Government Healthcare = Jobs Program
Friday, March 19, 2010 at 1:55PM Government Healthcare - meaning Medicaid, Medicare, Champus, Tricare, and the Veteran’s Administration are first and foremost a jobs program. They exist primarily to employ lots of people in government jobs. They are not competitive and all of their financial incentives are to tax more and spend more with the spending mainly aimed at increasing the size and influence of their own influence. This is how government works. If benefits have to be paid to citizens so be it so long as it doesn’t interfere with their primary reason for existence which is preservation and expansion of the agency.
In a capitalistic society, as opposed to a socialistic society, we should whenever possible try to keep as many things out of the governments’ hands as is possible so as to avoid the politicians having too much control over our lives and to keep our options and choices and freedoms available and in our own control. If you put everything under government control then no one has any incentive to be successful or to take care of themselves and their families.
A good healthcare plan should be one that provides access to anyone who wants it while maintaining freedom of choice, competition that leads to availability of better products/services, and that keeps costs under control while taking control out of the hands of massive federal agencies who strangle actual healthcare in favor of their own expansion. The fewer people working for the government the better.
Those who favor nationalized government sponsored and controlled healthcare should ask why veterans who can go to any VA hospital in the land choose almost uniformly to have their healthcare delivered in the private system if they can afford to do so? Why do people from countries with socialized medicine prefer to come to the USA for healthcare whether from Canada or Europe?
If you ask a veteran which he’d rather have, a VA card or a Blue Cross PPO card and I don’t think you’d find many who would prefer long waits, small medication formularies, tremendously restricted access to anything expensive, and limited numbers of clinics and hospitals to being able to shop for the best doctor they can find at the hospital or clinic of their choice. The secret is we could buy that Blue Cross card for the Vet when their service career ends and keep up the premiums for far less than it costs to operate the VA hospital system and Veterans administration federal jobs program. What a waste!
Another freedom many would have you give up is the ability to use your resources to buy better than average healthcare. Socialists want everyone to be equal - equally miserable perhaps in terms of their access to care. I can see arguing that the country should find more cost effective ways of providing basic healthcare for all but also feel that people with the initiative to earn more should be allowed to purchase more than basic care if they’re willing to do so much as we find a way to provide food stamps for the hungry poor without promising them lobster and filet mignon yet they’re welcome to buy that lobster with their own funds should they earn the right to do so. Healthcare can be this way too with some planning.
Reader Comments (6)
ignorance isn't going to get us anywhere.
Dear Mr. Elton
Let me just stop you at "In a capitalistic society, as opposed to a socialistic society, we should whenever possible try to keep as many things out of the governments’ hands as is possible," because that clearly indicates that you do not understand the workings of Revolution, Socialism, and Communism.
First of all, Socialism is not a government-planned economy, or Totalitarian society like what the USSR, China, DPRK, Laos, Cuba, Cambodia, etc., have demonstrated. They are what we call SINOs (similar to RINO, except substitute the "Republican" for "Socialist"). In other words, just because they labeled themselves as Socialist to their people and in their Constitutions (because they did and do have one or more), doesn't mean that they are Socialist. Socialism is Democracy at a higher level. Instead of a high-government, high-bureaucracy, low-freedom system, Socialism rejects Executive Authoritarianism, opting for an expansive Assembly, Duma, Soviet, Congress, or Parliament of elected workers by other workers. Their job is simply to direct the economy as to how their constituents already voted. Socialism eliminates poverty, excessive wealth, unemployment, and restores many of the social freedoms that have so far been denied to the US, such as gay marriage, legal abortion, safe-sex education, a lowering of the voting age to anyone legally employed, etc., all so that more can help direct the nation. It is a bottom-up system, a grassroots system of limited government control and much individual freedom.
Socialism must come from a Revolution spurred by Capitalism, otherwise a number of bad things may happen. For instance, in all countries that claim Socialism, they revolted from the precursor to Capitalism: Feudalism. As a result, they were not industrialized, sacrificed as many as possible to achieve industrialization as fast as possible, and still could not provide for all the citizens because of no previously existing free markets. However, the "Socialist" nations of Europe, like Greece or Sweden, did not have a Revolution, and have tried reformism to attain Socialism, resulting in overspending and economic collapse. Capitalism can only give way to Socialism from Revolution.
Of course, there's still another major step after Socialism: pure autonomy, or Communism. Communism is not what Lenin, Stalin, or Mao have made it out to be. Instead, it is a classless, Stateless version of Socialism where all is owned equally by all. Governance is practically non-existent, so it is obvious that the USSR, China, DPRK, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, etc., could not have been Communist at all.
The systems of the aforementioned nations was that of Totalitarianism and State Capitalism. In other words, the people obeyed the charismatic leader of the government, no matter what, and class was based on government. If you were in the government, you were rich, if not, you were likely starving. Totalitarianism was created as a tangent of Fascism, an ideology of the Far Right associated with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Its purpose is to unify the entire populace as one, thoughtless existence dedicated only to what was "good for the nation." Communism rejects the idea of Nationalism and Statism altogether, another indication that the aforementioned States were not Communist. (A good indicator of Left and Right political systems is based on the prominent role of which branch of government. Left favors the Legislative Branch due to its representation of the masses, while the Far Right favors the Executive Branch due to its ability to ignore the Democratic process and act quickly and decisively.)
Sincerely Yours, and With Much Hope,
Comrade Max
Yeah, right. So list me a few countries that have successfully implemented the socialistic system as you define it. And if the list is short (i.e. < 1) explain where and why you think it can work anywhere on this planet? The fact is that people work out of their own narrow interest. If you take away the incentive to work then enough people will stop working so as to put an undue burden on those that for whatever reason still choose to work (i.e. the suckers). All systems are subject to corruption if implemented by humans so knowing that all systems are imperfect I prefer a system where hard work is rewarded and lack of hard work is penalized.
A valid request, surely enough. What you have asked for is quite common among those not acquainted with Socialist writing. You see, all systems of government come down to theory many years before they ever exist. With a Republic, the theory goes back to Plato and Aristotle, and beforehand. With a Constitutional Republic, like ours, the theory is 200 years before the USA, with Enlightenment-era writers. So, simply by deduction, the idea of a Socialist State existing now, when the theory was begun in 1848, is still quite far off. However, that string of theories collaborated on by hundreds of individuals is based on the idea of history by class struggle. All throughout our human history, we can divide eras based on class distinction. In the beginning, there was no class, and mankind existed as an egalitarian tribal system. Now we have Capitalism.
The reason that there are no Socialist countries, and won't be in my lifetime, is because of the failure to acknowledge class struggle. For Capitalism to be met, Feudalism must first crumble (examine Britain before Industrial Revolution) in order for Capitalism to arise. Capitalism allows for production to increase to overcompensate for humanity, further allowing the hoarding of resources. Since the USSR, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and all "Socialist" African nations had not fully escaped colonial Feudalism and fully Capitalized, they were all doomed to horrible failure. However, then you have nations like Cuba and Venezuela, which were at least progressing in the Capitalist system beforehand. In Cuba's case, the failure is largely due to the US embargo and support of anti-Castro forces since before Castro even considered himself to be a Socialist. With the failing economy, the private sector had to be completely replaced as a public sector, and help could only be found by the already-flawed USSR. As for Venezuela, the idea is folly. Their economy is nowhere near the point where it could support the notion of Socialism.
Therefore, what should be taken from this is that a nation must emerge from Feudalism. Then, it must become fully Capitalist, like Britain or the USA, and develop until Capitalism collapses (similar to the Depression, but likely worse; certainly not for many more years). This could be through government reformism, corporate abuse of workers, or, most likely, the market bubble bursting from a key industry at a horrid moment. Only then can Socialism be considered, and it should not be taken as an Authoritarian ideology even then. Should any part differ, the whole idea will fall into either a horrid Totalitarian State of Death, or a semi-successful, slightly oppressive, feigned Republic (Cuba, Venezuela). It's like making a cake: put the wrong ingredient in at the wrong time, and the whole thing will fall apart.
Finally, your notion of corruption and incentive deserves to be addressed, as it is a valid point. First, corruption is to be checked by a more direct Democracy. Should the people, with nigh-absolute civic liberty, be displeased with an official, and be supported by a majority, that official can be recalled for failing to represent the constituents. Essentially, the job of the representatives would be to vote as the constituents voted and to propose policy, nothing else. Next shall be incentives. In a Capitalist system, at least in the early days of the system, it had great incentive. Leaping on an opportunity could generate great wealth. However, in the semi-monopolies of today's corporations, such incentive is either horridly repressed or eliminated altogether. Those that work hard for 50 years are not offered promotion, as hard workers are more profitable doing hard work. Additionally, starting a business to compete is either wiped out by inability to get a loan due to lack of wage due to corporate profit, or is crushed by corporate competition. Wal-Mart alone has crushed tens of thousands of family-owned businesses simply because the small businesses could not hope to gain enough money to compete with Wal-Mart. In Capitalism, the incentive has decayed. You work, you may survive. In Socialism, though, all is collected and distributed according to ability and need, respectively. Innovation will come from human curiosity. Competition is not necessarily erased. The State does not hold the power, but the people do. If a product is not satisfactory, there are millions with the freedom to produce it differently, which, with a Gift Economy, can ensure the continuation of a business. The incentive is the direct improvement of the quality of life, for more production equals more to be distributed or exported. Also, as Socialism is a Workers' State, only workers (the proletariat) would receive the benefits, but all benefits would be equivalent. Therefore, unemployment is the biggest issue, with welfare benefits very low. The will to survive will instill work.
When you speak of exceptionalism as bad and fitting the mold as good in Socialism, you are instead referring to Totalitarianism, like in the Leninist/Stalinist nations and the Maoist nations. This is not Socialism. However, in Capitalism, the hard working are not rewarded. Instead, the wealthiest are those who have inherited their wages, or who have the simple task of signing papers and giving an annual investment meeting. These are the 1% of all Americans that control 33% of all American wealth. They are not hardworking when compared to those on the assembly line, those on the construction crew, those in municipal maintenance, those in law enforcement, fire safety, medical care, etc, etc, etc. When your system of "incentives" leaves 90% of the American populace, 270,000,000 people, of which only 30,000,000 are unemployed, with only 30% of the wealth, and the upper 30,000,000 (10%) with 70% of the wealth, I'd say your incentives have failed.
Your Friend in Civil Discourse,
Comrade Max
The problem with direct democracy is that it doesn't take long for a majority to realize they can enslave any minority they choose. This can be like what we had in the good old days where people were physically enlsaved or can be just a matter of the many poor enslaving the more wealthy to support them financially. If they productive in society decide to flee (as they should) then the majority can simply vote to forbid their leaving. Not a pretty picture.
Ah, but you see, this is not a direct Democracy, just a more direct one from what we have now. The barrier to the "dictatorship of the majority" is a device perfected by the great nation of America. That device is the Constitution. By outlining where government can and cannot go, and by outlining specific rights that the people cannot be deprived of, then the individual liberties of the people can exist in a Council Democracy alongside equality. By eliminating a Constitution, there's no telling what a Democracy could do to itself, although, like the Greeks and the Romans, it can be deduced that it would eliminate itself in order to gain Executive decisions and greater security at the cost of liberty (a sad thing indeed). The Constitution is truly a vital document.
Sincerely Yours,
Comrade Max