The Sage Observer

Capitalism, Socialism, and Healthcare

I want to briefly address today the subjects of Capitalism, Socialism, and Healthcare.

In as much as we are essentially a capitalist nation, the word capitalism is usually accepted in a positive vein with respect and acceptance by most people in our society. Socialism, on the other hand, is usually thought of in negative terms. The word is inflammatory and easily arouses tempers. Under certain circumstances, it makes for good propaganda, though. In my experience, however, most of those who use the word use it as a pejorative and speak from a lack of knowledge or understanding. When they talk on any aspect of the subject, they are usually talking from an emotional or subjective point of view.

Let us first discuss capitalism. When one talks about capitalism, especially those who subscribe to its principles, they usually think in terms of laissez-faire capitalism and free markets. “Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and capital goods, and the production of goods and services for profit in a market economy.” Laissez-faire is French for “an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights”. (I must note. Those definitions indicated in quotes, above, are copied from Wikipedia.)

In a system such as capitalism, the principals are motivated by self-interests. As such a system “normally works out”, it is highly competitive with others in the same markets, and only the strongest survive. As the saying goes, therefore, “let the devil take the hindmost”. My take on all this is that, as the process approaches its ultimate conclusion, the free market in which it operates becomes no longer free (the competition, and, therefore, the level playing feel, has been eliminated), and the process self destructs–as we shall see, also, when we discuss socialism, below. As competitor after competitor is eliminated, the winners of the competition become monopolies; and monopolies become oligarchies. In the end the nation is governed by a dictatorship.

“Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. ‘Social ownership’ may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.” (Again, I have copied this definition from Wikipedia). My take on socialism is that, like capitalism, it generally starts out positive and ends negative. It usually starts out with the people and ends up with a dictatorial government in charge.

Socialism has been around a long time. It may date further back in time than this; but, to my knowledge, I first studied it in the Holy Bible, i.e. the Book of Acts in the New Testament. You remember, “They held everything in common.” I’m certainly not an expert on this subject and don’t pretend to be; but, as I understand, the shortcoming in socialism is that participants fail to produce, looking to the other guy to contribute. Everybody wants to take and nobody wants to give. Therefore, it doesn’t succeed. In the end, socialism, as in capitalism, ends up with a dictatorial government and is self destructive. See Russia; see Cuba; see China.

Not unlike Russia, China was a Communist Nation with its roots deep in Socialism, a dictatorship. A failed nation in deep poverty, China changed its economic system from Socialism to State Controlled Capitalism. In that it remains state controlled, I think you might agree that it remains a dictatorship. Their capitalism notwithstanding, I submit to you that this too will fail. In the final analysis, a dictatorial government is so destined. I’m sure you can connect the dots.

All of you know full well that I am a strong advocate of National Health Care. “Obama Care” is self destructive for many reasons on more than one front. We should cut our losses short and adopt a single payer National Health Care Program in our country immediately, modeled after Medicare and incorporating a prescription drug program with government ability to negotiate prices as we do in the VA Healthcare Program. As soon as I say that, someone will yell, “Socialism”. I say, “Not”. This is not a national economic system. It will, however, provide us with good healthcare on an economic and politically sound basis at realistic prices as well as eliminate the profiteers in the middle. It will be economically sound because it will be affordable. It will be politically sound because it will take healthcare off the back of employers. Also, financed by a national sales tax, it will put more money in the pockets of employees and employers, therefore stimulating the economy immediately. Administered by a stand-alone fund outside our national budget, as is Social Security, on a pay-as-you-go basis, with the tax adjusted at the end of each year in order to eliminate any deficit, it will facilitate elimination of the national deficit and a myriad of highly expensive arguments every year. It should take care of itself for years to come if not forever. If that’s not politically sound, I don’t know what is. It’s not socialism and it doesn't have to be, but it will solve a multitude of problems. Let’s have government–not oligarchy. Let’s put the healthcare question behind us once and for all and get on to the next challenge in the management of our nation’s affairs.

Ronald Miller

mtss86@comcast.net