From the Catholic parody paper, the National Catholic Reporter.
Jesus was perhaps one of the world’s first health care reformers. During a time in history when Greeks and Romans often traveled to a temple with offerings in exchange for healing, Jesus and his early followers healed free of charge wherever they encountered the sick, often at great peril to themselves.
In fact, healing is a constitutive element of Jesus’ ministry. His first miracles in the Gospel of Mark are casting a demon from a man and healing a woman with a fever. In the whole of the gospels, there are 41 distinct stories of physical or mental healing. Jesus heals the blind, cures the withered hand and stops the bleeding.
He called his followers to do the same. Jesus instructed his disciples to go into towns and “cure the sick who are there” (Luke 10:9). Religion, caste or payment is not a consideration; instead, mercy and healing is extended to everyone.
I wish that were true in the United States.
What fine reasoning. Who Would Jesus Bill? Yes let us make healthcare policy decisions based on Jesus’ miraculous healings. Jesus didn’t heal any rich people so no health care for the rich. Jesus didn’t use medicine so we shouldn’t either. Well actually we would be allowed to use dirt and saliva as Jesus did in one case.
Thankfully Creative Minority Report gave this thought process the parody it deserves. Pretty funny.
The silly thing about But Nicole Sotelo of the National Catholic Reporter is that I guess she has no idea what free means because surely she is not suggesting that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, research labs, medical equipment makers, etc should all work for free? The idea that any government service is in fact free is to totally misunderstand economics. Free does not mean forcing one group of people to pay for something just as charity does not mean just paying your taxes.
26 comments
“Free does not mean forcing one group of people to pay for something just as charity does not mean just paying your taxes.”
For some, taxes= charity. (And if you don’t donate, the taxman will come a-knockin on your door).
I also note that Jesus didn’t do any QALY assessments on those He healed prior to healing them, to see if it would be worth His time to heal someone who may not have a good quality of life…
Talk about Jesus when it comes to marriage and abortion? You’re a raving right wing neo-con and should just shut up.
Talk about Jesus when it comes to trashing the health care system? That’s a fair application of religion.
To reiterate – I think some changes are needed. Tort reform. Portability across state lines. Repeals on ALL mandates on coverage. Budget help for people who could afford health care but choose not to. Limited programs for those who *truly* CAN’T afford health care.
Not this mess of a bill.
Why, I recommended that to Archbishop Wuel and the Catholic Health Assn. If health care is in such a crisis, and a moral right (but there are never any discussions about responsibilities)then step up to the plate (a little baseball lingo for those of you in Takoma Park, MD), and offer it free of charge. No questions, asked. No money asked. Don’t wait for the government to pay for it. Just do it.
Why, I recommended that to Archbishop Wuerl and the Catholic Health Assn.
If health care is in such a crisis, and a moral right (but there are never any discussions about responsibilities)then step up to the plate (a little baseball lingo for those of you in Takoma Park, MD), and offer it free of charge. No questions, asked. Don’t worry about leagl or illegal. No money asked. Don’t wait for the government to pay for it. Just do it.
…offer it free of charge. No questions, asked. No money asked. Don’t wait for the government to pay for it. Just do it.
See, that’s the thing. Thanks to government mandates on coverage and insurance and tort laws – it’s made it all but impossible for Catholic charities and persons to offer FREE health care without tremendous expense.
Catholics DID engage in charitable health care for years, centuries, before the government got too involved.
Can one be truly a catholic at heart while being a right wing libertarian at mind (or vice versa) ?
Taxes and redistribution should not be a problem with christians in general and catholics in particular.
But in the US it seems many a christian is allergic to the principle of taxation (and its redistribution corrolary) and hostile to the necessary reform of the present health care system which is failing so many Americans.
Why ?
As far as I know, Jesus had no objection to paying taxes to the Romans and indeed throughout the Gospels we are taught to take care of the sick, the poor, the widow and the orphan.
For centuries indeed the Catholic Church played, (and is still playing in certain countries), the central role the State is playing now. It received money, a lot of money, by different means (taxes, allowances, heritages, gifts …) and that money was used to build churches, monasteries, hospitals, hospices … and to help feed the poor, care for the sick and the old, …
Where and how do you think that money poured into the Church ?
Every body was supposed to give something in accordance to its revenue. But of course the main bulk of the Churche’s riches came from the mighty and rich christians, a certain number of whom had to be coaxed or even heavily pressured (scared) into giving proportionately to their respective fortune.
The Church was wise in not relying only on private, spontaneous charity. Human nature hasn’t evolved that much along the centuries.
At least politicaly speaking, things have changed nowadays, we live in democracies where Church and State are serparated and it is, mostly but not only, the State through our taxes that is doing what the Church used to be the only one to do.
It doesn’t mean we should not give to charities on top of paying our taxes. The two are complementary not in opposition.
Can one be truly a catholic and be a left wing, abortion-advancing, ESCR-funding, contraception supporting, lying, class envious/hatred liberal?
Personal liberty and property should not be a problem with Christians in general and Catholics in particular. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods. ETC.
But in the US it seems many a liberal is allergic to the principle of private property, personal responsibility, the family/home as the source of charity; and hostile to the necessary economic principle that a person who earns what he earns may retain the fruits of her/his labor to provide for her/his family.
[The present health care system is failing how many Americans?] Answer: One in eight.
And, how many more Americans will be failed by the rationed, low-quality care to come from ever-fruitless liberal garbage programs.
As far as I know, Jesus had no objection to paying taxes to the Romans because that was totally unrelated to one’s duties to God and neighbor. Jesus taught that YOU feed the hungry. YOU clothe the neked. YOU give drink to the thirsty. ETC. He told us to visit the sick, and personally look after the poor, the widow and the orphan, etc.
The Catholic Church should play the central role the State is playing now – except the money goes to planned parenthood, ACORN, etc.
Where and how do you think that money poured into the Church? Did it pay off Bishop Weakland’s, etc. victims?
Everybody was supposed to give something in accordance to its revenue or they’d go to hell. But of course the main bulk of the Church’s riches came from the mighty and rich christians, a certain number of whom had to be coaxed or even heavily pressured (scared to hell) into giving proportionately to their respective fortune. Blah. Blah. Blah.
The Church was wise in not relying only on private, spontaneous charity. Human nature hasn’t evolved that much along the centuries.
At least politically speaking, things have changed nowadays, we live in a republic where Church and State are separated and it is, a huge problem that the State uses our (over 50% of the people pay no Fed. income taxes) taxes to spread around “bread and circuses” to slothful, lustful, wrathful, gluttonous, envious people who keep voting for the politicians that pay their bills..
Who can afford to give to charities on top of being out-of-work and paying taxes?
As long as the two sides are calling artillery fire in on each other, nothing much will probably get done. This contest of “I’m much more like Jesus than you are because I (fill in the blank)” is a loser. Call me weird, but I’m inclined to doubt the Lord favors either “thou shalt not allow government near thy pocket” or “we have to be sensitive enough to allow people to kill the kids they started for the sake of seven minutes of pleasure.” It’s rather like the line in Weird Al Yankovic’s video, “Amish Paradise,”–“I’m three times humbler than thou!” The trick is for the other 80% not to get caught up in these clowns’ war. Then maybe we can get something done.
I admit, though, watching this eye-beam idiocy isn’t a total waste of time. It reminded me of a couple of things I’d better mention in the Confessional saturday.
Can one be truly a catholic at heart while being a right wing libertarian at mind (or vice versa) ?
There is simply way too much question-begging in that statement in the guise of a question to foster an honest discussion. Walt took issue with I.M. Scandalized’s response to it, but I tend to think he was well within fair play to parody it.
Scott,
I just lost my response to you on the other thread. I failed to register my name and address again before submitting.
My question here was pretty genuine. There is something in the libertarian philosophy that is profoundly anti-christian IMO.
I mentioned the right wing one because that is the kind you have in the US.
I’m not American, I don’t live on the same continent as you do. Where I live it’s the left wing libertarians I’m having issues with but they rarely pretend to be catholics.
As for IM Scandalised, I didn’t understand half of his rant. But I did get the defensive agressivity and the lashing out with name-calling.
English not being my native language a certain number of things might get lost on translation both ways but still, the violence is there like I noticed on other catholic conservative blogs.
Why is it that conservative almost always equals libertarian ? Can’t one be a conservative catholic without the libertarian baggage ?
Well, perhaps the first thing to fall under the language problem is that I think Jeff and few here would ever use the description of “libertarian” to describe themselves. There might be an anti-government streak there, but that does not a libertarian in most American books make. I often repeat a joke from elsewhere about playwright David Mamet–who went from being a leftist hippy who thought government was bad to being a right-winger, who thought… government was bad. “Who’s doing donuts on the road to Damascus Dave?” was the question. 🙂 My advice is to stick to specific subjects rather than try to box a speaker into x ideology.
Also, when someone says, “the violence is there”, this implies to the English-speaking mind a call to inflict physical harm. A better word might be “hostility”.
Scott,
I’m not trying to put anybody in a reductive box. People are complex and too is our faith.
But what is your personal opinion on my perception that the conservatives in general have been contaminated (it is a strong word but I do believe libertarianism is a danger to society) by the libertarian ideology ?
Is it just misperception due to cultural differences, lack of indepth information, or is there some truth to it ?
If there is truth to it, do you believe the libertarian philosophy is compatible with the catholic faith ?
Why is it that conservative almost always equals libertarian ? Can’t one be a conservative catholic without the libertarian baggage ?
Here, libertarian and conservative are two separate entities. Similar in some veins, yes, but not all.
As for why conservatives are against taxation and redistribution: we aren’t. I speak for myself when say I do, however, have a problem when that taxation and redistribution is mismanaged and ineffective. This are two things that have been done on an ENORMOUS scale in the US. See, for example, Medicare. I just listened to how they overspend by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars (i.e. spending $7,000 to rent something that costs about $1,000 to buy). Those who DO the taxing have an obligation to be good, effective stewards of resources, too. Not just those who continually raid the piggy bank while they spend, spend, spend. Or – since the 1960s – money that’s gone into programs to fight the “war on poverty”. It still exists in this nation and has, instead, created an entitlement class that thinks the government should provide for their every need.
And I have a problem when that taxation goes toward things that are explicitly prohibited in Catholic teaching. Like abortion or euthanasia.
Say, for example, that the tens of millions of tax dollars that go to Planned Parenthood were, instead, rerouted to programs that effectively encouraged abstinence, or helped women through an unplanned pregnancy, or assisted people who want to adopt but can’t afford to. That I’d support.
I also believe there’s an ethical and moral obligation for individuals to do whatever is in their capacity to take care of themselves in a responsible way before turning to someone for charitable assistance or government aid. For example, if we fell on hard times, we would have an obligation to reduce our unnecessary expenses (dinners out, cable TV, cell phones, etc.) as much as possible to see if it’s feasible for us to live on a limited income BEFORE applying for, say, food stamps or rent assistance.
If there were an obligation not to own personal property or personal wealth, the Ten Commandments would not prohibit the coveting of what your neighbor owns. There is nothing sinful about owning property or being wealthy so long as those things don’t become your gods.
You’re implying anyone (libertarian) that is against hell care collectivization (Long lines, rationing and a lot of angry people) ain’t a christian.
That’s called ad hominem. Then, you go on and either fabricate stuff about those disagreeing’s morals or motives; or you distort, omit, exaggerate, or outright lie to support your ill-conceived opinion.
Did I use too many big words?
I fail to see that implication, perhaps elaborate.
And while I probably shouldn’t pick on typos, this sentence, “You’re implying anyone (libertarian) that is against hell care collectivization” makes for one ironic Freudian slip.
Amy,
Thanks for your answer.
From where I stand there is irony to systematically imply that when it is government managed it is mismanaged and inffective whereas when it is private it’s all good and well.
The banks and other big corporations who have been more than heavily involved in the big economical mess we’re in right now, are proof that private doesn’t equal with good (just like governement doesn’t equal with bad).
The present health care system which is private run is not efficient. It costs way too much for what it gives overall. Too many people fall out of it.
I’m not disputing your claim about mismanagement of Medicare, I don’t have enough info to know. But even if there is mismanagement, it is not a reason to rule it out as bad. The mismanagement has to be fixed but I’m not sure privatising it will fix the problem, quite the contrary.
As far as planned parenthood is concerned, teaching natural contraception means would be also a good idea besides teaching about abstinence.
[I also believe there’s an ethical and moral obligation for individuals to do whatever is in their capacity to take care of themselves in a responsible way before turning to someone for charitable assistance or government aid. For example, if we fell on hard times, we would have an obligation to reduce our unnecessary expenses (dinners out, cable TV, cell phones, etc.) as much as possible to see if it’s feasible for us to live on a limited income BEFORE applying for, say, food stamps or rent assistance.]
