Socialism? We Already Have It, Fool
Mar 5th, 2009 | 14 responses
President Barack Obama launched a summit of health field representatives Thursday in the first step to reform the nation’s beleaguered health care system.
“Those who seek to block any reform at any cost will not prevail this time around,” Obama said in opening a White House conference, where he promised to reduce health costs and expand coverage. He said doing nothing is not an option.
May I be so humble as to suggest leaving another option off the table: Fear mongering by reform opponents including Republicans claiming any moves by the Obama administration leads to socialism.
Earth to whatever planet these fear mongers dwell: We already have a form of socialism in our health care system. It’s called Medicare and Medicaid. These government-run programs offer a safety net to seniors and the impoverished most private insurance companies do not provide.
Medicare, in particular, is not a system of redistributing wealth which is another claim of fear by opponents. Not when recipients must pay a $96 monthly premium deducted from seniors’ Social Security benefits. Medicaid is another can of worms and begs for reforms beyond our imagination.
Where Obama’s path to health care reforms takes Congress remains to be seen. He says he’s open to listen to everyone’s input. During the presidential campaign, Obama’s website suggested a form of public insurance to cover those refusing health plans offered by employers.
So why start foaming at the mouth as was the case of a Tennessee Republican congressman this morning on MSNBC? Here’s MSNBC’s account from First Read:
Zach Wamp, the always self-assured Tennessee congressman, was on MSNBC this morning, railing against any health care reform effort, calling it a move toward “socialism” and that Obama was engaging in almost “class warfare.”
Wamp went so far as to say, “Health care is a privilege,” before clarifying that he meant, “It’s not necessarily a right” for those who choose not to pay for health care. He asserted that of the 47 million uninsured, half opt out of their employer’s provided health care.
“It’s probably the next major step towards socialism,” Wamp began. “I hate to sound so harsh, but…. this literally is a fast march towards socialism, where the government is bigger than the private sector in our country and healthcare’s the next major step, so we oughta all be worried about it…”
Wamp added a thinly veiled “redistribution of wealth” argument, saying that the president wants to take money from those who already have health care to pay for those that don’t have it.
“Listen, the 45 million people that don’t have health insurance — about half of them choose not to have health insurance…,” Wamp said before issuing these warnings: “If you’re on Medicare, beware. If you’re a small businessperson, he [Obama] proposes to take away your deductions for charitable contributions, for your mortgage deduction on your home, in order to pay for health care. So, if you’re one of those people who choose not to have health insurance, maybe you will have health insurance. But if you’re one of those people that currently have health care, maybe they’re going to take a benefit from you to pay for getting it to the other people. So, this is almost class warfare, in order for him to be able to say, ‘Everyone now has health care.’”
Then he added, “Listen, health care is a privilege.” MSNBC Anchor Tamron Hall interjected. “It’s a privilege? Health care? If you have cancer right now, do you see it as a privilege to get some treatment?” she asked.
“I was just about to finish to say, that for some people it’s a right,” Wamp said, “but for everyone, frankly, it’s not necessarily a right. Some people choose not to pay.”
Asked who is not entitled to health care, Wamp responded, “An employee who rejects the health care provided by their employer ’cause they don’t want any of the money deducted from” their pay check. He again insisted, “Half the people today choose to remain uninsured. Half of them don’t have any choice, but half of them choose to, what’s called, ‘Go naked.’ And just take a risk of getting sick. They end up in the emergency room, costing you and me a whole lot more money. How many illegal immigrants are in this country today, getting our health care? Gobs of ‘em.”
Never say Wamp was denied his two-cents worth. We assume his objections focus on the possibility of a single-payer system, or national health care similar to Canada and many Euro nations. In the U.S., that would be politically improbable nor does it come close to what Obama has proposed.
The government estimates that the nation will spend $2.5 trillion on health care this year, or an average of $8,160 a person. Without any change in federal law, it estimates, health care will account for more than 20 percent of the nation’s entire economic output in 2018, up from 17.6 percent in 2009, and public programs will account for more than half of all health spending — without any of the changes contemplated by the White House.
