers practice it?

Socialism is about caring for others. Capitalism is about caring for oneself. There are essential motivational differences. When a soldier says: "I'm in this for the guy next to me," his motivation is clear: It's not about him. It's about the other guy.

Why is this a bad sentiment? It might be socialistic. But it's also Christian. And noble, too.

RETHINKING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT : LET'S JUST BLOW THEM UP

CONSIDERED OPINION

By : Mr. Henry B. Henker, Esq., Legal Counsel to the Office of the Prosecutor, Austin, Texas (2006- present); Former Commercial Litigator, Henker, Haudegen & Daggett, LLP, a Fortune 250 Law Firm Specializing in Complex Financing Transactions (1994-2006); Contributing Author, Humanity Weekly (1987-present); Charter Donation Manager, UNICEF (1986-1997); Annual Keynote Speaker, The Dignity Association of Eastern Texas (1990-2003); Christian; Humanitarian; Married; Republican.

Capital punishment evokes strong emotions in America. Many Americans believe that States should not execute convicted criminals. Others believe that dangerous felons deserve to die for certain outrageous offenses. Still others believe that capital punishment should be applied on a wider basis against all kinds of criminals, from credit card scammers to double parkers. But no matter where we stand on the issue, capital punishment requires us to grapple with momentous issues involving State power, individual rights, liberty, dignity and history.

No one can really debate that the State has power over life and death. Western law functions on the premise that the sovereign decides who lives and who dies. When the American colonies broke from England in 1776, that sovereign power descended to the States. The States, in turn, yielded some of that power to the new Federal government. Still, the State's power to allow life and proclaim death remained intact. States executed people in 1776 and they execute people today. No one can really contend that the sovereign right to kill lawbreakers is "new." In fact, it is as about traditional a power as you can find in our system. Even our Constitution says that both the States and the Federal government have the power to "deprive life" as long as they afford Due Process of law. See, e.g, U.S. Const. Amendments V; XIV § 1.

Nonetheless, it is silly to think we have not changed as a people since 1776. We have electricity and cars now. We have the internet and movie theaters. We have even changed the way we think about core issues in our democracy. For instance, we allow women to vote now. We freed the slaves in 1863 and we enacted Civil Rights laws in 1964. These things would have been unheard-of in our forefathers' time. Simply put, our society is constantly evolving. In that light, it is only natural that we have begun to think differently about capital punishment, too.

At the outset, we must remember that Americans like to punish criminals. When a criminal commits a shocking offense against public sensibilities, we like to see him suffer. How else would we affirm our commitment to law if we did not harshly punish those who break it? How else would we express our common morality and decency if we did not harshly punish those who act immorally and indecently? Additionally, criminal punishment is revenge, and revenge is natural. When some vagrant kills our spouse, it is only natural to want to kill him, too. In this sense, capital punishment both upholds the law and quenches our natural thirst for revenge. Thankfully, killing criminals also prevents them from killing again. And it sends a message to would-be killers that they, too, will die if they try anything cute.

Still, we respect human dignity in America, too. In the past, we used to hang criminals by the neck until dead. In 1676, our English forebears even disemboweled a traitor alive then carved him up in Rhode Island. Until the 19th Century, we even publicly displayed executed criminals until the crows picked them clean. For better or worse, we decided as a society that such execution methods expressed insufficient respect for the criminal's dignity. Although these methods legitimately fulfilled the State's right to punish criminals, we decided that we were too humane to subject our fellow citizens to such horrible pain before death.

As Americans, we believe in dignity and humanity. Although we have no tolerance for criminals, we are progressive people. When we execute people today, we ensure that we use only the most humane methods possible. Lethal injection represents our society's balance between respect for law and respect for a criminal's dignity. In theory, lethal injection simply extinguishes life without inflicting additional pain or terror on the criminal. Once the chemicals flow into the criminal's body, he simply loses consciousness and justice is done.

For decades now, our society has largely accepted lethal injection. Many Americans are comfortable in the knowledge that lethal injection both adequately punishes lawbreakers while maintaining their dignity and ensuring our own humanity. After all, we do not butcher people anymore; we simply "put them to sleep," just like unwanted animals. This is humane. True, it does not make for a very satisfying spectacle. But it adequately strikes a balance between law enforcement and individual dignity.

Or so it seems. Recent research suggests that lethal injection may not be as dignified or humane as we once believed. After all, current protocols for lethal injection involve three discrete drugs: One sedates the criminal, the second paralyzes him and the third terminates heart and pulmonary function. Death does not occur until the third dose. We cannot know whether the prisoner suffers while tranquilized or paralyzed; after all, the paralytic agent renders it impossible for him to speak or move. It is entirely conceivable that he is writhing in horrible agony before paramedics administer the final dose. Furthermore, there are many documented cases in which death does not occur for more than two hours after the initial dose. There are even more cases in which paramedics cannot locate suitable veins for intravenous linkage. Sometimes the intravenous connections are faulty, causing corrosive chemicals to flow under the prisoner's skin, prolonging the procedure. That, in turn, prolongs the agony and anxiety. Put simply, lethal injection may not be as humane and dignified as we like to believe.

But there is a solution to these problems. As a society, we can reaffirm our commitment to law and dignity by simply blowing up convicted criminals with explosives.

Explosives would solve many of the nagging problems associated with lethal injection. By strapping four pounds of C4 plastic explosive to a convicted criminal, we can assure a quick and relatively painless death. Once detonated, the explosives will literally tear the offender apart in a heartbeat. Unlike lethal injection, it will not take hours for the offender to die. In one instant, the prisoner gets blown to pieces: There he is; there he goes. Done. That resolves the deeply problematic issues surrounding unnecessary pain and suffering in the lethal injection procedure. I mean, it can't really hurt to get vaporized, can it? You don't really have to time to reflect on it. It's just: BAM! Game Over. In my view, that reflects admirable concern for the prisoner's dignity and humanity: It is humane to blow people up.

Explosive executions offer many advantages over lethal injection and other methods. There is no way to botch an explosive execution. No one can survive four pounds of C4. And if the detonator fails, nothing happens. A technician can easily replace the detonator and get on with the show. This eliminates the troublesome medical issues relating to lethal injection. After all, doctors would be best suited to ensure that a person dies from lethal injection. Yet doctors' Hippocratic oath prevents them from participating in executions. This increases the likelihood of a botched execution. With explosive executions, however, you don't need doctors. You just need a guy to press a button. That is not very technical, and it certainly does not require 10 years of medical school to get it right. Even a high-school dropout can push a button. Hell, even a dog can.

