An alternative to popular faith
It has been a disgrace that the world’s leading, industrial nation, the proudest, most powerful nation in world history, has not provided health care for all its citizens.
Yes, I have voted more often for Republicans than for Democrats, because I felt they were better economists. But today I must give the Democrats credit for doing what is morally right, while taking the big political risk to start the ball rolling.
My Republicans, left to their own devices, would have done nothing. They never have been leaders for social improvements, whether Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare or human rights. While Republicans traditionally have been strong for business, they always have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into anything that smacks of human benefits for the less fortunate.
That said, the health care plan is far from ideal. Way too many questions to be answered. Consider it only a start, a prototype; you can expect hundreds of changes. My only hope is that the nay-sayers will not try to gut the bill for political advantage.
The question is, and always has been, who will pay for it? I believe the federal government should, and there exists massive evidence on this blog and elsewhere, to prove the government can afford huge deficit increases that will stimulate the economy, and without inflation.
But what if, despite all the evidence, taxes are increased? Economically, a bad idea, no matter what taxes they are. But, which Americans are willing to say, “I’ve got mine and I’m not willing to help those less fortunate than me?” If that’s your attitude, you’re not really an American, although ironically, it seems those who boast loudest about their patriotism often are least likely to extend a hand.
Now we need to see how the program can be improved for the benefit of all. We’ve taken two hundred years to get this far, because that first step always is the hardest. My Republicans, by trying to do everything to sabotage the plan, are on the wrong side of history.
I say now is the time to work with the plan, not against it. Our best minds, cooperating toward on goal, can make the improvements that will protect Americans for decades.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
I think that you are being too hard on the Republicans. (BTW, I am anti-Republican, thanks to Katrina.) After all, the Republicans freed the slaves. The Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, busted trusts and furthered conservation. Eisenhower, though often maligned, presided over a period of growth and prosperity, worked against McCarthyism as well as communism, oversaw school desegregation, and warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex.
And the current health care legislation, although nobody admits the fact, is essentially Republican. The main ideas were proposed as an alternative to Hillary’s proposals in the ’90s, and adopted by Massachusetts under Romney.
LikeLike
As I said, I have tended toward the Republicans, but I am very disappointed in the current leadership. If the health care legislation is “essentially Republican,” why do they continue to go to such extraordinary lengths to kill the whole package? Why not work to make improvements?
The Republican leadership is so rabidly partisan, they have labeled themselves the party of “No.” Decades from now, the Democrats will be able to say they were the ones who brought us universal health care, despite the unanimous resistance of the Republicans.
Previously, Republicans were able to say they participated in such social programs as Medicare and Social Security. Not this time. That 100% vote was disgusting.
You are watching a political party commit suicide. It’s not a pretty sight.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Hey Rodger,
Not sure I agree that this bill is really designed to provide health care for all citizens. Rather this bill is to provide insurance or a path to insurance for all citizens. There’s a very real difference. No health care paid for by the government is being provided.
The government is now entering into the insurance market and using coercion to force people to participate, i.e. previous conditions, age 26, taxed or fee’d, etc. The price of health insurance from the private market will undoubtably go up as it meets these regulations thus forcing more and more people to search for the cheaper option. That option will be the government plan. In a few years people will be clamoring for a public option, and yes, even Republicans will be willing to provide it.
What hasn’t happened though is a real discussion or improvement on price of health care overall, and I’m not talking about insurance. For the government to “play fair” its actions should not cause someone who wants to self insure to increase their costs for health care. But we all can see that this health bill does nothing to freeze or even reduce health care costs, thus the government has once again stepped in to declare a winner and a loser. The winner being the person who wants government insurance and the loser who wants to pay their own way.
Someday the idea of anyone paying for health care may be a distant past where the government always picks up the bill. And at that time people will be asking why we pay for water, energy, housing, etc., etc.
I for one don’t like these ideas even if the government can never go bankrupt, run out of money, or whatever. My freedom, given to me by God, is worth more than any freedom that a man can give me, since I trust God more than I trust many of my fellow man.
LikeLike
Let’s not quibble semantics. The sole purpose of health care insurance is to provide access to health care. Without insurance, millions of people effectively are denied health care — or they go to emergency rooms for which you and I pay through higher fees. In short, you already pay for universal health care; this program just makes it fairer.
There is no magic cost-free way to provide America with health care. No matter how the politicians twist and turn, caring for more people requires either that the government pay or people pay. What’s your preference?
I have stated many times in this blog and in my book, that the government has the ability and obligation to pay for health care, and would do so were there not the misguided fear of deficits.
Forcing people to have insurance protects against adverse selection, thus reducing rates. Our various governments force people to do many things: Pay taxes, have a drivers license and insurance to drive, stop for pedestrians at crosswalks, be schooled, register for the draft and during war, be drafted, pay bills with dollars — the list goes on and on. Anyone who fails to do these things is fined.
Those who want Medicare are require to register and pay for it at a certain time, and if they fail to do so, they must pay higher premiums later — effectively a fine. This has been going on for years. So I don’t know why all the upset about being required to have health insurance or be fined.
Well, actually I do know. The right wing, solely for political purposes, has so inflamed the public into a mob mentality, people have lost their senses. Thus you have shootings of abortion doctors and threats to politicians.
Within a very few weeks, as people begin to realize not only what universal health care does for them personally, but for their fellow Americans, you will see a swing against this sort of political extremism. By November, attitudes toward the plan will be quite positive, even with the plan’s flaws.
As for, “. . . pay for water, energy, housing, etc. . . .” I don’t know why some people feel that making an extreme proposal makes them sound clever. I’m sure you would object if I said that to eliminate all federal debt, the government could stop all spending and double taxes — an equally extreme and ridiculous proposition.
There is however a way to end all federal debt: Stop borrowing and instead, create money directly. How? I invite you to read the post at I believe.
I hope you will not use this blog to argue religion. Arguing politics is hard enough. But, if you trust God more than your fellow man, your problems are solved. Next time you’re sick, don’t bother calling a doctor or going to a hospital. Just wait for God to cure you. That is one way to self insure.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
The problem with your vision of the government paying for health care is that *the government does not produce anything*. Private citizens accrue money by working and producing real output. The government creates money at will. These two are not equal.
Providing high-quality health care for every American requires massive real resources. These are resources that could have been used elsewhere in the economy. The most illustrative example of this phenomenon is the massive rise in health care costs since the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid in the 60s. As you have astutely observed, the government does not need FICA because they can give the money to beneficiaries regardless of receipts. So, these two programs are in effect guinea pigs for your ideas. The outcome? Health care expenditures now constitute 16% of GDP, versus 5% in the early 60s.
Clearly, resources have shifted to the health care industry. And for what? So that we can continue to eat Big Macs without losing any life expectancy? I wonder what innovations in other fields have been stifled so that we could perfect quadruple-bypass surgery and provide mind-numbing antidepressants to millions of arguably normal teenagers.
LikeLike
What’s your suggestion?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike