Since the spread of Communism, there’s not one term that can get a group of right-wingers into a tizzy more than “socialism.”
For them, everything that helps the poor is “socialist” and every requirement made on citizens is “socialist.”
While I’m sure those in charge of the Republican Party know that the Obama healthcare plan is no more socialist than, say, car insurance, they do know that their followers will believe this claim, especially when it’s repeated over and over again on Fox News and conservative talk radio.
Socialism is definitely not inherently evil like some folks would like you to believe.
Social security, public education, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance are all examples of socialist programs because they promote a redistribution of wealth. And they have all improved Americans’ standards of living.
However, the healthcare reform taking shape in Washington, D.C. is not socialist. It’s not even close.
Those saying as much are doing little more than committing that fallacy of appealing to the strongest of human emotions—fear.
Healthcare reform in the form of HR 3200 is not a redistribution of wealth, nor is it vehicle of creating state control over an individual’s healthcare plan.
Instead, the healthcare reform before Congress does the following:
- Requires every individual be covered under an acceptable plan or incur a 2.5 percent tax.
- Prohibits insurance companies from excluding clients because of “pre-existing conditions.”
- Requires employers to cover their employees under a plan, or incur an 8 percent tax.”
- Ensures that those happy with their current medical coverage can keep it.
- Provides subsidies to individuals and small businesses to help cover costs.
- Provides a public option for health insurance. Basically Medicare and Medicaid for everyone.
- Improves the information technology systems being used in hospitals, clinics and other medical facilities.
I know most conservatives have issues with increased taxes, and requirements for coverage. And they most definitely will have a problem with any “public option” that is included to any bill that makes it to the president’s desk, which is the most “socialist” aspect of the bill.
Taxing the uninsured and their employers is the best way to make sure that those of us who are insured and who are paying into Medicare and Medicaid aren’t seeing increased amounts taken from our paychecks because of the excessive use of emergency rooms.
It’s not socialism. It’s responsible citizenship.
Although the analogy isn’t exact, the comparison of required health insurance requirements to those placed on vehicle owners is apt.
I can’t imagine anything more annoying than being rear-ended by an uninsured driver. He’d try to help out with the costs, maybe, but more than likely, he’ll disappear, or if the police come, receive a ticket, get his car impounded, but leave me with the bill to replace my bumper.
We expect the other drivers on the road to have car insurance because it’s best for all drivers.
While it might be inconvenient to pay $70+ per month on something you hope never to use, not having it would mean being an irresponsible citizen.
Personally, I’m shocked at the outcry regarding the healthcare reform.
Liberals are pretty angry at President Obama for taking the single-payer system off the table before debate actually began. I’ll get to this in a few days.
Instead, he decided to focus on fixing the current system. The plan looks nothing like those in Canada or Europe.
It’s unlikely any American will be hurt financially by the reforms. Most of the increased taxes we may see, should be offset by the decreased amounts we’ll need to pay for the uninsured visiting emergency rooms.
The only folks who may be hurt financially by reform are the insurance companies. By requiring them to cover all-comers, and not exclude those with pre-existing conditions, because they’ll be forced to treat patients who need care, not just those who pay for insurance and rarely use it.
Next: The myths—government takeovers, state-funded abortions, and geriatric genocide.