Universal Health Care: Socialism or Good Business and Smart Policy?
|
|||||||||||||
| Printer Friendly Story View |
What Part of Red Herring Don't You Understand?
The most common charge heard about universal health care is that it is "socialism."
Some so-called "conservatives" are using it as the main reason they won't vote for Barack Obama, the candidate for President of the Democratic Party, that supports health care for all in America.
This charge is a "red herring," in other words a technique used to mislead or to argue using irrelevant claims.
Claiming that universal health care is "socialism" is not only the basest canard, it is the oldest political trick in the world.
It takes us back to the 1930s and 1940s when the Depression gave rise to real socialists and communists who mounted political organizations and even ran candidates for office.
It fits with the ultra conservative maniacal thrust in recent years to roll back the New Deal gains of Franklin D. Roosevelt including Social Security.
Top Republican health care adviser John Goodman has suggested that Republican Presidential candidate John McCain use the approach that there are no uninsured because the sick can always go to a hospital emergency room. He wants the new President to order the Census Bureau to eliminate the classification "uninsured."
Health care is considered the top issue Americans are concerned about in the 2008 election. Some analysts say the main difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the latter think there is no health care problem, pointing to McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm's comment that we are a nation of "whiners."
The economic success of the past decade, produced mainly by Democrat Bill Clinton's huge budget surpluses, has sparked the nastiest epidemic of greed ever seen in America. The rich got richer, and meaner, and the poor got what they usually get -- the shaft.
But undermining the viability of the American working class is self-destructive for the capitalists of the nation: they are hurting the very source of their wealth and the nation's wealth, and the main competitive factor in the global economy -- its workforce.
And what about the fact that lack of health care is damaging to companies and corporations? These are the sources of American wealth and if lack of health care leads to lower productivity then firms are less profitable. And, the wealthy get lower dividends on their stocks.
There is a connection that most ultra conservatives don't seem to get. They are so ideologically driven that they are shooting themselves in the foot over issues that should not be reduced to a simplistic, and incorrect, term like "socialism."
It's not socialistic to support national policies like universal health care that help the overall economic climate. It's just good business and smart policy!
Analysis of four years of the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey reveals a mounting crisis among low- and moderate-income American families. Even when they have insurance coverage, many are unable to afford the most basic health care.
An estimated 46 million Americans have no health insurance; and, an estimated 1.85 million go bankrupt each year because of medical bills they are unable to pay.
Complainers about the idea of universal health care ignore the fact that in today's world, access to health care is vital to the American workforce; unhealthy employees can't perform well on the job, can't contribute fully to raising productivity that is the nation's main defense against foreign economies.
"In a time period when the incomes of average Americans barely budged, health care costs climbed by an average 7 percent per year, leaving many employers struggling to offer spending more for their medical care," the report states.
The report paints a portrait of the U.S. health care system as experienced by families with low and moderate incomes. Health insurance is often not affordable or unavailable, health care costs claim a growing share of household budgets, and rising numbers of people are under-insured.
At the same time, medical debt mounts, people -- even those with chronic illnesses -- skimp on prescription drugs and needed care, individuals experience poorly coordinated health care, and adults lack confidence they will be able to afford high-quality health care in the future. Now, after several months of job losses across the country and more likely to come, the situation has become dire.
In this presidential election year, voters are voicing their dissatisfaction with the health care system, calling on candidates to expand access to affordable and comprehensive health insurance.
Massachusetts and Vermont have moved ahead of the federal government to expand insurance coverage in their states.
All the presidential candidates have developed proposals to reform the health care and health insurance systems, and members of Congress have introduced bills to expand health insurance coverage.
Barack Obama would not mandate that every individual have health care insurance, but he would require health insurance for children. Obama would create a public insurance program for those not covered by private insurance and would also require large employers to help pay for their employees' health coverage.
Obama's plan is estimated to cost between $50 billion and $65 billion and would be paid for by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 a year.
Under John McCain's plan, every family, while still having the option of employer-based coverage, will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.
Robert Laszewski, health policy analyst, comments on the McCain plan: "With the average cost of employer-provided family health insurance at $12,000 a year a $5,000 tax credit will often come up way short--especially for higher age people and those who don't have the benefit of an employer contribution. High deductibles and HSA plans will help but families who don't have employer contributions should be prepared to pay at least a few thousand extra dollars."
"With working families in crisis from a combination of faltering job and income security and a dramatic acceleration in the cost of basic life necessities, the time has never been more urgent for policymakers to forge ahead on solutions to the nation's worsening health insurance problem," the report concludes.###
| Printer Friendly Story View |
"The BUZZ" - Read Feedback From Readers! |
|
ebmspang Says:
On September 02, 2008
at 12:41 AM
What does "Socialism" have to do with anything? Here's the real "RELEVANT" question...How will we pay for it? In case you haven't noticed, We The People are going broke! Period! Here is some more "RELEVANCE"...every time the FED cuts an interest rate and prints more money to bail out some financial institution like Freddie Mac or Fanny Mae (or some other banks that they recently created the 290 billion dollar emergency fund for), WE pay for it! Add to that, the current housing crisis (the equity in my home is down 20%... How's yours?), the looming credit (individual debt) crisis, the unemployment rate (with most good jobs now overseas), rising fuel prices, rising food costs, a tumbling dollar value, etc., etc., etc., all we need now is for these wasteful idiots to raise our taxes again! Go ahead and sip the Koolaid and send them more of your hard-earned dollars but leave me out of it! Why do We always look to the government to solve these issues? Haven't they screwed most everything up to begin with? After witnessing how our huge mismanaged centralized bureaucracy has dealt with disaster (Katrina & FEMA), education (No Child Left Behind is not funded and therefore a joke!), immigration (need I say more), etc., etc., etc., I can't wait to see how they handle health care! Since when was it "good business" to let the Federal Government manage anything anyway? When has the Federal Government ever been regarded a "good Business"?
I'm sorry but until we deal with the real issues, we are doomed to more of the same! I suggest we start by purging Washington of all these manipulative lobbyists, corporate benefactors and "revolving door" politicians, then begin to hold our "so called" elected government officials accountable for the blatant arrogance they routinely demonstrate towards We The People everyday, and finally, create true, openly competitive, free-market policies that encourage better standards at lower costs! Lastly, could everyone please stop supporting the lessor of two evils! Evil is evil (no matter the degree) and two wrongs never make a right! By doing so, you're screwing the country up for the rest of us who don't want evil anymore...period! Instead, maybe We should raise our standards! Only a fool rejects his principles to accept mediocrity! |
|
dedosmame Says:
On October 05, 2009
at 02:04 AM
Hi People
How are you doing? |
|
|
Dave Rogers |
|
|
|
Printer-Friendly Story View
0200 Nd: 04-21-2024 d 4 cpr 0
12/31/2020 P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm
SPONSORED LINKS
12/31/2020 drop ads P3v3-0200-Ad.cfm