Despite these advantages, there are some drawbacks to explosive executions. For one, they are messy. No one likes clean-up. Blowing up a person scatters shredded clothing, intestines, bone fragments, burned hair, eyeballs, fingers and charred kneecaps all over the place. Additionally, it scalds the room and deposits blood-crusted soot over a considerable radius. It takes time to clean up such a mess; plus it smells unpleasant. Not only that, but it also can be difficult to assemble the prisoner's remains for burial. It is much easier to bury a prisoner executed by lethal injection. You just unstrap him from the gurney and throw him in a pine box. But not so for a criminal executed by explosives. You need to spend twelve hours scouring through wreckage for burned pieces. That's neither fun nor dignified.

Explosive executions also require different witness accommodations than those appropriate for lethal injections. It would be both impracticable and dangerous to allow witnesses to watch an explosive execution from the room next door. To effectively and safely blow up a criminal, witnesses would have to watch remotely, perhaps by closed-circuit television. Additionally, the execution chamber would have to be significantly larger than chambers used to conduct lethal injections. Detonating explosives requires space; and many prisons do not have much extra space on hand. In that light, States would have to either build large new exploding chambers or conduct explosive executions outdoors. The first alternative would be quite expensive. The second would be somehow inappropriate. And both would deny witnesses the chance to get close to the execution scene. For better or worse, witnesses traditionally enjoy looking their tormentors in the eye before they die. That will not be possible in explosive executions.

We acknowledge these drawbacks to explosive executions. On balance, however, we conclude that explosives reflect a much better way to execute criminals than lethal injection. Although it will cost money to construct new exploding chambers, we believe it will prove a valuable investment given their ultimate benefits. And although witnesses have an interest in watching criminals suffer up close, we must remember that capital punishment is about the prisoner and the State: Witnesses are secondary. In a word, explosive executions fulfill both the prisoner's interest in a quick, painless death and the State's interest in punishing crime. Blowing criminals up is simply the most efficacious manner currently available. The fact that explosive executions are dignified and humane only increases their appeal for State governments nationwide.

We also acknowledge that victims and their families have an interest in securing justice for their pain. We understand that victims and their families want to see their tormentors suffer in the same way they suffered. We understand that victims and their families might worry that blowing up a criminal might be "going too easy" on them. After all, if a murderer slowly flayed a child to death with a scalpel, it might seem unfair to reward him with an instantaneous, explosive end.

We know how much victims matter. But we suggest that blowing up a criminal is quite satisfying, even if it is quick. True, victims and their families will have to watch the criminal explode by television. But it is amazing what modern-day camera techniques can show. Victims and their families not only get to hear the big BANG of the initial blast, but will also be able to watch slow motion instant replays of the criminal exploding from various angles. They will also receive complimentary Blu-Ray discs featuring all footage associated with the execution, including commentary, production notes and a musical score.

Considering these advantages, we believe that explosive executions will please victims and their families, despite their limited duration. On the whole, then, explosive executions will please everyone: The State, the victims and the prisoner.

It is an easy choice. We must start blowing up criminals immediately.

DO WE SPEAK TO UNITE OR TO DECEIVE?

AN ESSAY

As I mentioned last week, I'm re-reading Aristotle's Politics. Surprisingly, I found myself agreeing with many of his points about human beings and their motivations. That surprised me because I always took a prejudiced view against Aristotle. In college, I dismissed him because he was an "absolutist" about truth. But now that many years have passed--and now that I have read so much more--I approach Aristotle with more forgiveness. I do not read him with a smirk anymore. Rather, I read him for what he is: A classical metaphysician. I like some points; I don't like others. It's like reading anyone else.

Yet Aristotle is no average writer. He is a giant among Western philosophers. His views on virtually every subject became dogma for centuries. Men died challenging Aristotlean doctrines in the Catholic church during the Middle Ages. Others risked everything to dispute Aristotle's teachings about ethics and astronomy. As time went on, scientific advances dethroned Aristotle's pre-eminence in some areas. But in others, his influence remains strong--and still relevant. After all, Aristotle wrote about politics, ethics, human beings and beauty. These things cannot be reduced to mathematical fact. Rather, they constantly invite debate, interpretation and reassessment.

Aristotle's political work certainly has continued relevance. Like all the political philosophers who followed him, Aristotle begins by discussing human nature. Aristotle approaches the question with his usual confidence: He makes conclusions as if they were obvious, even if they are just assumptions. He also plays the biologist, constantly comparing humans to their analogues in nature.

I love any discussion about human nature. And I have always disagreed with Aristotle's view here.

Aristotle claims that men are "political animals...by nature." The Politics, Book I, ch. ii, para. 1253a1. He makes this conclusion by examining the key difference between men and beasts: Men have speech. He acknowledges that both animals and men have voice--cows can moo and dogs can bark to voice their feelings--but speech is unique to man.

This might not seem like a profound observation, but Aristotle's understanding of speech is remarkable. The consummate metaphysician, he argues that "speech has a single purpose" and no other. Namely, it enables men to "indicate what is useful and what is harmful," and "what is just or unjust." Id. at para. 1253a7. Finally, he draws the ultimate distinction between men and animals: "[H]umans alone have perception of good and evil, just and unjust." Id.

For Aristotle, then, speech has a justice function. It not only allows men to communicate their feelings, but it exists to help them find what is useful and just for all. This is the natural purpose of speech. It is imbued with a sensitivity for morality (good and evil), practicality (useful and not useful) as well as justice. These are profound concepts. And Aristotle speaks in absolute terms. There is one "good," one "evil," one "justice" and one "useful." In his view, speech enables man to find them all--and to organize States on that basis. Man is not only a speaking animal; his speech allows him to unite with other men to find universal justice in a useful society. What a remarkable assertion.

It is a remarkable assertion because it invites so much scorn. I naturally shy away from absolutes. Aristotle always offered me a tempting target because he reduces complex issues into absolute "sayings." His argument about speech--and human nature--strikes me as impossibly naive. Aristotle's philosophy of "specific purposes" (teleology) always leads to moments like this. After all, how can we say "speech is for justice and unity" when even brief life experience reveals that men often do not use speech for those purposes? Aristotle assumes that speech leads to cooperation and good. But life experience refutes this: Men lie. They don't cooperate. They don't tell the truth. They divide from one another and twist language to advance their narrow interests. And they certainly do not always use language to find justice. In most cases, language leads to injustice.

For his part, Aristotle would say that deceivers do "not use speech according to its purpose." This is a laughable objection, unfortunately: If language's "natural purpose" is to "find justice," then I would argue that people rarely use it "naturally."

Broadly speaking, Aristotle's theory of language reflects a good view of human nature. Aristotle believed that men naturally worked with one another to achieve a "good life." See Politics, Book I, ch. ii at para. 1252b27. He thought that speech gave them a natural tool to discover useful methods for securing a "good life," as well as to distinguish "good from evil," "right from wrong" and "just from unjust." Finally, he thought that men naturally cooperated with each other to achieve a "good life" filled with justice.

These are admirable sentiments. The problem is that Aristotle assumed everything he concluded. Every philosopher must assume certain basic principles in order to develop his theories about life. Aristotle's assumptions sound appealing, but they remain assumptions. For my part, I cannot assume that men are good by nature. And because of that, I cannot assume that men generally use speech for good purposes. Men unite with speech, but they also deceive with it. Men do good with speech; they also do bad. It is no answer to say--as Aristotle does--that they are merely "ignoring speech's natural purpose." There are no overreaching purposes. We simply attach them according to our individual sensitivities.

Aristotle thought that he could find truth by assigning specific purposes to everything open to human experience or imagination. And he assumed that one "truth" exists to be found: That was his worst assumption of all.

WHY DO AMERICANS HATE SOCIALISM SO MUCH?

AN ESSAY

Since Barack Obama won the White House last year, Republicans have galvanized their opposition by claiming that Democrats want to introduce "socialism" into American life. They do not really understand what "socialism" means; they just use it as a catchall pejorative to label anything they don't like. They don't like anything that makes them pay more taxes or finance other people's welfare. They don't like anything that transfers money to so-called "wasteful programs," like health care, education and environmental protection. They know that the word "socialism" sends shivers up American spines, so they use the word to describe everything they're not. They even criticize other countries for embracing "socialism."

But all these critiques fundamentally miscomprehend "socialism." The United States is not a socialist country, not even close. True socialism means that the State owns all property and controls the means of economic production and distribution. It also means that every citizen is literally equal to every other citizen. It is essentially humanitarian in theory, even if historical examples show that it can tragically fail in practice. No matter the historical record, there is nothing even remotely socialist about the United States. Americans live for private property and class distinctions. If they were socialists, they would not strive for these things; in fact, they could not even own property. Democrats are little different than Republicans in this sense. Neither party wants to abandon the free market system. The only debate is how much they want government to "interfere" in the free market.

This is the point at which Republicans stray into conceptual ignorance. They think that any government interference into the free market is "socialism." Yet this overlooks a trend that has evolved in the West at least since the early 20th Century: Increased government supervision over private economic enterprise. Governments in traditionally capitalist countries understood that leaving all economic functions to the free market led to labor exploitation, dangerous goods and unfair social relationships. Democratic governments (or at least quasi-democracies like Great Britain and the United States) also found that unbridled capitalism tended to subvert constitutional principles, such as human dignity and equality.

For these reasons, governments in traditionally capitalist countries began encroaching upon private economic liberties for the public good. They instituted labor control boards, product safety boards and oversight committees. They enforced minimum wages and guaranteed workers the power to fairly bargain with management. They even began creating social security nets and health care systems for their populations, distributing tax revenues in such a manner as to realize the dream of a better society for all. These reforms were all "social" in nature, but they never completely replaced the free market. Rather, they merely tempered the free market, reconciling principle with economic reality. Yet Republicans today call such efforts "socialism." This is simply untrue. If anything, Western Nations have "modified free market" systems, not socialist systems.

European Nations have generally made many more "social modifications" to their free market systems than the United States. For many reasons, Europeans have been willing to curtail unbridled economic liberty in order to bring greater social advantages to their populations. This is the reason why many Europeans do not understand why Americans cannot resolve their "health care mess." For Europeans living in "modified free market systems," it goes without saying that every citizen has a right to medical care at State expense. Yet in America, that sentiment is not so widespread. Here, there is always a grave tension between social "guarantees" and economic freedom. When social "guarantees" mean that some people cannot amass as much money as they could without the guarantees, they staunchly oppose any effort to curtail their economic liberty. This is the reason why social modifications to the free market system in the United States are much more modest than in Europe: Too many people resist them in order to preserve their ability to make more money fast.

Both the United States and European Nations are free market societies. Both allow private property. Both have central banking systems, stock exchanges and tolerate massive class distinctions. But citizens in European Nations have allowed government to restrict their economic freedom more than their American counterparts. In exchange for those restrictions, they live in more secure circumstances: There is universal health care, ample housing and free education. European Nations understand that pure free market life is not easy. Employment depends as much on the winds of the market as it does on individual ability. In that light, they made sacrifices to provide a safety net against the market's inevitable "down periods."

By contrast, the United States does not provide such a safety net. True, the United States does provide health care to the elderly, the disabled and those who serve government. It provides modest income to retirees and injured people. It also allocates some funds to protect citizens against homelessness and ruin. But that's about it; America's commitment to "modifying the free market" essentially stopped in the 1960s. Since then, any effort to make "European style" changes has met with angry cries of "Socialism!" Both Europe and the United States made substantial changes to their free market systems in the decades after the 1929 Crash. But only Europe continued along that path after the 1960s. Once America asserted global dominance, it somehow decided that caring for its own people was no longer a top priority.

I think this is an unfortunate development. Americans should not shy away from "European style" improvements to our social order because they are supposedly "socialist." Europe embraces free market capitalism, just like we do. It simply imposes greater controls on unrestricted economic liberty than the United States. Those restrictions translate into tangible social benefits in the form of health care, consumer protections, access to justice, labor oversight, transportation, child care, unemployment insurance, pensions and education. People do not go bankrupt financing their education in Europe, nor do they die waiting for a private insurance company to approve surgery. They might pay more taxes to finance these social protections, but they know they will always have a place to stay or health care if they get sick. Unlike Americans, they do not need to worry about losing their precious jobs if illness strikes. Yet all the while, they can own private property and perhaps get rich. Just because they enjoy social protections at government expense does not make them "socialist."

Why does America reject these things? What makes us so different from our European counterparts? Do we treasure our rugged "do-it-yourself" spirit so much that we tolerate social injustice on a massive scale? Are we too greedy or too proud to abandon our chance to make fabulous wealth at a low tax rate? What is it, exactly? I cannot pinpoint it; I can only speculate based on my own impressions.

One thing is certain: There is a poisonous aura surrounding the word "socialism," and that aura preemptively sabotages many efforts to implement meaningful reforms to our social system. Sadly, opponents to social reform in the United States do not even understand what the word "socialism" means. And they do not even understand that they are not opposing socialism, but rather incremental modifications to the free market system they love so much.

We have known for more than a century that pure capitalism does not work. Any system premised upon human greed will inevitably become top-heavy and collapse. And purely capitalistic values clash starkly with core principles central to a democratic State in modern times, such as dignity, fairness and equality. From the 1930s until the 1960s, the United States understood that. It made meaningful modifications to the free market in order to mitigate the social shockwaves caused by its cyclical booms and busts. But then the progress stopped. Capitalism failed again last year and people have felt the pinch ever since.

America will not progress as long as it embraces false rhetoric about "socialism." It is not "socialism" simply to safeguard our citizens from economic ruin in a free market system. It is humanity.

Then again, perhaps that is what really rankles Republicans. After all, pure capitalism and humanity don't mix. Genuine humanity is bad for business. Humanity makes it harder to exploit others. Maybe that's what all the Rush Limbaugh rhetoric about "economic liberty" is all about: Liberty means the freedom to be economically inhumane to others in order to advance yourself. Or, phrased another way, liberty means freedom from government regulations that prevent you from being economically inhumane in order to advance yourself.

Against opposition like this, we have a long way to go in this country toward social reform.

THE CYNICAL EXPLANATION, YET AGAIN

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

I have written about health care for three straight days now. Everyone agrees that it is a significant issue; The New York Times seems to run an article about it every day. So far this week, I have explained, lampooned, recommended and even dismissed things concerning the "health care debate." To be blunt, I am frustrated that Congress cannot see the simple truth about health care. Rather, "politics as usual" threatens America's best opportunity to bring meaningful change to a profoundly unjust system.

Health care reform is steadily losing steam in Congress. You can just sense the fatal impasse. Representatives and Senators--even Democratic party allies--cannot agree on costs. They cannot agree on regulation, nor can they stomach the idea that "people can't choose their own doctors." They recoil from raising taxes because they worry they'll lose the next local election if they do. They flee from the talismanic specter of "socialized medicine" as soon as they perceive a tad too much "government involvement," even if proposed legislation is not remotely socialist in nature. Republicans, of course, simply refuse to do anything the Democrats want. So the fate of health care rests in the Democrats' hands. And they just bicker endlessly about costs and fine print. No one has the political courage to demand sweeping change.

Politics, politics, politics. Cowardly and pathetic as usual. It is even more pathetic when you consider that many representatives oppose health care reform because they worry about their own political futures. In other words, it is "all about their jobs," not beneficial decisions for the country. At times like these, it would be nice to have an Aristotelean Philosopher-King who wisely does what must be done for the people, vested interests be damned. But alas, we are stuck with stooges worried about their goddamned two-year jobs.

Yet there is something else going on here, something even more vexing. According to a New York Times article today about Obama's struggles to get a bill passed before the summer break, many Americans say they don't want universal health care reform because: "they [are] concerned that the quality of their own care would decline if the government created a program that covers everyone." See N.Y. Times, New Poll Finds Growing Unease on Health Plan, July 30, 2009.

This is rank selfishness in its most unabashed form: Americans don't want to allow others to get health care if it would somehow complicate their own access to health care. They don't even know whether universal care would restrict their existing health plan; they just "think" it will. God forbid. We certainly don't employed people to wait 40 minutes in the doctor's office instead of the usual 25 so that a lousy unemployed bum can get a free flu shot. That would affect "the quality of existing care."

I do not deny that I am intractably cynical on many issues. I am committed to cynicism as a "belief system" because it reliably explains human behavior as we observe it through experience. See, e.g., Cynical? Or Just Realistic? http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/essays_25.html published September 25, 2008. Cynicism provides a reliable framework to analyze human motivations. Put simply, cynicism assumes that everyone acts selfishly. It doubts people's sincerity, mocks their claims to nobility and explains all their behavior by reference to crude self-interest. It may be lazy to be cynical. But in case after case involving economic questions (as almost all social questions do), experience reveals that cynical assumptions generally prove correct in the end. After all, people are selfish. They act to better themselves. Their actions merely reveal their motivations.

Cynicism works. It provides a clear explanation for America's hesitancy to embrace sweeping health care reform. Politicians might quarrel about amortization, costs, interest, long-term savings, expenditures and even "socialized medicine." But all these catchphrases are mere chaff to cover the real explanation: People just don't want to suffer inconvenience to help others. Universal health care is a revolutionary proposition because it challenges America to put others before themselves. It will not necessarily reduce the "quality of existing care." Yet it is precisely the selflessness inherent in the idea that repels the American mind. After all, Americans generally don't like doing anything that makes their lot more difficult. Helping others is simply not very lucrative and it requires effort. It pays no bills. If helping people is not somehow profitable, Americans typically won't do it. They have their own "responsibilities" to worry about.

Universal health care involves "helping" people on a grand scale. Strictly viewed, there is no individual, selfish reward for accomplishing it. At most, the reward for universal health care will be justice and humanity in a society that claims to treasure both. Yet justice and humanity are "just words;" no one does anything in this country if it brings home no bacon. Universal health care brings home no bacon. It gives bacon to people who traditionally could not get it, and those with bacon resent the idea that they might not have as much bacon as they used to. The idea that we might achieve a society with just access to bacon does not compensate for the anger that wells up in a bacon owner who loses his bacon hoard.

This is the cynical explanation for American resistance to universal health care. It is based in selfish notions of property entitlement and personal convenience. And it is absolutely accurate.

I really have no idea how the health care debate will turn out. When Barack Obama won the White House last year, I really thought that America wanted to re-order its value system. But if the bitter recriminations over health care reform are any indication, it is clear that America has a very long way to go on value change. We're just as selfish as ever. And no promise of justice for all will convince anyone to give up their "entitlements" or "existing advantages."

Cynical? Yes. But I'm just being realistic.

