1.
Featured Article:
Be Healthy or Else! By Yaron Brook and
Don Watkins
2.
In the News: GOOD
NEWS - GOOGLE GOVERNMENT
3.
International
Medicine: Obesity
Could Bankrupt the NHS
4.
Medicare: The Total
Disregard for Physicians
5.
Medical Gluttony:
Sometimes It's Just the Inability to Say NO
6.
Medical Myths: Only the Government Can
Guard Our Health
7.
Overheard in the
Medical Staff Lounge: Shall we close the Doctor's Lounge?
8.
Voices of Medicine:
Health Care Reformitis
9.
Book
Review: 50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
10.
Hippocrates
& His Kin: Another Group that Doesn't Want to Deal with the Government
11.
Related
Organizations: Restoring Accountability in
Medical Practice and Society
MOVIE EXPLAINING SOCIALIZED
MEDICINE TO COUNTER MICHAEL MOORE's SiCKO
Logan Clements,
a pro-liberty filmmaker in Los Angeles, seeks funding for a movie exposing the truth
about socialized medicine. This movie can only be made if Clements finds 200
doctors willing to make a tax-deductible donation of $5K. Clements is also
seeking American doctors willing to perform operations for Canadians on wait
lists. Clements is the former publisher of "American Venture"
magazine who made news in 2005 for a property rights project against eminent
domain called the "Lost Liberty Hotel."
For more information visit www.sickandsickermovie.com or email logan@freestarmovie.com.
* * * * *
1. Featured Article: Be Healthy or Else! By Yaron
Brook and Don Watkins
As part of his universal healthcare proposal, John Edwards
would make doctor visits and other forms of preventive care mandatory. In a
similar proposal in England, a Tory panel suggested that Britons should be
forced to adopt a government-prescribed "healthy lifestyle." Britons
who "cooperate" by quitting smoking or losing weight would receive
Health Miles that could be used to purchase vegetables or gym memberships;
those who don't would be denied certain medical treatments.
These paternalistic proposals are offered as solutions
to the spiraling costs that plague our respective healthcare systems. It is
unrealistic, states the Tory report, for British citizens "to expect that
the state will underwrite the health implications of any lifestyle decision
they choose to make."
But any proposal that expands the government's power
to control our lives--to dictate to us when to go to the doctor or how many
helpings of veggies we must eat--cannot be a solution to anything. Instead of
debating what coercive measures we should be taking to lower "social
costs," we should be questioning the healthcare systems that make our
lifestyles other people's business in the first place.
Both the American and British systems, despite their
differences, are fundamentally collectivist: they exist on the premise that the
individual's health is not his own responsibility, but "society's."
Both Britain's outright socialized medicine and America's semi-socialized blend
of Medicare, Medicaid, and government-controlled, employer-sponsored health
plans aim to relieve the individual of the burden of paying for his own
healthcare by coercively imposing those costs on his neighbors.
When the government introduces force into the
healthcare system to relieve the individual of responsibility for his own
health, it is inevitably led to progressively expand its control over that
system and every citizen's life. To read more,
please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/index.asp.
For example, in a system in which medical care is
"free" or artificially inexpensive, with someone else paying for
one's healthcare, medical costs spiral out of control because individuals are
encouraged to demand medical services without having to consider their real
costs. When "society" foots the bill for one's health, it also
encourages the unhealthy lifestyles of the short-range mentalities who don't
care to think beyond the next plate of French fries. The astronomical tab that
results from all of this causes collectivist politicians to condemn various
easy targets (e.g., doctors, insurance companies, smokers, the obese) for
taking too much of the "people's money," and then to enact a host of
coercive measures to control expenses: price controls on medical services, cuts
to medical benefits--or, as with the current proposals, attempts to reduce
demand for medical services by forcing a "healthy lifestyle" on
individuals.
Properly, your healthcare decisions and expenditures
are not anyone's business but your own--any more than how much you spend on
food, cars, or movies is. But under collectivized healthcare, every Twinkie you
eat, doctor's visit you cancel, or lab test you wish to have run, becomes other
people's right to question, regulate, and prohibit--because they are paying for
it. When "society" collectively bears the costs of healthcare, the
government will inevitably seek to dictate every detail of medical care and,
ultimately, every detail of how you live your life.
