President Obama’s health care bill came under fire last year from both Republicans and lobbyists alike for being “too socialist,” but what I don’t understand is why the term socialism is being applied to an economically motivated bill and why the term socialism has such a negative connotation. Though President Obama’s health care plan may seem socialist at first glance, upon closer inspection it is evident that what he is really trying to do is fix the structure of America’s healthcare system.
Socialism is ingrained within American society, and allows us to have public education, law enforcement and other services that are available to all Americans essentially free of charge. Socialism is defined by its emphasis on production for the sake of public use rather than profit, as well as the absence of economic competitiveness.
“The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal…” wrote Billy Wharton of the Washington Post. Wharton goes on to explain that the clear indication that President Obama is not a socialist is that his administration is steering clear of making structural changes to the financial system, instead choosing to create temporary measures that can be easily erased once the economy stabilizes. This also holds true for health care, as President Obama is focusing on mandating that almost every person in America become insured rather than changing the structure of the health industry. If he truly were a socialist, HMOs would be dismantled and a public health option would also be mandated.
According to the New York Times, under President Obama’s bill, the over 30 million Americans who currently don’t have health care will be provided coverage. The measure would add 16 million people to the Medicaid rolls, and would also require most Americans to have health insurance. The most important aspect of the bill is that it more closely regulates private insurers in order to prevent them from denying coverage for people with pre-existing health conditions. Though the bill will cost roughly $700 billion over the next decade, it will actually reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over that same time frame, thus reducing taxpayer spending.
When President Richard Nixon agreed to the use of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) to handle health care, the quality of health care in America quickly deteriorated. HMOs have made it difficult for many individuals to receive prompt and effective health care because they are strictly profit driven, i.e. capitalist. Privately owned health insurance corporations, such as Kaiser and Cigna, have been cashing in on our nation’s corrupt health care system for years. They are notorious for denying their members of proper treatment through unconventional and discriminatory practices, all in the name of boosting stock values and increasing quarterly profits. An example of these said practices includes denying coverage for patients who have a pre-existing medical condition (i.e. arthritis, asthma, etc.), and using that as an excuse to deny coverage for a new, and often unrelated medical condition. This business model has fatal consequences because individuals who are denied life-saving treatment can end up dying.
Because health insurance companies act in this manner, many Americans are adamant about regularly going to their doctors. Most individuals feel worried that their health insurers won’t cover the costs of whatever medical bills pop up, and oftentimes leave illnesses or harmful conditions unchecked. Money is being saved in short term increments, but there is a long term cost when people avoid preventative medical care. Going to the doctor should be a casual experience, and people should not be scared to seek treatment if they need it.
President Obama was thinking long term with his medical bill, not as a socialist but as an economist. The bill has varying benefits for individuals depending on their demographics, and ends up saving a lot of money in the long run. The bill may look expensive, but in fact it was already budgeted within the government’s annual health care funds. Since it reduces the amount of money that taxpayers need to spend and makes the health care system more efficient and less discriminatory, the funds are very well allocated. There were multiple options to reduce monetary waste within our government, and this health bill was one of them. Though it doesn’t include the public health option that President Obama originally fought for, there is nothing preventing him from proposing us a much needed socialist bill in the near future. “Obamacare” was never intended to be socialist because it is more about repairing a damaged system for our economic gain. The fact that it will gradually improve our quality of living is simply an added benefit.
Originally published in the Daily Titan on September 14, 2010.
