Health care bill would move U.S. closer to market-based system

By Adam Call Roberts

I am against socialized medicine. And that is why I’m in favor of the health care plan currently before Congress.

Republicans are disguising the issues at play. The choice here isn’t between a current free market system and Democratic socialist system.

Modern punditry has co-opted and corrupted the words “capitalism” and “socialism” so that whatever major corporate donors like is labeled “free market” and whatever they don’t like is labeled “socialist.”

The Bush-Obama Wall Street bailouts are the very definition of socialism, but Michael Moore railed against them in a film he titled “Capitalism: A Love Story.”

In a free market system, companies interact with consumers to determine the best prices and services for both. In the modern American system, the companies have hired the government to stand between the two. The companies’ risks are socialized, so when they need money, the entire country suffers. Their benefits stay private, however, so when they make money, only their shareholders profit.

Our current health care system is a tangled vine of weeds and regulations written by professional lobbyists. The Affordable Health Care for America Act would cut through some of these weeds. It would help all Americans receive better care and lower costs across the board.

There’s nothing socialist about a safety net. Adam Smith was a strong advocate of them. Basic needs like regular doctor visits are expensive, and health insurance even more so. Even if you’re not the compassionate type, it’s easy to see how a healthy population is beneficial to everyone. It cuts down on the spread of disease through the country.

Preventing pandemics is an issue of national security. Besides, preventative medicine saves money in the long run. Fewer illnesses means fewer costs for the insurance companies and for us.

And once a health problem is bad enough to send someone to the emergency room, we all pay for it, anyway. Each family in Arkansas pays an additional $1,500 on their insurance premiums because of the costs of treating the uninsured, according to the Center for American Progress.

It would be preferable if private charity could take care of the problem, but we’ve been waiting decades for it to do so, and it hasn’t. When tens of millions of people don’t have their basic needs taken care of, the state has to step in. We always want to be careful when the government gets involved in the economy. Of all the options practically available, the current health care bill is the least intrusive.

Government control of the health care industry would be a disaster. So instead of simply expanding Medicare to the whole country like some have suggested, the legislation would give money to poor and middle-class taxpayers to help them buy insurance.

It changes laws about pre-existing conditions so if someone in the family falls ill, you’re not trapped with one company. If you were to lose your job and your coverage or find yourself poorly treated by your current insurer, you would be able to shop around for a better deal without having the door slammed in your face due to your medical history.

The political paradox is that this “socialist” bill would move the country closer to a market-based health care system than we’ve had in a century. The creation of a health insurance exchange and the elimination of anti-trust exemptions would force companies to compete against each other instead of collude with each other or bribe bureaucrats. The only losers would be the companies that refuse to offer a good deal.

Concerns over the plan’s cost are legitimate. Federal spending would increase by about $1 trillion, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

However, the legislation also includes spending cuts and tax increases for the super-rich. When this is all put together, the CBO estimates that the bill will actually reduce the deficit by more than $130 billion.

If we want better, cheaper health care in this country, we need to cut through the corporate-socialist weeds and let the market breathe.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a great step.

Jeremy

“The Bush-Obama Wall Street bailouts are the very definition of socialism…” Fair enough.

“There’s nothing socialist about a safety net.” I guess it depends what you mean by that.

“…needs like regular doctor visits…” ………..

“…the legislation would give money to poor and middle-class taxpayers…” Oh, that’s what you mean. And I’m sure that by tax payers you don’t mean someone that pays 1000/y into OASDI and gets 6000/y in tax credits. So it’s not socialism…yes? Of course, if that is true, you would still have to not give them more money for insurance than they paid in. I’m sure that will happen.

Nice try Adam, no cigar. I won’t bother pointing out the rest of the difficulties with this piece, what I have is more than sufficient.

http://metropolistimes.blogspot.com/ Adam

Thanks for your comments.

Socialism is a particular form of an economy. Giving tax credits to the poor isn’t socialist last time I checked. Using legislation to blur the lines between the state and the private sector, however, is.

“So it’s not socialism…yes? Of course, if that is true, you would still have to not give them more money for insurance than they paid in. I’m sure that will happen.”

To be honest, I’m really not sure what you’re saying or when you’re being sarcastic here. Would you mind clarifying for me?

If you give more money to an individual than they pay in, it is wealth redistribution, a facet of socialism (depending, of course, on which definition you are choosing to use for this article). You can advocate or speak against socialism (you appear to be doing both), but you cannot claim, within the common understanding of socialism, that giving money to people, to whom the money does not belong (i.e. more than they pay in), is not practicing socialism.

The point of my statement that you have in quotations and the preceding sentence was to bring attention to who you were saying give money for insurance to. Generally speaking, you have to make upwards of 35, 40,000 to not currently be getting paid by the government, that is, other people. So are you only including in your plan those “poor” people making 40,000 and up? Well, you can’t. The inclusion of your proposed credit for insurance would push that “hand out” line up a good deal farther. And are people making 40, 50, 60,000 poor or actually in need of help? No, that argument can’t be made. The people that can’t pay for insurance are the ones that necessarily will be receiving more funds than they pay in taxes. That is wealth redistribution. That is a form of socialism. Mandates are a form of socialism, be it forced pre-existing coverage, or specific maladies or treatments.

