Documenting the inane in our society is a challenge owing to the frequency by which it appears. Few things so contravene common sense and common knowledge as the oft-repeated claim that "Obamacare" is part of socialism. Repeatedly espoused by those who have an inexplicable attachment to a system that has proven exclusionary, overpriced and largely unavailable outside of work pools, thus limiting employment opportunities, the statement is accepted at face value and rarely put under scrutiny.
To labor under the belief that Obamacare as it stands is a genuine fix for all the problems of insurance in the United States is delusional, but even this flawed effort could help inspire a true solution in due time. Returning to the accusations of socialism, it is painful to watch individuals capable of higher thought repeating such an absurdity. First of all, Obamacare is not the public option many had fought for; instead, it is a mandate by which individuals must purchase health insurance. Now, to be fair, one has a legitimate argument that a mandate could be the slippery slope towards coercion in regards to other matters. The fear of large government intruding further into the daily lives of citizens is a valid fear and should be addressed. What is odd is how so many of those who rant breathlessly about big government and its intrusion into the personal life do not raise issue with the far-reaching scope of the D.E.A. who routinely violate privacy as well as anti-gay legislation which strictly regulates activities between consenting adults. When it comes to health care, the militants are out in force.
Let us try to summarize Obamacare in the most concise manner possible. Obamacare is not a public option. Obamacare does not establish an American counterpart to the British NHS. What Obamacare does is mandate that citizens buy health insurance from a private enterprise such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Aetna or be fined. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, legitimate fear is induced among many who worry about the extent of government entering our daily lives if one such mandate is enforced. This is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is that millions of people are calling the mandate "socialist." Mandating that an individual purchase something from a corporation is hardly socialism. In fact, many would say that it is pandering to the interests of the corporate oligarchy itself.
Two of the most avowedly capitalist nations on this Earth utilize a mandate system. They use this in place of the public option which is the norm in the UK, Australia, France, Canada, Ireland and most free, rich nations. Those two nations are Japan and Switzerland. Both enjoy some of the highest standards of living despite the economic downturn in Japan that has plagued that nation since the early 1990s. Statistics in regards to health care for both nations are impressive. In addition, there is no popular movement in either nation to disassemble what has been established. The Swiss and the Japanese are mandated to purchase health insurance just as citizens of our country are mandated to sign up for the draft at age 18, pay income tax and, if we lack the proper credentials for home schooling, send our children to an educational establishment. Because of this, both nations have a high-risk pool comprised of its own citizens. This reduces the cost of insurance, particularly when one compares it to how much a person with a pre-existing condition would pay if he were to work for himself rather than a company.
Switzerland and Japan have given no indication of abandoning their respective mandates. They show no signs of going over to our system where insurance is almost always obtained through employment. It is not unreasonable to speculate that the Swiss and the Japanese have considered how much this would limit the occupational futures of their citizens. As a result, they have wisely avoided our policy, a relic of the Post-War era. Many Japanese do get their health insurance through their employment but should they lose their job, insurance is still affordable and available on the private, individual market. This is something that cannot be truthfully said about our society.
Nowhere in the text did I say that Switzerland and Japan are better countries than America. It's just that they have progressed in one individual area where we appear to be stagnating. Taking a leaf from the book of a foreign country does not indicate hatred of your home country. We need to abandon this mindset. We also need to look at what other societies do correctly and see if we can adapt it to our large and heterogeneous population. A mandate does not necessarily spell the end of freedom. Switzerland and Japan are two examples of free societies where a high standard of living is enjoyed and medical care is highly regarded.
In conclusion, Obamacare has nothing to do with socialism. Only the intellectually lazy among us make that accusation. Obamacare is a gift to private insurance companies. It adds new customers to the rolls, thus increasing their profits. A mandate may not be the best solution, but creating a national pool could very well lead to the end of "job lock." "Job lock" is the phenomenon of people staying in jobs for which they may not be suited. The reason for this is solely for the affordable benefits that are unattainable on the private market. If Japan and Switzerland can figure this out, then we should be able to as well. Obamacare, Switzerland and Japan are three things that are the polar opposite of socialism yet in the minds of many they are synonymous.
No comments:
Post a Comment