To protect our health and our freedom, we must reject
collectivized healthcare, and put an end to a system that forces us to pay for
other people's medical care. We must remove government from the system and
demand a free market in medicine--one in which the government's only role is to
protect the individual rights of doctors, patients, hospitals, and insurance
companies to deal with one another voluntarily, and where each person is
responsible for his own healthcare.
Let's not allow the land of the free and the home of
the brave to become a nation of dependents looking to the nanny-state to take
care of us and following passively its dictates as to how we should live our
lives.
Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Institute
(ARI) in Irvine, CA. Don Watkins is a writer and research coordinator at ARI.
The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of
"Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."
Copyright ฉ 2007 Ayn Randฎ Institute. All rights
reserved.
To review other articles, go to www.aynrand.org/.
To correspond, click on media@aynrand.org.
* * * * *
2. In the News: GOOD NEWS - GOOGLE GOVERNMENT
We all know government is plagued by red tape, isn't
efficient and doesn't work as it should, say Amanda Kathryn Hydro, Director of Policy
Development for the Reason Foundation, and Jason Mercier, Director of the
Center for Government Reform for the Washington Policy Center. Increasing
transparency and accountability is a huge first step. But that is only
half the equation. We also need policymakers to make significant changes
after we all get to see the horror and reckless spending that will be revealed
by shining the light on government spending and earmarks.
Enter presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama, Rep.
Ron Paul, Sen. Mike Gravel, Rep. Dennis Kucinch and John Cox. Each has
embraced the concept of "Google government," by signing the Oath of
Presidential Transparency to help taxpayers see where their money is spent. To read more, please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/news.asp.
ท
By signing the oath, the
candidates are promising, should they win the presidency in 2008, that they
will issue an executive order instructing the entire executive branch to put
into practice the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.
ท
That act includes a
Google-like search tool that will allow taxpayers to go online and see exactly
how their tax dollars are being spent on federal contracts, grants and
earmarks.
State and local governments are being pushed as well,
say Hydro and Mercier:
ท
The American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC) recently adopted model legislation to implement state
versions of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act.
ท
ALEC also adopted a model
bill to require that the public have at least 72 hours to review tax and
spending bills before they are voted on.
ท
Several states have
already moved forward with some form of transparency reforms, including
Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Virginia, Minnesota, Hawaii, South Carolina, Nebraska
and Oklahoma.
Source: Amanda Kathryn Hydro and Jason Mercier,
"Time to Shine Light on Government Spending," Foxnews.com, October
23, 2007.
For text: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304224,00.html
For more on Federal Spending & Budget Issues: www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=25
* * * * *
3.
International
Medicine: Obesity Could Bankrupt the NHS
National Obesity Forum (NOF) chairman Dr
Colin Waine has warned that the financial cost of obesity could "bankrupt
the NHS".
Speaking at the NOF's fifth annual conference
in London, he talked about the challenges posed by obesity and what needs to be
done to overcome them.
Dr Waine said: "Even with the very
generous funding that we have had, the problem is escalating so quickly we are
not just going to get an epidemic of obesity, we are going to have an epidemic
of Type 2 diabetes." To read more,
please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/intlnews.asp.
On Sunday, new research by the Foresight
Tackling Obesities: Future Choices project warned that half the population will
be obese within 25 years if trends continue.
Simon O'Neill, Director of Care,
Information and Advocacy at Diabetes UK, said:
"Dr Waine is right to focus on the
soaring rates of Type 2 diabetes. The worry is that it's not just adults who
are affected.
"It is
estimated that there are around 1,000 children with Type 2 diabetes in the UK,
all of whom are clinically obese. This means that there is a generation of
overweight youngsters facing potential blindness, heart disease and
amputations.
"In a time where we enjoy much-increased life expectancy in comparison to
previous generations, chronic conditions such as Type 2 diabetes could lead to
thousands of needless deaths in years to come.