I welcome you advocating the bill. I do not welcome you redefining what the bill is. Advocate this level of, but not outright, socialism, by all means, but don’t say it isn’t what it manifestly is.

That was the thrust of my comment. I did make a little jab about you defining regular doctor visits as a need, but the crux was call a spade a spade regardless of which side of the spade you are on. I advocate quality argumentation far more than quality positions.

Chew on it or don’t, I just think that you would benefit from constructive criticism of the logic behind your conclusion so that your belief is less penetrable and your arguments are more convincing.

And yes, I do need to make clearer distinctions between when I am being ironic and not. It tends to distract from the point I am making.

http://metropolistimes.blogspot.com/ Adam

I think our dispute then is mostly over the definitions of socialism and capitalism. That’s a point I could probably expound on in a whole column. To simplify things for the comments section, I am against the definitions given by Merriam-Webster.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

If you think the proposed safety net is too large, that’s a perfectly legitimate complaint, but its not a socialism-vs-capitalism one.

My concern is that in the current system, free market solutions are squeezed out. The state runs the health insurance system, at the behest of large insurance corporations that have no interest in competing capitalistically. This bill would curb some of these problems and help to compensate those who have been hurt the most by the federal government’s wrongdoings.
Jeremy

Okay, so you don’t include taking money from Peter to pay Paul in the definition of socialism that you have chosen to use socialism. But you do advocate taking money from one person and giving it to another.

You necessarily have to include mandates in what appears to be your definition of socialism. You have advocated at least one mandate that is included in the bill.

So, were I to accept the premise of the conversation, your definition of socialism, I still reject the particulars on your statement that it moves us toward a free-market. Taking away the choice of the producer is as anti-free-market as taking away the choice of the consumer.

“…companies interact with consumers to determine the best prices and services for both…” The bill forces companies to subsidize net loss policies, those with pre-existing conditions, with those that are profitable. You as much as admit it is socialism, “It would be preferable if private charity could take care of the problem, but we’ve been waiting decades for it to do so, and it hasn’t. When tens of millions of people don’t have their basic needs taken care of, the state has to step in. We always want to be careful when the government gets involved in the economy. Of all the options practically available, the current health care bill is the least intrusive.” Is this intrusiveness of government limited to nurturing words to the insurance companies, no. It is control, government control in the form of government enforced mandates, among other things. So yes, this safety net, in this form, is socialist.

A great deal of your argument that it is less interference is based on what government is already intruding on and will continue to. You are trying to mitigate that government control by adding another layer of government control.

Now all this rhetorical examination aside, the enforcement of this bill, if passed, is illegal. So this is really just an intellectual exercise, entertaining and helpful for future arguments, but ultimately moot of itself.

You are correct though that we are not currently appreciably free-market.
J.W.C.

I’m pretty sure this article is arguing against Medicare and Medicaid.

Alas, so many bad points… I’ll look at one.

“There’s nothing socialist about a safety net. Adam Smith was a strong advocate of them.”

I can only assume you are referencing that Adam Smith said a decent and just society provides a safety net. That’s yanked pretty violently out of context. Social safety nets provided by society and not by government are different beasts altogether. And I would agree that Smith liked them well enough. There’s not much in his writings discussing the style of socialism being discussed in Washington today.
J.W.C.

Reading through the comments; I’ll say:

We are quite divorced from free market. And no, the government doesn’t own all the production…

So, where are we on the line between capitalism and socialism? Who cares? I’m far more worried about the line between free-market and autocratic capitalism.

I’d like the government to please stop illegally taking my money and giving it to other people. Even if they want to do those (in my opinion) very unwise things…at least make it legal before you do it.
http://metropolistimes.blogspot.com Adam

I think we’ve found our point of disagreement – can state-run safety nets exist in a capitalistic system? That might be an issue to expand on sometime.

Just remember, just because something isn’t free market doesn’t mean its socialist. There’s lots of economic systems out there.

I noticed though that both Jeremy and J.W.C. have said this bill is illegal. Do you care to expand? Is this something specific to the bill, or do you consider all forms of taxation illegal?

Thanks again for your comments.
Jeremy

It is illegal for the federal government, not the states. The states are welcome to try such things to see if they, beyond theory, expand services and lower costs.

For it to be legal for the federal government to pass and enforce such a law, they would first have to amend the constitution to enumerate that power to themselves. As it is, it is left to the several respective states or individuals.

To clarify, the wealth redistribution and mandates on the business is what is outside of the scope of federal, but not state, authority.

Taxation is not illegal in all forms as it is a necessary and enumerated power to carry out enumerated and necessary functions of the federal government.
Amanda

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/finalmar…
I would love to see something about this in the traveler!

Health care bill would move U.S. closer to market-based system

By Adam Call Roberts • December 2nd, 2009 • 9:38 am. 11 comments

By Adam Call Roberts • December 2nd, 2009 • 9:38 am.

11 comments