Continuing with our global sampling of reaction to U.S. health reform, we have posted this article from Russia’s Izvestia newspaper.
In order to help his readers understand the issue, Vyacheslav Nikonov offers this primer on American politics. Here is Nikonov’s outline on the differences between the two U.S. political parties:
Despite all of the apparent similarities between the two major U.S. parties, they are quite different. Oversimplifying and without nuance: Republicans are conservatives, concerned primarily about American power; Democrats, in control right now, are liberals who move questions of social welfare to the forefront. When coming to power, each party not only implements its priorities, but lays traps for its opponents, which are designed to ensure the continuation of the party’s plans, even after its electoral defeat in a presidential election. For this purpose, Republicans launch large-scale military programs while cutting taxes on corporations and wealthy citizens, undermining the material foundation of “the welfare state,” which they regard as a dangerous socialist venture. Democrats increase social programs and cut taxes for the poor, placing long-term limitations on the politics of force.
Then, discussing the cost and whether the United States can afford health reform, Nikonov writes:
An additional 32 million people will get medical insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the law will cost taxpayers $938,000,000,000 over 10 years. And this, despite the fact that in 2009, the federal budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, or 11 percent of GDP (the highest since 1942). This is no better than modern Greece. Reducing the deficit is possible either by reducing government expenditures or by raising taxes. And in the United States, both are politically impossible. Of course, predictions of the default or collapse of the U.S. dollar are from the realm of fantasy – the country accounts for a fourth of global GDP, the dollar is its domestic currency, and money pours in from the outside.
Later, characterizing President Obama’s legislative victory, Nikonov writes:
In the age-old dilemma faced by all governments – that between guns and butter – Obama chose the latter. Perhaps it’s not for nothing that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
Founder and Managing Editor of Worldmeets.US