Imagine there is a country out there thinking of war. They examine the U.S. They see the many problems the U.S. has. They count the number of prisoners we have, and conclude, that since we have the most of any other nation, we must be the most oppressive country in the world. Incidentally, they claim that they have the most freedom of any nation in the world, and they hope to bring their freedom over here. They invade the U.S., and they occupy our country indefinitely. Oh, and by the way, they've killed a million of our civilians, making 9/11 seem irrelevant in comparison.
What would we say in this scenario? Would we simply say, "thank you for bring us freedom?" Or would we say "get out now!" Would we be justified in fighting back? Or would our soldiers be "terrorists" for fighting against those who "bring freedom?" Would we believe that they are in fact bringing us freedom? Or that they have some other motive? Would we say "clean up the mess and then leave?"
Of course, the reverse of this scenario is exactly what the U.S. is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet few people have truly been antiwar regarding both since Obama has taken office.
Iraq, of course, is supposed to be "Bush's war." At this point, most Americans are against it. Nevertheless, Obama has quietly continued the occupation of Iraq (since occupying a foreign nation is not news, even when U.S. troops die). Newsflash, we aren't getting out anytime soon, at least we aren't if there continues to be no antiwar movement.
Afghanistan is the one that Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have consistently failed to oppose. Sure, more and more Americans want the U.S. to withdraw because it is a "quagmire" that we can't "win." This position did not constitute an antiwar position during the Vietnam war, and it does not now. Rather, this position is essentially, "we've lost, lets cut our losses." If you are rooting for the U.S. to "win," that means that you think that there is something to win, and furthermore, that that could have been won through war. By definition, you are pro-war.
The truth is, the invasion of Afghanistan was just as unjust as the invasion of Iraq. Yes, terrorists that had bases in Afghanistan attacked the U.S. However, let's reverse the scenario again. Some Americans, with support from the U.S. government, attack Cuba. Cuba now has the right to take over our country, kill civilians, and occupy it indefinitely, while deciding our politics. Right? I don't think so.
That neither Iraq or Afghanistan has been brought democracy at the barrel of a gun and that just about everyone in both countries is suffering, and may even be worse off than they were before, just adds to the absurdity. But simply condemning the wars by describing all of the sordid details or even saying that these are occupations and not wars is wrong. Both of these positions imply that these wars could be just.
They cannot. War is wrong, period. Far from being a crazy position, this argument is simple. If all people are created equal, we cannot declare otherwise. If it is wrong for someone to kill U.S. civilians, and it clearly is, than it is equally wrong for the U.S. to kill foreign civilians. If it is wrong for someone to occupy our country in the name of freedom, than it is wrong for the U.S. to occupy a country.
And, groups like Codepink, who support an "exit strategy," are pro-war and pro-occupation. To argue that the U.S. should get out after "fixing the mess," cannot possibly be an antiwar position. Obama has the same position, Bush had the same position. It is still the same position even if their timetables for withdrawal are quite different.
The only position that is antiwar and anti-occupation is "Get Out Now!" That includes everywhere, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but a large number of other countries, ie. South Korea.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Capitalism May be a Bad Love Story, But Even Michael Moore Can't Break up with It
I usually don't write movie reviews, but obviously, Michael Moore's new film "Capitalism, a Love Story" is not a normal movie.
First of all, before I critique it, I highly recommend you go see it. Everything but the last few minutes of the movie is about the harm caused by capitalists. We're talking about everyone from kids who are jailed because a corporation bought of a judge to people kicked out of their homes, to airline pilots on food stamps. It doesn't really matter who you vote for, if you are amongst the 70% of Americans who do not like corporations, you will like this movie. And even if you do like corporations but want to here the stories of what Americans are facing today, you should see this movie.
Michael Moore concludes that "capitalism is evil and you cannot regulate evil." Only a socialist can make this argument, therefore Michael Moore must be a socialist? Right? Wrong.
What is socialism? It is when the community as a whole owns the means of production. In other words, we are talking about the factories and the machines that produce the goods. And ultimately, we are talking about democracy instead of dictatorship in the workplace, which Michael Moore explicitly endorses.
What fails to qualify as socialism? These so called "mixed economies" are not socialist, they are capitalist economies with a social safety net. Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, no matter what he claims. You can disagree with socialism. But being for a social safety net does not make you a socialist just because Republican politicians are declaring everyone to the left of Milton Friedman (right wing economist) a socialist.
Now, if you "cannot regulate evil," then socialism is the only other option. You could argue that capitalism isn't evil. You can argue that it is evil but it can be regulated. But you cannot conclude that the solution to a system that cannot be regulated is to regulate it.
What are regulations? Laws of course. A nation under the law is the perfect form of regulation. Laws come in many forms, including a bill of rights.
Why do I say all this? Because after saying that you "cannot regulate evil," Michael Moore mentions FDR's economic bill of rights, which, though never enacted, was supposed to guarantee basic necessities like food, healthcare, and housing. In other words, FDR's economic bill of rights is a series of regulations that are designed to save us from the excesses of capitalism. He even goes so far as to claim that this works in Europe. Of course, the workplace democracy that Moore proposes isn't the norm in Europe any more than it is here.
To me, if socialism is worker control of the workplace, and ultimately society, and capitalism is control by the elite of the few, then a call for regulated capitalism is the same as a call for benevolent dictatorship. I've noticed something funny about dictatorships though. Wishful thinking rarely makes them benevolent. The same is true under capitalism. As long as capitalists are in charge, they make the rules. They aren't going to make them to benefit us.
It's easy to criticize Michael Moore, but this is rather typical of many people on the left. I know I'm starting to repeat myself, but this is a recurring theme. The grass is not pink, 2+2 does not equal 5, and capitalism with a safety net does not make the workplace democratic, and its not socialism.
Update: It's worth adding that Michael Moore actually says in the movie that a system should replace capitalism, which contradicts what he endorses at the end of the movie.
For those of you who get my posts via email, you can comment on this and other articles at thesocialistidealist.blogspot.com
First of all, before I critique it, I highly recommend you go see it. Everything but the last few minutes of the movie is about the harm caused by capitalists. We're talking about everyone from kids who are jailed because a corporation bought of a judge to people kicked out of their homes, to airline pilots on food stamps. It doesn't really matter who you vote for, if you are amongst the 70% of Americans who do not like corporations, you will like this movie. And even if you do like corporations but want to here the stories of what Americans are facing today, you should see this movie.
Michael Moore concludes that "capitalism is evil and you cannot regulate evil." Only a socialist can make this argument, therefore Michael Moore must be a socialist? Right? Wrong.
What is socialism? It is when the community as a whole owns the means of production. In other words, we are talking about the factories and the machines that produce the goods. And ultimately, we are talking about democracy instead of dictatorship in the workplace, which Michael Moore explicitly endorses.
What fails to qualify as socialism? These so called "mixed economies" are not socialist, they are capitalist economies with a social safety net. Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, no matter what he claims. You can disagree with socialism. But being for a social safety net does not make you a socialist just because Republican politicians are declaring everyone to the left of Milton Friedman (right wing economist) a socialist.
Now, if you "cannot regulate evil," then socialism is the only other option. You could argue that capitalism isn't evil. You can argue that it is evil but it can be regulated. But you cannot conclude that the solution to a system that cannot be regulated is to regulate it.
What are regulations? Laws of course. A nation under the law is the perfect form of regulation. Laws come in many forms, including a bill of rights.
Why do I say all this? Because after saying that you "cannot regulate evil," Michael Moore mentions FDR's economic bill of rights, which, though never enacted, was supposed to guarantee basic necessities like food, healthcare, and housing. In other words, FDR's economic bill of rights is a series of regulations that are designed to save us from the excesses of capitalism. He even goes so far as to claim that this works in Europe. Of course, the workplace democracy that Moore proposes isn't the norm in Europe any more than it is here.
To me, if socialism is worker control of the workplace, and ultimately society, and capitalism is control by the elite of the few, then a call for regulated capitalism is the same as a call for benevolent dictatorship. I've noticed something funny about dictatorships though. Wishful thinking rarely makes them benevolent. The same is true under capitalism. As long as capitalists are in charge, they make the rules. They aren't going to make them to benefit us.
It's easy to criticize Michael Moore, but this is rather typical of many people on the left. I know I'm starting to repeat myself, but this is a recurring theme. The grass is not pink, 2+2 does not equal 5, and capitalism with a safety net does not make the workplace democratic, and its not socialism.
Update: It's worth adding that Michael Moore actually says in the movie that a system should replace capitalism, which contradicts what he endorses at the end of the movie.
For those of you who get my posts via email, you can comment on this and other articles at thesocialistidealist.blogspot.com
Friday, September 18, 2009
Civility is the New Silence
We've been hearing an awful lot about civility lately. For example, the huffington post reveals that Nancy Pelosi called for more civility. "We are a free country and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance," she said.
The media has picked up where she left off. Joe Wilson shouting "liar," in the middle of Obama's speech, Serena Williams arguing with the referee and Kanye West dismissing Taylor Swift are the two examples that have been used of "incivility." No question, Kanye West behaved inappropriately. And no, its not good to curse at the referees, but its worth noting that Roger Federer did the same, and that baseball players argue with the umpire all the time, but that's another story for another post.
I'm not going to claim that we should all scream at each other, curse at each other, and start beating each other up. We should be nice to people. At face value, this is what the media is telling us. But we shouldn't assume that what the media tells us should be taken at face value.
At this point you may ask: What are you suggesting they really mean? The context Nancy Pelosi used it in is instructive. She doesn't want people complaining about Obama's health care plan.
But, aren't the Republicans behaving like a bunch of two year olds? Maybe. Certainly, shouting out that Obama is a "liar" right in the middle of his speech is ridiculous. And of course, even though Obama does say one thing and then do another, his particular objection about illegal immigrants receiving care had no basis in reality (even though they should, like every other human being, have a right to health care.
However, "stop being so uncivil" is a narrative that has been brought out before. Where do you draw the line? The media draws the line at anything that challenges the status quo.
Drew Bogner, president of Malloy College, wrote an op ed in Newsday today, talking about civility. In this piece, he combines looking at both sides of an issue, with being polite about sharing opinions. Like Nancy Pelosi, he also suggests that this "incivility" threatens to turn into violence.
In order to analyze something, we must determine what belongs together and what doesn't. Simply put, disagreement, impoliteness, (even if it is extreme and unreasonable) and violence are three very different things. People can politely agree to disagree, and people can be rude without being violent. And people can challenge the status quo without being nasty about it.
The reason the debate is framed this way is to silence dissent. If opposing the status quo is equal to being mean, which is in turn equal to violence, then we will all agree that we should put up with the status quo. But it isn't. When the status quo is unjust (the number of hungry people has passed 1 billion, according to the World Socialist Web Site, for example) we are right to oppose it. When this is caused by an oppressive elite, we have the right to oppose them. This opposition isn't polite. As a Marxist, I might argue for the overthrow of the capitalist class. There is nothing nice about it.
However, this doesn't have to be violent either. I would argue that the many simply need to see their power in numbers, and use it. The failure of the elite to control the vast majority is sufficient to cause a revolution. For example, anarcho-syndycalists have argued that a general strike could be used to cause the collapse of the system, simply because they decided to refuse to work for capitalists.
You do not have to agree with either the goals or the means in which that goal would be achieved to see the point. It's simple word association, and its not an intellectual exercise. The media is telling us that change= impoliteness= opposition= violence. Of course, there are many examples of this. Obama= socialism (I wish) is one of them. Free market= freedom. Anarchy= disorder= violence.
The important point is that there is no debate. You can make the case that Anarchy=disorder=violence. However, an anarchist would not agree with that statement. Anarchy itself is the absence of the state, not the absence of order. In other words, first, you ask yourself whether it is possible to have order without the state. Then, you ask whether disorder inherently means violence. If you have thought about it, and answered yes, than you can agree with that statement. But simply putting words together does not create a true statement.
In terms of "civility," it should be clear that being rude is not the same as being violent. And disagreeing with people is not the same as being rude. So lets speak loud and clear that we will not be silenced, no matter what our views are. If that makes us "uncivil" than so be it.
The media has picked up where she left off. Joe Wilson shouting "liar," in the middle of Obama's speech, Serena Williams arguing with the referee and Kanye West dismissing Taylor Swift are the two examples that have been used of "incivility." No question, Kanye West behaved inappropriately. And no, its not good to curse at the referees, but its worth noting that Roger Federer did the same, and that baseball players argue with the umpire all the time, but that's another story for another post.
I'm not going to claim that we should all scream at each other, curse at each other, and start beating each other up. We should be nice to people. At face value, this is what the media is telling us. But we shouldn't assume that what the media tells us should be taken at face value.
