With Capitalism Under Siege, The Anti-Single Payer Crowd Needs New Rhetoric
For the past seven days, much of the world has been riveted by the unfolding economic crisis and the efforts of government institutions to staunch the bleeding. The New York Times reported yesterday that the United States and Britain are currently working on a joint response to the crisis. The upshot: the countries are considering partly nationalizing banks in order to (hopefully) stabilize them.
Ever since the great debate over the $700 billion rescue plan passed by Congress recently, we have witnessed the socialization of free market economies across the world. Citizens are watching in fear and apprehension as their governments attempt to save their bank deposits and retirement accounts. Although many are conflicted by these activities, most agree that something must be done. Interestingly, for conservatives in the US, government has suddenly become a force for good rather than a source of evil.
Given this, I thought that an e-mail I recently received from the Cato Institute about Barack Obama’s health plan seemed especially jarring. The think tank will soon publish a new Briefing Paper, “Does Barack Obama Support Socialized Medicine?†Cato’s Michael Cannon answers that question with a resounding “yes.â€
For many years, opponents of massive government intervention in the US health system have used the term “socialized medicine†to convince people that this strategy is a bad idea. However, many people also believed that our financial institutions needed fewer regulations rather than more. Now, it is abundantly clear that this philosophy has led to many unintended consequences. Now people are calling for increased government intervention and more stringent regulation.
Now, what does this mean for healthcare? Currently, the economic crisis is causing increasing numbers of Americans to forgo much-needed medical care. In addition, with unemployment steadily increasing, many more people are going to be without health insurance. Given these trends, the term “socialized medicine†becomes a lot less scary. People – especially those with young children – will want access to health care, even if it is subsidized and more heavily regulated by the government.
As a communicator, I make it my business to understand when a message is either ineffective or beginning to ring false. Arguing against single-payer health care because it will be akin to socialized medicine no longer works in the current environment. Free marketers need to come up with some new rhetoric.
October 11th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Except that the banks aren’t being nationalised, a public stake in them is merely being offered (although in the UK this offer has yet to be taken up by any bank, and the US has not yet formally made the offer). In other words, the banks will still pursue their individual commercial strategies and compete with each other, which is not a Socialist scenario. Indeed, the public stakes are offered merely to allow the banks to increase their somewhat stressed capitalisation to meet existing regulatory requirements, should they be unable to recapitalise on the open market. The irony of course is that these regulatory requirements can themselves be seen more as part of the problem than part of the solution — force a bank to make massive provision for bad debts, and human nature ensures that it will be less fussy about evaluating the risk of each individual new debtor it takes on….
In any case, as everyone with an education ought to be able to realise, this is a sideshow – the “active ingredient” in the UK’s plan is the underwriting of interbank lending.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
The single payer system can be implemented in the U.S. without cause for alarm. Similar systems are used across the globe successfully. While the issue is highly polarized it need not be. Private payers can still compete in the free market like they do now. The big change that will be needed for healthcare if such a system is implemented is the national expansion of services from our current status. I suspect that over the coming years demand for healthcare services will grow and a single payer system may cause a spike in demand for services. Either way I agree the rhetoric needs to be refreshed.
October 17th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
[...] I digress. Fard Johnmar, at Envisioning 2.0, says with capitalism is under siege, the anti-single payer crowd needs new rhetoric. “Currently, the economic crisis is causing increasing numbers of Americans to forgo [...]
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (67.59.157.190) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP () and so is spam.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:59 am
I have just learned about your writing, it’s excellent. I am a former press secretary of the RNC back in the mid to late 80s. The issue of whether healthcare is a right, responsiblity, or privlidge is critical to your question. I believe capitalism is under fire. In fact I’d like to see the equation that goes something like this.
Total amount of revenue generated by an average family compared to the total cost of an average family. That will determine if the advances of our society in mortality and technology has outpaced our ability to pay for them.
All the best,
November 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Albert:
Thanks for your kind words about the blog. I have a question about your equation though: what would be the action or actions we should take based on the results of this calculation?
Fard