Obligatory audio post – Reagan in 1961 on socialized government health care

I was listening to Howie Carr’s show yesterday afternoon and he featured an “interview” he had with Dutch concerning the government’s involvement in health care and the slow, but methodical implementation of a socialist structure into our culture. Here’s the audio from Carr, and Reagan’s full speech from 1961.

Originally published at RVO on Aug. 14, but pushed back up Aug. 27.

Worth 15 minutes of your time this weekend. Please, click on the audio and ensure your speakers are on.

First, Carr’s interview with Reagan from his show yesterday afternoon.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

More importantly, Reagan’s full speech. This MUST GO VIRAL

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

reagan-cover-health-careOne of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, they would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this under the Truman administration. It was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States and of course the American people unhesitatingly ejected this. So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under the program of compulsory health insurance………….”

20 replies
  1. Geno
    Geno says:

    Wow, 48 years later and it's as if he recorded that yesterday. He must be rolling over in his grave. Let us all heed his advise and make our voices heard. In the words of Gandolf to Balrog known as Obamacare: " You shall not pass" (obscure Lord of the Rings reference, sorry)

  2. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Maybe Pres. Reagan might have said something different in 2009, like times change, you know. Like how much of GDP is eaten by health costs. What did he say in 1980 or 1984? A huge chunk of the population was not even born in 1961, and many who were born since may not even know who Ronald Reagan was, or what he stood for.

  3. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    And people wonder why the progressive statists hated (and continue to hate) Reagan so much?  Believe what you will, but Reagan appears to have been a political genius.

     

    From Wiki: "Reagan "criticized Social Security for supplanting private savings and warned that subsidized medicine would curtail Americans' freedom" and that "pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him."

     

    And from 1981 Inaugural Speech:  "But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending.  For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present.   To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals…It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government…We are not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline…I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing….

     

    They don't make presidents like that anymore…

  4. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Maybe a political "genius", but not much traction: forces stronger than his rethoric have been shaping the US (and other places too). Otherwise we would have heeded his "advice".

  5. Lazybum
    Lazybum says:

    Maybe when we go belly up there will be someone like Reagan to pull the  uneducated, American Idol watching, welfare-expecting asses out of the gutter to educate them and then  the rest of us can live like the  free people our forefathers fought and died to allow us to be.

    Barack Obama- HE is the man our forefathers warned us against

     

  6. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    @Lazybum-Perhaps when we go belly-up it may a bit late. And calling people who have different views from yours: "uneducated, American Idol watching, welfare-expecting asses" is an un-necessary put-down.

  7. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Of course, keeping people as “uneducated, American Idol watching, welfare-expecting asses” is the goal of the progressive statists.   The transformation of the American people from thoughtful, reading, involved in government self reliance to self absorbed, pliable, do as your told, television watchers is a long term and successful goal that starts with the public schools and ends with the predominantly liberal controlled media.  Ask yourself how many people get their primary information from 10-15 second soundbites or use bumper sticker counts to form an opinion.

  8. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    You mean to say that the American people is no longer: "thoughtful, reading, involved in government self reliance"? Then how can this country be the greatest country in the world? On one hand I keep reading on this blog that this country is the greatest ever etc. etc. On the other it is populated by dolts, governed by idiots, self absorbed and amoral. So which is it?

  9. Lazybum
    Lazybum says:

    While there remains a group of thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum, a large majority sit on their collective asses waiting for the nanny-state to supply everything from food to big screen tv's. If you do not believe me, go to any mall in any town in any state in the US.

    We were once a country of primarily  independent people who relished the opportunity to be individualists and be to the captains of their own destiny.  We are now being out-numbered and out-voted by sheep who are content to  debate and vote on pop culture while feeding on the gov't teat on one level or another. Unfortunately, they do not understand that ultimately, they will pay at the cash register through increased costs and taxes.

    Sooner or later we will run out , as Margret Thatcher said, of other peoples money. Then who pays?

  10. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Oh God! When did we go wrong? Under Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter……? Aren't malls a place where the business of the nation is conducted according to free market principles? And did the UK survive after Thatcher?

  11. Steve McGough
    Steve McGough says:

    There was never a specific time or event where we "went wrong." As far as I'm concerned there has been a very slow, incremental shift of power from the people and the states to the federal government that has created dependency.

    That's how the statists have been working since the 1930s starting (primarily) with the New Deal. They tried to get government health care for all in the 1960s, but they could not do it. They were able to get it for the retired seniors and those who were against Medicare (and its huge expansion – slowly – over the years) wanted old people to die. They were heartless. Very few had the desire to stand up against the encroachment of our freedom and liberty.

