Obamacare

I started to write this when asking myself "What is socialism and where does Barrack Obama stand in the spectrum?" After all we have the socialists claiming he isn't a socialist, and possibly making their case, but I feel that "Obamacare" is very socialist in nature. Maybe we should start with the definition of socialism according to Wikipedia:

Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer. Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism (a stage in which the working class controlled the state and owned the means of production before the state and classes withered away) would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, and would be a transitional stage between capitalism and communism (the final stage in which class dichotomies and the state itself ceased to exist).

The Utopian socialists, including Robert Owen, tried to found self-sustaining socialist communities within a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon, the first individual to coin the term socialism, was the original thinker who advocated technocracy and industrial planning. The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization, and many contemporary socialists share this belief. Early socialist thinkers tended to favor an authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and the revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).

Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies, with private ownership of property and of profit-making business. Social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets. Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as "socialists", introducing a degree of ambiguity to the understanding of what the term means.

Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

According to this definition, there are many different kinds of socialism. Often times, separated by a pretty fine line, and some gray area for interpretation. Isn't this often the case in politics and/or religion though? Despite that, can we determine if Barrack Obama is a socialist based on the above, and despite the fact that the Socialist Party saying he is not?

I think that he is behaving in very socialists ways. With or without conscious knowledge, is not my call. He is not a strict socialists by any means, but more closely aligned with a social democrat definition. This is the definition used to describe the type of government used in the United Kingdom. It also best describes the practices that are most commonly associated with a welfare state as we have come to know it.

In my opinion, the most shining example is "Obamacare". From what I gather, "Obamacare" isn't true social medicine, but it is my opinion that it will lead to it. According to Obama's webiste alone, the socialists factor isn't readily visible, but when reading it, you have to ask yourself how to accomplish the goals that he outlines there.

Here is what appears on this website:

The Current Situation

Making sure every American has access to high quality health care is one of the most important challenges of our time. The number of uninsured Americans is growing, premiums are skyrocketing, and more people are being denied coverage every day. A moral imperative by any measure, a better system is also essential to rebuilding our economy -- we want to make health insurance work for people and businesses, not just insurance and drug companies.

The Solution

*Reform the health care system:

We will take steps to reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.

*Promote scientific and technological advancements:

We are committed to putting responsible science and technological innovation ahead of ideology when it comes to medical research. We believe in the enormous capacity of American ingenuity to find cures for diseases that continue to extinguish too many lives and cause too much suffering every year.

*Improve preventative care:

In order to keep our people healthy and provide more efficient treatment we need to promote smart preventative care, like cancer screenings and better nutrition, and make critical investments in electronic health records, technology that can reduce errors while ensuring privacy and saving lives.

When I read this, the first thing I asked myself was how do you ensure affordable health care for all citizens while making it accessible to all? How do you reform health care, promote scientific and technological advances, and improve preventative care while keeping health care affordable and accessible to all? Can that even be done? I am not apt to think so.

All of those things will cost money. When things cost money, who pays for it? Certainly not those that aren't working, and therefore do not have health insurance. Certainly not those who can't afford private health insurance when their employers don't offer it. It won't cost the insurance companies a dime that the won't be passed back to the people they are insuring. County run hospitals, that treat patients they know can't pay for services received, already receive money from state, local and federal governments to offset these costs. When that isn't enough the prices for treatments needed by those who can pay, will just go up on the whole to offset the hospital's loss. That is the way the system works now, and yes, portions of this system stink. Is the alternative better though? Is "Obamacare" the way to go? Or is the way to fix this? Or will it ultimately make things worse?

Lets look at eight principles that Obama wants Congress to follow, to transform and modernize the American health care system, to see if his way will work.

1. Protect Families’ Financial Health. The plan must reduce the growing premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness.