Reports The New York Times:
In a letter to Obama, five senior Republican senators said they were eager to work with him. But they rejected one of Mr. Obama’s campaign proposals, which called for creation of “a new public insurance program,” to compete with private insurers.
“Forcing free-market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition,” the letter said. “Ultimately, we would be left with a single government-run program controlling all of the market.”
The letter was signed by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, and Senators Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.
By contrast, Richard J. Kirsch, the national campaign manager of Health Care for America Now, said that a public plan option, similar to Medicare, was “an essential component of health care reform,” and he added, “We are going to fight for it through the end…”
In a 2004 book, Prof. David M. Cutler, a health economist at Harvard, said, “The history of health reform in the United States is not encouraging ,” in part because “providing insurance to everyone requires transferring resources from those on a higher rung to those in the middle and bottom of the income distribution.”
Mr. Obama bypassed such difficult questions on Thursday, and focused instead on areas of potential agreement.
“If we want to cover all Americans,” Mr. Obama said, “we cannot make the mistake of trying to fix what isn’t broken. So if you have insurance you like, you’ll be able to keep that insurance. If you have a doctor you like, you can keep that doctor. You’ll just pay less for the care that you receive.”
Cross posted on The Remmers Report
14 Responses to “Socialism? We Already Have It, Fool”
Have to say: Great post title!
Yes, I can see “Mr. T” saying it. (Never saw him as a Republican…more a libertarian…but what do I know?)
I don't know why American conservatives get their knickers in a twist about reforming the disastrously broken US health care system.
It is far more wasteful than the Canadian or British models (and Obama isn't going there).
Maybe it is all partisan rubbish…sort of like Bush is a closet Neo-Nazi intent on declaring martial law and reigning forever, that we heard from the Left during the Bush era.
I am hoping Obama can doing something on this file…despite the Cro-magnon opponents cited in Jerry's post.
Yes, we already have socialized medicine…and schools….and police forces…and roads/highway systems…and military…and fire protection…and prisons….Did I leave anything out?
I'd like to see the GOP abolish all forms of socialized programs we have today and then watch them try to commute to work dodging potholes, drive-by shooters, looters and all forms of ignoramouses borne from lack of schooling…: ) What a fun place the “free market” system would be…run by greed and shortcuts, outsourcing in order to keep the gravy boat full at the top levels. Yippee!
Marlowecan: “I don't know why American conservatives get their knickers in a twist about reforming the disastrously broken US health care system.”
Conservatives are much more zealous advocates of reform than liberals, in that they want to focus on the root problem: health care costs too much. Liberal proposals to deliver universal coverage by simply taxing the rich more don't drive efficiency improvements.
Worse, liberals' philosophy that health care is a civil right gives me twisty knickers because it doesn't make sense. Health care in principle costs an infinite amount of money (and just shy of that in practice). How can you have a right to something that's infinitely expensive? And how can you seriously propose to deliver it without getting serious about cost control?
If anything Medicare shows that the US government handles socialized medicine very poorly. For an even worse example look at Tri-Care. I don't know why anyone thinks that extending benefits to everyone will somehow solve the problem.
Earth to Jerry Remmers
Where Obama’s path to health care reforms takes Congress remains to be seen.
He doesnt even have a plan. Hes just going to do something…….
But I guess those 30 million displaced workers who sell insurance and work in offices and adjust claims can all build bridges under Obama's non existent plan.
I wished he had a plan. Then maybe we could get our knickers in an uproar, but hey Im hoping my 1200 dollars a month health care plan gets removed and I can then buy a new electric car that goes 1/2 way to work before it goes dead.
Presidents should do more of what he's doing here: lay down non-partisan guidelines for the hatching of a plan, rather than a plan itself. By preserving neutrality, he will be better positioned to mediate later.
Just as an aside. The ever higher cost of health care is the overhead of management. My wife is an RN who works at a local hospital. The number of people in management positions is equal to 40% of all employees. Any attempts at improvement in efficiency require committees, meetings, and white papers. Of course, none of these pass times include any of the people who are actually performing the tasks that are under scrutiny. Dilbert would be proud.
The insurance companies have the same top heavy org chart. You could knock the costs of health care by 25% tomorrow simply by clearing out half the executive offices and hiring of few more care providers.
Actually, health care is a right. If you get ill and show up in the emergency room, doctors MUST give you aid. The problem, of course, is that that is a horribly expensive and inefficient means of delivering health care.
Also, the notion that liberals only care about universal health care and not cost is untrue. This was a key component of Obama's difference with Hillary Clinton in the primary. He pointed out several times that people don't get health care mostly because they cannot afford it. And that includes the underinsured as much as it does the uninsured.
HemmD, why does your wife require ever-increasing management?
One thing that's definitely ever-increasing is government regulation, which raises the cost of health care by over $300 billion a year yet delivers only half as much in benefits. Statistically, given that some of the extra money you leave in people's pockets they'll spend on health and safety, over-regulation causes more deaths than lack of health insurance does.
Elrod, saints be praised, you've found one liberal who managed to piece together the secret: demand for health care exceeds supply because it Costs Too Much. If we can just leak the news to another 100 million, we'll have a consensus.
Everything current problem is a crisis, all caused by big, bad business. The only cure for each and every one is immediate, massive government programs.
We are indeed living out Atlas Shrugged.
HemmD, many of those administrative types are there worrying about JCAHO audits, Medicare audits, QI, etc mainly to keep the government happy. The government is a large part of the problem. Ask your wife about JCAHO and you might get an earful.
And health care cannot be a right since it involves a service from another citizen. The doctors only must give you aid if you are at facility that participates in Medicare – EMTALA guidelines requires they give you aid as part of the contract with Medicare. This is a contractual agreement, not a right.
Dr_J
I think that was my point. Management believes that all progress comes from more management. The cost of health care has gone up because the number of people who have no contact with patients has gone up. The actual ratio of care givers to patients has steadily declined. The number of Management positions has consistently gone up.
If you mean regulations like pre-certification for treatment, I agree. If Doctors alone had the right to treat a patient according to their needs, a whole army of non-medical personnel would be removed from the process, and millions would be saved.
Statistically, more money left in people's pockets would also leave potholes in our streets. Statistically, US businesses are at a strong disadvantage in competition with all the countries that have national health care. Why are you against American enterprise?
As for my wife, she's been an RN for 35+ years. You'd know better than ask if you knew her. My health care choice was marrying her. She was a psychiatric nurse at the time, and I married her to save money.
Thanks for the response.
HemmD, managers are like tribbles, ferociously breeding until they choke the system? Curious then that every other industry has management, and not only are they not overrun, they generally bring costs down over time. Only health care is afflicted with chronic 10% annual cost increases. I agree there's way too much money wasted on administration, but it's not caused by managers gone wild.
By regulations I mean all the measures designed to make health care a little bit safer, more equitable, or more philanthropic, and consequently making it more expensive. Health care is the most heavily regulated industry we have, from how-to-run-a-hospital rules to licensing requirements for doctors to coverage mandates for insurance companies to the medical tort system to FDA rules. We obviously need regulations, but the basket we have today is a poor set of choices: a net negative to society and a big factor in driving up administration costs.
National health care wouldn't help US businesses, since it would simply shift the cost to employees via taxes. What businesses saved in medical benefit payments they'd have to shell out as payroll. Unless you're suggesting the employees should get a net pay cut. Why are you against the American worker?
And as for potholes, we have plenty anyway. Here in San Francisco, the city government has for years siphoned tax money from un-sexy but basic things like fixing the streets to flashier social programs. When street conditions were getting out of hand a couple years ago, they tried to pass a bond measure to meet the “emergency.” So yes, there's a good argument to be made that that money is better off in taxpayers' pockets.