I rather agree with that.
But I would think that Americans are pretty good at taking care of themselves in general. The only problem being that for too many years cheap credit and out of hand consummer spending have been the economical credo of elites and masses in the US along with other(libertarian) economical heresies which have badly hurt real capitalism and created quite difficult social situations.
I may be barking at the wrong tree but I am kind of on a crusade against libertarianism (from left to right). I definitely consider it evil.
Whatever your pseudo is,
[Did I use too many big words?]
No that is fine, brother, I did receive you loud and clear.
So much anger, so much fear … I’m sorry you are in such a state of inner turmoil.
Walt took issue with BOTH clowns.
eyhg:
From where I stand there is irony to systematically imply that when it is government managed it is mismanaged and inffective whereas when it is private it’s all good and well.
Some may say that; I don’t. I recognize there’s the capacity for greed, mismanagement, and corruption in the private sector as well. It’s run by human beings who are stained with sin just like the rest of us.
However, the difference is, it’s A LOT easier to 1) expose mismanagement and corruption; 2) get rid of it; and 3) boycott private businesses that run in such an underhanded manner than it is to take on a government behemoth that will fortify its defenses with laws and stonewalling.
I just believe that the best way to benefit others is to give them the equality of OPPORTUNITY, because working for equality of OUTCOME is unjust (i.e., give everyone a chance to get an education, but don’t penalize those who DO good in school for the sake of those who CHOOSE not to do good word).
The present health care system which is private run is not efficient. It costs way too much for what it gives overall. Too many people fall out of it.
I think the problems are that doctors and hospitals, by and large, are beholden to a lot of government mandates – mandates on what they HAVE to cover (like cosmetic plastic surgery), and outrageous tort laws that require massive amounts of 1) malpractice insurance and 2) excessive testing to avoid malpractice suits.
I guess, living in America and being relatively healthy I think there’s a lot more good in our health care system than bad. After I had my first son I woke up with severe abdominal pain that required a trip to the ER. Turns out I had gallstones which inflamed my pancreas and required surgery. I was in the OR the next day. My hospitals are clean, the staff is professional and courteous, etc. These are things that lack in government-run hospitals.
I’m not disputing your claim about mismanagement of Medicare, I don’t have enough info to know. But even if there is mismanagement, it is not a reason to rule it out as bad. The mismanagement has to be fixed but I’m not sure privatising it will fix the problem, quite the contrary.
Agreed that mismanagement doesn’t necessarily equal bad. Medicare might be a necessary program. But that doesn’t mean it has to be run the way it currently is; holding people accountable for spending responsibly would help.
In the private sector, I like to look at how auto insurance is priced and run as an example of how best we can fix health care. Auto insurance companies allow you to pick your coverage(s), your deductible. They offer free quotes and compete for your dollars.
Why not require doctors and hospitals to publish their price schedules? Why not disconnect health insurance from employment (which is really just a form of socialized medicine in miniature) and open up insurance companies to compete across state lines? Why not allow people to customize their policies to cover A, C, and F rather than mandating they cover A-Z? Allowing tax incentives for those who purchase insurance privately (it’s currently only allowed if you get insurance through your employer, I believe)?
And then, for those who can’t afford it, a well-managed government program or assistance.
Ultimately, what it boils down to is this: he who has the gold makes the rules. If the government takes over health care then, in the interest of “saving money” and “public health”, the government can – and will – begin making laws that affect what you eat, how you exercise, even how many children you have (especially if you’re a NFP-practicing Catholic family with just too darned many kids), what treatments you receive, and when it’s time to get you off the public role and into a nice pine box.
Such potentially unlimited government power eventually crushes the God-given dignity of man, turns us into slaves rather than children of God.
Conveniently, the newspaper doesn’t finish the passage from Luke about how the disciples were to shake the dust of the town from there feet in protest and how it would be less tolerable for the the town than for Sodom and Gommorah if it did not accept the disciples’ message and service. True, religion, class or payment were not strictly reasons to prevent the disciples from preaching, but these reasons could very well be associated with whatever reasons for which the disciples would not be accepted.
Picking and choosing which parts of a scripture to quote? Cafeteria Catholics? (“I’ll have some of that and some of that–no, not that teaching. It makes me irregular.”)
Amy P, your analysis is excellent. Healthcare need not be in the hands of either the companies, or the government..but rather the individual should be able to make choices as to what he or she wants covered.
Joe of St. Therese:
Thank you. I really have a problem with the whole notion that if you’re opposed to Obamacare (and I am) you’re against doing anything to fix some of the problems (which I’ll readily admit exist). Oh, and the arguments that those of us who oppose Obamacare are un-Catholic and hate the poor, are racist, etc.
It gets a little exhausting so you work on making your arguments as clear as possible.
Amy,
[Oh, and the arguments that those of us who oppose Obamacare are un-Catholic and hate the poor, are racist, etc.]
It is not opposing Obamacare per se which poses problem, it is the reasons for and the way of opposing the reform as a whole that may be not very catholic IMO.
For your information, I never voted in the US. I’m no Obamamaniac or democrat. I’m not republican either.
My understanding of the health situation in the US is that basically for years, costs (insurance + care) have gone up (out of hand) and coverage has gone down, with more and more people falling out of the system.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying it is to some extent the goverment’s fault if it is so !?
I thought the present system was a private system based, dominated by major health insurance companies and big pharmaceutical corporations on which nobody seemed to have much of an influence.
Also, from what I get, the Obamacare is not overall a socialised medicine proposition.
If we exclude abortion, the financing of abortion by public money and the conscience clause for medical staff which are cleary catholic issues, the rest of the opposition to it seems more of an ideological (I perceive sometimes as libertarian) and political (I perceive sometimes as calivinist) type of issues rather than ethical and moral(catholic).
I’m happy for you that you and your family have a good insurance and a good overall health and consequently are satisfied with the present situation.
I also understand you are conscious of problems in the system and you make propositions to improve the situation.
But my questions to you are :
– when did you realise there was some problem that needed solving ?
– do you think that you could accept the Obama reform if it conformed to the moral, ethical catholic standards you (are right to) stand for ?
– or, is there some sort of political/ideological (which is not catholic in essence) total impossibility to adhere to something coming from a democrat (I do not presume you are racist if you don’t agree with Obama) or coming from government in general ?
Because, to my knowledge, the only administration so far to have taken a head on stand to do something about the health care obvious problem, is the Obama one. I’m not saying he is doing it right just that he, at least, is trying and proposing something.
If you believe it’s not the government’s job to put its nose into the health care mess then whose is it ? Do you think average isolated citizens can do it alone ?
What the US Catholics, who are so mobilised to fight his administration’s propositions, were doing before to help solve the problem (and I’m not talking about charity only, catholics having a responsibility as citizens, consummers, voters in society to act and make a difference) ?
Do you think it is possible to achieve some results nationwide, to have clout, without some government (federal or else) involvement ?
I realize this comment is way too long and carries too many questions.
I’m sorry about that but I’m still puzzled at some positions and reasonings within the catholic community.
God bless you all
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying it is to some extent the government’s fault if it is so !?
That is correct. To some extent, the companies need to be more charitable, but a great deal of the problem is – as I mentioned above – because of the government and restrictions it places on companies. Here’s how:
First, it is against the law to carry insurance coverage across state lines. Which means that if a X policy costs less in Iowa than it does in Wisconsin, you will pay more if you live in Wisconsin because you can’t purchase out-of-state insurance. This gives each in-state insurance company a mini-monopoly and/or less incentive to decrease costs through competition.
Second, few states (and the federal government) have put limits on malpractice lawsuits (tort reform). Malpractice insurance (which protects a doctor if they make a mistake – through neglect, mistake, or otherwise) is EXPENSIVE. To offset the cost of malpractice insurance, the rates for doctors, hospitals, treatments is raised.
Third, many state governments (and I think federally) have said that insurance companies must cover A-Z conditions, rather than letting companies offer plans where people can choose A, B, F coverage. Because insurance companies have to pay out for everything, for every person, rates go up.
Insurance companies – like all companies – need to turn a profit in order to stay in business. Profit is what allows companies to hire more workers, offer better benefits, pay better wages. When laws cut into those profits, companies have to make decisions to keep themselves solvent and their doors open. Profits are not inherently evil.
– when did you realise there was some problem that needed solving ?
I don’t know, exactly. I guess things like this come to your attention when you’re an adult, with a family, and financial responsibilities.
– do you think that you could accept the Obama reform if it conformed to the moral, ethical catholic standards you (are right to) stand for ?
I am open to reform if it meets the following criteria: Is respectful of ALL life from conception to natural death, is not intrusive on the family (including the right of families to have more than 2 children), does not treat people like objects or commodities, is financially sustainable and responsibly managed, and includes tort reform, a repeal of unnecessary coverage mandates, and opens up private insurance for purchase across state lines. If those things were met by the Obama bill I’d have no reason to oppose it. But they aren’t.
– or, is there some sort of political/ideological (which is not catholic in essence) total impossibility to adhere to something coming from a democrat (I do not presume you are racist if you don’t agree with Obama) or coming from government in general ?
I guess I kind of answer this in the above, but I’d have no problem with legislation from a Democrat if they were respectful of life, religious points of view (including conscience clauses, although we wouldn’t necessarily need them if abortion/euthanasia weren’t such strong possibilities under this current health care bill), and took fiscally responsible approaches to the reform. I guess that I am leery about anything coming from the government in excessive amounts because – as I said earlier – he who has the gold makes the rules. Power corrupts, which is why limited government is less likely to intrude on our lives and our families – something Catholicism recognizes as inherently good and ordered toward the glory of God.
Also, from what I get, the Obamacare is not overall a socialised medicine proposition.
Perhaps not right away. But Obama himself has said – repeatedly – he’s in favor of America going to a solely single-payer (socialized, government-run) system. See here for the video. And many Democrats in office today believe a public option – as proposed in current versions of the legislation – is the way to eventually eliminate ALL private insurance and leave only socialized medicine in its place.
I’ve seen enough of the genuine problems and concerns from people in Canada and the UK to know what they’re proposing now is not sustainable over time. Worse than that are the conditions in Cuban medical facilities, which aren’t even good enough for animals, let alone human beings. See here for some disturbing photos.
If you believe it’s not the government’s job to put its nose into the health care mess then whose is it ? Do you think average isolated citizens can do it alone ?
I believe a very limited government role – for those, again, who genuinely can’t afford health insurance – is justified and needed. But I can’t emphasize the word LIMITED enough.
What the US Catholics, who are so mobilised to fight his administration’s propositions, were doing before to help solve the problem (and I’m not talking about charity only, catholics having a responsibility as citizens, consummers, voters in society to act and make a difference) ?
Well, sadly, despite his blatantly pro-abortion positions, a lot of American Catholics voted for Obama, so I believe that a great deal of the same would not have a problem with his health care proposals. I can’t speak authoritatively on what my fellow Catholics were doing; that’s a question that would take some time to answer.
Do you think it is possible to achieve some results nationwide, to have clout, without some government (federal or else) involvement ?
Yes, I do. I believe the free market system does a marvelous job of creating opportunity for people.
I also believe that a lot of this problem is that people have forgotten they have a moral obligation to be responsible citizens; part of that includes paying a reasonable portion out-of-pocket for your health care. We have a few health care bills, probably about $1,500-$2,000 or so in all, that I make manageable payments on. It’s not fun and there’s lots of things I’d like to do with that money each month, but I have a responsibility to myself and the medical facilities/personnel that treated me.
If you call and talk to someone in the billing office, they are usually more than willing to work out a payment plan with you because they know you may not be able to drop $300, $400, $500 in one payment. The thing I find is that people increasingly seem to think that lots of things should be FREE to them.
I get especially annoyed because I often see people who spend money on things that aren’t perhaps necessary (like video games or cell phones) rather than basic necessities. I feel this dances dangerously on the borderline of greed, and perhaps a little bit of envy, and is not helping the situation, either.
Today I was reading the brilliant but crazy Mencius Moldbug, and it dawned on me why the libertarian charge is not only wrong, but laughable: An open letter to Ron Paul supporters (part 1). The whole thing is worth it, but here’s the conclusion:
1.Ron Paul is unelectable (being a Nazi and all).
2.If Ron Paul is elected, the civil-service oligarchy will crush him like a bug.
3.The only thing worse than civil-service oligarchy is actual democracy.
Thanks a million and please keep up the enjoyable work. Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit, but instead of that, this is excellent blog.