DOCTORS SPEAK OUT ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

MEDICAL PERSPECTIVES

By : Dr. Herbert G. Butts, M.D. (Gastroenterologist Specializing in Anal Repairs & Sphincter Reconstruction); President, Union of American Physicians for Fiscal Strength, Washington, D.C.; Contributing Editor, The American Medical Journal (Finance & Insurance Section); M.B.A., The Wharton School of Business (Thesis on ‘Margin Management in Health Care’); Top 25 Donor, Radiologists for Unlimited Investment Opportunity Without Taxation (Houston, Texas).

Once again, Congress debates health care reform. Once again, our Nation’s representatives want to squander America’s treasure on wasteful programs intended to provide medical treatment to those who cannot afford private health insurance. They say they want to bring justice and humanity to a system that should care about people, not profits. They say they want to turn a new page in the history of American medicine. They have not really said how they will do this. But one thing is certain: It is going to cost a lot. And when government programs cost a lot, taxes go up. When taxes go up, people with money wind up footing the bill for those who don’t have enough.

As a physician, I welcome Congress’ efforts to reform the health care system. I support any initiative that will bring quality health care to more Americans. But there is a caveat to my support: I will not support any Congressional action that does not guarantee that every doctor will make at least $2,000,000 net annually under the new system. Put simply, doctors are trained professionals. People need us. We know how to fix damaged hearts and sew on severed limbs. We don’t work for free. And we’re not here to help. We’re here to make a living—a really good living. Congress cannot expect us to work our miracles without paying us what we deserve.

Congress must recognize that health care would be meaningless without doctors. Doctors are the only people in our society with the technical knowledge necessary to heal the sick. True, mothers from coast to coast know home remedies for sore throats and colds. But very few mothers know how to anaesthetize their children, draw up detailed charts documenting their health in illegible handwriting, drape them in the customary supine manner, monitor their heart rate then perform precise anal surgery on them with laser equipment. Mothers may be able to cure a mild flu with chicken broth and bed rest. But only we can excise anal cancer polyps or save their children from massive head trauma. No spices, orange peels or herb soups will stop a cerebral hemorrhage. For that, you need a doctor. When the chips are really down, you need us.

Yet many Americans—including dangerous liberal Democrats in Congress—think that we doctors entered our profession because we truly want to relieve suffering. They think we perform anal examinations on 700-pound women because we care about their health. They think we remove ugly intestines because we truly want to save people from cancer. In short, they fatally misjudge our motivations. We doctors would not have gone to school for 25 years if we did not expect to make a fortune after age 40. We would not have spent decades in operating rooms and labs if we did not expect a massive reward for our efforts. And we would not have sacrificed our youth working sleepless 140-hour shifts every week after medical school. Put simply, we have worked extremely hard. It is not about the patient; it is about us. We have suffered to get where we are. As physicians, we will not allow Congress to insult us by paying us less than $2,000,000 every year. It’s about time that someone thought about the doctors for once, not the patients. After all, we do all the work. Patients just lie there under anesthesia and wake up later. That’s pretty lazy, if you ask me.

Doctors need something to look forward to. As President of the Union of American Physicians for Fiscal Strength, I speak for every doctor when I say that we like money. No one in our society works as much as we do. No one in our society delivers such tangible worth as we do. Think about it: When you bring your sick mother into the hospital, our skilled work saves her from death. Isn’t that valuable? If we didn’t spend our whole lives studying and scurrying around hospitals, we could not have saved your mother. Don’t you think we deserve a big salary for that? We are happy to save your mother, but remember what we go through every day, too. We expect to be well compensated for our services. If we did not have large salaries, bonuses and insurance incentives to look forward to, we would not want to get up in the morning. How would you feel if you knew you had to stitch an immigrant’s anal canal for 14 hours for a paltry $500,000 per year? What if you had to stick your finger up a homeless person’s anus for a lousy $500 weekly stipend from a city bureau? And what if you faced medical malpractice charges for creating a vaginal fistula knowing that Medicaid will pay you pennies—if anything at all—for your toils? You wouldn’t like it, let me tell you. In a word, physicians face tremendous stress and difficulty every day. Only sufficient salaries can provide the motivation necessary for physicians to cope with the pressures unique to their trade.

We sincerely hope that Congress will recognize that health care reform will not succeed without our support. No matter what Congress decides to do, it must ensure that every doctor in America receives at least $2,000,000 per year. We leave it to Congress to decide how to organize our pay rates. Obviously experienced doctors must receive more than the minimum salary. Obviously radiologists must receive double the going rate for comparable internists. And obviously doctors who secure favorable results for more patients should receive “performance bonuses.” If Congress really wants to reform health care, it will provide suitable incentives for doctors. If doctors know that they will receive a $750,000 performance bonus if they remove 15,000 polyps per month, they will more zealously remove polyps. A world with fewer polyps is a better world. Congress can achieve goals like these if it simply pays doctors what they deserve.

Many liberal Democrats say that doctors need to consider the “common good” in order to change focus in American health care. They say that doctors must play a “philosophical role” in changing the way our country approaches the issue. We strongly disagree.

First, as medical professionals, we are neither politicians nor philosophers. We are technicians. We are bodily repairmen. No one expects a mechanic to care about philosophy. The same goes for doctors. We are no different from any other worker. We ply our trade and we expect pay for our labor. We stitch, cut, suture, order lab tests and write prescriptions. We do not philosophize. The “common good” is not necessary to perform incisions, administer chemotherapy or clear an artery. While our skills may result in “good” for society, the “common good” is certainly not necessary for technical medical work.

Second, we are really not all that different from other workers in the economy. Although our skills may be especially valuable, we want the same things from life as everyone else. We want to own real estate. We want stable investments. We want cars. We want savings accounts. We want to send our children to college. We differ from average workers to the extent that we work harder. We spent a long time in school and even longer in professional training. It is only fair that we receive some special compensation for our incredible sacrifices. That is why we expect to own at least a second home, and maybe some income-producing rental properties. These are reasonable expectations. Every American deserves some reward for performing valuable work. In that regard, doctors are no different from anyone else in our society.

In brief, it is both unrealistic and unfair to ascribe some special “nobility” to doctors. We work for the same reasons everyone else does. Congress must understand that. We are not saints. We are just trained professionals who perform impressive work. Saints work for free. Professionals don’t.

As our representatives continue to debate health care reform, we demand that they remember the doctors. We are the real miracle workers who make our system great. Our system became great because doctors receive the pay they deserve. They have an incentive to work hard. Over time, those incentives led to revolutionary new treatments, medications and procedures. Until now, our system proved that when doctors get paid, anything is possible.

True, some people in our system could not receive care. But that was a small price to pay for the medical miracles we achieved through proper pay. We expect that Congress will recognize that health care in America depends on well-paid doctors. Without at least $2,000,000 a year, the miracle well will run dry. No one will endure 25 years in school and sleepless 140-hour weeks without a suitable reward to covet. Our country has always rewarded hard work and valuable service. Our health care system is no exception.

We do not care whether Congress adopts universal care or retains our private market system to provide health coverage. We simply demand that every physician in this country receive at least $2,000,000 per year. It is a simple demand. We do not care where Congress gets the money for our salaries. We simply remind Congress that without at least $2,000,000 every year, no doctor will have an incentive to repair anal canals, invent new erectile dysfunction medications or deliver deformed children. In this light, it is in the national interest to keep paying doctors, even if that means taxing other professions. We are the only technicians who can save lives. We deserve to be paid commensurate with the importance of our skill and knowledge. If we do not receive what we are worth, we’re walking. We don’t care what the State disciplinary boards say. This is about fair pay, not duty.

You want us to save your mother when she breaks her hip, don’t you? You want us to save your child when he falls down a drainage pipe and fractures his skull, don’t you? You want us to successfully replace your jaundiced wife’s liver, don’t you? You want us to find a cure for cancer, don’t you? Well, we won’t do any of these things unless Congress guarantees that we get at least $2,000,000 a year—every year. We don’t care where the money comes from. We just want it.

We might be doctors. But we’ve worked hard in our lives. We’ve learned how to cheat death and extend life. We’ve learned how to read medical charts and MRI scans. We know what masses are benign and which ones aren’t. This is valuable knowledge. We don’t share it for free. We spent 25 sleepless years to learn our craft. Congress had better pay up or no one’s going to get it.

WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT GETTING HEALTH CARE RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY?

AN ESSAY

I saw a documentary on cable a few weeks ago about health care in India. It drew attention to the “cleft palate epidemic” plaguing Indian children. For some reason, much greater percentages of children in India suffer from this disorder than they do in Western countries. The filmmakers showed that children with cleft palates suffer social ostracism and cannot effectively contribute to society. In many cases, their parents even let them die or give them to orphanages rather than try to raise them.

According to the film, the Indian government made a concerted effort to combat the epidemic. It mustered its best doctors and nationally advertised a program to “repair cleft palates.” These advertisements urged parents with ill children to bring them to designated hospitals, where trained surgeons would repair cleft palates at no charge. Parents simply had to come up with the transportation costs to the nearest hospital. Once they arrived, doctors consulted with them, determined the best surgical procedure and carried it out. In most cases, the surgeries were successful.

After the operations, nurses gathered parents and their children in a conference room. They thanked them for coming and for allowing the surgeons to help them. Finally, they asked their patients to tell all their friends about the government effort to heal cleft palates, and to send them to the nearest hospital for care. After all, said the nurse: “Without patients, a hospital is useless.”

No one ever talked about insurance or money. No one threw anybody out of the hospital because they couldn’t afford it. There were no “care approvals” or “administrative investigations” into “patient solvency.” In fact, all the parents who responded to the government advertisement were destitute. They came to the hospitals because the government told them it wanted to heal their children. After all, it was in the national interest to cure diseases. Money did not even enter the question.

To an American viewer, this seems incredibly foreign. It is impossible to talk about health care in this country without talking about money, insurance, profit, deficits, bankruptcy, debt, loans, Republicans, Democrats and even class distinction. The simple humanity of curing sick people fades into obscurity as policymakers battle over fiscal responsibility, fraud, overbilling, cost analyses and insurance practices. Yet isn’t health care about health? How did health care turn into a vast money game in this country? What happened to the “health” in health care? And what happened to “care?”

Health care is an enormous issue in the United States. America has dubious notoriety as the only major industrial power without some guaranteed health coverage for all its citizens. While it offers the best care in the world to those who can afford it, it also allows millions of others to go without any care at all. This is a profound national embarrassment, especially in a country that has long prided itself on respect for human dignity, equality and “general goodness.” After all, it is hard to argue that “America cares” on the world stage when it does not even provide medical care to millions of its own people.

For decades now, politicians have attempted to address this embarrassment. Many have tried to introduce legislation that provides basic care for all. They have all failed. For better or worse, health care in America is a private commodity, like wheat or oil. Insurance companies and private hospitals dictate policy, prices and access. They compete with one another for “patient business,” just as auto manufacturers compete for customers. Like any private commodity, you can’t buy health care if you can’t afford it, and that commercial reality has frustrated every effort to reform the system. After all, in the eyes of private business, providing universal care would be like giving away oil or wheat for free. That doesn’t happen in other commercial fields, so why should it happen in health care? It just “wouldn’t be fair” or “fiscally responsible” to give commercial goods away. That, at least, is the response from private enterprise. And that response has derailed every attempt to bring more humanity to our health care system.

Barack Obama promised that he would “reform health care” during the 2008 Presidential campaign. He publicly said that he will “get it done,” no matter the opposition. He even acknowledged that many have failed before him. He rode to victory on such noble-sounding promises as these. In 2009, Congress drafted health care legislation. It now founders and threatens to collapse before it even comes up for a vote. Everyone is complaining. The momentum is waning. No one likes the price tag. No one likes the handouts. No one likes the subsidies. No one likes the rules. No one likes the mandatory employer coverage or penalties for refusing to cover employees. Republicans resent any attempt to undercut private enterprise and insurance companies. Democrats are fatally divided between those brave enough to demand universal coverage and those who run in political terror from the costs. In essence, the objections all boil down to money and “responsibility.” Again, the health care debate in America has degenerated into a money debate.

When will our politicians understand that health care is about health, not money? Is it really that difficult to formulate a system in which all Americans can obtain medical care without fearing bankruptcy? Is it really that difficult to change our minds from profit to humanity? Our government should care as much about whether its citizens are healthy as it cares whether its budgets are sound. If citizens die, what good is a budget? In short, the health care debate has lost all focus. As politicians bicker and wage war over costs, Americans continue suffering because they cannot see a doctor. Hospitals care more about their budgets than they care about people’s health. Hospitals are corporations in the United States. I suppose we should have expected nothing less. Humanity, after all, does not produce dividends for the shareholders.

If we really want to solve the health care mess, we need to change our focus. We need to stop hemming and hawing about costs. We must be brutally honest: Health care for all costs a lot. But if we really want it, we have to pay for it. If that means giving things away, then so be it. Health care must be about health and care, not cost and profit. If these values are inconsistent with private enterprise, then we must take power away from private enterprise. I venture that it is foolish to trust private enterprise to handle health care anyway, precisely because private enterprise and humanity are mutually exclusive. After all, private enterprise is private. Humanity is public. Try telling the shareholders that their money is paying to help the public. It won’t fly.

I simply do not buy the idea that reforming health care would be “prohibitively expensive.” If India can scrape together the money to surgically repair cleft palates for free, then so can we. India paid the money to heal children because India cared about them as human beings, not paying customers. India did not care whether these children could pay for insurance; it cared that they were suffering. That is a fundamental difference in values. If we really want to change health care in the United States, we need to start caring about our fellow man who suffers, not whether he can afford to pay $4,000,000 for a hospital stay. We need to stop worrying about whether it would be “fair” to treat a sick person who can’t afford it. We must simply have the courage to say: “These are our fellow citizens. They must be cared for because we care as a society, even if it costs a lot.”

Can we do this? Do we have it in us? Can we really change our values and free ourselves from the money spell? I think we can, but I know many people will say we can’t. They will say that universal care is far too expensive and would encourage irresponsibility. They will say it would require excessive taxes and kill American jobs. They will say it would be nice to care for everyone, but not nice enough to raise taxes for.

I think that caring for everyone in our society is nice enough to raise taxes for. If we can raise taxes for infrastructure, navies, wars, welfare and public services, why can’t we raise them for health? Wouldn’t health be a good thing to buy? Sure, it would cost a lot, but many other countries willingly pay the bill. You don’t read horror stories about poor people being thrown out of hospitals in France or England. These countries—like India—simply have different values. They care enough about their citizens’ health to pay to protect it.

Does it not seem callous—and even vicious—that we do not? At this point, however, the familiar objection arises: “But those countries make patients wait 75 years for care and people die in clinic waiting rooms. That never happens in America because doctors make enough money, pharmaceutical companies have an economic incentive to invent effective new drugs and hospitals are cost-effective…blah blah blah.”

While it may be true that a desire for profit impels medical breakthroughs and “top-notch” care for those fortunate to have expensive private insurance, the American system leaves millions without any protection at all. The “private market model” for health care may very well be efficient, but only for those who can afford it. I am deeply skeptical about arguments that link potential profitability to “effective health care.” If we really want to change the focus in health care, our desire to help our fellow man must be just as alluring as securing market shares and outdoing last year’s sales record.

Are there long waits for care in other systems? Probably. But I have a feeling that most invective against “socialized medicine”—especially in Canada—is pure propaganda. For every scary story about a bad waiting room experience in Canada there is another story about timely, effective care. I have a friend from Alberta who required bypass heart surgery and was in the operating room within a week. Since then, he has been fine. His “poorly-paid” doctors were not incompetent. He did not die in a waiting room. He never paid a dime for his care. He even got to take off two months from work—with pay. His story shows once again that health care can really be about “health” and “care,” not money and insurance.

Why can’t we do the same in this country? Why does everything have to generate a profit here? Why is it a national disaster if someone gets expensive, life-saving surgery but doesn’t pay for it? If we really want to fix health care, we need to stop thinking in profit terms. We can do it if we are willing to change our values. We simply need to pay the cost. Yet Americans dislike spending money on others as much as they like making it for themselves. They will do anything to avoid incurring additional costs, especially if they “get nothing” out of it. The psychic—and even moral—satisfaction that flows from living in a community that truly cares about everyone does not impress most Americans. They would rather have more disposable income for themselves. That is the sad truth about why this country does not provide basic health coverage for all.

But isn’t this pitifully egotistic? If a so-called “developing” country like India manages to provide free operations to its citizens, why can’t we? We obviously have more money, more technology and more facilities. Yet our government does not publicly call for “all sick people” to come get cured at State expense. Why not? Doesn’t it sound wonderful? Doesn’t it sound like the State actually cares about its own people when it does something like this? And doesn’t it make us look embarrassingly cruel because we do not do such things?

Put bluntly, we would rather let some people die than give “health care commodities” away for free. These are our values: No money, no beer.

If we really want to overhaul health care in this country, we need to stop thinking in economic terms. Instead, we must think in human terms, no matter how much it costs. I understand that this is politically difficult. But it is the only way to really change the system. There is simply no way to satisfy both private enterprise and humanity at the same time.

We need to start saying: “Without patients, a hospital is useless,” not “Without paying $600 a month for insurance, you can’t be a patient.”

"GOT FIVE FRIENDS? THERE COULD BE $500 IN IT FOR YOU" : YOU'RE NOT A PERSON; YOU'RE AN AMOUNT

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Several banks currently offer “bounties” for referrals. Citibank, for instance, offers $100 to any accountholder who tells a “friend” about the bank and the “friend” opens an account. Its advertising pitch entices with the words: “Got five friends? There could be $500 in it for you.” But Citibank likely feared that “really popular people” with “lots of friends” would “cost too much,” so they limited the bounty to five friends. Wachovia offers $75 for referrals; I’m not sure whether there’s a “friend limit” on their offer. So I guess people are worth more at Citibank than Wachovia. One hundred dollars can buy more than seventy-five.

This whole “cash for referral” business disturbs me. Yet it is capitalism at its purest; it assumes that people cultivate friendships in order to exploit them for personal financial reward. That is the reason it bothers me so much. I do not have friends because I secretly wish to make money from them. I have friends because I respect them as individual human beings. In short, I resent the banks’ insinuation that people maintain friendships solely for their economic potential.

Among many other things, Karl Marx criticized free market enterprise for its tendency to reduce human beings to “exploitable labor power” or “amounts” useful to some economically superior master. In the eye of private enterprise, for instance, an employee is no longer “Fred Johnson,” the nice man from down the street with the model airplane collection who dreams to be a violinist. No, he is a “Junior Claims Clerk (Position Code 45A)” who represents 8 man-hours per working day, which in turn translates (after taxes, wages and costs) to $2,000 profit per week. He might be “Fred” to his co-workers. But in the economic hierarchy, he is an instrument. His labor does not even belong to him. It inures completely to his master’s benefit. In short, Marx argued that capitalism depends upon dehumanization and exploitation.