OK. This is great in theory, but let's take a closer look shall we? I will use myself as an example. I protect myself against growing premiums by making sure that I have a job that offers stable benefits, and preventative health coverage. Employers know that employees are looking for this. A lot of employers offer competitive benefits packages. That is how they attract the skilled and intelligent workforce. If I could not obtain decent benefits for me and my family, that I could afford, I would be looking for a job where I could obtain this goal. I might take a job that didn't help me reach my goal to make ends meet, but just for the time being. I would still be searching out something better. What's that you say? You live in a small community? Employers that offer good benefits don't exist where you live? Well, pull up stakes, and go somewhere you can. Employers will get the hint if they can't find employees. You don't want to live in a big city? Well you don't have to live in a big city, but perhaps that is why the city stays the size it does. Perhaps it is because I am not the only one who isn't afraid of a change of venue if it means I can afford to live healthy, and comfortable. Moving isn't the only option though. Private health insurance exists. The key is, get it before you know you are dying of cancer or the baby is on the way. It is for these reasons that I don't think that the problem is the system. The problem is that some people do not take steps to protect themselves, or acknowledge that the way they plan their future is the problem.

2. Make Health Coverage Affordable. The plan must reduce high administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, waste, and other inefficiencies that consume money with no added health benefits.

Who determines what is necessary? Who determines what is beneficial? Did you know the test is unnecessary before the test comes back negative? Did you know that Captain Dramatic has a nervous stomach? That when he gets upset he has symptoms that mimic appendicitis? I didn't either until the doctors tested him one morning in the ER. He had an elevated white blood cell count, so they did the abdominal scan to rule out appendicitis. As a mother, I was really glad they did, but the health insurance company deemed it unnecessary. I spent hours arguing with them. Asking them where they received their medical degree and what qualified them to make that assumption. I asked them where they got that working crystal ball, and who endowed them with ESP. I asked them why they worked where they did when they had a fully functioning sixth sense. Do you want your doctor and yourself making that call? Or the government and the insurance company? Some doctors do order unnecessary tests, but personally, I get a second opinion, and use common sense. I ask a lot of questions. I am not afraid to ask, what if I don't have this test? I ask for alternatives to the test. If I am unsure, I read up on it, or ask people in my life who may know, so that I am better educated.

As for high administrative costs, I know my business is very good at monitoring that aspect of our health care plan. We all should be. This isn't the best practice for a health insurance company, private practice, or a hospital anyway. If someone can get the same thing for cheaper down the road, they will. That monitors the administrative costs.

The last group of people I would ever want to monitor either of these things is the government. They are known for excessive spending and waste, and to fix it, they just raise taxes which costs us more money. The less money I have, and the less money the rest of the people in this country have, the less we spend. Companies then make less money and can't provide benefits to employees. A viscous cycle isn't it?

3. Aim for Universality. The plan must put the United States on a clear path to cover all Americans.

Universality? Are we all the same? Do we have the same medical needs? On the simplest level, some of us can give birth to our children without pain medication, while others of us can't even deal well with the last three months of the pregnancy with any grace. Is every pregnancy the same, or every delivery? Are we all in the same health condition prior to pregnancy? Bottom line, should I have to pay via taxes or otherwise, when I have a job and work hard to keep one, when the person next to me doesn't work and has no intention of doing so? And why should they? The government will take care of them. Why take personal responsibility when someone will do it for you.

4. Provide Portability of Coverage. People should not be locked into their job just to secure health coverage, and no American should be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.

This is probably the only one of these that I can see any good in, but even it can go wrong. First, understand that if you lose your job, you can continue benefit coverage now through COBRA, at a cost. Often times a high cost, but this is available. Heck, that is an incentive to look for a new job! During the time that you are unemployed though, now that you have plenty of free time, you can start doing the research on private insurance companies, and be looking for a job with benefits at the same time. After all, since you took some personal responsibility, you probably have a little something saved to help get you through this tough time. This may not be the time to be participating in activities that are more apt to put you at greater risk for injury either though.

The part of this that I feel is has some potential for good is the part about not being denied for coverage when you have a preexisting illness. If you have lost your job, and your health coverage with it, than other insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny you coverage. You need the treatment, and the coverage. In these situations though, you should expect to have a higher premium. You would expect no less on your car insurance if you had tons of speeding tickets and accidents on your record. Both preexisting illness and accidents happen through no fault of your own on occasion.

5.Guarantee Choice. The plan should provide Americans a choice of health plans and physicians. They should have the option of keeping their employer-based health plan.

Now, this is one of the areas I see leading to social medicine. I can choose to use my employers health plan, or pick a private plan? I can already do that. Right? I can, so maybe this means something else. Maybe it means I can stay with my employers plan, or use one of governments choosing? Doesn't the government already has Medicare? I know a lot of doctors who won't even accept it. How does that guarantee choice? It limits the pool of options if you ask me. From another angle, if the employers plan isn't cheaper, because the government subsidized plans to guarantee medical coverage to all, than most everyone will go with what it. Cheaper is better to many people. If this were the case, that would drive the cost of employer plans sky high with fewer employees opting for them. God help us all. Wouldn't all of this just be a fancy name for social medicine? Seriously, hasn't the government tried this on a small scale and failed miserably? Does Medicare and the Department of Veterans Administration ring any bells? From where I sit, they aren't doing very well with either. Does anyone remember the Medicare prescription drug fiasco?

6. Invest in Prevention and Wellness. The plan must invest in public health measures proven to reduce cost drivers in our system—such as obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and smoking — as well as guarantee access to proven preventive treatments.

There are so many options out there for just this. Tons of non-profit organizations who teach these practices, publish literature and have websites designed just for these aliments and addictions. We have education in schools that teach our children of these dangers. Group therapy/treatment is often available for free or at a very minimal cost. The fact remains, people do what they want, and don't take personal responsibility for these actions. The resources are already there and accessible. People aren't making use of the tools and knowledge they have been given. Unless Obama intends on mandating utilization of these resources he will not be able to change any of the items mentioned above. Mandating state or privately run programs would go against constitutional rights, and that is never a good idea.

7. Improve Patient Safety and Quality Care. The plan must ensure the implementation of proven patient safety measures and provide incentives for changes in the delivery system to reduce unnecessary variability in patient care. It must support the widespread use of health information technology and the development of data on the effectiveness of medical interventions to improve the quality of care delivered.

What leads him to believe that this doesn't exist and isn't being done? I have heard of people having the wrong leg amputated, and that is more tragic than I care to discuss, but do you think that mistake went unanswered? How does he think this country became known for the best medical care and most innovative treatments in the world? We already have more of what he mentioned than 99% of the countries on the planet. There is always room for improvement, but the side-effects should never outnumber the symptoms that are being treated.

8. Maintain Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability. The plan must pay for itself by reducing the level of cost growth, improving productivity, and dedicating additional sources of revenue.

This one is an oxymoron if I have ever heard one. The plan must pay for itself by dedicating additional sources of revenue? Additional sources of revenue? Such as? From where? "Get your car smog-checked while getting your annual check-up!", "When you spend $300.00 in our gift shop you get free wart removal!", and I am sure I can come up with others. What about reducing the level of cost growth? Is he going to do this by using aluminum in the pins used to reconstruct a blown knee instead of surgical steel? Or is he going to control the cost by introducing salary caps and pay cuts to doctors, nurses, and all of the other support staff? Neither is a good option, and both will have horrific ramifications on the economy and on the quality of care. I say all this because medical institutions are just like every other business in this country, and are probably already controlling costs in every way acceptable. Not only that, but after seeing what he has done to the country's deficit in an attempt to bail out big business, I really don't feel him qualified to speak about fiscal responsibility on any level.

People need to take personal responsibility for their needs. They need to make appropriate decisions to facilitate these needs. They need to be educated, and use common sense. Big government has never proven itself to capable of doing anything that didn't cost more and result in long lines and waits, and have only shown a grave deficiency the few times that they have tried. Socializing medicine will not fix any existing problems, only create more. Not only that, but governments seem to be wasteful by their very definition anymore.

To anyone who feels that my statements are wrong I ask you, to ask yourself one question. "What countries have made social medicine work?" There are a few that have come close, so once you have named one, then please, read this article, and this one, to further educate yourself, and know that when you do read them, these are not isolated incidents.