I am fascinated by the ruckus engendered by the health care debate. I haven't seen this level of citizen involvement or desire to instruct political hirelings since the Watergate debacle. But, I am surprised at the tenderness of adoration so many claim to hold for capitalism, contrasted to the almost irrational fear and hatred of any degree of socialism. I hate to remind that there is nothing in the mandate of the philosophy of capitalism that requires or even encourages fairness. I believe our Wall Street Bonus Babies, exemplars of capitalism, will stipulate to that. This eccentric myopia may explain some of the difficulties the current administration is experiencing in its attempt to persuade the public of the value of mutuality in the realm of health care. Mr. Jefferson, in the Declaration, displayed admirable prescience when he wrote, "all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they have become accustomed". This is evidenced by the surprising cleaving to the "free market" as the proper mechanism to achieve more affordable and widespread health care, when doing so is contradicted by the obvious failure of the free market to meet these goals. This is not to say the free market is inherently incapable of fulfilling such a hope, but is simply an acknowledgement that its recent failures have driven us to the present controversy. Health care in the "free market", at this point in time, is unaffordable for institutions such as corporations, unions, states, and cities, let alone non-affluent private individuals. The only corrective measures proposed at present are "socialistic", which are roundly attacked at town hall meetings, at the same time there is a bizarre affection for the status quo, which it is generally admitted, under serves the public interests. What a quandary?

Personally, I am not afraid of the bogey man of socialism, but I am apprehensive of the proposed methodology to collect dollars for services "socialistically" and then compensate for their provision “capitalistically". All I can say is "caveat emptor", and jog the memory of $1200.00 hammers invoiced to the public in a similar arrangement with defense contractors.

I think some of the more vociferous pundits have sown discord for intellectually disingenuous reasons and temporary political advantage. Our real trial is not whether we shall have dominant socialism or capitalism, but how to arrange an equitable (and necessary?) marriage of the two, to provide health coverage to the masses.

And, if the ultimate fear is that we will become as "Nazified" as Canada, then I think it is safe to say we have nothing to fear but fear itself.