In essence, Marx made a humanitarian objection. Marx posited that human beings are unique individuals with hopes, dreams, ambitions and emotions. They are not mere commercial objects to be exploited for others’ gain; they have non-economic value, too. I certainly agree with Marx on these points. But it is impossible to talk about Marxism without considering the inevitable objection: “Well, it doesn’t work. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. People want to exploit each other and make money. They don’t want to be equal. It’s against human nature.”

This is the familiar “human nature” response to Marxism. According to this argument, socialism does not work because human beings are inherently selfish and only want to enrich themselves, even if that means trampling on others. To a large extent, experience bears this argument out. In our society, commercial hungers induce people to ruthlessly exploit one another. Everyone works for personal reward, and those with greater power take full advantage over those with less.

Still, is this not a pathetic admission? Put simply, the “human nature” objection to socialism assumes that it is “in our nature to exploit one another.” It assumes that human beings enjoy exploiting each other and—to some extent—being exploited. It assumes that human beings don’t really mind being reduced to instruments and amounts, as long as they get what they want from the exchange. In this sense, the real objection to socialism reads as follows: “We can’t be socialist because we are only human. We like exploiting and being exploited. Exploitation gives us lots of neat things and we like having more neat things than our neighbor. It would be really nice if we all were equal and everyone owned the same things. But that makes us feel angry because we want the full rewards from our work.”

In short, socialism “fails” because human beings lose emotional control when they think that others benefit from their work. It is too much for the human mind to accept. To avoid that emotional response, people prefer the old exploitation system. It might be unfair. It might be difficult. But at least it feels “natural.” It accords with people’s emotions. Hey, people in a free market system might face exploitation. But one day they might get to exploit others. And at day’s end they get to own as many cars as they want and take home their own pay. Who doesn’t want that?

In this light, is it not sad that the “human nature objection” to socialism reveals itself to be based entirely in emotion? There is nothing intellectually better about capitalism. It just panders more effectively to the innate emotional satisfaction that flows from exploiting others and being exploited. After all, it feels good to exploit. So everyone strives for it. Plus they get to own stuff in the process.

This explains why people willingly see themselves as amounts. In our society, people simply do not mind thinking in instrumental terms. They do not mind thinking of themselves—and others—as economic units. True, they also regard themselves as unique individuals with talents, desires, dreams and ambitions. But those “non-economic” characteristics take a back seat to economic viability. If becoming an instrument pays the bills or helps amass a fortune, that is exactly what most people will do. Judged against these objectives, individual “talents, desires, dreams and ambitions” mean little. After all, this is the mental outlook necessary to win in the great competition for the right to exploit others and get rich.

This is not just cynical resignation, either. This is merely the logical consequence of the bleak “human nature” that galvanizes capitalism defenders. The same “human nature” that rendered socialism an impossibility also transforms every person into a drab economic entity that alternately exploits and endures exploitation. This “human nature” reveals an inherent willingness in people to both debase themselves and to act with ruthless self-interest. Humanitarianism goes out the window in this analysis. If this is our “nature,” then it is hardly surprising that banks assume we view our “friends” as potential $100 “cash bounties.”

I suppose I should have expected these sentiments from a private bank. After all, banks are quintessentially capitalistic institutions. They provide capital to individuals, who in turn start enterprises. These enterprises instrumentalize employees, bringing the “investors” capital as a “reward.” In short, banks provide the grease that keeps the exploitation gears turning. They provide the means by which human beings sate their “nature” as commercial creatures. They indulge the “natural” human desire to both exploit and be exploited. It is thus no surprise that banks expect people to regard their friends as potential profit opportunities. Even more insidiously, there are two layers of exploitation at work here. Through their “referral rewards” programs,” banks exploit people’s natural desire to exploit others. In the end, two exploitations result: The man who refers a friend gets $100. At the same time, the bank makes untold interest on the new accountholder. “Everybody wins.” And everybody “feels good about it.” Personality had nothing to do with it. This is instrumentalism at its finest.

People are perfectly willing to engage in this sort of common exploitation. Banks know it. They would not offer rewards for referrals unless they knew people would respond to their entreaties. Economically, it makes perfect sense. But I still don’t like it. I like to think that people regard themselves as more than mere amounts. I like to think that people have other motivations for friendship than transforming the relationship into a check. I try my best not to exploit others, even when it may be economically prudent to do so. Still, it is difficult to escape the “exploitation cycle,” precisely because it is allegedly “part of our nature.” Because exploitation and its rewards provide such emotional satisfaction, it is difficult to fully ignore them. Human beings do not like abandoning things that make them feel good.

Marx was right that there is more to human beings than purely commercial motivation. But he failed to understand the deep psychological desire in most humans to exploit one another. That is why socialism did not work, at least in the 20th Century. It angered too many people because they did not get to exploit others as freely as they would have in a capitalist system. Worse, they did not get to own as much; they felt resentful that their work went to help others, rather than themselves. This failure was not about theory. It was about emotion: Namely, anger and resentment. People wanted to be selfish and the government did not let them. That was a recipe for failure in the 20th Century.

But what about the future? Will we ever escape the seductive emotional intoxication that flows from thinking in exploitive economic terms? Socialism failed in several countries because it required too much hyper-intellectual commitment. It required that people adhere to abstract principles, such as practical equality, common property ownership and humanitarian commitment to one’s fellow man. Those principles offered no outlet for the human emotional need to exploit and gain. As appealing as the principles were in theory, they could not subdue the burning emotional desire in most people to exploit one another, compete with one another and win personal rewards. People were not intellectually ready to surrender their own comforts for the common good. After all, there is no personal emotional reward in knowing that a poor person can get health care. Yet there is an immense personal emotional reward in knowing you just earned $500,000 that belongs solely to you.

Until human beings change the way they feel about personal gain, they will continue to regard one another as “instruments” and “amounts.” The strong will dominate the weak. Meanwhile, the young, enterprising weak will work to dominate those who come after them. Emotion drives this cycle onward. Perhaps emotion will play a lesser role as our species evolves. But for now, people are quite happy with the way things are.

Humanity will have to wait. For now, you are not my friend. You are $100 in my pocket. I think you’re great and everything, but $100 is $100.