National Healthcare and
Government
On
November 11th, I discussed briefly, national healthcare, socialism,
and capitalism, comparing the latter two subjects with one another; and, then,
I spoke of our need for a national healthcare system to replace the Affordable
Care Act, i.e. “Obama care”, modeled after our system of Medicare. In
conjunction with this, contemplating objections, I explained why this was not
socialism.
I
don’t want to talk this to death, but I am compelled to “get this off my chest”.
I sincerely believe good healthcare is an extremely important subject to everybody
as well as our nation. In fact, it’s absolutely critical–even to the point of
life and death. As you very well know, we have argued, going around and around,
this subject for decades. We talk about our deficit. Let me ask you. How many
millions of dollars (if not billions) do you think we have wasted in our arguing
and bickering over these decades? Looking beyond this facet of the subject, a significant–a
huge–portion of our healthcare costs haven’t even been paid for yet, payroll
deductions notwithstanding. We have purchased it “on the cuff”. It’s in our
deficit. It’s laying there in our national debt. I try to say this kindly; but,
as a nation, we are fools. We continue year after year to flagellate ourselves
with a system that is expensive, inefficient, and corrupt; and, to add insult
to injury, it hasn’t even done its job. In the mean time, there are those who
have gotten rich on the system. You know our healthcare is behind other
countries because you have heard the statistics over and over, comparing ours with
theirs. And why have we sustained this kind of self-torture? Because we are
slaves to an ideology, a prejudice that only exists in our minds.
You
say national healthcare is socialism. I say not. It is progressivism. Winston
Churchill, if he were here, might call it Liberalism. Please allow me to insert
in this posting a small portion of a speech he made in 1906, comparing
liberalism to socialism:
“Socialism has
its own formulas and aims. Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism
seeks to raise up poverty. Socialism would destroy private interests;
Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can
be safely and justly preserved, namely, by reconciling them with public right.
Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the
trammels of privilege and preference. Socialism assails the pre-eminence of the
individual; Liberalism seeks, and shall seek more in the future, to build up a
minimum standard for the mass. Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the
man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly. These are the
great distinctions which I draw….”
One of the most famous maxims of
Deng Xiaoping, dating back to the years before the Cultural Revolution in China,
states that "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as
it catches mice." The fact is, we have real problems in our country, and
we need to solve them. It’s past time for us to quit this self-serving dilly
dallying and start catching mice.
To
those who think the Affordable Care Act is the answer, I don’t agree. I
sincerely believe it will, for many reasons, self-destruct. I've never met
President Obama; but, from what I can see of him on television, I like him. I
think he’s a nice guy. When it comes to his healthcare program, however, I
think he’s on the wrong track.
I
want to tell you why a single payer national healthcare system, modeled after
Medicare would be best for our people; but, first, I want you to understand
something. Our great nation has some of the “greatest brains” in the world.
There is no subject on which we don’t have fully informed experts on hand, somebody
ready and willing to serve us–healthcare included. They've been there, done
that, and know what they are doing. Having said that let me tell you what I
believe you would gain from a system of single payer national healthcare
modeled after Medicare:
1. All
the expensive arguing and bickering would end (or certainly should).
2. Every
citizen would receive paid healthcare, from the cradle to the grave.
3. The
whole system should be relatively transparent to everybody. They could choose
their own doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies–no confusion, no upset.
4. There
would be no confusion about computers, computer access, reading contracts,
paying bills, knowing what to do, where to go, etc., etc.–no confusion, no
upset.
5. There
would be no premiums to pay, no payroll deduction, no employer contribution, no
confusion, no upset.
6. The
economy would be stimulated by employee spending of what used to be deducted
from his or her pay.
7. Employers
would no longer have to worry about providing health insurance to its
employees. Their profits would be enhanced and they would be able do a better
job of forecasting the future of their company (In my day, we called it profit
planning).
8. The
forty-hour workweek could be reinstated which, from a macroeconomic standpoint,
would aid in stabilizing the economy. Just the contemplation of a standard thirty-hour
workweek is scary.
You’re thinking,
“How are we going to finance all this”? In considering this, my mind used to immediately
go to payroll tax deductions, but my thinking has changed. Payroll deductions
will have a negative impact on employee budgets, on the economy, and
politically–not good at all. I feel very strongly that we should establish a
national sales tax (in fact, two separate individual taxes) to finance national
health care and Social Security. Each should be a separate identifiable tax
applied to the price of the purchase, but not included in the price–just as
state sales taxes are done today. There should be a separate stand-alone fund,
excluded from our national budget (just as we have for Social Security) for
each program into which all revenues will flow (each tax into its own fund) and
from which all expenditures will be made. Effectively, these funds should be
deficit free with all over/under amounts to be paid by an annual adjustment to
both taxes. In this manner, both funds would be on a “pay as you go” basis and,
hopefully, not have to be revisited for ever–no more politicking and no more
discontent.
I
am sure there must be more benefits, just the elimination of national unrest
being one of them, if none other. I’m sure the politicians will love that. I am
also certain there will be negatives, one of which first comes to mind is
having to wait long periods of time for appointments and/or spending long hours
in waiting rooms. To these, my answer is that there is no reason why any of
this has to happen. With all of the expert knowledge available to us, there is
no reason we cannot find solutions to such problems in the beginning. There
should be nothing that can happen that we can’t anticipate beforehand. I’m
sorry, but we must keep the hands of the politicians out of it.
This
is your solution Mr. and Mrs. Politician, let’s do it. Let’s do it now. For
once in your life, set politics aside and get the job done. Let’s gitter done,
and go on to solving the next problem.
Ronald Miller
mtss86@comcast.net
No comments:
Post a Comment