I had to come out of my long vacation from the blogosphere to comment on the subject of health care reform. I had to say something about the circus going on in Washington and the mockery they are making of health care reform.

Who ever says that those who have health insurance are perfectly happy with the current system is wildly out of touch. I have health insurance through my employer, but the coverage is awful and the premium is still too high. I pay more than $200 per paycheck for all three of us (me, my husband and daughter). This cost does not include the portion that my employer pays. I am not even counting the copays, deductibles and fees I am charged when I make use of my health insurance policy.

We would never be able to afford health coverage for the three of us, should I (knock on wood) lose my job. Last time I changed jobs, there was a three month period we were without insurance. Cobra charged us $800 per month just to keep my daughter's policy active. For the three of us they were charging over $2500. Thus, I can understand why the self-employed, the unemployed and the poor who do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare would be unable to pay for a premium on their own. There are really no affordable choices in the market.

Nothing irritates me more than hearing the critics of Obama's health reform efforts taut their credentials as "free market" protectors. As if! They love to say nice things about competition and freedom of choice, while killing the idea of allowing healthy competition from a public option. So which is it? Do they really want freedom of choice and competition or they are just saying that because they pay lip service to the "idea" of competition? In the meantime they are signing deals with their corporate friends to defend their right to keep ripping us off.

Of all arguments that are completely false, nonsensical and moronic, the "free market" one gets the crown. Let us look at the libertarian ideal of liberty, competition and choice, to determine where the "free market" argument being thrown at us is deeply flawed.

Libertarians believe that for a society to be just, each person should be permitted to live as they choose, without interference from others. Libertarianism, in contrast to utilitarianism, believes that restricting the liberty of some to promote the greater good for the greatest number is unacceptable. The key is to ensure that in exercising one’s choices, one is not interfering with anyone else’s liberty. For libertarians, justice is equal to respect for individual liberty (Shaw & Barry, 2009).

The problem with the libertarian philosophy is defining where someone’s individual liberty ends and someone else’s begins. What happens if the opposition of a few to implement a universal health care option interferes with someone else’s choice to participate in it? What if someone’s choice of maintaining the current system, because it is the best choice for them, infringes the liberty of others to choose a more affordable and perhaps free option? The libertarian argument comes down to whether implementing a universal health care system actually restricts individuals rights. Libertarians and conservatives argue it would. They believe it would restrict competition and deprive us of options. However, this argument is flawed. First, the current system already restricts competition and consumer freedom of choice. Most consumers get insurance through their employer, and it is the employer, not the consumer who has the ultimate say in the choice of plans. Additionally, those who do not get insurance through their employer find that there are not enough affordable choices for them to acquire insurance on their own. In many cases, they are turned down by the insurance companies due to their perceived risk. The consumer is not sovereign in the insurance market, thereby defeating the foundation of pure competition.

A public health option in contrast, would allow for market forces to work in the consumer’s favor once again. Those who are happy with their current private insurance can choose to stay with it, while giving a choice to those who are unhappy with the current system to switch to the public option. Those with private insurance would actually benefit from others accessing a public health option. This is because the costs of covering the uninsured that are currently being passed to the insured from health care providers would no longer be applied. This would drive the premium prices down. Private insurers would have to offer better benefits at more affordable prices in order to effectively compete with the public health option.

Many contend that the public option would “kill” competition and drive private insurers out of business, because no one would want to pay for private insurance. They say the public option would “crowd out the private sector” (Boehner, 2009). This is the most nonsensical argument of them all. If people choose the public option it is due to two market based principles: It offers what they need at a better price. If private insurers are unable to offer the same or better benefits than a public option at a better price, they deserve to be driven out of business by the almighty “invisible hand”.

Labels: Boehner, Congress, Free Market, Health Care Reform, Libertarianism, Libertarians, Obama, Republicans, Universal Health Care

Labels: Clinton, legislative career, Obama, senate bills, senate laws

I saw this image posted in a Facebook group and I thought it deserved a post. First of all, I got to say that it is the greatest piece of propaganda ever designed. It had me there for a second, until I started to look at the image with a real critical eye. I asked myself, what is missing here? Where do I fit in this picture? I find myself nowhere in this picture. Not that I was hoping to have my picture somewhere in this poster, but I was looking to find the group of people that would represent me in the pyramid. My group is missing or is being misrepresented. It is missing the middle class, the educated professionals, the intellectuals, the scientists, the engineers, the Doctors, the lawyers. In other words, people who are not part of the ruling class and that still work for their money.

The first level: these are the blue collar workers and the poor peasants that work for a minimum salary. They appear to be heavily exploited by the upper bourgeoisie class, because their sole purpose is to make the food for them. Per this poster the proletariat are not consumers, they are producers.

The second level: these is the bourgeoisie class. Apparently, they have nothing better to do than to drink wine and have parties at the expense of the poor. They appear to serve no purpose on society, other than to leach on everyone else. Since it seems that by definition I am part of the bourgeoisie, I see no resemblance of me in this portrayal.

The third level: these is the military. They are pictured here as ready to shoot the proletariat if they rise up.

The fourth level: these is the clergy. They are pictured here as the masters of manipulation and deceit. They are in cahoots with the ruling class.

The fifth level: these is the ruling class. The politicians, the ultra rich and powerful. People who run the government and ultimately reap the rewards of all the hard work from those at the bottom.


So there you have it. All layed out for you in an easy to understand pyramid that explains it all. Stinks if you are a blue collar worker right? Of course, the poster conveniently ommits the fact that the pyramid levels are connected by ladders. Nothing is really keeping the lower level from moving up the ladder, by earning a degree and getting a better paying job. The pyramid pictures the bourgeoisie class as idle rich people and forgets to acknowledge that within that class there are people essential for a functioning society (Doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, scientists etc). Additionally, picturing the military at the top of the bourgeoisie, is not real. In a capitalist society, the military is more at the bottom of the pyramid with the blue collar workers. The clergy is also not at the top level in most free market economies, their power has practically dissapeared in first world countries. The ruling class is an accurate portrayal.

While I agree that savage capitalism is exactly what the word implies, I don't agree that communism or socialism are the answer either. At least in a capitalist society, one has the chance to pursue a better life (the pursuit of happiness???) and may be able to achieve it. Communism on the other hand, seems to get rid of all the levels in between the proletariat and the ruling class, while removing all the possibilities for the working class to ever brake out of poverty and dependance.

Socialism and communism greately depend on the poor class for survival, because no society without workers would ever function. Thus they thought it 'fair' to move even the Doctors, the engineers and all the educated people to the same level as the unskilled workers, paying the same and keeping them just as poor as the rest. Brilliant, isn't it? Well, what is the incentive for someone to go through school and become a Doctor, when they can just drive a cab and earn the same money with less effort???? I just don't get communism... Never will.

Labels: bourgeoisie, communism, economic system, proletariat, pyramid of capitalism, socialism