How is mandating a purchase from a private corporation part of socialism or communism?

      


             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.
           
  

The Fallacy of "Just get a job with benefits and you'll be fine"

Throughout the impassioned debate on health-insurance reform in the United States, one often is exposed to the reasoning directed at those lacking health insurance, "why don't you just get a job with benefits?" While a solution, of course, the very concept is so rarely placed under scrutiny. If it were to be evaluated thoroughly, more among the most ardent of free-market proponents would probably see how damaging the system of employer-granted benefits has become to our society.

Information on wage freezes in the period after WWII are well documented. In order to lure the most capable during that era, employers sought other attractions, one of them most notably employer-financed health insurance. Such a system has become the standard in the United States. One's health insurance is thus dependent on his employment within the company, whose pool of employees reduces the risk for the insurance company and makes the insurance itself affordable. Such is not the case for those with pre-existing conditions who seek health insurance outside the office pool as outright denials and exhorbitant pricing are standard fare.

Thus, many Americans, particularly those over 40, people with Diabetes, Crohn's Disease, people who were once treated for Cancer but now have a clean bill of health and people with any congenital disorder find themselves beholden to the employer for that which may be unattainable on the private market for the individual. A person with the aforementioned conditions may dream of working part time, working two part-time jobs, being an adjunct at a community college, a freelance writer or translator, tour guide or any other profession outside the standard 9-5, cubicle-bound atmosphere. Yet, such independence is often stymied by the need for that 9-5 office job as the price of health insurance for the afflicted individual can run well over $1,000 per month (recently, a person I know with Crohn's Disease was quoted at $1,300 per month through her regular insurer Blue Cross/Blue Shield).

"Job lock" is the term peculiar to the American worker who finds himself unable to segue into something more befitting his talents or interests owing to the health-insurance restraint. An obedient workforce this helps create, people inured to mistreatment knowing that loss of job means loss of affordable insurance thus loss of access to preventative treatment (and please don't insult anyone's intelligence by saying that they can just go to an emergency room ---ERs are in no way related to preventative medicine).

The prospect of job lock is a reality. I am personally acquainted with individuals fearful of losing the tie that binds them to a profession for which they may be ill suited and read story after story on the Internet from others in the same situation. Not being able to forge one's own career path, be an entrepreneur, work independently and contribute to society through work that gives the individual a feeling of genuine achievement is detrimental to our self perception as a land of opportunity.

I cannot claim to have the answer to what will unite Americans in regards to the solution to our health-insurance situation, but I do know very well that in order for us to continue as a nation of self starters, people satisfied in their work, we need to move beyond this relic from the Post-War Era. The individual who wants to teach at the community college and do freelance translating or be something outside the bourgeois norm is not a drain on society. That individual may put in just as many hours as the executive covered by his employer, but his work does not come with the insurance package offered at a corporation, thus he is at the mercy of insurance companies who are often and, quite accurately, portrayed as predators.

It is no surprise that other rich, capitalist nations who enjoy freedom, such as Australia, have recognized this, thus, the Australian is not bound to unsatisfactory employment should he be the bearer of a pre-existing condition. He is free to work whatever job he wishes. Unfortunately, such self realization is often lost on many Americans who would respond to such a fact with, "well, if you think Australia is so great, go and move there and die under socialism!" Notwithstanding the immense difficulties involved in immigrating to another continent and the fact that that continent is by no means socialist according to the actual definition of the word, it should be remembered that a genuinely patriotic person looks at what is wrong with his society and analyzes ways to rectify the problem.

America is indeed a great nation, ranking number one in a multitude of categories, but this is one area that could conceivably retard our progress as a society. We need to sever the link between employment and insurance. Our employer is not responsible for our car insurance, home insurance or even pet insurance, so the union is incomprehensible.

Severing this link can lead to a multitude of individuals starting their own small businesses, working remotely, working two part-time jobs they love or simply turning their passion into their employment. The time has come to abandon this relic of another age. To have a competitive edge in the free market, we need to stop expecting that employers provide insurance and look for ways to either make private insurance accessible and affordable for those with pre-existing conditions or let the private insurance companies compete with a public option, just the same as private universities, high schools and other entities have their public counterparts.

Let us hope that "job lock" will be an embarassing part of our past and remembered with regret for just how much it limited the very opportunities with which we should associate this nation, that of job freedom and autonomy.

How to obstruct health-insurance/care reform in a few easy steps

While I try not to cater to the paranoid or the those whose idle moments find them contemplating conspiracy after conspiracy, it does feel as though the opponents of health-insurance reform in this nation had written a handbook for use on the general population. One wonders, in a nation where one can lose one's house over health issues, be locked into a job he hates owing to benefits being unaffordable on the private market, see a sizeable amount of his nation's GDP used for a health-care system that provides worse results than those of other developed nations, was a method of indoctrination used and what would it look like?

1. Focus only on Canada and Britain. Get as many anecdotal stories as you can from people who have had bad experiences in these two nations. Completely ignore the fact that all rich, free nations have universal health-care systems. Ignore Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. have universal health care, enjoy a high standard of living and are ranked high in every aspect of human development. Have a backup strategy in case someone starts to bring up the many anecdotal horror stories from the United States where medical mishaps do occur regularly.


2. The average American knows very little about the outside world, therefore it is important to stress that other nations have no freedom, are socialist, take away up to 80% of income in taxes and this is directly correlated with universal health care. Don't worry, he'll never bother looking up the facts in an almanac.

3. Keep repeating that "everyone comes here for health care" as though it were true. No one will bother to ask the actual number of people who come to the United States out of the entire populace of the developed world. Focus on the Shah of Iran back in 1979 or some other celebrity. Just make sure that the real number, which can be found in Forbes' Magazine, is never revealed.

4. Also exaggerate how many Canadians come down to the States for healthcare. Make it seem as though every other Canuck were running to the southern neighbor for life-saving surgery. Never give out the real number of Canadian citizens seeking healthcare in the United States, just keep repeating that "Canadians keep coming here for the health care." No one will bother to look up how many Canadian citizens actually come here.

5. Although we haven't done this yet, we need to be prepared in case someone asks, "how come we never see protests against universal health care in other rich nations and we never see demonstrations calling for its abolition and replacement with American-style healthcare?" What we'll do is get some archival footage of riots and demonstrations and just show that this is the rage engendered within a populace denied basic health care.

6. Keep repeating that the only reason those nations can afford health care is because Uncle Sam, out of pure benevolence, protects them with his military. Never let anyone ask, "protect from whom?" Never let out the facts about Canada's distinguished military history and her current role in Afghanistan, nor dare to bring up France and Britain's arsenal of nuclear weapons; never let anyone insinuate that since the end of the Cold War, those nations are maintaining what is a reasonable military budget, rather than a bloated one. Never let anyone ask if our ground forces are based around the world to protect nations or protect our strategic interests.

7. Keep repeating that all the nations with universal health care are taxed to death. Make sure that everyone believes that all the nations have the exact same tax rates as Germany and Sweden.

8. Hide surveys that show that the overwhelming majority of Canadians, British and others in the developed world would never want their system abolished.

9. Label as "socialist" any nation with UHC. Even though ludicrous in the case of Japan or Switzerland or Australia and several other free-market economies, just keep pressing forth with it. You will have everyone convinced that UHC leads to pure socialism in all cases.

10. Heighten awareness of how America does all the medical research for the world. Never let facts about innovations coming out of Canada, Britain, Israel, France or any other country get in the way. Also, switch subjects if anyone brings up the proportionality of developments to a nation's size/population. Remember, the outside world contributes virutally nothing to research and development. Keep repeating that until it sounds true.

11. Statistics be damned, claim that the UHC systems in all the developed nations of the world are teetering on bankruptcy. If you can find statistics for one nation, apply it towards all, e.g., if France is running a deficit, make it seem as though it applied to every developed nation on Earth and that the problem can never be resolved, except through adoption of the U.S. model!"

12. Make it seem as though every person without health insurance is either a lazy parasite or a reckless spendthrift. Remember, everyone can afford health insurance on the private market if he doesn't get it through his work, he's just spending it all on rims for his Escalade or a new stereo system. There are no working poor people who cling onto jobs with no benefits if it's the only thing they can find. Get the people to believe this.

13. Keep repeating to those without benefits, "just get a job," completely ignoring how many people do work full time and can't get benefits and in this depressed economy, will take anything that puts food on the table.

14. Keep emphasizing how every American already has access to healthcare at all times regardless of economic situation thanks to the Emergency Room. If anyone dares to bring up what an ER has to do with preventative medicine or how it's grossly inefficient to wait until the situation has deteriorated to such a point, change the subject.

15. Make an argument, however sophistic in nature, as to how "general welfare of the people," in no way applies to healthcare.

16. Emphasize that healthcare is a personal matter, not involving anyone else, so it's not your role to care about someone else's healthcare the way you would care about his sexuality, which is your business! Change subjects if someone brings up contagions, epidemics and a decreased workforce due to illness. Remember, it has nothing to do with you.

17. Make it sound as though it were extraordinarily easy to get on Medicaid or any form of state aid. Make it appear that anyone with a pre-existing condition can access it almost instantaneously, no difficulties involved whatsoever.

18. Disguise as much as possible how the average American is already paying for someone else's healthcare thanks to people waiting until the illness becomes critical and requires the intervention of an emergency staff. Treat preventative medicine as though it were a foreign novelty or rather a socialist novelty.

19. Use the argument that before you know it, we'll be paying for a new Mercedes for everyone and first-class air tickets, totally disregarding how healthcare is a necessity and cars, airline tickets, etc. are luxuries.

Remember, you are not, for the most part, dealing with people who are going to go out and buy an almanac or look up World Health Organization statistics at the local library, so it is very easy. The last thing we insurers need is competition from a public option, so these are the tactics we need to keep employing. They have worked so far and will most likely continue to work. Politicians who serve our needs are very easy to get. Just promote them as pro-life and pro-family and they will get voters.

Canada and Britain, Britain and Canada: a myopic focus on health-insurance reform

The Canadian flag before 1965

Few matters have polarized the American public as much as health-insurance/care reform, a concept that is a characteristic of every rich, free nation on this Earth. While many arguments have been made against changing the fundamentals of our for-profit system, the logic employed by detractors often fails when put under scrutiny.

A few months back, whilst discussing the respective merits of healthcare in other nations, a co-worker quipped, "have you seen Canada?" The intonation in her voice made it very clear: Canada, thanks to anecdotal stories in our news, has a failed system of delivering health care, any attempt to mimic it would place our country in the same "desperate" state.

If Canada is not being utilized as the template for a failed health-care system, then its mother country of Britain is. Opponents of a public option are quick to point out the deficiencies in both the Canadian and British systems.

Naturally, any institution run by human beings is going to be an inherently flawed system. Yet, the inordinate focus on the "failures" in both Britain and Canada so often come from those who work on the emotions of their listeners rather than their analytical abilities.

Canada has a health-care system run by provincial governments in a nation that houses a population of 30,000,000 whereas the United Kingdom is a nation with 1/5th of the population of the United States. No one mired in reality could possibly think that the systems of either country could be completely overhauled onto a nation with as large and diverse a population as ours, yet that is what is being preached via talk radio: we will have the Canadian or British system imposed upon us and it will fail miserably as it did in those two nations.

To buttress the argument that Canadian and British health care are failures, we are treated to anecdotal stories about mishaps occuring in the hospitals of both nations, waiting lists and general discontent, plus health tourism by Canadians in the United States. While no one can gainsay that there is justifiable discontent with the healthcare systems in both nations as there is in every single nation on Earth, why is it that so few stop to consider the following questions:

1. Exactly how many Canadians come to the U.S. each year for treatment denied them in their home country?

2. What percentage of Canadians surveyed want their current system dismantled and replaced with something akin to our system in America?

3. If you were to ask the non-Canadian telling you how horrid the system up north is, would that same person be able to tell you the name of Canada's Prime Minister, its capital and its population? If not, what makes you think him capable of giving you an intelligent analysis of that country's system?

4. Does Britain allow a private alternative to the NHS? If so, why do you so often hear that all British people are wholly reliant on the NHS and have no private option? Is that not similar to saying that America has only public schools and one may not opt for private instruction?


A careful look at the statistics that are so readily available from reliable sources such as the World Health Organization, almanacs and other resources will yield the answers to questions that should be posed regarding the health care systems in the U.K. and Canada. Yet, despite our vast learning resources, we still have an intellectually lazy component of our population who would rather rely on hearsay, rumors and anecdotes rather than numbers.

What is also alarming is the inordinate focus on these two nations when all the rich, free nations of the Earth have universal health care. While the British and Canadian systems have their own flaws and merits, why so little focus on the systems of Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Iceland, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Malta and others? Once again, we cannot expect to graft onto a nation of 310,000,000 what has worked in a small nation such as Belgium, but the countries in question are still worth studying as a careful analysis could reveal their successes and failures as we figure out how to accommodate our large and diverse populace.

The standard line of "well, look at Canada and Britain!" as a means of discouraging health-insurance reform in the United States is intellectually dishonest. The person in question is usually not inviting you to make an exhaustive analysis of the systems of both countries, he wants to introduce you to what he has heard via anecdotal stories, ones the credulous will easily believe. The fact is that although both nations have serious issues which need to be addressed, there is no mass movement in either nation to dismantle what is considered to be the cornerstone of their civil society. Discontent with the system in both nations means a desire to improve what already exists, not switch over to America's strictly for-profit system. The next time someone brings up how "everyone" comes to America for health care, please ask him to cite his sources, demanding an exact figure as to how many people out of the millions residing in rich nations actually came to the U.S. for treatment. Such information can be found in Forbes, hardly an organ of the radical left.

The fact remains that universal health care is a staple of all civilized societies on this planet from Australia to Denmark to Germany to Japan. All of the industrialized nations have labored hard to install a system that could best accommodate their respective populations and so far, we have not been treated to demonstrations in the streets of Sydney or Tokyo or Tel Aviv calling for its elimination. America is indeed a special case owing to the great size of our nation not only in geographic terms, but also in regards to our populace. It is dismaying to hear so many, particularly those who take pride in American ingenuity, our ability to take something invented elsewhere and make it function at optimal level, cling to the belief that we lack the ability to do better than what we have now.