At this point you may ask: What are you suggesting they really mean? The context Nancy Pelosi used it in is instructive. She doesn't want people complaining about Obama's health care plan.
But, aren't the Republicans behaving like a bunch of two year olds? Maybe. Certainly, shouting out that Obama is a "liar" right in the middle of his speech is ridiculous. And of course, even though Obama does say one thing and then do another, his particular objection about illegal immigrants receiving care had no basis in reality (even though they should, like every other human being, have a right to health care.
However, "stop being so uncivil" is a narrative that has been brought out before. Where do you draw the line? The media draws the line at anything that challenges the status quo.
Drew Bogner, president of Malloy College, wrote an op ed in Newsday today, talking about civility. In this piece, he combines looking at both sides of an issue, with being polite about sharing opinions. Like Nancy Pelosi, he also suggests that this "incivility" threatens to turn into violence.
In order to analyze something, we must determine what belongs together and what doesn't. Simply put, disagreement, impoliteness, (even if it is extreme and unreasonable) and violence are three very different things. People can politely agree to disagree, and people can be rude without being violent. And people can challenge the status quo without being nasty about it.
The reason the debate is framed this way is to silence dissent. If opposing the status quo is equal to being mean, which is in turn equal to violence, then we will all agree that we should put up with the status quo. But it isn't. When the status quo is unjust (the number of hungry people has passed 1 billion, according to the World Socialist Web Site, for example) we are right to oppose it. When this is caused by an oppressive elite, we have the right to oppose them. This opposition isn't polite. As a Marxist, I might argue for the overthrow of the capitalist class. There is nothing nice about it.
However, this doesn't have to be violent either. I would argue that the many simply need to see their power in numbers, and use it. The failure of the elite to control the vast majority is sufficient to cause a revolution. For example, anarcho-syndycalists have argued that a general strike could be used to cause the collapse of the system, simply because they decided to refuse to work for capitalists.
You do not have to agree with either the goals or the means in which that goal would be achieved to see the point. It's simple word association, and its not an intellectual exercise. The media is telling us that change= impoliteness= opposition= violence. Of course, there are many examples of this. Obama= socialism (I wish) is one of them. Free market= freedom. Anarchy= disorder= violence.
The important point is that there is no debate. You can make the case that Anarchy=disorder=violence. However, an anarchist would not agree with that statement. Anarchy itself is the absence of the state, not the absence of order. In other words, first, you ask yourself whether it is possible to have order without the state. Then, you ask whether disorder inherently means violence. If you have thought about it, and answered yes, than you can agree with that statement. But simply putting words together does not create a true statement.
In terms of "civility," it should be clear that being rude is not the same as being violent. And disagreeing with people is not the same as being rude. So lets speak loud and clear that we will not be silenced, no matter what our views are. If that makes us "uncivil" than so be it.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
A Simple Case for Radicalism
The first question is: What does it mean to be a radical? I would argue that it simply means thinking outside the box. Very far outside of the box.
George Orwell tells us that simply thinking logically makes us radical. In 1984, he states the most obvious fact, 2+2=4. However, people in Oceania engage in "doublethink." In other words, they believe in two incompatible ideas at the same time, and therefore believe things that cannot possibly be true. Such as 2+2=5.
The protagonist, Winston Smith, is the only person (as far as he knows) who still believes the truth (including, 2+2=4). George Orwell was originally going to call the book "The Last Sane Man in Europe," but the publisher did not like that. By being the only sane man, Winston Smith was a radical.
How does this apply to us? In her autobiography, Assata Shakur uses an example that is as straightfoward as 2+2=5, but that even I didn't know until I read her book.
The 13 amendment to the Constitution is the one that ended slavery in the United States. Or at least, that is what we are taught in school.
Say to yourself the uncontroversial statement "slavery is always wrong."
Now, look several lines below to read the actual 13th amendment.
In other words, the 13th amendment does not ban slavery, it makes it Constitutional.
I rest my case.
George Orwell tells us that simply thinking logically makes us radical. In 1984, he states the most obvious fact, 2+2=4. However, people in Oceania engage in "doublethink." In other words, they believe in two incompatible ideas at the same time, and therefore believe things that cannot possibly be true. Such as 2+2=5.
The protagonist, Winston Smith, is the only person (as far as he knows) who still believes the truth (including, 2+2=4). George Orwell was originally going to call the book "The Last Sane Man in Europe," but the publisher did not like that. By being the only sane man, Winston Smith was a radical.
