The Secular Soundboard: Resuscitating a Nation of Mendicants by Alvin Bernstein Hardly any event in our twentieth-century domestic history was more portent-laden than the presidential election of 1964. Lyndon Johnson defeated the much-maligned Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater, by a huge majority and also carried Congress with him. This meant that specious liberal dreams, generally put out to pasture for 25 years, would receive practical application. The dreams were conveniently packaged into a concept called the "Great Society" and many of them, including Medicare and Medicaid, became quite noxious once transformed into legislation. Medicare, which went into effect in July 1966, was basically a supplement to the Social Security Act passed in 1935, during the heyday of the New Deal. Its intent was to relieve those aged 65 and over of the allegedly high cost of medical care and to help them extend their lives in comparative physical comfort. Has this been accomplished? One way of getting the answer is to examine longevity statistics before and after the establishment of Medicare in 1966. 1 In 1939, 27 years before Medicare, the death rate was 10.6 per thousand. In 1966, the year of Medicare, it had declined to 9.5 per thousand. In 1993, 27 years later, the death rate was 8.8 per thousand. These figures show that while the 1939-1966 death rate declined by 1.1 per thousand, the 1966-1993 death rate, during the era of Medicare, went down by only 0.7 per thousand. Life expectancy statistics reveal a similar pattern. In 1940, life expectancy at birth was 62.9 years. It reached 70.2 years in 1965, one year prior to Medicare being enacted. In 1990, it was 75.4 years. Thus, between 1940 and 1965, we have an impressive increase in life expectancy of 7.3 years, whereas between 1965 and 1990, after Medicare, we have an increase in life expectancy of only 5.2 years. This evidence indicates that before the incredibly expensive Medicare/Medicaid era, those who had been paying their own medical bills in entirety were improving their health and longevity at a faster rate than those whose bills have been partially or fully paid for these last 30 years. There is therefore no reason to suppose that medical progress would not have taken place without Medicare. We should also consider that longevity has often been artificially maintained these last few decades, a phenomenon that was not widespread before 1966. The writer lives in a community in which 60 percent of the population is retired. He hears the "911" Life Support trucks so frequently that he is losing awareness of their significance. Further, what about artificial life extension techniques used in many American hospitals? The fact is that the major portion of medical progress in the United States was made during the first half of the twentieth century, especially after World War I. Devastating diseases such as hookworm, yellow fever, cholera, smallpox, influenza, tuberculosis, etc., had been brought under control. Strange as it may now seem, the federal, state and local governments played a legitimate role in public health, particularly in the field of sanitation. Yet the work of private philanthropic organizations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, was primary. Despite some claims to the contrary, capitalism has never been a wholly selfish ogre. Speaking of capitalism, it is noteworthy that since about 1964, many capitalistic enterprises have favored aspects of the Great Society. Lyndon Johnson was supported by banks and construction companies interested in building big hospitals. People such as former presidential candidate Ross Perot augmented their wealth in the service of Medicare. We thus see capitalists deriving profit from moves toward socialism. Older readers may recall the vigorous opposition of physicians to socialized medicine in days gone by. Their tune is now startlingly different. More physicians, particularly specialists, have become millionaires than ever occurred before 1966. As a result of being partially supported by the taxpayer, they are virtually guaranteed a good living. They may complain of inconvenience such as the myriad forms they must submit to maintain bureaucrats in employment. Yet is not this the other side of the coin of being, in a partial sense, a government employee? It is the price paid for economic security. When Karl Marx predicted the decline of capitalism, I doubt if he ever conceived that its decline would be so voluntary! In addition to the blight of federally supported Medicare, we should be cognizant of the extravagant health plans covering workers in industry. I quote: 2 Benefits have for years been as important as wages in labor bargaining ... The chairman of the Ford Motor Company told the president-elect's commission that his company spends more money on health care than on steel ... Many firms reckon health care adds 20 percent to their wage bill ... It is also a deterrent to the entrepeneur, since many newly started firms cannot afford to pay for their workers' health care. The above was written in December 1992. Reductions in the cost of employee health plans have since occurred, but they still remain a monkey on the back of the American economy. The problem of health care is but part of the complex set of problems that have evolved from New Deal and Great Society legislation. Almost every citizen is in some way unnecessarily dependent on government, whether poor, middle class, or rich. We are reduced to a minimum of individual enterprise and have become in essence a nation of mendicants. Moreover, a permanent economic recession has existed since the 1970s, quite shortly after Great Society legislation spread its utopian poison. Both husband and wife must now work to achieve the standard of living of their parents. They