I have become controversial!
http://catanova.blogspot.com/2009/09/so-now-that-im-older.html
For the record, I don't actually care for the healthcare plan as written. Unlike my detractor suggests, not only have I looked up the information, I have actually attended seminars on the problems of the uninsured in Idaho & insurance problems in general. I heard doctors arguing that they spend 30% of staff time just trying to deal with insurance, and if there were a way to just include everyone in an insurance system--or systems if we did a private-public partnership--and stop having to constantly battle insurance companies, they could actually treat everyone without increased costs. I think that makes a legitimate argument. I also spent five years working for health charities and regularly dealt with people who had genetic or inherited diseases who could not get health insurance, couldn't get health insurance to cover their treatments, or who had to look at only large employers because of insurance issues. I even lobbied for health insurance changes. Having been up against insurance companies in the legislature, I can also testify to their very deep pockets and their ability to buy votes to prevent any changes to the current health care system. I have taken classes in economics and have read a lot of economic history. So I think I might be qualified to have my own opinion.
My point has been and continues to be that just screaming about socialism helps no one. It's fear-mongering. It shuts down debate and will leave us with exactly the same healthcare problems we have now. Who does that help except insurance companies?
And as anyone who has studied American history should know, we have proved that capitalism without limits doesn't work. That led to corporate towns where employees had to buy their groceries at exorbitant rates from company stores (which often resulted in owing more money than they earned), monopolies that controlled the chains of production and drove all competitors out of business, and financial collapses (like perhaps the unrestrained mortgage market?) Socialism without limits also doesn't work because there is no incentive. BUT our schools, fire departments, libraries, law enforcement agencies--all of these are essentially "socialist" ideas. I pay taxes to support schools even though I don't have children. That is socialism--so as my point originally was, if you are complaining about socialism but have sent your children through public schools, you are being a hypocrite. We already have quite a few elements of our system that are socialistic, so if it is completely unacceptable then people need to start paying tolls to drive on roads, hire private teachers to educate their children, buy all the sports equipment their children use, pay a fee if their house burns and they want someone to put it out, etc. We already have a mixed system, so whether or not the health care plan is socialism isn't really the big issue as far as I am concerned. What the bill is at least doing is starting the process, which is more than has happened in the last 8 years. So is it ignorant to just say "Socialism is evil?" I think so. Just as I think it's ignorant to say capitalism is evil. Whatever system exists has to be in moderation because someone will find a way to take advantage of it.
What we have does not work. Small employers are crippled by trying to provide health insurance to their employees and still can't compete with the insurance provided by large companies. When people lose their jobs, they either lose their health insurance OR have to pay outrageous premiums through COBRA. People with chronic diseases often have to choose jobs with large employers or the government because they cannot get the coverage they need. These things are all happening now, and will still be happening 10 years from now if all you're going to do is go around screaming "Socialism."
If you want to be against the healthc are bill, fine. I think it has a lot of flaws myself. Write to your representative with ideas on what to change. Help find a solution that IS acceptable. And accept that others can have an opinion. Shutting down the opposition's opinions is indeed not socialism--that would be totalitarianism or belligerent ignorance, and both seem pretty dangerous to me.
7 comments:
I'm rather socialist about healthcare, although in other areas I am not. I think we need single payer coverage. For too long, this country has slanted benefits in the direction of the corporate profit margin, rather than focusing on giving the citizens what they need. Thanks for being a balanced voice about this. (And thanks for your comment on my sox!)
For the record I don't have kids & resent having to pay for other people's. If you can't afford to have children & pay for them don't have them. I have my dogs who are my kids & noone pays for them, nor do I ask anyone to. And yes it is the same. Your kids are no more important to you than my kids. I don't take government money for anything. I support myself, my furkids & I own a home, by myself.
None of that is the point. When has the government ever been able to manage anything right. Medicare, Medicaid, the post office, a lot of public schools etc. are all bankrupt. Now all of a sudden they're going to be able to run another, even bigger, health system??? And we're already trillions of dollars in debt & they're printing money to spend more? It IS a government grab for power. If you all really read it you would see they will have complete control of your life through you ins. And I for one will NOT use the new light bulbs that the government themselves are trying to force us to use, in whatever upcoming year they're going to, because on the government's own site it lists them as hazardous because of the mercury, & describe removal of them requires a process equivalent to needing a hazmat suit. So no thank you, I will resist they're attempt to control every aspect of my life. And I have complete health & dental through the company I work for & it's very good. If you look at the Washington protest, the tea parties & the polls it shows a huge majority of citizens don't want the government involved in their health care. Has anyone studied national health care control in Canada, England etc. It's horrible. And since I live in MI, we see Canadians flocking here to get health care & they've even designated certain hospitals to take care of Canadians because their government is incapable of doing it. All the experience in the health care system doesn't have anything to do with what's going on. Why is everyone entitled to have health insurance anyway? Why don't we buy everyone a house, a car, pay them to stay at home & not work? Where does it end? I wasn't raised to think that someone else would take care of me. I was raised to work hard & earn everything. I'm not talking about people who are disabled etc.
I work for the feds and have excellent insurance, but I pay for it and I do not feel like losing my excellent insurance to have mediocre insurance so that other people can have health care. Yes I am selfish, but I have worked hard to earn this health care.
And Toni, I think you are right, peoplelike to through "socialism" around as a scare tactic, unfortunatley it is working. The sad part is that a true socialistic republic is not that bad, as long as it is not a few working to pay for all.
This has been a really interesting debate.
Coming from England, I find it wrong that healthcare should be paid for before it is made available. Here, it is free when healthcare is needed most.
The NHS has it's problems, we have the so-called postcode lottery where certain treatments are not as available in some areas as they are in others. This is a major fault, but at least we can fight this and get our politicians to change matters.
Anonymous, I really don't know what else you are alluding to. We have people travelling to Europe for certain operations because the queues are so long in their local areas. This is usually paid for by the NHS. It strikes me as being a sensible solution.
My own belief is that healthcare should be available to everyone. It should not matter whether that person is wealthy enough to afford it, or not.
I hope that your politicians can sort out a system which is fairer for everyone.
Good luck!
I agree with some of the issues raised, but I will state for the record, just because the anti-Obama groups are yelling loudest does NOT mean they are the majority. I will support anyone's right to disagree, but the level of hatred and the behavior of many of my countrymen over this debate makes me nauseous. Have we become a nation so unable to allow anyone to have an opinion that we disagree with that we have been reduced to yelling slogans and bumperstickers at each other?
Unlike so many Americans today, I will support anyone's freedom to stand up and say whatever hateful things they have to say, but don't believe for a minute that they are political arguments.
The loud are NOT the majority--they are just the ones with the least educated argument.
And just to be clear--my comment is NOT aimed at "Anonymous." I will back your right to your opinion--and we would SOOOOOO agree about the personal responsibility & probably about the mortgage bailout. You voiced some legitimate arguments and they need to be discussed.
I am furious with the way my country is behaving right now--but not with you personally. Please don't take it that way
Agreed, if people would just look around they would realize we have a mix of socialism, capitalism and other various states of spending, living and societal treatment. I think a mix is good and it is also necessary to find a healthy balance. Right now our entire planet feels like it is way, way off balance. Entire planet. Off Balance. Big Time!
Post a Comment