Subscribe to Dollars & Sense magazine. Recent articles related to the financial crisis. Health Care Reform: A Victory for the Little Guy?David Leonhardt, the New York Times economics reporter, has a cover story in today's paper, In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality, that depicts the new health care reform law as the first great social legislation in a generation. It is big, and it is social legislation, and it is true that it will be funded partly by raising taxes on higher-income folks. But it is hard to view it as the challenge to inequality that Leonhardt thinks it is--or that Obama & Co. (least of all Larry Summers, whom Leonhardt mentions in a positive light in the article) intended it as such.As a counterpoint to Leonhardt's argument, here's something from the great, relatively new blog from the good folks at the University of Missouri at Kansas City's econ dept, New Economic Perspectives. This guest post is from Robert Prasch of Middlebury College. Think The Democrats Just Scored One for the Little Guy? Think Again. Read the original post. Labels: David Leonhardt, health care, health care reform, Lawrence Summers, Obama administration, UMKC Please consider donating to Dollars & Sense and/or subscribing to the magazine (both print and e-subscriptions now available!).
Comments:
The commentators keep reminding us that Theodore Roosevelt was the first president who tried to bring universal health care to the American people. That's not quite true. He never really expressed the idea while he was in office. In 1912 Roosevelt had been out of office for four years when he attempted to reclaim the presidency from William Howard Taft, the man he had picked to succeed him. Once in office, Taft began to dismantle most of the progressive reforms that Teddy had put into place. When he sought the nomination once again, his campaign slogan was "a square deal for every man and every woman in the United States." Part of the "Square Deal" was health care for all. He arrived at the convention that summer with all the delegates he needed (and then some) to seize the mantle of standard bearer. It was not to be. His party would betray the people by giving the nomination to Taft in spite of his victory. They had had enough of Theodore Roosevelt and his progressive reforms. 1912 was the year that the progressive wing of the Republican party died. He was the last great Republican president - the very last.
A generation later TR's distant cousin Franklin attempted to pick up the torch of universal health care. In his 1944 State of the Union address, he told the American people that his major goal for the post war world was national health insurance. Unfortunately for you and I, FDR did not live to see the war's end. A film of that speech can be viewed in Michael Moore's film, Capitalism: A Love Story. It's is now out on DVD and is essential viewing. The new health care bill is not perfect - far from it - but as the old Chinese saying goes, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step." There will be improvements made on it down the years - there absolutely needs to be - but this is a fairly good first step. We're on our way! The Conservatives will whine, but that's what they do best. They'll whine just as they whined when Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Just as they whined when Harry Truman desegregated the army in 1947, or when Franklin D. Roosevelt brought Social Security into being in 1935. They'll whine just like they did when Woodrow Wilson tried to form the League of Nations in 1919 - or when Abraham Lincoln ended the institution of slavery in 1863! They whine a lot. Did you ever notice that? http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com Tom Degan
There's something about over-the-top denunciations of the affordable care act from professors who get good health care from their job that really makes me want to vomit. It's easy for Prasch to dismiss any legislation that isn't the perfect lefty dream; it's easy to hold out for perfection when you're not the one suffering for lack of medical care.
The Affordable Care Act expands who can qualify for medicaid. That's literally millions of lower-income Americans who will be getting FREE care. And yes, it's not the best insurance in the world -- but it mainly helps people who currently get no care. Why doesn't Prasch even mention that? And how is that not a transfer of wealth? A lot of Prasch's other arguments are laughably bad -- or would be, if the subject wasn't so important. Is there ANY evidence at all that the subsidies in the affordable care act "are fading rapidly," for example? Is it at all plausible that there was nothing at all in the MA special election effecting the outcome other than health care reform?
The greatest expansion of American government and the social welfare state since the Great Society passed the House Sunday night. Opponents recognize that this bill violates the most important principles of American government, and as such, is immoral.
Post a Comment
In a free society, does one individual’s needs constitute another individual’s obligation to provide? The answer is no; rather, it is the duty of free individuals to decide what and whose needs appear most important to them. In a free society, the individual is of supreme importance and should not to be used as a means to society’s ends. The individual has the right to order his actions and possessions in the manner most consistent with pursuing his own happiness and values. This view is consistent with America’s founding principles. The Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The above rights are known as “Natural Rights,” and they protect the individual’s right to freedom, autonomy, and self-government — in other words, to take all the actions required to support the furtherance, fulfillment, and enjoyment of one’s own life. They provide no material assurances or particular opportunities to the individual, but rather set conditions that allow the individual to decide what use he shall make of the circumstances in which he finds himself — to act in his own best interest so long as his actions don’t infringe on the equally protected rights of others. Another important question is: What constitutes a need, and who should decide? Should it be the patient in concert with his or her physician? This seems like the obvious choice. However, if society is paying the cost of whatever service is required to satisfy “the need,” then the provision of that service must be regulated to prevent overutilization and runaway costs. In other words, it must be rationed. In a free market, prices perform this rationing function. In the absence of a free market, some third party must ration based on a formula other than price. Eric Pearson, Democratic Party candidate for US Congress in the 5th district, Tennessee. Site: http://www.democraticreformparty.com << Home |
