Applying three simple tests to Health Care Reform, the only conclusion I can reach is that it is Socialism. Here's why I think so. by EJ Moosa
(libertarian)
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Socialism seems to be a dirty word. Yet, socialism is a real form of governance. Socialism has been the goal of many progressives for generations. President Obama attempts to head off the criticism of this health care plan by stating "some folks say it is socialism", as if calling it what it is before the critics do will take off the table whether or not it is socialism. Let's examine this proposal in a very basic methodology, and then you tell me what you conclude.
There are two definitions to socialism at www.education.yahoo.com. They are as follows:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
If we apply the first definition to the heath care proposal, it would seem to apply without a doubt. The Federal Government would be the centralized government controlling health care in the United States. Kathleen Sebelius, US Secretary of Health and Human Services, would be given incredible freedoms in deciding just about all aspects of health care. She would effectively control the distribution of health care. While the private sector would still produce health care, Sebelius would control what can and cannot be produced or given regarding health care, as well as what payments would be received for many of these services.
If we apply the second definition to health care, then we are certainly referring to a socialist health care system. The health care system will certainly not be purely capitalist. And it is not 100% communist. It is between the two. But it will be a health care system that is certainly moving in the direction of being completely under the control of the government(or proletariat' agent.).
Some might argue that these two definitions are too rigid, and do not precisely apply. I disagree.
But, I would like to look at the Health Care Proposal from another perspective. Will the full cost of this program be borne by the participants according to their utilization. Or will it be subsidized? In my opinion, subsidization equals socialism. You are asking someone else to possibly pay your portion. To do so is equivalent to slavery.
This Health Care proposal requires that everyone participate. Let me explain what that means. As a self-employed individual, I pay a monthly premium. This premium is directly correlated to the expenses of everyone else in the same age and sex category. Being healthy, I had no claims against my insurance in 2009 while paying premiums of $348 per month to Blue Cross/Blue Shield with a $5,000 deductible. So, I paid out $4200 and received 0$ in benefits. But I do so voluntarily, and for my own peace of mind.
Under Obama's plan, everyone will need to have health care insurance, or they will be subject to a fine(administered by the Internal Revenue Service). Why is it so critical that everyone have coverage? It's not so that they also have peace of mind as I do. Instead, it is meant to assist in holding premiums down for the insured overall.
In other words, we need healthy people to be forced to join and pay premiums so that the costs can be lower for everyone else. We need the healthy people to subsidize the cost for the unhealthy.
Why is that not socialism? To force people into a plan so that the costs can be lower for others?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) -Karl Marx
Those unhealthy and insured need the healthy and uninsured to participate to keep premiums lower. This, at least, is the justifications put forth with the Health Care Reform before us today.
Worse yet, premiums will no longer be correlated with the potential for claims by individuals. The truth is it will no longer be insurance in the traditional sense.
The shameful part of all this is that even then, there will not be enough collected in premiums to cover the claims. The program will still need to access additional money to work. This is will be new taxes, and more borrowed money.
So if the participants in a program are only paying based on their ability to pay, and are being promised the medical services they need, why is it not socialism?
Health Care Reform passes all three checks in my mind to qualify as being a socialist program.
But I want to know what you think. It either is socialism or it isn't. What's your call?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 23
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of EJ Moosa only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
EJ Moosa is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Given that the bill is thousands of pages, and has endless variations and variables, it is difficult to say for sure it is socialist. However, it is clearly in that direction and continues the progessives (liberals) agenda towards socialism. One reason health care costs conitinue to rise is because the money is there to pay it. Supply and demand. When the supply of money dries up, prices will have to decline, or doctors, medical facilities, etc will be out of business. Government funding of medicare and medicaid are primarily responsible for the inflation caused by the availabity of customers. Other drivers to health care cost increases are runaway law suits, systemic inflation in education and training costs, and a lack of fiscal responsibility on the patient's side. If patients paid a high percentage of all costs, ...demand would decline, and this prices would drop. In this case, socialism has been dramatically inflationary.
You are right. Sociaism is incredibly inflationary. We have also seen it in the secondary education markets, which are preparing for severe budget cuts and fee increases. It would not have happened if individuals paid higher percentages of the true cost.
But that is what socialist systems do. They remove the individual from the equation by eliminating direct payments, and move it to a centralized system, which they then must control from start to finish.
If we stick to the first definition of socialism you gave above (and there's nothing saying we have to, but *if* we do), then the US military, as a taxpayer-funded, state-controlled, top-down organization, is socialist. And its generals, its technicians and its bureaucrats, to the degree that they support the system they are in, are socialists too. If supporting health care reform "makes" one a "socialist," then supporting the US military "makes" one a socialist too. And that goes for the soldiers as well. If they support the taxpayer-funded, state-controlled, top-down organization they're in (and most of them obviously do, and proudly), then our soldiers are socialists, one and all.
This nation has been in a "progressive" slow state towards true "Socialism" since Woodrow Wilson. The "Health Care Reform" is definitely socialism, especially the enforcement of mandatory health care or you have to pay a fine or face jail time.
Sorry for the news, but the health industry has been "socialized" since the forties.
In fact, even before that doctors socialized health care by giving free care to those who couldn't afford to pay and "overcharging" those who could afford to be overcharged.
Aside from what appears to be "obvious" socialism, with programs such as medicare and medicaid, the corporate socialism exists with the absolute non competitive nature of health insurance, health pro certification, government private collusion in construction and siting of clinics and hospitals, etc., the ridiculous monopoly patent protection of the pharmaceutical industry, etc.
To write an article on the "socialism" of the health care industry and not even touch on any of these issues, when they are the hallmark of "socialism" and a planned economy is like writing an article on baseball and only mentioning second baseman.
I love using the Military as a example of socialism, Lets see Taxes from the populace in general paid to a group of individuals that have a primary Constitutional function and whose members may have to make the supreme sacrifice in fufilling their responsibilities. As opposed to social welfare recipients whose primary function is to vote and or return the favor through contributions.
The existence of thousands of socialist inspired programs in this country is precisely the point. It is a pox, a cancer that has infected us and at an ever accelerating pace is eating away at the fundimentals on which this country is based. Just look at farm subsidy programs. Once we were the envy of the world, now China has overtaken us. This is a result of Socialist based programs not Capitalism. Alan Simpson tells of Wyoming farmers and ranchers, Wyoming mind you, coming to his office in Cheyenne and complaining about welfare programs. They were there looking for their share. I personally asked him if the quote was true. YUP, was his reply. I wish I had his eloquence. Compromise is an umbrella over a leaky roof. Says it all doesn't it.
From the income tax , social security, medicare, welfare programs, education the community reinvestment act, just to name a few, to a president that claims more redistribution is necessary. What the …............... What is it that you don't get?
In ever increasing numbers Americans are standing up and telling Socialist that they are tired of having this excrement shoved down their throats.
It does not appear to be socialism to me. Private insurance companies will be "competing" for our business. Doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers will not be owned and operated by the government. They will continue to be privately owned and operated. If the truth is that it will not be insurance in the traditional sense then that seems to be a good thing in my opinion. The shameful part is that private insurance has been unattainable and unaffordable for so many people for so long. Private insurance companies have had monopoly power for far too long.
What would you call a program that forces one group of people (healthy) to subsidize the costs of another group of people (unhealthy)?
I think the shameful part is that someone is able to join group by paying X dollars per month knowing without a doubt that the benefits they are going to receive are not X, but 3 or 4 or 10 times X. And they also know that in the end they will have received so much more than they put in that they are leaving a debt for future generations.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