How does this apply to us? In her autobiography, Assata Shakur uses an example that is as straightfoward as 2+2=5, but that even I didn't know until I read her book.
The 13 amendment to the Constitution is the one that ended slavery in the United States. Or at least, that is what we are taught in school.
Say to yourself the uncontroversial statement "slavery is always wrong."
Now, look several lines below to read the actual 13th amendment.
In case you didn't see it, let me highlight the relevant part of section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.In other words, the 13th amendment does not ban slavery, it makes it Constitutional.
I rest my case.
Monday, August 17, 2009
One more thing About Health Care Reform
I'm putting this in a separate post since the other one is so long. Needless to say, healthcare is a big issue.
Anyway, the current system and any reforms that Obama proposes, empower management over the working class. They can keep lower wages while offering health care as a trump card. A job that offers health insurance might be more desirable than a job that with better wages and conditions but no health insurance. With a single payer system, healthcare is taken out of the hands of employers entirely. This makes it easier for workers to negotiate for fairer wages and better conditions, since they no longer have to worry about health insurance.
Anyway, the current system and any reforms that Obama proposes, empower management over the working class. They can keep lower wages while offering health care as a trump card. A job that offers health insurance might be more desirable than a job that with better wages and conditions but no health insurance. With a single payer system, healthcare is taken out of the hands of employers entirely. This makes it easier for workers to negotiate for fairer wages and better conditions, since they no longer have to worry about health insurance.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Single Payer is the Only Real Option
The debate has already been framed for us. On the one side, you have the right wingers, claiming that the government is going to have "death panels" to kill old people, and that they are going to ration our health care. On the other, you have the Democrats, claiming that "health care reform" is the only way to go. The system does not work, single payer is not possible at this time, and health care reform will save the currently broken system. Liberals are following along, talking about how important reform is, even if they support single payer.
The system is indeed completely broken. And the right wing claims about the government slaughtering your grandparents are simply ridiculous. But Obama's continually watered down health care reform, even if it were to end up with the "public option," (which it no longer looks like it is going to) is not going to fix it.
Before I get into what is wrong with Obama's plan, let me explain what a single payer plan would do. While the exact cost cutting would obviously depend on the plan, single payer systems in most of the developed world cost half of what they cost here in the U.S., while producing better outcomes. In other words, the country that has the most problems with waste are having that problem because of the private sector, not a supposedly bloated government. Intuitively, it should at least make sense that giant corporations would not be more efficient than government. Add to the fact that corporations are inherently working to make a profit instead of working for the public good, and its easy to understand why the private sector is the least efficient option.
Put simply, yes, you'd be paying more taxes, but you'd be paying half as much for healthcare overall because you wouldn't have to pay for insurance out of pocket.
And of course, it is a myth that you'd have no choice of doctors. Under this program, you could choose any doctor, today, your insurance company chooses your doctor. Also, the waiting times are a myth. Sure, if you're rich, you can buy yourself quicker care in the U.S., but most people wait a long time here too. As Julie Mason explains in the Ottawa Citizen, the U.S. media has fabricated a horror story about Canada's health care system (A reality check on a reality check). A woman who claimed she couldn't get immediate surgery for a brain tumor in Canada and therefore had to get care in the U.S. actually had a benign cyst. While her waiting time would have been completely inappropriate if she was dying from a brain tumor, it was perfectly reasonable because she was not. Of course, the most obvious question regarding a single payer system is: Why are we only talking about Canada? Occasionally, people will criticize the British system, but no one talks about the single payer system in France, Germany, or almost any other developed nation. I wonder if those systems work even better than the Canadian system. However, one thing is certain, people like it so much, they refuse to get rid of it. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher attempted to get rid of their National Healthcare System, but had the same success that Bush had in trying to privatize social security.
Also forget about rationing under single payer. The most significant part of single payer is how healthcare is treated as a right, not a privilege. In other words, rationing by private insurance is precisely the problem that we can get rid of with single payer. Private insurance companies can deny you coverage for any number of reasons, such as a prexisting condition (ie, you have MS, like the author of this post). Of course, this doesn't include the almost 50 million Americans who don't have healthcare at all. But if you have coverage, you could end up with the worst of both worlds, you pay a huge proportion of your paycheck to healthcare, and then not have any money to pay for getting sick when they decide not to cover you.
Here is what would happen if we did in fact have a public option (It appears that Obama is scrapping the idea). For starters, it would only be available to a small percentage of Americans. Because of its limited size, (Jeff Sher estimates on counterpunch that it will cover about 10 million people Jeff Sher: Making a Mess of Health Care Reform) most Americans would be forced to buy private insurance. However, the existence of both options, along with the government being unable to negotiate drug prices, would increase costs instead of reducing them. Of course, these costs would be put on the backs of American workers, because they would be forced to buy insurance under Obama's plan. When Hillary Clinton came up with a similar idea, I felt that this was worse than the current system, and I still do. At least when you pay taxes, it is supposed to go toward the public good. As a general principle, I don't think this is necessarily true, seeing as nearly half of our tax dollars go towards the military. However, in other countries, it has been proven that a single payer system works as a public good.
On the other hand, forcing people to buy private insurance is no different than if the government decided to force everyone to buy a Nintendo Wii. I use this example, because most people who are 30 or over don't want a video game system. The public is no longer pooling their goods together, rather, the government is forcing people to buy a private good. This doesn't fit into a liberal ideology of the government providing for the public good, or a conservative free market ideology of keeping the government out of the market. Personally, I see the government helping the corporations as the anti-democratic status quo.
The government forcing you to buy health insurance is not the only problem with Obama's plan. He is suggesting that he will cut costs. This effectively means that the government would cut medicare and medicaid. Conservatives would suggest that this is likely because government is evil. I will suggest that this is likely because 1. The elite tends to use recessions as an excuse to "cut spending" which always refers to important social spending. 2. Obama can get away with it because he is not a Republican. When liberals complement Clinton on "balancing the budget," do they notice that he did it by cutting social spending, ie. "ending welfare as we know it?" Worse still, I would bet that this would occur regardless of whether health reform passes. In other words, the real "rationing" is completely unrelated to the health reform being proposed.
The cost cutting and forcing everyone to buy insurance appears to still be on the table. The public option does not. Obama has been backing away from the public option over the past weekend. The important thing to understand is that this has nothing to do with public opinion, and certainly nothing to do with spinelessness. If Obama decides not to put a public option in the final bill, it is because he never intended to have it in the first place. This is an old game the Democrats are playing. They put something on the table, let the Republicans rant and rave, and then say that because of Republican ranting and raving, they can't do what they set out to do. From 2004-2006, they complained that they needed a simple majority in Congress, then, when they got that, they complained that they needed 60 Senators, and the presidency, and now that they have that, they claim that there are "blue dog" Democrats who are really Republicans, and that they need a super duper progressive majority and the end of the Republican Party.
Why are the Democrats really siding with the insurance industry? It's because they get the same donations the Republicans who are ranting about socialism get. It's because Obama himself has been bought by big business, and in this case, the insurance industry. According to the Center for Responsive Politics Obama has received $19,462,986 from the Health Sector (Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets). When we realize the obvious, easily researchable truth that it is not just Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats being bought off by the insurance industry, it should be obvious that all the politicians do their bidding. To assume otherwise is to believe that while Republicans are heavily influenced by campaign contributions, Democrats are somehow immune. The reality is that both Obama's "reform" and the status quo serves the health care industry and hurts the American people.
The system is indeed completely broken. And the right wing claims about the government slaughtering your grandparents are simply ridiculous. But Obama's continually watered down health care reform, even if it were to end up with the "public option," (which it no longer looks like it is going to) is not going to fix it.
Before I get into what is wrong with Obama's plan, let me explain what a single payer plan would do. While the exact cost cutting would obviously depend on the plan, single payer systems in most of the developed world cost half of what they cost here in the U.S., while producing better outcomes. In other words, the country that has the most problems with waste are having that problem because of the private sector, not a supposedly bloated government. Intuitively, it should at least make sense that giant corporations would not be more efficient than government. Add to the fact that corporations are inherently working to make a profit instead of working for the public good, and its easy to understand why the private sector is the least efficient option.
Put simply, yes, you'd be paying more taxes, but you'd be paying half as much for healthcare overall because you wouldn't have to pay for insurance out of pocket.
