Romney Flip-Flops on Healthcare, Reveals His Socialist Beliefs

Mitt Romney is a conservative, right? And as a conservative, what exactly would you expect him to want to learn from our ally, Israel, and apply it in the US. You would think, for example, airport security. The El Al airport security is low-cost and highly effective; the airline, which has been a target of Muslim terrorists for decades now, has never had a single incident on board. And they manage 10000 guarantor loans to achieve that security with a very tight budget, without hiring an army of child-molesters, sexual predators, and other twisted minds hired by the TSA to ogle, grope, harass, and steal from law-abiding passengers whose only crime is that they have paid for a ticket. You would think that Romney the conservative would learn from El Al. If you want to secure the best loans in the UK today there are several ways in which you can go about it. More hints will drop if you visit MoneyFall UK.

Nope. Romney wants to keep the TSA, and he is happy with the NDAA provision for indefinite detention of American citizens without trial.

But he has something to learn from Israel. And this is the health care system of the State of Israel . It is heavily socialist, and it is based on the same individual mandate which Romney instituted in Massachusetts, and then was for it at national level, and then was against it when Obamacare was passed, and which Romney vows to repeal “the first day he gets in office.” Except that . . . Romney praises the same thing in Israel, and tells us we need to learn from Israel and adopt the same socialist health care law.

So, Romney is a conservative, right? Meanwhile he ignores what’s conservative in Israel – low-cost, no violation of individual rights airport security – and praises what is socialist in Israel – high cost, socialist, government-regulated health care.

Romney is a conservative, right? Yeah, right.

Of course, the leftist media in the US picked up on Romney’s new flip-flop and exposed his hypocrisy; and for once, I must agree with them: Romney is a hypocrite. Then the same leftist media repeated Romney’s claims about Israel’s health care system: It is low-cost (only 8% of the GDP), and the Israelis are a healthy anti inflammatory herbs nation, their life expectancy is 4 years higher than in the US. Therefore let’s adopt their socialist health care which is not different than Obamacare (which is not different than Romneycare).

These praises of the health care system are incorrect, though. And at a closer, unbiased look, the health care system of Israel is actually a system that is of very poor quality, and collapsing.

First, of course, the claim that the life expectancy in Israel has anything to do with the current government health care is unproven and unprovable. It is true enough, the population of Israel has a life expectancy 4 years higher than the population of the US. But the current health care system in Israel was introduced in 1995; the claims are that before that, Israel’s health care was “chaotic,” based on private providers. A quick comparison of the life expectancy between Israel and the USA shows that the same difference of 3 to 4 years existed back in 1990; in fact, in 1990, the minorities in the USA had much lower life expectancy, and it has risen in the last 20 years much faster than the life expectancy of the Jewish population in Israel. The life expectancy in Israel, thus, grew over the last 20 years with the same pace as the life expectancy in the US. The introduction of socialist health care in Israel did not seem to affect that rise in any observable way. Israel had higher life expectancy before it had socialist health care; and it has it now, and nothing has changed.

Obviously, then, life expectancy is not influenced by the government health care laws; and whoever tries to judge a system by the life expectancy of the population, is only manipulating his audience.

By the way, Russia today has a healthcare system similar to Israel. Want to compare life expectancy in Russia with that in the US?

But about the lower costs? Israel spends 8% of its GDP for health care, and the US spend 18%. Seems impressive, isn’t it? Wait. How much does that 18% in the US cover? Did we have rejection of certain treatments under the old, private system? Did we have death panels? No. Obviously, those 18% pay for something, don’t they? (Granted, much of it is government regulation and insurers’ monopolistic profits, but that’s another topic.) What about Israel? Let’s see what Shimon Glick, the National Ombudsman for the Israel’s Ministry of Health says about it. He is a fervent champion of their socialist health care system, and yet he admits, that, compared to the US system, the Israeli health care system

. . . may not be as luxurious. It may not be as pleasant or offer as much choice, but I think most people are reasonably satisfied with the health care system.

So, it is just basic. It is not pleasant, and it doesn’t offer much choice. Which means that quite a few people may end up without the necessary healthcare because the specific choice that may address their specific problem is not offered. They must pay more on the private market – and there goes the “affordable healthcare for all.” Glick doesn’t say anything about these people whose health and life are threatened by the lower availability of choice. He thinks that most people are reasonably satisfied. Which could be said about the United States private health care industry anyway: Most people are reasonably satisfied with it, and reject Obamacare and the individual mandate. Well, Americans pay more but they get what they pay for. Israelis pay less, and if they want as much choice as Americans have, they have to pay as much as Americans do, individually, just as it is in the US. So, tell me again, what was that wonderful better quality of the Israeli’s socialist health care system?

But the good thing is, it doesn’t have any problems, and it is running smoothly. Really. Let’s hear Shimon Glick again:

Each year we go into a problem. I don’t remember a year in Israel when there wasn’t a problem. Right now, because of the deficit, the Minister of Finance has come up with a plan with tips for transferring structured settlement, at the present moment, cannot pass even with his own party because it aroused so much opposition. Learn more at They said they weren’t going to raise taxes. So what did they do? Instead of raising the amount deducted from everybody or on a scale according to salary, they allowed each sick fund to put a head tax, a supplementary tax, and they’re allowing sick funds to charge a small amount per visit. It’s a whole package of what most health economists would regard as regressive taxation. In other words, the sick are going to be paying more at the time of illness. So now there is a big public uproar, every month that passes the deficit gets bigger and they’re going to have to come some head. I think this is the first time that there’s been a public outcry in Israel about health care. Consumer groups, the cancer society, diabetes, they’ve all gotten together and formed a very vocal constituency. The doctors and nurses have joined them too, each for their own reasons. The government doesn’t have the votes to pass it, so they have to go back to the drawing board and do something. What’s going to happen I don’t know.

So, a perfect system for plantar fasciitis cure, isn’t it? Every year they go into a problem. And every year the ordinary people can’t do anything about their healthcare, for the government has taken the money, and now the government decides who gets how much healthcare. Meanwhile, the system is running deficits, so that the taxes must be increased; may be until it reaches that 18% of the GDP we spend here in the US? Glick thinks most people are reasonably satisfied, but then he admits that there’s been a public outcry in Israel about healthcare. How do you create public outcry if most people are reasonably satisfied? And what about those who want to opt out of the system and take care of themselves? Is “secession” from the system allowed at all? Whatever happened to individual liberty?

And Romney praises that system which takes your money, leaves you with only basic healthcare, without options for better quality, without an option to opt out, and decisions left to the politicians? And he is a conservative?

If Romney ignores a true conservative solution that Israel can offer – that of airport security – and praises the bankrupt socialist system of healthcare Israel has, then Romney can hardly be called a conservative, can he? If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it mist be a duck. And if Romney acts like a socialist, speaks like a socialist, and campaigns like a socialist, he must be a . . . socialist. No different than Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *