A friend asked me on facebook
if I could name a single "socialist" enterprise that functioned.
Technically he "defied any liberal" to name a single time socialism has
worked. I'm a liberal, though, and it was on one of my wall posts, so, I
took it as a personal challenge.
He was, like many GOP-ers, lambasting "Obamacare" and equating it with socialism.
Of course, I could actually name socialist things that worked: health care in Sweden, Germany, France and Japan, for starters. The US doesn't like to talk about those examples of strong, robust, respected and appreciated forms of universal health care because the GOP would prefer to have Americans believe the only places with universal health care are Castro's Cuba, Hitler's Germany, and Stalin's Russia. They like to equate universal health care and communism, so no one wants to discuss the fact that the US is the last industrialized country to adopt a universal system and most of the other industrialized countries are capitalistic democracies.
So even though I could have gone on and on about socialist enterprises in the world that do actually function, I realized I don't actually need to. Because the Affordable Care Act - or "Obamacare" - is no more socialistic in nature than the Ohio-GOP led bill that requires all car owners to have car insurance.
We recognize at times that privileges come with responsibilities. That's why the Ohio car insurance obligation was never assailed as "communism" - it's a privilege to drive and that privilege requires responsibility. It's way my parents' were able to impose an 10:00pm curfew on me at 16 years old that could only be broken with advanced permission. It was a privilege to stay out that late; it was a privilege to stay out even later; and with both of those privileges it was a responsibility to call home. They weren't being socialists. It's a privilege to get treated at America's health centres, even when you don't have health insurance, because you need the treatment. With that comes the responsibility to participate in the system that pays for that privilege when you can (there are poverty exemptions, of course, because contrary to the GOP mantra, Obama isn't actually heartless. His doctor even says his heart is normal and fit.).
Socialism isn't about forcing people to purchase things they don't think they want. Socialism is about collecting the ownership of assets into the hands of the state. And Obamacare does anything but that. The concept that you would call something that requires you to purchase health insurance from a private company in a capitalist market a socialist endeavor suggests you don't actually understand the word - or care enough about the American public to have an honest conversation about it.
Now, I don't fault my friend - he works in politics. He's a GOP party man and attended the RNC. He might even believe that Obamacare is a socialist endeavor. But it's not. The assets of health care are not in the hands of the state - they remain, now and for the foreseeable future - in the hands of private individuals. First, you as an individual buying, and then your health insurance or as a (legal, fictional) individual selling. You can say many things about that, but you can't call it socialism.
He was, like many GOP-ers, lambasting "Obamacare" and equating it with socialism.
Of course, I could actually name socialist things that worked: health care in Sweden, Germany, France and Japan, for starters. The US doesn't like to talk about those examples of strong, robust, respected and appreciated forms of universal health care because the GOP would prefer to have Americans believe the only places with universal health care are Castro's Cuba, Hitler's Germany, and Stalin's Russia. They like to equate universal health care and communism, so no one wants to discuss the fact that the US is the last industrialized country to adopt a universal system and most of the other industrialized countries are capitalistic democracies.
So even though I could have gone on and on about socialist enterprises in the world that do actually function, I realized I don't actually need to. Because the Affordable Care Act - or "Obamacare" - is no more socialistic in nature than the Ohio-GOP led bill that requires all car owners to have car insurance.
We recognize at times that privileges come with responsibilities. That's why the Ohio car insurance obligation was never assailed as "communism" - it's a privilege to drive and that privilege requires responsibility. It's way my parents' were able to impose an 10:00pm curfew on me at 16 years old that could only be broken with advanced permission. It was a privilege to stay out that late; it was a privilege to stay out even later; and with both of those privileges it was a responsibility to call home. They weren't being socialists. It's a privilege to get treated at America's health centres, even when you don't have health insurance, because you need the treatment. With that comes the responsibility to participate in the system that pays for that privilege when you can (there are poverty exemptions, of course, because contrary to the GOP mantra, Obama isn't actually heartless. His doctor even says his heart is normal and fit.).
Socialism isn't about forcing people to purchase things they don't think they want. Socialism is about collecting the ownership of assets into the hands of the state. And Obamacare does anything but that. The concept that you would call something that requires you to purchase health insurance from a private company in a capitalist market a socialist endeavor suggests you don't actually understand the word - or care enough about the American public to have an honest conversation about it.
Now, I don't fault my friend - he works in politics. He's a GOP party man and attended the RNC. He might even believe that Obamacare is a socialist endeavor. But it's not. The assets of health care are not in the hands of the state - they remain, now and for the foreseeable future - in the hands of private individuals. First, you as an individual buying, and then your health insurance or as a (legal, fictional) individual selling. You can say many things about that, but you can't call it socialism.
 |
| Photo by Huji |
OK, so the flaw here, of course, is that health care is actually not a privilege but a right. I agree, however, that the system of Obamacare is analogous to car insurance - on the theory that you have a right to travel, though not necessarily in a bmw. More importantly, you have the duty to protect others from yourself. Yet in terms of health, there's no instrument - nor should there be - to exclude those who overtax the system.
ReplyDeleteI actually do agree, churchwright, that health care is a right and not a privilege. I stand corrected in my flaw, but I think the principle still stands in that it's a right that costs money so people either need to pay via taxes or they need to pay via mandatory individual purchases. Either way, they need to buy into the system and simply saying "I don't wanna" isn't a valid reason.
Delete…the truth is GOP are the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time and the front liners of finacialisation revolution that is fighting Obama over Wall Street regulation. In the past few decades of GOPs in the White House (Reagan, Bush Sr and Jr), in fact, they have piled more debt American people have to cover, than perhaps all Democrats that served in the White House. And this is contributing to paint Obama as socialist and communist because of their opposition to any social measures... No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lies and simulations like Meat Romney ...
ReplyDelete