Filed under: Health Care | Tags: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Capitalism, Daschle, Democrat, Democrats, Economy, Election 2008, Health, Health Care, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Kennedy, Lieberman, McCain, Obama, Palin, Politics, Presidential Election, Republican, Republicans, Sarah Palin, Socialism, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle
Republicans love labels. They really are amazingly short when it comes to developing new ideas. And, like Napoleon, another famous shorty, when you are short, you go on the attack. If you want to hide your own degradation of the environment, you call the other side the tree-hugging granola crowd. If you have serious issues with right-wing religious wackos, you whisper that your opponent may be a Muslim. If you love war and enriching corporations that supply and service you war engine, yet you won’t guarantee our troops adequate protection in the field nor care at home, you call the other side unpatriotic and accuse them of failing to support the troops. If you wish to maintain the status quo where the rich get richer and the poor are thrown overboard by the Republican pirates, then any move that the other side makes to upset the apple cart is called liberal, Marxist, or socialist.
The socialist label became a very familiar refrain in Republican circles this year. Fox News, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and nearly every other Republican tried to scare the pants off every American voter by alleging the socialists were here to take over the country. But, in a year when so many Americans have already been stripped of their pants and were down to their underwear due to Republican economic injustices, those scare tactics were not as effective in 2008.
The socialist label was thrown out largely in response to Obama’s plan to raise taxes on persons making $250,000 or more. Because of the economic crisis enveloping the whole world, health care was rarely discussed in the campaign. But, when that topic is broached again in the coming year or two, you can bet your increasing deductible payment that Republicans are ready with their label making machine. They’ll stamp “socialism” on the end of every sentence when discussing health care plans. They may send out pictures of Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama wearing pink in an attempt to raise the spectre of communism, with a hint of man-love thrown in for good measure. Republicans are the masters of this game. But, remember, it’s the only game they have. They are desperate to maintain the current system, as they are Conservatives to the core. They abhor change. Why stop banging your forehead against the wall after 30 years of hard knocks, especially when you have friends stuffing your back pockets full of cash after every lump inducing smack?
Republicans may abhor change, but I abhor labels. They demean our national debate. In fact, they serve to stop all debate, before it can even begin. If a person sticks another with a detestable name, there is no possible way that they can save face and swallow an unpalatable idea at some future date. So, they effectively boxed themselves into a position based on the fact they haven’t progressed beyond second grade, when name calling was en vogue.
But, there are more substantive reasons for decrying labels. For instance, what does the term socialism mean? If you ask ten different people, you will most likely receive ten different answers. Some, led by Sarah Palin, will offer some overly simplistic definition that it entails a loss of freedom. As if socialism was diametrically opposed to democratic principles. Many Americans incorrectly believe a move to socialism means they will lose their First Amendment rights, their make-believe individual Second Amendment rights, their right to vote, etc. This is a direct result of the person offering the label failing to appropriately define the term as well as the person accepting the label to demand such a definition. But, that is the exact intent of the person using the label. They don’t wish to define the term, as that would subject their definition to review for accuracy. Rather, they want members of the public to create their own definition for which the accuser will never be held accountable.
So, what is the definition of socialism, or at least the socialism for which Republicans accused Barack Obama of acceding to during the campaign? I don’t believe Obama has called for complete abolition of private enterprise, nor do I think Republicans accused him of such ideas. Therefore, they weren’t, in effect, calling him a communist. Since, all communists are socialists, but not vice versa, it is an important distinction. Rather, I believe, they were calling some of his ideas socialist in nature. Meaning, they accused him of supporting government, or collective, intervention in a sphere of society they believe is better left to private entities. For example, Obama proposed to raise taxes. Never mind that raising the taxes necessary to pay for programs already implemented, yet never funded, under Republican reign is an act of moral righteousness. Their Conservative ideology tells them that individuals are better able to spend their money than the government. Therefore, the government taking extra income away from upper income Americans to pay for existing and past due debts is tantamount to socialism in their myopic view. I think it is fair to say that those same Republicans would call any government intervention in the health care insurance industry as a step toward socialism. And, I think that assumption is fair given our established definition. But, is a move toward nationalizing America’s health insurance industry the wrong approach?
If you ask, most Americans would probably answer that socialism is not an economic theory to which the United States should prescribe. Americans generally believe that a capitalist system based on competition and free and fair open-markets is the best economic model created. They wouldn’t be wrong in that observation. Yet, concluding that any socialist program is unworkable is equally incorrect. Ask those same Americans who should perform the following tasks, individuals or the government:
- Educating our children;
- Building roads and interstate highway system;
- Safeguarding our environment and public lands;
- Defending our nation from foreign and domestic threats;
- Responding to natural and man-made disasters;
- Testing our food supply and the imported toys used by our children; and
- Regulating industry, including the mortgage industry.
I think most Americans would agree that all of those activities, and more, are better performed collectively through government intervention. Additionally, although it may not always seem apparent, sharing the costs of these activities with the rest of the nation’s taxpayers is a more cost effective approach than each individual performing these tasks alone. While a person with no children may take exception to the cost effective argument, the childless taxpayer must realize they benefit many times over from having a nation of educated, productive, and literate citizens that are able to work, pay taxes, raise their own children, and not burden society.
So, should the providing of health insurance remain a capitalist, private enterprise, free market endeavor, or should government intervene to ensure a more collective approach? I’ll answer that question over coming days with facts showing nations with a universal health care system have better results and are more cost effective than the American health care system. I’ll show that those countries receive better results and save money simply because they have adopted a socialistic universal health care system. But, one thing that I have never seen addressed is the ironic fact that the American private health care insurers have adopted a socialistic economic model to provide health insurance to their customers.
Health care services in this country are not provided in a manner that consumers pay for the services they receive. My wife and I go to the gym five days a week and eat healthy, but my pay is docked just as much as the Republican in my office who is one hundred pounds overweight and eats donuts and Egg McMuffins every morning. How does that make any sense? Because the insurance companies have correctly figured out that the only economic model that will work is a socialist one whereby we all pay into a pool. Our payments into the pool are not necessarily for the benefit of us, but for the benefit of the overall group. Some people take more than they provide. My family takes less than we provide. Again, it’s not fair or individualistic. Rather, it is collective, socialist, and the only way in which it will work.
So, if we are to believe that private enterprise always finds the most efficient and utilitarian mode of providing goods and services, then it is abundantly obvious that health insurance services are best provided through an economic system appropriately identified as socialist. Therefore, my right-wing Republican friends and I are in agreement. Capitalism proves socialism works for providing a nation’s health care insurance benefits.
More to come!!
Like this:
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment
[...] http://liberalrag.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/feeling-sick-yet-an-examination-of-americas-health-care-s… [...]
Pingback by Feeling Sick Yet? An Examination of America’s Health Care System (Part III) « Liberalrag’s Blog November 30, 2008 @ 3:11 am