And of course, it is a myth that you'd have no choice of doctors. Under this program, you could choose any doctor, today, your insurance company chooses your doctor. Also, the waiting times are a myth. Sure, if you're rich, you can buy yourself quicker care in the U.S., but most people wait a long time here too. As Julie Mason explains in the Ottawa Citizen, the U.S. media has fabricated a horror story about Canada's health care system (A reality check on a reality check). A woman who claimed she couldn't get immediate surgery for a brain tumor in Canada and therefore had to get care in the U.S. actually had a benign cyst. While her waiting time would have been completely inappropriate if she was dying from a brain tumor, it was perfectly reasonable because she was not. Of course, the most obvious question regarding a single payer system is: Why are we only talking about Canada? Occasionally, people will criticize the British system, but no one talks about the single payer system in France, Germany, or almost any other developed nation. I wonder if those systems work even better than the Canadian system. However, one thing is certain, people like it so much, they refuse to get rid of it. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher attempted to get rid of their National Healthcare System, but had the same success that Bush had in trying to privatize social security.
Also forget about rationing under single payer. The most significant part of single payer is how healthcare is treated as a right, not a privilege. In other words, rationing by private insurance is precisely the problem that we can get rid of with single payer. Private insurance companies can deny you coverage for any number of reasons, such as a prexisting condition (ie, you have MS, like the author of this post). Of course, this doesn't include the almost 50 million Americans who don't have healthcare at all. But if you have coverage, you could end up with the worst of both worlds, you pay a huge proportion of your paycheck to healthcare, and then not have any money to pay for getting sick when they decide not to cover you.
Here is what would happen if we did in fact have a public option (It appears that Obama is scrapping the idea). For starters, it would only be available to a small percentage of Americans. Because of its limited size, (Jeff Sher estimates on counterpunch that it will cover about 10 million people Jeff Sher: Making a Mess of Health Care Reform) most Americans would be forced to buy private insurance. However, the existence of both options, along with the government being unable to negotiate drug prices, would increase costs instead of reducing them. Of course, these costs would be put on the backs of American workers, because they would be forced to buy insurance under Obama's plan. When Hillary Clinton came up with a similar idea, I felt that this was worse than the current system, and I still do. At least when you pay taxes, it is supposed to go toward the public good. As a general principle, I don't think this is necessarily true, seeing as nearly half of our tax dollars go towards the military. However, in other countries, it has been proven that a single payer system works as a public good.
On the other hand, forcing people to buy private insurance is no different than if the government decided to force everyone to buy a Nintendo Wii. I use this example, because most people who are 30 or over don't want a video game system. The public is no longer pooling their goods together, rather, the government is forcing people to buy a private good. This doesn't fit into a liberal ideology of the government providing for the public good, or a conservative free market ideology of keeping the government out of the market. Personally, I see the government helping the corporations as the anti-democratic status quo.
The government forcing you to buy health insurance is not the only problem with Obama's plan. He is suggesting that he will cut costs. This effectively means that the government would cut medicare and medicaid. Conservatives would suggest that this is likely because government is evil. I will suggest that this is likely because 1. The elite tends to use recessions as an excuse to "cut spending" which always refers to important social spending. 2. Obama can get away with it because he is not a Republican. When liberals complement Clinton on "balancing the budget," do they notice that he did it by cutting social spending, ie. "ending welfare as we know it?" Worse still, I would bet that this would occur regardless of whether health reform passes. In other words, the real "rationing" is completely unrelated to the health reform being proposed.
The cost cutting and forcing everyone to buy insurance appears to still be on the table. The public option does not. Obama has been backing away from the public option over the past weekend. The important thing to understand is that this has nothing to do with public opinion, and certainly nothing to do with spinelessness. If Obama decides not to put a public option in the final bill, it is because he never intended to have it in the first place. This is an old game the Democrats are playing. They put something on the table, let the Republicans rant and rave, and then say that because of Republican ranting and raving, they can't do what they set out to do. From 2004-2006, they complained that they needed a simple majority in Congress, then, when they got that, they complained that they needed 60 Senators, and the presidency, and now that they have that, they claim that there are "blue dog" Democrats who are really Republicans, and that they need a super duper progressive majority and the end of the Republican Party.
Why are the Democrats really siding with the insurance industry? It's because they get the same donations the Republicans who are ranting about socialism get. It's because Obama himself has been bought by big business, and in this case, the insurance industry. According to the Center for Responsive Politics Obama has received $19,462,986 from the Health Sector (Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets). When we realize the obvious, easily researchable truth that it is not just Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats being bought off by the insurance industry, it should be obvious that all the politicians do their bidding. To assume otherwise is to believe that while Republicans are heavily influenced by campaign contributions, Democrats are somehow immune. The reality is that both Obama's "reform" and the status quo serves the health care industry and hurts the American people.
Friday, August 7, 2009
New Rule: Thinking You're Smarter Than Everyone Else Doesn't Make it So
This was too long to post on the huffington post. I imagine that this "new rule" is the one that Bill Maher will do tonight on his show. Anyway, here is a link to it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html
He basically says that Americans are stupid, and that the "founding fathers" were wise to oppose democracy. I sometimes like what Bill Maher says, and at least he speaks his mind. But I've always been annoyed when he insists that the American people are the problem, and not the elites who control them. And when I look at what is on the news, and what people are told, I'm impressed that people are as skeptical as they are. Here is what I was going to write:
It is elitist to sit there, and find the worst polls, claim that America is stupid, and then suggest that the framers were right to oppose democracy. Ask most Americans, and I think you will find they have some interesting things to say. The trick is that you have to look under the surface. Which statement is more insightful: "Iraq is located next to Iran," or "Both political parties are corrupt?" I would say the second. Even though the second statement fails to explain how or why, the first statement is simply trivia and provides no insight at all. Regarding Iraq, it is more important to oppose the American occupation than it is to locate it on a map. You are not intellligent if you can find it on the map, name all the cities, cite the history, and then conclude that democracy can created at the barrel of a gun.
The second problem is what people have been taught. For example, I think that people believe in creationism because they haven't been taught evolution properly. It is usually thought of the way Lamarck conceived of it, not Darwin. Lamarck thought that giraffes gradually grew longer necks because they stretched them in order to reach the tall trees. Darwin argued that instead, the giraffes with shorter necks died off, because they couldn't reach the trees, while a few who happened to have longer necks due to a mutation survived.
Whose fault is that? How many people who bought Lamarck's theory did so because they weren't taught the proper theory of evolution?
And then of course, we can't forget apathy. The intuition that politicians are corrupt, while simplistic, is correct. This causes people to give up, because they have been persuaded there is no alternative. Consequently, they don't pay attention to politics, and therefore don't know anything.
We ultimately have a choice. Either we can have an elite that looks out for their own interests at the expense of everyone else, or we can have democracy. What we can't have is an elite that looks out for the people's best interest instead of their own.
He basically says that Americans are stupid, and that the "founding fathers" were wise to oppose democracy. I sometimes like what Bill Maher says, and at least he speaks his mind. But I've always been annoyed when he insists that the American people are the problem, and not the elites who control them. And when I look at what is on the news, and what people are told, I'm impressed that people are as skeptical as they are. Here is what I was going to write:
It is elitist to sit there, and find the worst polls, claim that America is stupid, and then suggest that the framers were right to oppose democracy. Ask most Americans, and I think you will find they have some interesting things to say. The trick is that you have to look under the surface. Which statement is more insightful: "Iraq is located next to Iran," or "Both political parties are corrupt?" I would say the second. Even though the second statement fails to explain how or why, the first statement is simply trivia and provides no insight at all. Regarding Iraq, it is more important to oppose the American occupation than it is to locate it on a map. You are not intellligent if you can find it on the map, name all the cities, cite the history, and then conclude that democracy can created at the barrel of a gun.
The second problem is what people have been taught. For example, I think that people believe in creationism because they haven't been taught evolution properly. It is usually thought of the way Lamarck conceived of it, not Darwin. Lamarck thought that giraffes gradually grew longer necks because they stretched them in order to reach the tall trees. Darwin argued that instead, the giraffes with shorter necks died off, because they couldn't reach the trees, while a few who happened to have longer necks due to a mutation survived.
Whose fault is that? How many people who bought Lamarck's theory did so because they weren't taught the proper theory of evolution?
And then of course, we can't forget apathy. The intuition that politicians are corrupt, while simplistic, is correct. This causes people to give up, because they have been persuaded there is no alternative. Consequently, they don't pay attention to politics, and therefore don't know anything.
We ultimately have a choice. Either we can have an elite that looks out for their own interests at the expense of everyone else, or we can have democracy. What we can't have is an elite that looks out for the people's best interest instead of their own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)