Yesterday, I saw Michael Moore's new movie, "Capitalism; a love story." The politics and socialist/populist slant aside, it was an enjoyable and a thought-provoking movie. I liked it and will encourage my friends to see it.

Thinking back about the movie today, I must say the most moving part of the movie was the footage of President Franklin D. Roosevelt from 1944, which was believed to be lost, but was discovered in South Carolina by Michael Moore in 2008.

At the end of the State of Union speech given within the White House (he was too ill to travel), he invited the camera crew to shoot his proposal of the Second Bill of Rights. He felt that the first Bill of Rights was "inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."    
 

FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

FDR concludes, "All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
 

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

I thought... Wow... that's powerful stuff. I was awestruck that he basically proposed "Universal Health Care" some 65 years ago! 

By the way, the comic relief in the "Capitalism" movie came from the "hastily made Cleveland Tourism video, " proclaiming that Cleveland is not attractive, but "at least, we are not Detroit!"

Having lived in Cleveland for 5 years, I've had wonderful education in Cleveland (OCPM and Cleveland Clinic). Nonetheless, I am not sure I want to go back there anytime soon. 

They are funny videos... especially if you've ever been there.

My apologies (in advance) to the people in Cleveland and Detroit! 




 

I'm going to assume that the suggestion that the "2nd bill of rights" proposed by FDR contained ideas that were good for the country was made by you tongue in cheek? Surely, you don't think that there should be a "right" to a job, or a house or heathcare or a "lack of unfair competition"? Are ANY of those things not goals listed in "The Communist Manifeso"? And, no, I'm not kidding. Michael Moore is a political propagandist whose hypocricy is as stunning as his ego (and appetite).

I could go on at some length as to why capitalism as espoused by Edmond Burke or David Hume is different from the unfettered capilalism of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, and what the difference between a regulated free market (of Burke) and laissez-faire capitalism of Hayek is, but this is a medical blog and not an economic one. Suffice it say that there is one truth we've learned over the ages: free market capitalism allows ideas to come to the surface and each individual to rise or fall by his effort and socialism blunts that drive to do better, live more prosperously and have a better life. FDR wrote the things he did because he admired Joseph Stalin (and said so on many occasions, referring to him as "Uncle Joe") and had people wondering if HE was a closet Communist. That it is still thought of highly is laughable and the nearly 100 million people who have died or been put to death on the alter of Karl Marx will testify to its miserable failure.

Also well documented is that the New Deal of FDR prolonged the depression by 7-10 years by most estimates and any time you artificially guide or manipulate the free market economy we live and prosper by, you usually make things MUCH worse.

I'm glad you liked Moore's film. I, for one, will not be watching it, as I already know the message: capitalism bad, socialism good; conservative bad, liberal good; big business bad, little guy good, etc. It was the message of "Roger and Me". It was the messge of "Sicko" and it was the message of "Ferenheit 911". Michael Moore's efforts usually have about as much fact in them as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (i.e., very little) and I consider him a corpulent turd.

Best wishes,
David Secord

It's easy to label this "Second Bill of Rights" as a communist ideal and scoff at it... then again, look where we are now! 

It is quite clear to me that the profit-taking by the over-leveraged investment banks (and AIG that insured their morgage-backed securities) got us into this mess. It is an unadulterated greed in the Wall Street, enabled by the financial deregulation (done by the likes of Phil Gramm and others) and the loose monetary policy by the Federal Reserve (thanks to Alan Greenspan and others) made it all possible.

Is it capitalism? Is Capitalism evil? No, I don't believe so. That's where I disagree with Michael Moore. I think this level of greed is based on something much more sinister, an "every man for himself" and "dog eat dog" idea. Hey, whatever happened to "Compassionate conservatism"!?

The kick in the pants (pointed out in the end of this Michael Moore movie) is that, three countries that surrendered in the Second World War, namely Japan, Germany and Italy, have the "Second Bill of Rights" embedded in their constitutions. Are they communists? Are they financially less stable or less productive than the United States today?  

I was born and raised in Japan, and I can tell you the first hand that we do not have 45,000 people dying every year because of the lack of health insurance (as in the US...the number is based on the latest Harvard University study). Aren't we (the United States) supposed to be the richest country in the world? 

I embrace capitalism, and I do not think we should punish the rich to feed the poor. I just think we can do better than this as a nation.  

Just my 2 cents... 

What I do know for certain though is that we should not be ready to bury Optimism nor should we throw away our Patriotism with the trash, where so many seem to have also thrown their Civility. Let’s dust off all three and give them a go again. This is, after all, the greatest country in the world. Isn’t it?

We speak without much real background knowledge about the New Deal policies, judging them often from “talking heads” and a vantage point 86 years in the making since its first acts were introduced in Congress.

A good place to start to understand who was behind the creation of the New Deal is the book: The Woman Behind the New Deal: The Life of Frances Perkins, FDR’s Secretary of Labour and His Moral Conscience, a biography of the first woman cabinet member.

This Mount Holyoke graduate was the person who developed legislation to ban child workers, who designed the minimum wage laws and a 40-hour work week.

These laws may be the things of some ultra-conservatives’ nightmares. (My husband was once at a meeting where a constituent asked a Republican State Representative candidate in El Paso why, if he could hire an illegal immigrant to do a job for 50 cents an hour, why he shouldn’t be able to do so. Even the candidate thought that that was just wrong.)

You might be interested to know what moved this unusual woman to be so impassioned about her work. The Triangle Shirtwaist Company doesn’t mean much to us in 2009 but in 1911 it was the story of the year, perhaps the decade. Almost 150 young immigrant women died as they tried to escape from a burning factory in the Greenwich Village section of New York City. Mrs. Perkins watched from the sidewalk as these women jumped to the pavement as they chose between death from fire and death from the plunge from the heights.

Upon reflection, I don’t think that I have to choose between the free enterprise system (I am in favor of it) and compassion (I believe in it.) I think that our country and our people are better than that. There is room for both. We are better than bickering between a two-party system.

People say that we have the “best” of everything and yet we are the only industrialized country in the world that does not provide healthcare for its people. 

Our America is better than that. Moderation is definitely the way to go.

. 

FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

To add my own 'two cents' (as Kazu would say), our country was formed by a group of individuals who believed that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Our country started with Jefferson's declaration, and our entire national history was birthed from it.  I think that FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights provided a further description of what those 'rights' might entail.

Reading through the above list, one can easily see how they would apply to the rights to life, liberty, and happiness.  However, what may be at question here, is how to SECURE those rights.  Does the right to something necessarily mean that the government should provide that thing for the individual? 

Jefferson also wrote: "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."  Jefferson foresaw the risk in allowing government to become too big in guise of providing for the people.

Clearly something must be done, and we have the power to effect a real change in the lives of our neighbors.  Does this necessarily mean that the change is mitigated from a group of lawyers in Washington?  No.

You are on the front lines of health care --you more than most know the problems that exist within this current system.  Make your voice known --regardless of your political leanings.  The lawyers in Washington will continue to make policy --with or WITHOUT your input--and this is your opportunity to direct the course of events!

There has been much heated debate regarding the nature of health care reform, as can be viewed by reading through these various e-talk threads, but what many have failed to realize is that times of conflict, such as this, provide an excellent opportunity for us as a people.  Regardless of our political affiliations, this is our opportunity to together  to craft a document and a policy which realizes and provides for the security of those rights described to us by Jefferson's declaration.

With all due respect to the authors here who think that a "little socialism is a good thing", the difference here is that once codified, it is mandated. Charity which is demanded of you is no longer charity. Once you decide to have all most anything included into the realm of a 'right', it is difficult to stay off the slippery slope of absurdism.

Healthcare and a job (just like clothing, food and shelter) are not 'rights' by any non-Marxist mindset and I stand convinced that no rational person could make an argument aganist that stance. Sorry.

I am sorry that if you believe "socialism" and "universal healthcare" are dirty words. 

To divulge a little bit about myself, I am a new proud citizen of the United States of America, and I take this "pursuit of happiness" thing very seriously. When I talk to my neighbors (who are hard-working middle-class people) cannot even afford decent healthcare and constantly live in fear of "one illness away from bankrupcy," it terribly bothers me.

To that end, I am happy that this Healthcare bill has passed. Let's see if we can get it to the President's desk.

By the way, When did "every man for himself" become the motto for the United States of America?

"Don't get sick, and if you get sick... die quickly," is not a good healthcare policy, you know. 

. 

FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

I just have a few  questions for those of you that agree with FDR's second bill of rights.

What does adequate mean ?
Who decides what is adequate ?
Who decides what a decent living is ?
Adequate food and clothing and recreation, What does that mean ?


The reason I bring this up is because people in general cant agree upon certain things, let alone what adequate means. What is adequate to a farmworker isnt adequate to a professional. Decent living has the same issues. I cant imagine anyone living in the US that makes over 250k lowering their standards after working so hard to get where they are. But I can imagine a person living off of 20k a year wanting more. Who wins and who loses? After all just being born doesnt guarantee you will be successful in life. It's the hard work, the long hours and the dedication we all put into our jobs that can further our careers and the amount of money we can earn. There is a problem with some businesses that have issues with following the law. We have certain laws that protect us from those kinds of business owners. A second bill of rights wouldnt help with corruption. In fact, I can see a different kind of corruption arising. The kind that the common person cant fight without revolting. Look at history to find the future of Socialisim and what the Second Bill of Rights would to this great Nation.

People like Michael Moore are nothing but trouble makers looking to argue and fight about anything. I haven't seen any of his movies and don't plan on seeing them. I dont want to give away my hard earned money that I earned.

I posted a question on Jan 15th about the second bill of rights. Either nobody visits this site or no one has any answers to my questions. I sure would like someone to answer the few questions that I have asked.

 Just to add a little bit. Here are  three articles  from the old Soviet Union.

Article 40: Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance wit the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession, type of job and work in accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education, with due account of the needs of society.

Article 41: Citizens of the USSR have the right to rest and leisure... the length of collective farmers' working and leisure time is established by their collective farms.

Article 42: Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.


Sound a little familiar ?

I am an American. A conservative American and I wont just sit by and let this happen. I will be counted. History has shown that socialism doesnt work. Communism doesnt work and Obama and the progressive movement think that they can take over this republic but emplementing healthcare.
USSR , France, Poland and England did it and now we all can see it has failed. They all forced health care and the rest is history. Here in the United States it wont work. We have  the Constitution and they think the American public is stupid and we have no clue what is happening. But their wrong.
Please respond to my questions. ANYONE who defends the Second Bill of Rights

Your argument doesnt seem to work well with me. You cant have a capitalistic society and a socialistic society at the same time. Our founding fathers could see that man is not to be fully trusted and thats why the Constitution was designed as it was. Health care is not a right  no matter how you look at it. Education is not a right it is a priviledge. If you want to argue that fact go to a third world country and ask them how they like their school system. Goverment is suppose to complement the states. No one can govern better than the people and the states should have that responsibilty. This health care issue isnt really about having all citizens covered by health care. Here in AZ we have what is called ACCESS. It allows the under priviladge to get health insurance. So there are programs in place in most every state. This is an issue that the progressive movement knows they have to win in order to control the masses. Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Saul Linski, Rev Write are some of the people Obama is associated with and even Chairman Mao made it on the White house Christmas tree. This is not just a coinscidence . There is an agenda at work and it's not a good one for America. They want total control and I can be confident  in saying they dont have your best interest in mind.
Wake up and view history. Dont be blind. It always ends up the same way. Bad for the people.

The implementation of a "Second Bill of Rights" although theoretically noble in purpose lacks effective implementation from Washington and in my view would only exacerbate a system "under stress." Arguments that one's position against such a faulted policy would indicate a level of "cold-heartedness" of one's intent troubles me. It is a debate of where we ALL want what is best for our patients and an affordable fix to the current system. The problems with healthcare costs are numerous. YET I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYONE IN WASHINGTON SPEAK OF THIS ISSUE!!!! One LARGE reason for the spiraling healthcare costs is the disparity of reimbursement between those In-network and that for identical services provided Out-of-network. How did this come about? Well, it is because of the interjection of the Federal Govt in reimbursement amounts set under the Medicare Reimbursement Fee Schedule. We all know that reimbursement of in-network fee schedules are based on the Medicare Fee Schedule (anywhere from 85-125% Medicare fees.) As the result of diminished reimbursement of the Medicare system over the last 10-15 years, there has been a larger and larger proportion of physicians of all specialties leaving the in-network panels to become non-participating physicians where reimbursements are much HIGHER. This "meddling" of government pricing has unfortunately created an unintended problem. This cycle just leads to higher costs as physicians have to treat Medicare patients (where reimbursement does not cover their costs in many cases) and collect from the private sector (as non-participating physicians) to make up the difference. As the health insurance companies incur these higher costs, they pass them on to the insured and IN-NETWORK practitioners through the approval of state insurance boards. This situation has to be fixed if ever to contain healthcare costs, protect patient's from over-inflationary healthcare costs and maintain a sustainable panel of physicians who would partake in the plan. Aetna is already soon to implement this "fix." from what I have recently read in their provider bulletin, the reimbursement will be set at 140% Medicare fee for service for a CPT billed shortly. Alas, the "fix" is still not perfect......why? Without the SGR (sustainable growth rate) fix based on the faulted Feingold deficit amendment passed in the early 90s....this will all be for nothing!!!!

In addition, does anyone seriously believe that the Federal Government can run anything cost-effectively? The best example of this is a recent USA Today story that reimbursement/benefits for an average Federal worker is approximately $108,000.00 as compared to the private sector which is $70.000.00. In fact, across all job positions/levels as compared to the private sector from teachers, to nurses, to IT technicians, the Federal Government was consistently the been the HIGHEST payer ( Thanks to the American taxpayer!)

More importantly, I have a saying "intent is nothing, it is what you produce that counts." Lets look at examples of healthcare systems currently run by the Federal Government. The Medicare system if you listen to Washington is "government run heathcare" and alot of people like it. Sure!!!!.....except the credit card bill did not yet come in the mail requiring payment. The system is approximately underfunded with Social Security by $38 trillion dollars. Well, why are only 50% of physicians participating in Medicare? ...... Besides the 9.25% increase in fees over the participating physicians. Is the system as funded sustainable to continue payment for services?....If you believe that...I have some swamp land for sale. In fact, I have aways contended that if the Medicare program was run as a financial institution, it would not even qualify for TARP and would be subject to a takeover by the state/federal regulatory agencies.
What about Medicaid? This system is an abject failure. In the twenty years of practice I have been in...this system has moved from private practice settings to hospitals with their MUCH HIGHER costs. This system which has been developed in 1968 has not raised it's fees to private doctors since......you guessed it.......1968. There are practically no private physicians I know that take Medicaid insurance as primary insurance. This leads these patients to seek care where the only venue which is an ER....WITH LARGER HEALTHCARE COSTS! Now, the Federal Government wishes to include up to 15 million uninsured into the Medicaid system. Where will they go without a Medicaid fee "Fix?" The local ER is where! This will only spiral healthcare costs and lead to overcrowding and stress in the health facilities. This only provides care in a critical setting where higher costs are incurred since the ER/hospitals rarely can provide adequate treatment in prevention of this patient population.

Let's look at the Indian Health System. Although run by many physicians, nurses and healthcare providers that are dedicated. The system is fraught with rationing, underfunding and long waits for care.

I am no fan of the private insurers except as physicians and patients we have a large resource for protection. It is the state insurance departments that oversee private insurers and the attorney generals of each state. Here is the problem, as I see it, if a determination is made incorrectly by the Federal Gov't, where do you go now????? Up a creek?????

Kazu,
I can appreciate that you take the pursuit of happiness very seriously, but you need to know what that really means. It means that you have the right to forward your life without fear that any person, organization or government will interfere with that pursuit of happiness. It doesnt mean you will be happy, happiness is an individual thing, it just gives you the right to pursue it. It really bothers me that people want to take advantage of the rights that the founding fathers fought to create. The rights they actually gained buy telling a government to get out of their lives. To some, the Constitution is a long out dated document that really doesnt have anything incommon with today but to me this document was written for me and that makes it very relevent. Please read the Constitution and the Decleration of Independence.