'Single Payer' the wave of the future

Michael L. Grable
An insurance professional involved in the Purgatory of accommodating Obamacare recently told me he's certain Obamacare won't work and it must, consequently, be but the cat's paw for evolving a single-payer healthcare system.

I don't envy this man his present Purgatory, but medical Hell afterward awaits us all.

Surely Obamacare won't work, and surely its goal is single-payer healthcare.

After all, as Karl Marx said in 1875, only "after . . . all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly . . . can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety . . . ."

Then, Marx concluded, "society [can] inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Although Russia's try-out later discredited Communism, the Frankfurt School afterward resurrected it as neo-socialism; and the goal of both remains the same today as Marx proclaimed in 1875.

"Co-operative wealth" is what collectivism's obstinate utopian goal has always been and what it remains today.

Only collectivism's objectives have necessarily changed (i.e., from an actual economic determinism to a more nominal cultural determinism) in order to conceal the absolute dystopia which Russia's Communist venture truly produced.

And what a marvelously specious phrase "single payer" is anyway.

A "single payer" can, of course, exist only after having expropriated from a multiplicity of erstwhile payers the collective value of their labor.

And, if we're to have a single-payer healthcare system, then why not also have a single-payer grocery system, a single-payer housing system, a single-payer furniture system, a single-payer clothing system, a single-payer heating and air-conditioning system, a single-payer transportation system, and even a single-payer vacation and recreation system?

Why not, in other words, transfer 100% of the value of our collective labor to a ruling-class oligarchy which can then singly pay for everything everyone ever needs everywhere?

And also, while we're at it, "Let's," as constitutional law professor Louis Michael Seidman recently suggested, "give up on the Constitution."

After all, as the professor surmised, it's "a simple idea."

Simplicity's a virtue, isn't it?

And what could be simpler than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

The mind of adult man has seldom conceived a more infantile idea.

Its persistence is inexplicable.

It's regressive to the point of societal atavism.

Yet we call it "progressivism."

And here we now are, with healthcare, setting ourselves up for later converting one-sixth of the Nation's economy to a "single-payer" system.

If we're to have a single-payer system for one-sixth of the economy, why not also have a single-payer system for the other five-sixths?

The neo-socialist camel has its nose well under our tent.

Its hindquarters will afterward follow.

And what society can then inscribe on its banners may resemble more what comes out of the back of the camel's alimentary canal than what goes in its front.



An insurance professional involved in the Purgatory of accommodating Obamacare recently told me he's certain Obamacare won't work and it must, consequently, be but the cat's paw for evolving a single-payer healthcare system.

I don't envy this man his present Purgatory, but medical Hell afterward awaits us all.

Surely Obamacare won't work, and surely its goal is single-payer healthcare.

After all, as Karl Marx said in 1875, only "after . . . all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly . . . can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety . . . ."

Then, Marx concluded, "society [can] inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Although Russia's try-out later discredited Communism, the Frankfurt School afterward resurrected it as neo-socialism; and the goal of both remains the same today as Marx proclaimed in 1875.

"Co-operative wealth" is what collectivism's obstinate utopian goal has always been and what it remains today.

Only collectivism's objectives have necessarily changed (i.e., from an actual economic determinism to a more nominal cultural determinism) in order to conceal the absolute dystopia which Russia's Communist venture truly produced.

And what a marvelously specious phrase "single payer" is anyway.

A "single payer" can, of course, exist only after having expropriated from a multiplicity of erstwhile payers the collective value of their labor.

And, if we're to have a single-payer healthcare system, then why not also have a single-payer grocery system, a single-payer housing system, a single-payer furniture system, a single-payer clothing system, a single-payer heating and air-conditioning system, a single-payer transportation system, and even a single-payer vacation and recreation system?

Why not, in other words, transfer 100% of the value of our collective labor to a ruling-class oligarchy which can then singly pay for everything everyone ever needs everywhere?

And also, while we're at it, "Let's," as constitutional law professor Louis Michael Seidman recently suggested, "give up on the Constitution."

After all, as the professor surmised, it's "a simple idea."

Simplicity's a virtue, isn't it?

And what could be simpler than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?

The mind of adult man has seldom conceived a more infantile idea.

Its persistence is inexplicable.

It's regressive to the point of societal atavism.

Yet we call it "progressivism."

And here we now are, with healthcare, setting ourselves up for later converting one-sixth of the Nation's economy to a "single-payer" system.

If we're to have a single-payer system for one-sixth of the economy, why not also have a single-payer system for the other five-sixths?

The neo-socialist camel has its nose well under our tent.

Its hindquarters will afterward follow.

And what society can then inscribe on its banners may resemble more what comes out of the back of the camel's alimentary canal than what goes in its front.