"We need to take action now. Finland has the first example of a large
scale prevention programme, based on studies which have shown that changes to
diet and levels of exercise can reduce new cases of Type 2 diabetes by 58 per
cent. Children need to eat a healthier diet and take more physical activity to
reduce their chances of developing the condition.
"As the Foresight project highlighted, the potential long term impact of
obesity and Type 2 diabetes in children is frightening - both in terms of
impact on our youngsters and the cost of dealing with the crisis.
"The NHS already spends ฃ13.7 million a day dealing with diabetes and its
complications. This figure will rise rapidly as our children grow to be adults
facing a lifetime of ill health."
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86132.php?nfid=12272
Is Government medicine so tenuous that one
disease could bankrupt it? It's time to get medicine on a rational footing with
the doctor and patient in charge. It can only be done by getting government out
of it.
The NHS does not give timely
access to health care; it only gives access to a waiting lista waiting list
ready to implode!
* * * * *
4.
Medicare: The
Total Disregard for Physicians
The medical uninformed who are managing Medicare are
continuing in their widespread disregard of physicians. St. George Medical
Office Building was sold in April 2007, and new owners took over in May. The
building had been in disrepair for well over two decades. Several times
patients were trapped between floors on the elevator and it took several hours
for firemen to rescue them. Hence, the doctors never took the elevators. How
could our offices survive for two hours in the middle of the morning or
afternoon without our seeing patients? We had not had adequate air conditioning
for more than a decade. But we got use to having office fans on for six months
of the year. The lights went out periodically but we had backups on our
computers and never lost any patient data.
The new owners increased the rent about 80 percent and
the entire building, except those holding favorable long-term leases, moved out
within two months. Most of the doctors found a place at half the rent within
thirty days and gave Medicare, Medicaid, and all the insurance carriers our
change of street address status. The insurance companies began sending their
payment to the new addresses the physicians sent.
Medicare and Medicaid quit paying altogether. To read more, please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/medicare.asp. They
indicated a website to complete renewal applications which were about 27 pages
long. These were completed post haste. About 30 days later, the doctors
received a notice that the renewal applications were incomplete and to please
complete a new application and include some new pages which was promptly done.
The doctors received another notice about 30 days later indicating that the new
application contained errors and would need to be corrected. DO NOT MAKE
CORRECTIONS on the previous forms but complete new forms. This was dutifully
done.
The doctors are now five months since receiving any
Medicare reimbursement. Some of the doctors report an income cut in half, and payroll
and tax deposits in arrears. The same government that controls Medicare has no
problem in adding 10 percent penalties for late deposits on payroll that has
not yet cleared. Wal-Mart was fined millions for paying employees one month
late for extra work during breaks and overtime. The government finds no
inconsistency in paying moneys owed five and now nearly six months late.
Some of the doctors received their first Medicaid
checks this week. But it was for only one week's work. The doctors were expecting
after 16 weeks, that this first check should have been about 16 times that.
This brought back memories of the California
legislature, which never has a state budget ready on July 1 and usually a few
weeks later quit paying Medicaid to doctors. When the state has a budget a
month or three later, one would expect a slip increased blip in income, but we
have never seen that. It is simply a way to harass physicians whom they
despise. We have personally observed this in consultant work for the state when
employees, and especially their managers, spew forth insults about those
wealthy doctors who never have enough. We'd be very surprised if we ever see
those other 15 weeks of work get paid. The payment process is so convoluted
that it is difficult to figure out which claim was not paid.
There seems to be a push for government to take over
health care or extend Medicare to all Americans. Will this abuse get better as
government has all of us in a vice? Will the government's hatred of physicians
get less as competition vanishes and patients have no alternatives?
Health care in our country will just get worse as
government encroachment increases. We need a ten-year moratorium on health care
reform and allow current remedies to mature and solve the problem. But it will
be nigh near impossible to prevent the medical uninformed that are running for
president and Congress not to out do each other in promising Americans free
health care which will destroy what has evolved.
Government
is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.
- Ronald Reagan
* * * * *
5.
Medical Gluttony:
Sometimes It's Just the Inability to Say NO
Ms Adams injured her shoulder. The pain was improving
over a month or so but she still went to see a surgeon. He obtained an MRI and
told her she had a rotator cuff tear. It was probably healing but he could go
in arthroscopically and trim it so that the pain would resolve much faster. She
signed the permit and had the arthroscopy.
When seen three months later, she wasn't sure if the
pain really was less. She went back and the surgeon said that maybe he didn't
remove all the rough stuff and he would make sure the second time. Three months
later, he said the same thing. She signed the permit and had the second
arthroscopy. To read more, please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/gluttony.asp.
When seen three months later, she wasn't sure if the
pain really was less. After a year, she was convinced that the pain was not
better and looked up her friendly surgeon again. He obtained another MRI, saw
an additional tear and suggested that he fix that. After discussing her pain
with her husband, mother and other friends and relatives, she took their
advice. She signed the permit and had her third arthroscopy.
This time the surgeon said he put in a screw and it
should hold well. The x-ray revealed severeal metallic screws
in her shoulder. After three months, the pain was excruciating and she was
given narcotics. After another three months with persistent pain, she was
referred to a pain specialist to manage her narcotic regimen and consider
implanting a narcotic pump in her abdomen. She stated that the pain was at
least ten times as bad as before the first surgery.
When seen later, she was very depressed and crying.
She said that life wasn't worth living. She was sent to a psychiatrist for
management of her depression and suicidal ideation.
The biggest cost savings in health care frequently is
the ability to say NO. One could make a case that all three operations, in this
instance, were unnecessary and, therefore, excessive. It's hard to understand a
100 percent cost savings from three operations to none. Certainly the medical
illiterates in Congress and those running for president are unable to make this
calculation. When Congress gets involved in national health care and people
wait years for an operation, the wrong operations will still get done. The
selection process requires the freedom to choose, not government distortion and
coercion. When your number on the waiting list comes up, you will be so
exhausted that an operation can no longer be objectively evaluated. You will
sign the permit. You will experience another government disaster. You will find
out what real pain is.
* * * * *
6.
Medical Myths:
Only the Government Can Guard Our Health
Drug makers pulled cold medicines targeted for babies
and toddlers off the market Thursday, leaving parents to find alternatives for
hacking coughs and runny little noses just as fall sniffles get in full swing.
The move represented a pre-emptive strike by
over-the-counter drug manufacturers - a week before government advisers were to
debate the medicines' fate. But it doesn't end concern about the safety of
these remedies for youngsters. youngsters. . . To read more, please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/myths.asp.
Baltimore city officials filed a petition with the FDA
- joined by the Maryland chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and prominent
pediatricians around the country - arguing that oral cough and cold medicines
don't work in children so young, and pose health risks not just for babies but
for preschoolers, too. . .
"It's important to point out that these medicines
are safe and effective when used as directed, and most parents are using them
appropriately," said Linda Suydam, president of the industry trade group.
What many Americans don't realize is that, rather than
have the coercive arm of the government involved in our daily lives, public
disclosure and friendly discussions would bring about the same thing and
amicably. In other words, the articles explaining the scientific data and the
possible harm to those under age 2, would be just as effective in parents
avoiding them as the government police with handcuffs in their back pocket . .
.
To read the entire article, go to www.sacbee.com/830/v-print/story/426786.html.
* * * * *
7.
Overheard in the
Medical Staff Lounge: Shall we close the Doctor's Lounge?
Dr. Dave: Did
you see in today's paper that Jim Press, the irrepressible 37-year Toyota
veteran, now on the Chrysler all-start executive team, is closing Chrysler's
private executive dining rooms?
Dr. Edward: Remember when Southwestern Bell bought
Pacific Bell, they closed the executive lunchroom here at PacBell in
Sacramento?
Dr. Milton: That
was to prevent high-level junior executives from planning with each other and
possibly putting drag into the merger or complaining about the cost-cutting
austerity program that was augmented.
Dr. Dave: But
Chrysler, after a pitiful marriage with Mercedes and now a welcomed divorce,
has all the workers on Cerberus Capital Management's side. That's why Press
goes into the employee dining room and mixes with the workers.
Dr. Milton: The
Medical Staff Lounge is something like an executive dining room where all of us
doctors eat a quick buffet and soup lunch and get back to work. It also
provides a place to quickly do a Medline search or to discuss a case with a
consultant.
Dr. Rosen: With
all the emphases on employee and patient satisfaction, wouldn't it be better
for us physicians to go through the cafeteria line and mix with the nurses and
other employees? To read more, please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/lounge.asp.
Dr. Edward: Part
of the history of the Doctors Lounge was to give the doctors a place where
patients in the cafeteria would not be able to curbstone their medical care.
Dr. Rosen: Even
that is going by the board. All the insurance carriers are rating us on patient
satisfaction and being available to the patient at any time they feel they need
us.
Dr. Michelle: Well,
I don't want to be available at all times. I want an undisturbed lunch and go
home at 5 to be with my children and take care of my house and get the dinner
on. That's why I have partners.
Dr. Milton: But
you are expected to be available during the day and the staff lounge is used
primarily during the daytime.
Dr. Michelle: But
I need a reprieve from clinical medicine during my lunch. And maybe even from
my office staff next door.
Dr. Ruth: I
agree with Michelle. I need this room as a retreat when my patient load
downstairs is overwhelming. The cafeteria does not give any privacy. And
there's constant intrusion from the families of my patients in the hospital. It
would be a totally uncontrolled family interface.
Dr. Edward: I
think Ruth has hit on a very important patient management issue. We can't have
different members of the family talk with the doctor about the patient
individually. They all have to be together or they have to have one spokesman.
Dr. Rosen: I
remember one case in the early years of my practice when I was so willing to
talk to any member of the family that interrupted me that I spent an inordinate
amount of time with them, explaining the same thing numerous times.
Dr. Milton: Yes,
that can be very time consuming. And medical novices always hear different
things depending on their medical sophistication.
Dr. Rosen: You
got that right, Milton. Not only time consuming while in the hospital, but also
later at home. I remember once, I got a very irate call from a family member
after visiting hours who accused me of lying to her since she said I had said
something very different to her brothers and sister about their mother than
what I told her when it was essentially the same thing. That's when I started,
especially after an ICU admission, to tell the family to decide who would be
the spokesperson and I would see them at the appointed time once or even twice
a day at their mother's bedside. I even welcomed all family members to be
present at this discussion. But at all other times, that designated person
could keep all the others informed.
Dr. Yancy: If
you close the Doctor's Lounge, I'll start taking my surgery cases to another
hospital.
Dr. Michelle: I
vote with Yancy. Close the lounge, which is also our dining room, and I might
just move my office next door to another hospital.
Dr. Rosen: But
don't forget. Doctors are paying for much of this buffet with dues, half of
which goes for this project. The hospitals on either side of us don't provide
the food, just a small TV room. Who needs that?
Dr. Michelle:
Rosen, you better never make the matter of closure a formal recommendation to
administration!
* * * * *
8.
Voices of
Medicine: A Review of Local and Regional Medical Journals
SONOMA MEDICINE, the Magazine of the Sonoma County
Medical Association
Working for You:
Health Care Reformitis, By SCMA President Brad Drexler, MD
The wholesale exodus of physicians from private practice
in Sonoma County, along with the hospital struggles, are signs that the
health-care system is broken here. Reimbursements are too low, too many patients
are uninsured or stuck with no choices, and the insurance companies abuse the
rules. On the flip side, health-care insurance costs too muchwhich only
increases the number of uninsured.
When Gov. Schwarzenegger gave an impassioned speech at
the CMA Legislative Day describing these woes, and how the system needs to be
fixed, I doubt any Sonoma County doctors would have disagreed with his
sentiments. Health-care reform seems like an issue that should unite
physicians, but the "devil is in the details. . . "
To read more, please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/voicesofmedicine.asp.
A recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of
California shows general public support for many elements of the health-care
reform proposals. Eight-five percent of respondents say they are concerned
about providing health care to all residents. Seventy-one percent think the
state's health care system is in need of major changes. Sixty-five percent say
they would favor a plan that requires all Californians to have health
insurance, with the costs shared by employers, individuals, and providers.
Despite all of the above, after listening to the
experts speak about the prospects of health-care reform in California at CMA's
Leadership Academy and Legislative Day, I was frankly discouraged. The problem
is that everyone wants someone else to pay the bill. . .
As doctors, our voices carry weight. These issues make
it all the more important for physicians to band together and stay involved
with SCMA.
My only other concern? Well, one speaker at the
Leadership Academy told the story of a writer who got lost in the Irish
countryside on the way to a speaking engagement. When he finally asked a local
farmer how to get to the venue, the response began, "Well, I wouldn't
start from here."
To read the entire article, go to www.scma.org/magazine/scp/sm07/drexler.html.
* * * * *
9.
Book Review: 50th
Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Capitalist Heroes By DAVID KELLEY, WSJ, October 10, 2007
Fifty years ago today [October 10] Ayn Rand published
her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged." It's an enduringly popular novel
-- all 1,168 pages of it -- with some 150,000 new copies still sold each year
in bookstores alone. And it's always had a special appeal for people in
business. The reasons, at least on the surface, are obvious enough.
Businessmen are favorite villains in popular media,
routinely featured as polluters, crooks and murderers in network TV dramas and
first-run movies, not to mention novels. Oil company CEOs are hauled before
congressional committees whenever fuel prices rise, to be harangued and
publicly shamed for the sin of high profits. Genuine cases of wrongdoing like
Enron set off witch hunts that drag in prominent achievers like Frank Quattrone
and Martha Stewart.
By contrast, the heroes in "Atlas Shrugged"
are businessmen -- and women. Rand imbues them with heroic, larger-than-life
stature in the Romantic mold, for their courage, integrity and ability to
create wealth. They are not the exploiters but the exploited: victims of
parasites and predators who want to wrap the producers in regulatory chains and
expropriate their wealth. To read more,
please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/bookreviews.asp.
Rand's perspective is a welcome relief to people who
more often see themselves portrayed as the bad guys, and so it is no wonder it has
such enthusiastic fans in the upper echelons of business as Ed Snider (Comcast
Spectacor, Philadelphia Flyers and 76ers), Fred Smith (Federal Express), John
Mackey (Whole Foods), John A. Allison (BB&T), and Kevin O'Connor
(DoubleClick) -- not to mention thousands of others who pursue careers at every
level in the private sector.
Yet the deeper reasons why the novel has proved so
enduringly popular have to do with Rand's moral defense of business and
capitalism. Rejecting the centuries-old, and still conventional, piety that
production and trade are just "materialistic," she eloquently
portrayed the spiritual heart of wealth creation through the lives of the
characters now well known to many millions of readers. . .
At a crucial point in the novel, the industrialist
Hank Rearden is on trial for violating an arbitrary economic regulation.
Instead of apologizing for his pursuit of profit or seeking mercy on the basis
of philanthropy, he says, "I work for nothing but my own profit -- which I
make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it.
I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not
buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests
to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent
to mutual advantage -- and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this
manner
"
We will know the lesson of "Atlas Shrugged"
has been learned when business people, facing accusers in Congress or the media,
stand up like Rearden for their right to produce and trade freely, when they
take pride in their profits and stop apologizing for creating wealth.
To read the entire article (subscription required), go
to http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB119197701548454197.html. To read another review, continue below:
Rand and the Right, By BRIAN DOHERTY, WSJ, October
13, 2007
Because of her opposition to New Deal government controls,
novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand started off thinking of herself as a
conservative. By the time her blockbuster novel, "Atlas Shrugged,"
was published 50 years ago this week, she'd changed her mind. She decided she
was a radical -- a "radical for capitalism," that is.
Conservatives, she'd come to believe, were
insufficiently principled in their defense of a free society and once the novel
was out, the official conservative movement turned its back on her.
While "Atlas Shrugged" was a ferocious defense
of certain values shared by many conservatives, then and now -- limited
government, economic liberty and the primacy of individual rights over
perceived collective needs -- National Review's editor and conservative
movement leader William Buckley found the novel's intransigence and
Godlessness, alarming. He assigned communist-turned-conservative Whittaker
Chambers to review it. . .
And Rand was, despite her exile from the conservative
movement, a fan of Barry Goldwater, the modern Right's first serious
presidential candidate. She told him "I regard you as the only hope of the
anti-collectivist side on today's political scene, and I have defended your
position at every opportunity." For his part, Goldwater said that "I
have enjoyed very few books in my life as much as . . . 'Atlas
Shrugged.'". . .
Even when reinforcing her exile from respectable
conservatism in a 1967 National Review feature story, M. Stanton Evans
recognized that "there are a number of subjects on which Miss Rand is
right . . . Foremost among these is that class of issues having to do with the
secular conditions of freedom." He notes her "excellent grasp of the
way capitalism is supposed to work" and her "powerful" critique
of "bureaucrats, planners, and social engineers." Also, her "effective"
satire of "the intellectual flux and slither in which modern relativism
seeks to bury moral issues."
That's a great list of virtues, and exactly what
modern conservatism needs, in the political and cultural wars of today. Rand's
virtues as a political thinker and polemicist touch on the most important
matters of modern politics.
She recognized, not merely that government shouldn't
take as much from us as it does, but also that it can't justly and
pragmatically do as much as it currently tries to do. As government spending,
even under Republican rule, grows faster than ever before; as new plans to
further bureaucratize American health care arise; as the benefits of free trade
and free movement of capital and labor are under continued assault -- Rand's
consistent, passionate and even heroic defense of American freedom is sorely
needed. . .
Why does she matter to modern politics? It's not like
she is around for conservatives to seek her endorsement. But it is worthwhile
for political activists to remember that Ayn Rand was utterly uncompromising on
how government needed to respect the inalienable right of Americans to live
their own lives, and of American business to grow, thrive, innovate and improve
our lives without niggling interference.
Her message of political freedom was enthusiastic, and
optimistic, and immensely popular. No major American political party has
embraced her message in full. But millions of Americans have voted for her with
their pocket books, and hundreds of thousands continue to do so every year.
On the 50th anniversary of her greatest novel, her
advocacy of the still "unknown ideal" of truly free market capitalism
is something that America, and the conservative movement, needs to reconsider.
To read the entire article, go to (Subscription
required) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119223551942158017.html?mod=todays_us_opinion.
Mr. Doherty is a senior editor at Reason magazine and
author of "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern
American Libertarian Movement" (PublicAffairs, 2007).
* * * * *
10. Hippocrates & His Kin: Another Group that Doesn't
Want to Deal with the Government
Amish farmers in increasing numbers are agreeing to
sell development rights to their farms - as long as the government isn't
involved.
An excellent lesson for physicians, nurses and health
care planners.
Climate Change Causes
Conflict: Green Peace By Stephan Faris, Slate.com
When Al Gore became
a Nobel laureate on Friday, it was the
second time in four years that the prize for peace had gone green. In 2004, its
recipient was Wangari
Maathai, a Kenyan politician
responsible for planting millions of trees to combat soil erosion. The day after
she was recognized, I asked Maathai what reforestation had to do with ending
conflict. "What the Nobel committee is doing is going beyond war and
looking at what humanity can do to prevent war," she answered.
"Sustainable management of our natural resources will promote peace."
To read more, please go to www.medicaltuesday.net/hhk.asp.
The idea of a connection between conflict and climate
change is fairly new, and one that had been mostly relegated to academic
journals until earlier this year. Then, in June, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
went on record to suggest global warming as a cause for the fighting in the
Darfur region of Sudan.
Now that should keep the researchers busy for a few
decades.
Exercise
Over 92 percent of people
who own exercise equipment and 88 percent of people who have health club
membership, do not exercise.
We've always known that health club membership was a
status symbol and not related to health. We know people that have membership in
two health clubs and don't go to either to exercise. They like the juice bar
better. One of them even has valet parking.
Water
It is estimated that over 99
percent of people who walk around carrying a water bottle have access to the
purest drinking tap water found anywhere in the world.
Having a plastic bottle in
your hand is a status symbol that you're living a healthy life style. They eat
their Big Macs and drink their COKE wearing sunglasses so they aren't
recognized.
* * * * *
11. Physicians Restoring Accountability in Medical
Practice, Government and Society: