Month: September 2019

  • Medicare for All Is Triage by Another Name by Brad Johnson for The Epoch Times August 27, 2019

    Protesters supporting “Medicare for All” hold a rally outside PhRMA headquarters in Washington, DC. on April 29, 2019. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

    Protesters supporting “Medicare for All” hold a rally outside PhRMA headquarters in Washington, DC. on April 29, 2019. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

     

    Medicare for All is one of the major topics being discussed this election cycle, particularly by Democratic presidential hopefuls.

    It’s also one of the least understood topics in the public debate, despite that it’s incredibly important. Almost every one of us will need health care services at some point in our lives, and particularly as we age. Yet it’s rare for anyone to actually discuss the meaning of Medicare for All, or single-payer insurance, which are pretty much the same thing. The terms are thrown around specifically to confuse.

    No matter the terms used, the bottom line remains the same: We’re discussing socialized medicine. It’s socialized, or a product of socialism, because it would be completely government-run. As someone who has actually lived under socialism and seen the ugly reality of this type of system, I have a few observations.

    Even the current use of these terms is purposefully deceptive and designed to dissimulate the real meanings, which should make any thinking person worried. Take, for example, the name Medicare for All. Medicare is a program designed to cover seniors as they reach 65 years old, particularly if they don’t have health insurance. If you already have health insurance from an employer even after retirement, which has been the case for the majority of people, then Medicare acts as supplemental insurance. It’s essentially a supplement or safety net for citizens 65 or older, depending on the circumstances.

    Medicare for All, on the other hand, completely replaces all insurance.

    The term single-payer is similarly used to mislead. The reference to single-payer means there is only one payer of insurance claims because there is only one insurance company that exists—and that is the government. It’s a curiously odd way to phrase 100 percent government-run health care.

    Limited Resources
    More important is the way that a government-run system must function, compared to that of private insurance.

    When insurance is provided by the workplace, the number of providers that can exist and pay medical expenses is essentially unlimited, with hundreds of thousands of associations, companies, and businesses involved. A government-run system has to be paid through taxes, and there are always limits on how high taxes can be raised, particularly since high tax rates already exist to cover all the other costs of government. As a result, under the government-run system, there are instead limits on the budget for medical expenses.

    There’s another factor that’s seldom discussed: the horrible inefficiency of the government in general.

    We rate charities by their efficiency, and that’s an important factor in deciding whether to make a donation. The best charities are about 90 percent efficient, meaning for every dollar you give to them, they only spend 10 cents on overhead such as office space and paying salaries. Generally, a charity with, say, a 50 percent rating means it is spending 50 cents out of every dollar on overhead expenses and is deeply inefficient. Usually, the largest overhead expense is paying salaries, so it means these types of organizations that drop below 50 percent efficiency are more of a platform to pay themselves than they are a charity.

    What we don’t see are the efficiency ratings of government with regard to paying out funds meant to help people. Government can’t possibly be efficient when you think of all the levels of bureaucracy our tax dollars pass through: Congress, which makes the budget; the IRS, which collects the money; the Treasury Department, which makes the actual payments; the General Services Administration, which makes all the many contracts needed to accomplish everything else; and the list goes on.

    Worldwide, socialized medicine has always ended up going down the same track. At first, it seems to work, then quickly it comes under budget constraints.

    There is always a small number of people who receive huge amounts of medical services, often seeking medical help for even the most minor requirements. There’s no reason not to do so, because treatment is free. We have had emergency rooms around the United States close because they can’t turn anyone down for treatment, even if the patient can’t pay.

    Budget limits always force the system into a deficit, and once that stage sets in, the government has no choice but to begin to find ways to limit services and cut costs. Limiting services is done logically, and the first procedures to be affected are the big, expensive, and difficult procedures, which are, of course, almost always lifesaving by their nature.

    Transplants are a perfect example of both an expensive and difficult procedure, and they don’t always work. Quickly, the number of such operations becomes limited, and those in need often die before they move to the top of the list. Critics call the overseers of this process “death panels,” because they decide who will receive the lifesaving procedures and who won’t. That decision process carries over into every aspect of medical treatment.

    By necessity, the process ends in triage. The working-age individual is the highest priority on the list, because, once “repaired,” they can go back to work and pay taxes into the system. The next priority is the young, because they will grow into taxpayers. The last and lowest priority are the old. Their utility to the system is zero, and they only represent a drain on medical and retirement resources. They’re supposed to die to make way.

    As costs go up, the government invariably “fixes prices” so that doctors are forced to have a private practice on the side to make money. All the best medical care takes place in those private clinics, which aren’t covered by any insurance. That means only the rich get good medical care, because they’re the only ones who can afford it.

    The largest of companies will open private clinics for their employees and hire a certain number of doctors to work there, at a decent salary, because the medical system is so bad. This doesn’t create a government-run insurance problem, because the medical care is given out only at the company’s clinic and is a direct benefit to employees. The government allows these because it reduces the strain on the system.

    Brad Johnson is a retired CIA senior operations officer and a former chief of station. He is president of Americans for Intelligence Reform.

    Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

  • Epoch Times op-ed: Grateful for Resistance

    Epoch Times op-ed: Grateful for Resistance

    Grateful for Resistance

    Brad Johnson

    Brad Johnson
    CONTRIBUTOR
    December 4, 2019 Updated: December 4, 2019

     

    Commentary

    Speaking on a panel at an event hosted by George Mason University, former acting CIA Director John McLaughlin said he was grateful for the “deep state” pushing for the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

    Specifically, the moderator, CBS News’ Margaret Brennan, asked: “There is something unique, you have to agree, that now that the impeachment inquiry is underway, sparked by a complaint from someone within the intelligence community, it feeds the president’s concern, an often-used term about a ‘deep state’ being there to take him out?”

    McLaughlin answered, “Well, you know, thank God for the ‘deep state.’”

    This refers to a subject near and dear to my heart that I have been speaking and writing about for some time.

    There are still a few political extremists who will at least pay lip service, suggesting there’s no such thing as the “resistance” or “deep state,” but it’s at the very least tacitly recognized to exist by pretty much everyone and isn’t seriously debated by anyone of consequence. Some are pleased by the fact, such as McLaughlin.

    The breakdown is that for the liberal mainstream media, the Democratic Party, and the never-Trump faction of the Republican Party, the deep state is something they agree with and are glad to see happening. McLaughlin underscores this state of affairs with his comments; they’re united by their hatred of the president.

    On the other side of the coin, there are groups of people deeply alarmed by the existence and activities of the deep state. They’re the true American patriots who believe in and revere the U.S. Constitution, and those who support Trump and his policies and successes, or those who are just plain tired of the effluent that flows so prodigiously from Washington.

    The lines are drawn and will play out in next November’s presidential elections. All the smart money from both parties say that Trump is going to win, and win big. However, this doesn’t delve into why so many people view the deep state with so much alarm.

    Look at what the deep state represents: a group of nameless, unelected bureaucrats who don’t like the legally elected president of the United States and are dedicated to stopping him from doing pretty much anything and getting rid of him, if possible.

    This state of affairs has evolved into an effort to actually impeach a sitting president, in what looks like a planned operation drawing from the ranks of the deep state willing to participate in such a thing.

    There’s a growing body of information that suggests coordination between Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), several of Schiff’s staff members, the whistleblower, and others, long before the whistleblower complaint took place. The resulting implication is that the group decided in advance to use whistleblower laws as a method to attack Trump and were waiting for any sort of excuse to justify a whistleblower complaint. If that is indeed the case, Schiff, several of his staffers, and the whistleblower, and perhaps others, may be guilty of sedition.

    Personal Ambitions

    The resulting impeachment inquiry has demonstrated some other interesting elements of what is going on. Trump’s most trusted adviser, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, is, for the first time, being looked at critically by the president.

    Many of the high-level officials whom Pompeo put into those influential positions at the State Department are the very same individuals who have been testifying against the president during the inquiry.

    Under questioning by Republicans, each and every one of the officials admitted that the president did nothing wrong or illegal. Their willingness to try to damage Trump in spite of no factual basis for doing so by their own admission is exactly the deep state. They prefer to stop Trump rather than uphold their oath of office to support the Constitution.

    While Pompeo is a good person and a genuine supporter of the president, he did support, promote, and allow the deep state to prosper at both the CIA and State Department. Pompeo suffers from what ails almost every politician in Washington: he has personal onward political ambitions.

    It’s widely recognized that Pompeo wants to run for president himself in 2024, which is not a bad thing in and of itself. However, as the head of the Department of State and earlier the CIA, it made no sense for him to make any attempt to get rid of the political extremists who control both agencies and bring in honest people because of the firestorm it would have created.

    All politicians recognize that political firestorms of that nature would put them at the center of so much controversy that it would damage future political hopes. Trump now sees this for what it is, and it’s why he is so critical of Pompeo at this juncture.

    Similarly, the U.S. military is largely controlled by its deep state cadre, as we have seen from the recent resignation of the secretary of the Navy over the president’s decision to pardon Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher.

    Until recently, Trump held out hope that the Washington elites and critics would recognize and appreciate that he sincerely wants to do what is best for the United States. Now, it’s clear for the president and everyone to see, that’s not going to happen.

    The leadership in all of our federal agencies is dominated by the deep state and is part of that famous swamp that Trump needs to drain.

    My suggestion is to start draining the swamp that lives and thrives within the leadership of the Intelligence Community. Everyone at those levels has a full top-secret clearance and must take a polygraph exam. Immediately implement the inclusion of a question that asks if the individual believes his or her personal political beliefs are more important than supporting the U.S. Constitution.

    Pull the clearance of anyone who can’t pass that question and that swamp will get much smaller. Something must be done.

    Brad Johnson is a retired CIA senior operations officer and a former chief of station. He is president of Americans for Intelligence Reform.

    Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

  • McFiles SPECIAL EARLY BIRD, live interview with CIA Operative Brad Johnson – Comey, China And MORE

    https://youtu.be/AgsNu0xCA68

    For the entire transcript of this interview, please continue reading.

    (more…)

  • Barry Webb NY Prison guards sue prison for Islamic beard

    https://youtu.be/SoztL0cV1JU

    For the entire transcript of this interview, please continue reading.

    (more…)

  • Brad Johnson update on China Aug 30 2019

    https://youtu.be/cOR2Ot6ihls

    For the entire transcript of this interview, please continue reading.

    (more…)

  • New Docs Show Nellie Ohr Passed Info To Bruce, Who Passed It To FBI/DOJ

    https://youtu.be/y9ub6LPddzY

    For the entire transcript of this interview, please continue reading.

    (more…)

  • Brad Johnson on initial IG report on James Comey

    https://youtu.be/BGP0GJjyuw4

    For the entire transcript of this interview, please continue reading.

    (more…)