Bernie Sanders’ campaign fires up memories of living under socialism, which I did for eight years in my 20s.

Socialism had points good and bad — like any system. On the good side, we received many benefits, oh boy. Dollars from the government for kids, free health care, food made cheap by subsidies, low-cost mortgages, and virtually free universities. All subsidized by government. 

But we paid a price for this. We paid heavy taxes — really heavy taxes. If we were ambitious and worked harder, we paid even heavier taxes. For instance, if we worked two jobs we had to hide our second job. Otherwise, the government confiscated most of that second income. It penalized us for ambition.

Maggie Thatcher said socialism is a great system until you run out of other people’s money. The country where I lived ran out of other people’s money. So, it turned capitalist and free market. It broke up monopolies run by many government companies. It sold those companies to the public — issued shares. It even privatized the post office. Since then, that post office has made hundreds of millions. It no longer sucks up taxpayer money every year. It now pays taxes to government.

I understand why some people love Bernie’s socialism, I do. If you don’t want to have to work too hard, socialism may appeal to you. Perhaps you want government to take over some of your responsibilities. Then you will like socialism. Maybe you don’t mind that various services get delivered poorly like the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Then there is my experience with government-run health care — socialized medicine. On the plus side, we faced no cost to have our first baby. Two weeks in a maternity hospital for my wife. Ah, but the baby was sick. The medicos did not discuss much with us. They rushed the baby to another hospital.

For weeks, I appeared at the new hospital. Nurses told me the baby was under observation. Could I speak with a doctor? No. Could I discuss possible diagnoses? No. Could we look at different options? No. 

In reality, the government doctors had taken possession of our baby. They made all decisions — without consulting us, the parents. The attitude was that they knew best. And besides, they controlled all the medicine in the country. So they would deal with us at their convenience. And there was nowhere else we could turn.

When I insisted, one doctor took five minutes from his rounds to chat with me in a hallway — about our infant, who might be dying. How nice of him. To him we were a number, baby included.

Was it good medicine? Perhaps excellent medicine. And it was “free.” Was it humane? You be the judge. Again, it was like the treatment you get in some DMV offices.

Here is a more common complaint with socialized medicine. I was diagnosed with a sinus condition. The doctor put me on the list for surgery.

I waited seven years. That’s right, seven years for surgery to stop a recurring infection.

Finally, the day came to meet the government surgeon. I happened to have a terrible flu. But I dragged my sick and aching body to his clinic — because if I missed that appointment I might still be on his list today.

The surgeon checked me out. “You smoke,” he said. I did. “Then I don’t want to waste government’s money on you. I won’t do the surgery,” he proclaimed. 

And that was that. I had no recourse. I had waited seven years for a government doctor to spit in my face.

So Bernie, I hear you rave about free this and free that from government. I know how nice it was to get all that free stuff when I was young and living under socialism. 

But I also know we paid a price. And the price was not always calculated in money. 

Surprise: there was no free lunch, nor is there one today.

From Tom … as in Morgan.            

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home near Oneonta, in addition to his radio shows. Contact him at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com

It is well known that opioid and heroin addiction has increased throughout the nation in the last decade. According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, heroin deaths quadrupled between 2002 and 2013 — surpassing traffic accidents as the leading cause of accidental deaths. The increase in drug use and addiction has affected every demographic, race, and age group in the nation. 

My colleagues and I recently held a series of hearings across the state to gather input from local officials, health-care providers, parents of addicted children, and individuals addicted to heroin. We heard testimony on the crippling effects of addiction, the cost to communities, and the toll on families. There are many sad stories. In New York alone, there were more than 118,000 admissions to in-state treatment programs for heroin and opioid addictions, an 18 percent increase over 2009. While these individuals have received services, many others have not. Many testified at our hearings about having limited or no access to care, trouble getting insurance companies to pay for services to cure addiction, and being discharged from detoxification programs while experiencing withdrawal symptoms. 

I recently stood with a number of my colleagues in Albany to urge Governor Cuomo to dedicate more resources in the budget to give law enforcement and health-care workers the resources they need to combat this serious epidemic. About two years ago, the state recognized the crisis and began administering overdose-treatment kits. These have been known to save lives, and I’m glad funds were provided to get some training and kits to paramedics and health-care workers to help prevent death from overdose. While the kits are beneficial, they do not solve the crisis. 

More must be done to treat and prevent addiction. More education on prevention needs to be provided in schools. Education can save lives. If individuals are aware of the dangers and know the signs to spot, they are better equipped to help themselves and their family members. We also need to provide resources to meet the needs of those facing addiction. Unfortunately, the executive-budget proposal does not include more resources for addiction and prevention. Amid all this crisis of death and accidents caused by people under the influence, the executive-budget proposes to reduce opiate abuse treatment and prevention programs by $1 million. The governor and the legislature need to allocate more money for addiction treatment and to help give law enforcement the tools it needs to be effective. 

While funding will help, it became clear at the hearings that, unfortunately, there is often a disconnect between health-care providers, insurance companies, law enforcement, the courts, and families, which perpetuates the addiction for the individual rather than helping her recover. In other words, even if the individual is treated, she often relapses. Many have figured out that the only way to receive help is to be arrested and then have law enforcement or the courts mandate treatment. This further complicates everything and decreases the individual’s chances for future employment as well.

The hearings, though difficult, were informative and a necessary part of seeing that more attention is given to this important public-health crisis and helping us to craft legislation which addresses this issue. I will work to make sure that our state budget will reflect the public’s demand for effective treatment.          

William (Will) A. Barclay is the Republican representative of the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. Contact him at barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us, or (315) 598-5185.