Let's start with the meaning of the word. Unfortunately, the definition isn't really precise. There's a really long wikipedia article about it, that is worth reading through, even if you don't read every word.
The short version of the definition as I understand it, and as I use it, includes the idea that the government controls some resources for the benefit of all its citizens. Maybe my definition is off. But I think I'm close enough for a working definition. To give you an idea of my definition in practice: I consider the fire department to be a socialist construct. Our tax money is used by our government to provide a service we don't all use, but which we want in place. It has the potential to benefit all of us. It's there for all of us.
And I don't think anyone wants to complain about paying taxes that are used to fund a fire department.
But, if you say the word "socialism", it seems to draw a nasty reaction from a fair number of the people I communicate with. The word seems to be a dirty word, and when people argue against another socialist idea, universal healthcare, the argument made is simply that it is socialist as if that ends the argument.
But it really doesn't make a good argument. Police departments, the military, public school, road maintenance, child protective services, and as already mentioned: fire departments, are all socialist concepts. Tax money (resources) from all of us supports those services that all of us do or can benefit from. Are those bad ideas because they are socialist in nature?
Let's consider the idea of universal healthcare, and take it past the point where someone calls it socialist in a dismissive way.
Right now, because medical costs can get to be enormous, most of us have a health insurance membership. Usually, some part of our pay from our jobs gets taken out automatically and sent to one of these health care companies. Then if we have a medical need that costs money, we get in touch with our health insurance company, and ask them for money. This is the maddening part. They can deny us coverage... they don't have to give us money. If they can find an excuse, they can deny us coverage.
Okay, there's a more maddening part. While we're giving them money so they can deny us coverage, they're paying the top-level people millions of dollars a year. In bonuses. I worked for a software branch of one of these health care companies, and I have a very strong and upset memory of being told there would be no raises that year because the company overall wasn't doing very well. And then that same year, the publicly traded company announced its numbers and the top-level managers were getting bonuses in the millions of dollars. I was very angry.
That's the capitalist way of doing things. And for the most part, I think that the competition of a free market is a good thing. But for healthcare, I think it's a bad thing. When the poor family has a 6 year-old with a heart problem that needs incredibly expensive surgery to live, their options are limited. One of those options is going into incredible debt that the family is likely to never recover from so the child can live.
Money decides who gets medical help. And that means that a lot of people don't get medical help they need. At the same time, there are very rich people sitting at the top making more money in one year than most of us will make in a life-time of work. This situation makes me angry. Selfish people making money from the suffering of millions of people.
Now instead of the capitalist solution, let's just think about the socialist solution. I know the word makes some people cringe, but it shouldn't. It's just a different way of doing things.
Medical costs might still be enormous if all we change is the health insurance industry. And we probably still need insurance in case of big medical costs. Changing it from a private industry with those jerks at the top making millions of dollars from denying us coverage, to a government run organization that provides service to all citizens, changes it from a decision based on whether you have money, to a decision about whether the medical need is genuine.
And no one at the top is making millions of dollars. In your paycheck, you'll still only see a similar amount taken out of your check. Maybe less, because we don't have to cover the salaries and bonuses of rich jerks. We don't ruin the job market because we'll still need people to run the new health care organization. We make things better for people that need medical help (which I'm in favor of). And the only people that suffer from this change are the rich jerks that were screwing over millions of people including their employees (which I'm also in favor of).
It's a simple good idea that is seemingly opposed because it comes with the word "socialism".
I'm not suggesting we turn the United States into a socialist country. But some things like road work, and fire fighters, and police, and public school are better when the population of the country comes together and helps each other out. By that I mean: we all accept that our tax money gets spent on those things. And Universal Health Care is an excellent example of something that should be tax funded and provided to all citizens.
One argument against it that I'd like to address is the one: I won't use it, so why should I pay? It's very selfish question. Right there you have an answer. You should want to pay because it helps humanity. Other people. Like you. Maybe who aren't as lucky as you having perfect health and never needing medical attention. But there's also that you can't know you'll never need it. That's what insurance is for. And maybe we can also remember that we're trying to be part of a country... a group of people that supposedly are part of one "tribe". If you choose to not pay into the system, you're not part of it. If you don't want to be part of the group of people, then I hope you're not being a hypocrite by benefiting from anything else the government provides. Like roads. Or the protection of the military or the police. Or school.
I completely agree that things like computers, cars, houses, and so on should be part of a free market. But services that are necessary to live shouldn't be decided by capitalism. Medical care is not a luxury, and I'm not okay with punishing a family with a sick kid for being poor.
The combination of capitalism and socialism is possible. We're already doing it. We just need to do it better. And socialism has to stop being a dirty word. We need to start considering ideas based on their merit instead of their label.
No comments:
Post a Comment