have. It is based on the notion that health involves people takingrnmore responsibility personally, learning more about theirrnbodies so as not to assault their bodies, as most of us do. Secondly,rnhealth involves stopping the poisoning of the environment.rnAnd, thirdly, as for the medical profession, it should bernbased not on profit, but on service, on the healing arts, andrnon the kind of community perspective that medical care usedrnto be associated with.rnQ. That’s a tall order.rnA. This idea of turning medical care into a commodity, and literallyrnharvesting people who are sick and elderly as sources ofrnbillion-dollar cash flows, which is the ease today, is an obscenity.rnI really believe the best health care will occur when doctorsrnand other providers don’t earn more based on more interventionrnand procedures, but are free to exercise their wisdom andrntheir skill more in the nature of a teacher or of someone who isrnrendering public service. I believe the single-payer will allow usrnto get there more appropriately.rnQ. But what about the costs involved, particularly the taxesrngovernment would need to collect to cover a single-payerrnsystem?rnA. It should not require more taxes. That means it would requirerna radical reduction in the federal government. And I’mrntalking about providing the basics—and I don’t mean sexchangernoperations and various cosmetic operations, and, I’mrnsure, there are many other things you’d want to rate as not basicrn—but basic care, what we would agree upon to have as citizens.rnThat is a priority, and it should displace some other priority.rnFor example, what is this defense budget all about ifrnthere is no war out there and we’re spending almost as much asrnall the countries of the world combined? The White Housernalone, supposedly, according to the Washington Times, consumesrn$2 billion a year. Move on from there: agricultural subsidies,rnperks, other programs of lower value, including the interestrnon the debt. There is enough of a burden on the citizenrnthat I would have to say that, yes, let’s have health care be universallyrnavailable, and, yes, let’s eliminate the insurance companies,rnand let’s have a single-payer system in the manner ofrnCanada, or something similar, but don’t demand of the citizensrnthat they add any more taxes to what already is a $1.5 trillionrnfederal establishment, which has already taken away enough ofrnour freedom.rnQ. How was your idea for a flat tax received in Democraticrncircles?rnA. In Democratic circles, not received well at all. It’s contraryrnto what these people believe in terms of the status quo, the progressivernincome tax. Now, I understand that rich people haverna much greater obligation, and I’m perfectly prepared to lookrnat a surcharge. And I think people at the lower end need tornhave exemptions or need to have some help, compensation, sornthey’re not hit with this flat tax the same way as those who havernmore disposable income. However, I believe the complexity ofrntaxation, the invasion by government, the cost and the inefficiencyrnon the part of businesses and individuals are too greatrnand are sufficient evils that the system has to be changed.rnAlso, v’e don’t reall}- know who pavs taxes like the payroll tax forrnSocial Security. Who does it fall on? On consumers? Onrnemployees? On shareholders? On managers? Very smartrneconomists argue about this endlessly. I have a hunch employeesrnare picking up a good portion of it. If that’s the ease,rnlet’s have a clean tax that everybody can see. It’s efficient, it’srnmore honest, and it will reduce the corruption that goes withrnthe capacity to buy loopholes, which is endemic in the presentrnsystem.rnQ. How do we begin to address the growth in government?rnA. Government is growing at all levels, because the communityrnis being destroyed. People can’t do for themselves or work withrntheir neighbors anymore. Because of our large-scale, professionallyrncontrolled, commodity culture, people are renderedrnmore and more impotent to deal with things. Increasingly, everythingrnrequires an expert, a permit, and a fee. The messagernto average people is: you can’t do anything; all you can do isrnjoin some kind of bureaucracy, private or public, get yourrncheek, and start handing it out to people to start covering thernbasics, like your health care, your education, your transportation,rnyour entertainment. People are garaged in their homesrntemporarily at night so that they can then get in their cars andrnbe garaged during the day in some paper-pushing private businessrnor public bureaucracy. I think that is the phenomenonrnthat then builds up the federal government to deal with crimernand welfare and that subsidizes everyone since nobody can takerncare of themselves except the affluent. And to those who sayrnthe federal government is too big, they have to look at therntrends in the concentration of wealth and global decisionmaking.rnThere is a contradiction between the trajectory ofrngrowth and independence, freedom, and keeping governmentrnin check.rnQ. Gore Vidal said that you and Pat Buchanan were the onlyrntwo “real” candidates during the campaign. Where does rightrnmeet left?rnA. Buchanan has the message for the religious group, thernright-to-life group. He also has a nationalist message, which isrnvery much obscured by the mainstream media and the mainstreamrnpolitical personalities like Bush and Clinton, who arernhandmaidens of the New World Order, the global-scale managementrnof things, which is totally contradictory to the neighborhood,rnto the community, to self-reliance, to freedom as wernhave traditionally known it.rnQ. So there is some sympathy?rnA. There is sympathy, because democracy cannot exist as wernhave known it historically with GATT, with multinationalrncompanies, with decisions being made at a level where the individualrncan’t meaningfully participate. Now, I do believe inrnthe Ozone Treaty. I do believe that we should have a treaty tornprotect the whales. I think we should deal with global warming.rnWhen we can understand something, I want to take specificrnaction. But when they talk about creating a GATT thatrnwill have a World Trade Organization to set standards that willrnhave an impact on the neighborhood, then I say, no. NIMBYrnis good, not bad. If everyone would take care of his own backyard,rnthen all the backyards would be better. The way it is today,rnpeople are led to believe they have no power over their ownrnNOVEMBER 1994/19rnrnrn