Leave it to somebody else to offer fresh insights where your own vision gets pretty dim. I am routinely blown away by the reporting going on in other news outlets around the world. And how, maybe because there's not much vested interest, media outlets around the world are able to pull no punches in their coverage of a story, especially one that has so much to do with America and the American state of politics.

From the Rear Vision program on ABC Radio National in Australia comes this half-hour look at the Tea Party Movement in the U.S.; how it began, what are its roots and what are its objectives.

In a half hour they manage to cram in a lot of information about the state of Conservatism in the U.S. and present it in a way that offers information, rather than an opinion.

As it was broadcast on October 26, 2011, full and complete with no cuts.

(Yes, even in the future - getting sick and paying for it will be painful)

(Another in a series of all-day reposts from the archives of Newstalgia on our favorite subject: Health Care)

It's always amazing to hear what the future is going to look like, as viewed from the past. Invariably, all manner of convenience will be commonplace, all menial labor will vanish, all worry about getting sick will still be around.

And who is going to pay for it? Even in 1956, they were scratching their heads. The writing was on the wall - more people on the planet, and more of them getting older and well . . .sicker. The good news was the leaps on modern medicine would be greater (that's happened), but people going broke over receiving those leaps would plague us seemingly forever.

In September of 1956, on the occasion of their annual convention, NBC Radio, via their Monitor series, hosted a panel discussion with members of the American Hospital Association (Albert W. Snoke, Lowell T. Codishall and Chicago Daily News Science Editor Arthur Snider), discussing just what this thing was going to be looking like in the future.

Arthur Snider (Chicago Daily News): “ I think foremost, is and has been for some time the matter of costs. For a considerable time people . . the anger was directed towards hospitals, but now with the introduction of hospital bill . . or hospital insurance plans, we have the matter of increasing premiums. And people now are being a little bit unhappy about that. They say, when they get their bills they could have enjoyed a nice couple of weeks at a fancy hotel for that price. I’m sure that argument is fallacious, I’m sure Dr. Snoke has a thought on that.”

Albert W. Snoke (American Hospital Association): “Everybody gets irritated over having to pay any kind of money for anything. They just don’t enjoy paying out money. I don’t blame them for being concerned about hospital costs and hospital charges. The thing that I’d like to first get clear is that there are two different problems we’re talking about. One is how much does it cost to run a hospital. And next, how much does the patient have to pay when he comes into the hospital. And cost and charges are two different things.”

Bear in mind in 1956 Health Insurance was a relatively new thing, but even in 1956 costs were spiraling out of control. Of course at the time no one thought to lay some blame at the feet of the insurance companies - they were still the new kids on the block.

So now that they've become the bullies of the neighborhood . . .

Interesting to consider that, some 40 years after the passing of Roe V. Wade the abortion issue still rages. Stranger still, that the majority of the ones carrying on the argument are still Men, as was evidence by the recent hearings photo that went viral.

But in 1964 it didn't seem all that strange, but the question of abortion was very much at the forefront of peoples minds, particularly with the recent introduction of the birth control pill (an early 60's invention) and talk of all these new sexual mores as the result.

So the Public Affairs talk program The Open Mind hosted a discussion on the subject over whether or not Abortion should be legal (in 1964 it wasn't). The difference between the discussion now and the discussion then, at least in 1964,was one of the panel members was a Woman. Alice S. Rossi who was a research Professor and Sociologist at the University of Chicago was the sole Female on the panel discussing an issue solely the property of Women. Oh well.

The rest of the panel members, moderated by Eric F. Goldman were Rev. Robert H. Smith (the clergy, of course), Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, President of Planned Parenthood and Caleb Foote. The discussion gets heated over the course of an hour, but you can't help but think they are all arguing about a subject they have no business getting involved with in the first place.

The end result is walking away feeling the argument hasn't changed because the players haven't changed. In almost 50 years (longer, but since the time of the broadcast) you would think Men would have the presence of mind to step away from the fray and leave this issue for Women to decide since after all, Women get pregnant, Men don't. As absurd as it seems, listening to this broadcast in 1964, it is more absurd now that it has become a campaign issue and one which Presidential hopes are clinging to. Can we look, just for a second at the logic?

So as a way of demonstrating that some issues won't change until the fundamental arguers change, here is a broadcast of The Open Mind from 1964 broadcast locally over WRCA in New York.

Woe is us.

(LBJ Signing Medicare Bill - hysteria conspicuously absent)

On July 28, 1965, the Senate passed by large margin the Medicare bill. Despite grumblings from the right of "socialized medicine" and other fear-based rants, common sense prevailed and one of the milestones of 20th century social programs became law.

Dallas Townsend: “Now awaiting Presidential signature in Washington, is the milestone program of Social Security expansion and health care for the elderly, or Medicare. The Senate passed it yesterday, 70-24 thus completing Congressional action.”

Proof it can happen.