lack sufficient time in which to raise their children properly. Housing is becoming shoddier and shoddier and our urban structures are aesthetic frights because handsome buildings are too costly. In short, the country has not been doing well for at least 20 years. The trouble appears to be rooted in the false belief that the "collective," which now means the modern state, can accomplish more for the individual than the individual can accomplish for himself in his contacts with other individuals. The free-market, one-to-one relationship is scarcely recognized by those who endow the state and its operations with a virtual mystical soul. The government, however, exacts its pound of financial flesh, its huge brokerage fee, each time it interferes with the free operation of the economy. This sort of thing must be tolerated in matters of national defense, in the protection of life and property, and in a few other areas. A necessary war must, by its very nature, be written off as a financial loss. We should nevertheless be wary of absorbing a loss in every aspect of economic life. What should be done? The country should take vigorous steps to divorce itself from the Great Society. It should even consider eschewing much that has been established since the beginning of this century, such as the Square Deal, the New Deal, the Fair Deal and other "deals." The Republicans are now trying to reduce government expenses by some 1 trillion dollars by the year 2002, when they expect the budget to be balanced. This is a worthy but very limited effort. Even if a balanced budget is achieved, the cost of government would still be toweringly high so long as programs such as Medicare are permitted to stay sacrosanct, despite some economies. A further point to ponder is that the emerging Republican alliance with the religious right will extend government intrusion into moral and personal matters while, simultaneously, efforts at freeing the economy remain embryonic. One freedom should not be sacrificed for another. The revival of capitalism should not be attained in exchange for abolishing rights such as freedom of choice in abortion and birth control. The country sorely needs a third party to vigorously combat both liberalism and the forces of religious reaction. To return to the health debate. Many advocate individual initiative and self-discipline in matters of health as a means of reducing the crushing medical budget. These are fine and commendable ideas but are they attainable? A substantial number of people have good health habits right now, but their taxes pay for lack of self-discipline on the part of others. It appears that many reject one bad habit only to adopt another one. The scourge of overdrinking may be declining, but it is being gradually replaced by the far more dangerous scourge of hard drugs. A substantial proportion of the population is not mentally constituted for self-discipline in health or daily habits. Perhaps private organizations should help them, but certainly not the government. No government has a moral right to compel those who do take care of themselves to pay the bills of those who do not. We hear a familiar refrain each time efforts are made to limit government expenditure on health. It is: "What about the poor?" Well, what about them? Considering the enormous sums spent on the poor and disadvantaged these last 30 years, the phenomenon of poverty should have been eradicated by now. Yet poverty subsists. Moreover, the aid to the poor has undoubtedly reduced the income of the non-poor, helping to maintain this country's permanent recession since the 1970s. One consequence is that the poor cannot be easily employed when society as a whole becomes poorer. We should resign ourselves to the fact that there is no effective solution to the problem of poverty. Greater intellects than those possessed by modern liberals have, through the ages, attempted to understand the phenomenon of poverty and to relieve it if possible. Their endeavors have proven fruitless. There is only one hope. If society generates more wealth as time goes on, its poor, though still poor in comparison with their contemporaries, will be better off as time goes on. There is, however, little hope of fundamentally ending poverty, that is, of ending a situation in which a minority of a given population is far less endowed with worldly goods than is the majority. There is considerable wisdom in the idea that the poor are always with us. (Matthew 26:11) Americans are reputed to be a practical people who, unlike Europeans, reject vain and fanciful ideology and theory. If this is so, why do so many of us still adhere to decades-old and corroding economic utopianism? We have actually lost much of our practical sense. It must be resuscitated in order that we no longer be a nation of mendicants. Footnotes: 1. For statistics - see pp. 847-850, Information Please 1995, and the World Almanac, 1995, p. 872. 2. Alan Ryan: "In Need of Radical Surgery," London Times, December 22, 1992, p. 12. Suggested Reading: Only one fine book is recommended: Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson, Arlington House, Connecticut, 1979. Alvin Bernstein is a scholar and former teacher of European history. He is retired and living in Paradise, California.   Table of Contents | 1995 Issues | Subscribe Truth Seeker | Feedback | Freethought.com Webmaster Credit card Orders call: 800-321-9054 or fax: (619)676-0433 Or send check or money order to: Truth Seeker / 16935 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 103 / San Diego, CA 92127 $20.00 annual U.S. subscription ($35.00 international). Individual issues—$10.00 + $2.50 postage and handling Or be a committed freethinker and send $35.00 for a two year subscription. Truth Seeker is published by Truth Seeker Co., Inc. (ISSN 0041-3712) © 1996