Wednesday, February 9, 2011

The new Conservative attack: birth of a moniker, "Fascialism"

I'm behind the times. Libertarians have seized upon this made up word that merges Fascism with Socialism, to attack health care reform.

It is difficult to understand how Fascism and Socialism can co-exist under the same body.  Fascialism presupposes the co-existence and competition of Government-owned systems and Government-controlled systems within the same market.  If that were true, the Government-controlled systems would have failed a long time ago, as it could not compete on price and value with the Government-owned systems.  That is often the contention of those who argue against Socialism in health care, after all.

But let's take a look at what socialized health care entails:

Whereas the poor and disabled receive medical help via Medicaid programs, they would otherwise not participate in private health care, simply because they do not have the money to afford it.  Government-owned system does not compete with private health care.

Whereas the elderly who have reached retirement age now qualify for Medicare, their cost to the private system and the cost to the individual is so great, that one cannot purchase individual coverage on the open market, and is simply passed off to Medicare.  Look at your employer-sponsored health care terms and cost, and then look at what an individual at age 40  and age 64 pay.  Do you know many people nearing retirement age that could afford $800+ a month, just for health care?  Government-owned system does not compete with private health care.

Of course, there is always Ron Paul and his theories.  If Ron Paul is to be believed, Corporatists are to blame for the woes of the health care system, not Socialists.  Of course, there is disingenuity in his assertion, aside from his twist of Corporatism.  Were it not for such (true) corporatist requirements that all hospitals treat people regardless of ability to pay, would we prefer to have millions of dead people on our hands?

I am increasingly disillusioned by the lack of honesty in such political (and economic) debates.

No comments: