Ronald Reagan Predicted Obamacare as a Scheme for Socialized Medicine

From, , 09/26/13 Ronald Reagan predicted the exact maneuver that Barack Obama is undertaking to “transition” the medical system of America to a single-payer, universal healthcare system — which was his intention all along.

Speaking for the campaign “Operation Coffee Cup,” which opposed the Democrats proposing socialized medicine, future president Ronald Reagan lays out how the socialists intended to take over healthcare in this country. The following is an edited transcript:

“Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One 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, 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 rejected 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 a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot in the door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside  the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is  officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: ‘Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine. Capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’  Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned…”

Maybe Obama meant something when he bragged about “fundamentally transforming” the United States of America?

One response

  1. Senator_Blutarsky

    The message Reagan spoke had been well known for decades by many many history and Constitutional scholars.

    Everyone be sure and send a big wet kiss to Bush appointee JOHN ROBERTS ( one of those conservative Republicans ! ) for being so vulnerable to blackmail, that he voted the deciding decision in favor of the Marxists.

    “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed,
    and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so.
    They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is
    boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous
    as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
    The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the
    corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments
    co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” –Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

    “In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further
    than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the
    judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation
    to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ If this opinion be
    sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish
    three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given,
    according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of
    the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience
    has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow… The Constitution on
    this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape
    into any form they please.” –Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

    Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of the debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829–1830 (pp. 616, 619), used the following strong and frequently quoted language:

    ‘The Judicial Department comes home in its effects to every man’s fireside;
    it passes on his property, his reputation, his life, his all. Is it not, to the last
    degree important, that he should be rendered perfectly and completely independent,
    with nothing to influence or control him but God and his conscience?
    * * * I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge
    an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an
    ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary.”

    In a very early period of our history, it was said, in words as true to-day
    as they were then, that ‘if they (the people) value and wish to preserve their
    Constitution, they ought never to surrender the independence of their judges.’
    O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 532 (1933).

    The SCOTUS is gone, along with POTUS & Congress.

    What is left ?

    “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion:
    the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
    -Ayn Rand

%d bloggers like this: