If Paul Krugman is right and passing health care legislation should be the number one priority of Progressives, then this is welcome news. In a recent poll by the Harvard School of Public Health, a plurality of respondents (45% vs. 39%) said America would be better off with "socialized medicine." To be clear, neither Clinton nor Obama is advocating what legitimate health policy analysts would define as socialized medicine.* It cannot be said often enough…under the Clinton or Obama plan if you like your current health insurance coverage, then keep it.
Nonetheless, it is nice to know that this scare tactic is losing it's effectiveness. Voters are going to be hearing alot about health care policy this election cycle, so do yourself this favor. If a so-called analyst is overwrought about the dangers of electing Democrats because they want to "socialize medicine," know immediately that they are not honest brokers of information.
Our dark doppelganger, the John W. Pope Civitas Institute, is especially guilty of this type of red-baiting smear tactic. It is standard procedure at Civitas to invoke what they perceive to be the "fear" of socialized medicine. The Civitas' analysis apparently goes something like this: if a service is paid for with public funds, then it is "socialized." Note that this is a distinction that is unique to health care. You do not see Civitas daft over the threat of "socialized" national defense, "socialized" police and fire protection, or "socialized" public education.
A government guarantee of health insurance is hardly socialist, although it is progressive. We should not allow health care reform to be stymied by using nonsensical and irrelevant terms like "socialized medicine." Clinton and Obama have legitimate public/private health care proposals to cover 47 million uninsured Americans. John McCain…does not.
*Legitimate examples of socialized medicine would be our Veterans Administration or the UK's National Health Service. Note: Medicare, Medicaid, or S-CHIP funding are not considered part of this group.
view full archive » subscribe to feed
4 Comments Add yours »
Here’s another poll result that we’ve mentioned before — this one from the Civitas gang in October of last year:
“Do you support universal health care coverage where the Federal Government would insure that every American receives some type of health insurance coverage even if it means an increase in taxes?”
Yes 56%
No 36%
Not sure 9%
Remember that health insurance that you do not pay for is welfare. I’m tired of paying for everyone else just because I am willing to work. What happened to personal responsibility and taking care of yourself?
RE: “It cannot be said often enough…under the Clinton or Obama plan if you like your current health insurance coverage, then keep it.”
While I question the validity of this claim, I do know that Hillary has said she is willing to FORCE people to buy health insurance if they refuse:
“Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers’ wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.â€
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UJ034O1&show_article=1
If a private company FORCED its’ customers to buy its health insurance, there would be universal condemnation.
Why is it any different when a government monopoly does the same thing?
For a reality check on the American system of health care versus that in Canada, read:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mythbusting-canadian-health-care-part-i