Namely, President Obama's Health Care Reform. Why this has become such a huge turning point actually isn't a huge mystery, I realize, as the Republican party preaches that it is the first step towards socialism. To the risk of losing my few possibly Republican readers, let me state this: socialism isn't the worst thing that could possibly happen. The role of government is to protect the rights of the people. If socialism best protects these rights, then government is effective. Furthermore, most of Europe is socialist, as many know; though taxes are increased, people enjoy free health care and education. The ability to afford one's health and education leads to a higher standard of living, and most people of Europe enjoy the benefits they receive. Simply put, socialism, like democracy, may be the popular form of government for the modern era.
However, I do oppose Obama's health care reforms, on the grounds that it does not effectively solve the use of predesignated conditions (please correct me if I am using the wrong term). The point of denying those with predesignated conditions was to prevent this scenario:
Little Johnny breaks his leg. The parents can't afford the payment, so they order health insurance. Because there are no restrictions on predesignated conditions, the parents pay for the treatment, then cancel the insurance.
Insurance is to ensure that you will be able to pay for treatment when the need arises, not on demand. I fear that Obamacare would open the floodgates to millions of these scenarios. Therefore, removal of predesignated conditions should not be included in the reform. However, there is stark contrast between the Little Johnny scenario and the following.
Big Bill is perfectly healthy, and decides he has enough money to afford health insurance. However, as the insurance agency checks his conditions, he is diagnosed with diabetes. Therefore, his insurance is cancelled.
The legislation must allow for people who were perfectly healthy when they ordered insurance to obtain their insurance even if diagnosed with an illness during the screening process.
Despite my opposition to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, I do agree that there should be some form of government provided health care as an option for citizens who cannot afford traditional insurance.
Also in agreement with the AHCAA, doctors should receive more of the money paid for by non-insured patients than they are now (right now, the amount close to 0%; this should be raised to at least 40%).
I do not believe that these type of reforms are required in a 3,000 page bill. However, what surprises me most is that debate is continuing at what health care reform should be. If Congress cannot make a consensus based on both sides of the debate, the entire reform should be dropped like a hot pan. Much more important issues should be faced before health care, like the environment.
Don't fear socialism. Fear communism and oligarchies. If you ever believe the government is amassing too much power, it is your constitutional right to oppose the government. The sign of a free society is the ability to oppose the government without being thrown in jail. Socialism is still a free society.
Following a political party isn't the right idea, unless you agree with them on every single issue. Make your own decisions. Be independent. Don't follow the crowd.
As I explained before, health care should have been on the back burner. We have much more important things to deal with.
If there's anything I've learned about politics, it's that it's mostly about opinions. If you have an opinion on an issue, then you can argue about it, and, thus, can be a politician. My views come from a scientific standpoint; one may say the scientists' views. Through this, I came up with the simple name "Raw Political Science." You don't necessarily have to agree with me to read this, and I'd prefer if you didn't agree. Please comment. If you disagree, present your argument politely. Enjoy.
1. It's preexisting conditions ;-)
ReplyDelete2. You stated that the role of the American government is to protect the rights of the people. Socialism is what takes away those rights! We have the right to decide what we do, when we do it, and how we do it. In a Socialist society, some or all of these rights are taken away. For example, in a universal health-care system, you do not have the right to choose the plan best suited for your income and conditions. You must all share the same plan, no matter if you make $50,000 or $2 million a year. Now, the redistribution of wealth and the "leveling of the playing field" for all citizens is one of the basic principles of Marxist Communism, correct? So Socialized health-care not only grows government to a Socialist extent, it encourages Marxist policies that go against everything our great country has always stood for.
3. No, Socialism is not the worst thing that could happen. But it is close. What I am especially afraid of is, if we go from a Democracy to a Socialist Democracy, who is to say that government won't continue to grow, and lead to a Marxist system? American democracy is the DIRECT opposite of Marxism and Communism (not Soviet Communism: that was a Oligarchic Dictatorship with some Communist principles), and therefore that system would go against everything our founders and our fellow Americans ever stood for. I am afraid of the effects of a bill like this not only in the near future, but in the years to come.
4. Socialized health-care is SCARY! The government puts a MONETARY value on human life!!!! It is an equation of how much money the person will produce for the country in the certain period of time left in their lives.
Lets say that Little Johnny is 50 years old and breaks his hip. The government says, OK, Little Johnny will produce X amount of money in the next 25 years of his life (because 75 is our life expectancy).
Next, there's Big Bob. He is 65 years old and suffers the same fate.
Then, there's Old Jane. She is already 75 years old, but in perfect health and physical condition.
Now, who would the government give replacements to? They would give replacements to Little Johnny because he is still working and producing resources of money for the government through taxes, etc. Now, Big Bob might receive it, and Old Jane will not. Old Jane is living off the government through Social Security, etc, and not producing resources or money for the country.
Scary enough? Now, lets transpose the scenario for Stage I Breast Cancer. Totally curable. Old Jane might not get treatment. All of them might have to wait in line for a treatment that could be received within days in America. It could take months. Old Jane would probably be left to die of a curable condition. By the time Big Bob and Little Johnny get to the front of the line, they might have developed Stage III (Deadly) and Stage IV (Terminal) cancer. In Britain, this happens to 20% of patients with Colon Cancer. You can start with Stage I, and get to treatment by Stage III or IV.
Don't believe me? Look up N.I.C.E. (The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) in Britain.
--Douglas
Douglas, you obviously don't understand the differences between Socialism and Communism, the bases of are government were already socialist before Obamma.
ReplyDeleteI am completely opposed to the idea that everyone must have health care. It is your decision on to how you live your life. I completely agree with your statements about how messed up government can be under socialism. However, as stated, the role of government is to protect people's rights. Because socialized health care could cause the same type of problems in the United Kingdom, it could be possible to argue that socialized health care does restrict a person's right to life and happiness. It most be noted, though, that people in Sweden, France, and Germany (for example) mostly enjoy the benefit of free health care. What's important is that we have an effective system if the government decides to implement socialized health care. It shouldn't force people to have health care, but should still provide government health care as an option for families.
ReplyDeleteI agree, we need to have a controlled form of government that can in any circumstance implement what best serves the people but also give people options.
ReplyDelete