    Over this period of time covering generations the shift has been slow, but very methodical. I'll use smoking just as an example, but you can pick your analogy. Nobody would have every thought it would be illegal to smoke in your own home, that was considered "ridiculous" just 15 years ago. But now, it's happening. Nobody would have thought the government would force private businesses (bars and restaurants) to ban smoking in their own establishments either.

    What we may be seeing here in the United States is a tipping point, not just on health care but all of the other crap the federal government has taken over during the last 75-plus years. I've seen it coming since the late 1980s. I predicted what would happen, and I'm thinking we may have hit the tipping point. Americans may not be willing to take it any longer.

  12. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Yes, there has been a shift. You may have predicted the shift and other things. But, in spite of where we are, is this the greatest country in the world or do we have to take out all the shift in order for it to be the greatest?

  13. mharris30
    mharris30 says:

    I can't believe what I'm hearing!  Do you guys really believe that Reagan's radio address from 48 years ago applies to the present day or gives us any valuable information to provide a solution to our present dilemma?!  This is like a flashback to McCarthyism.  The current administration, and people like me that believe a change is needed, are not advocating socialism anymore than Reagan's friends in Hollywood were advocating communism back in the 50's.  Even if this were a grand conspiracy to create socialized medicine, that  didn't cause the fall of the French Republic any more than it would the American Republic, and it improved the health care system enough that today some would argue it is superior to ours – not perfect, but certainly not in the hurt that we find ourselves in now.

    The most critical part of the health care reform, in my opinion, is the addition of a public option for health insurance, not a public/socialized medical care system.  That means that there are no government imposed quotas for doctors or the government telling anyone where they can work.  It is simply a pool of our money to pay for medical care for people who can't pay for it now because private medical insurance companies either refuse to pay for certain medical care, or are too expensive – even if the cost is not something they can't control, it's too expensive.  If private medical insurance companies wish to add services or reduce their rates (the former being more likely than the latter), they effectively limit the use of this public option to only those people they wouldn't insure anyway.

    There is no attack on free enterprise (certainly not one the private medical system everyone seems so proud of can't handle), no slippery slope to government control of the medical profession and eventually socialist dictatorship of all people that will destroy democracy and the founding fathers idea of the Republic – just better health insurance that covers more people.

    Some of the people that pay for this will be covered and some people that don't pay for it will benefit.  If you are wealthy, or lucky enough to have adequate health coverage (meaning you can afford the premium, and if you are sick, you can afford the required medical care), it will not affect your current health coverage except indirectly, you'll pay for something you don't benefit from.  Yes,  we pay for it in the form of higher taxes. Right now, we pay higher taxes to fight a war, improve our schools, and keep the private banking sector in business after they screwed things up!  You can't have it all.  It's just that simple.  There is no socialist agenda, no communist takeover.  So if you don't like the current plan, help your local government come up with better solutions and do as Reagan suggested and write your representatives in Congress with your solution to the issues in health care today.

    • ckamoen
      ckamoen says:

      in reply to mharris30. You don't understand that the action of the public option will have many reactions. One is that private business will throw employees into the cheaper the public option. How can the free market compete with the giant of a non-profit? You're very wrong and are obviously "sold" on the "bill" of goods with great promise but no fact or money to back up the promise. Listen to people who live under such a system, discover the reasons our ancestors moved away from countries that were governed by the same principals that we are moving towards. More government means less individual liberty and freedom. As well as more taxes, and when incomes fall and they need more money they will step on the gas tax and every other commodity that is needed to the point where we have lost the luxury of living in what we remember to be a pretty free country.

  14. Steve McGough
    Steve McGough says:

    @mharris30 – you're wrong, and we've proved it with fact after fact on this blog. We quote the bill, you just say it's not true. Saying "there is no slippery slope" to more federal control does not mean it is not happening. You provide no facts. Finally, you are welcome to post your opinion here, but read the terms of use before you post again. Maximum 75 words for comments.

  15. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    @mharris30 – I'm with you, but some people are too afraid of change. That's the premise of "Who moved my cheese".

  16. ViolaIncognita
    ViolaIncognita says:

    If "some people are too afraid of change," then some other people may be afraid to stay on topic.

     

    When people disagree about ideas or facts, bringing into the discussion fear of change is to change the subject and possibly end the discussion.

     

    Health care for all is a nice idea, but if the details can’t be discussed or challenged, who’s fear are we talking about?

  17. Rick-WH
    Rick-WH says:

    A nearly perfect commentary from a man who would go on to become a great president.

    The timing is significant – just a few short years before the legislation which brought us Medicare and Medicaid.   Thanks for finding it and playing it on today's show.

    I have passed the link on to many others.

     

Comments are closed.