Levellers

Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

Defending Private Property Through Universal Healthcare

At this link, there is an excellent article that argues that single-payer, universal healthcare would NOT lead to socialism, communism or fascism. Rather, it may be the best way to defend widespread home ownership and small farm ownership in America. ( 3 of 4 home foreclosures are healthcare related. 70% of bankruptcies are healthcare related.) I would also argue that it encourages small businesses (they don’t have to wonder how to provide healthcare to employees and can then offer higher wages) and makes large businesses more competitive (lack of universal healthcare adds $500-=$1000 to every car made in America, reducing our competitiveness with other countries).

I am sending this article to the WH and to leaders in Congress. We need to change the way the debate is being framed on healthcare. Please read and distribute widely.

August 15, 2009 - Posted by | economic justice, healthcare

8 Comments

  1. Free lunch. Sounds great.

    Comment by Sonic Charmer | August 15, 2009

  2. Free? No, paid for by taxes. Cheaper in terms of GDP after initial set-up? Yep. Costs more equitably defrayed? Yep. Compassionate and just? Yep.
    Better alternative to blood-sucking insurance companies that cancel policies for sick people, and earn money by denying care? Absolutely.
    Chances you’ll understand this unless the insurance companies get you or someone you love? SLIM.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | August 15, 2009

  3. Free? No, paid for by taxes.

    Right. Which “defends private property”….how?

    Cheaper in terms of GDP after initial set-up? Yep.

    That was a convincing economic/fiscal analysis. “Yep”. I’ll have to try that.

    Better alternative to blood-sucking insurance companies that cancel policies for sick people,

    Let me get this straight: are you under the impression that insurance companies and health insurance policies will cease to exist if/when the “reform” goes through? Oh boy.

    Comment by Sonic Charmer | August 15, 2009

  4. No, but I want an alternative to the tender mercies of the insurance companies.

    As for how this defends private property, I don’t think you actually read the article. EVERY government collects taxes. If slightly higher rates leads to fewer people losing homes, farms, and small businessess, then that defintely protects those private properties.

    As for the economic analysis that this is cheaper after initial set-up, it’s been done to death. I won’t repeat it. We pay more in GDP and get less in this country for what we pay for than ANY OTHER INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | August 15, 2009

  5. No, but I want an alternative to the tender mercies of the insurance companies.

    Me too, but I prefer good alternatives to bad ones. Many of the things people complain about re: our current system are caused by government distortion of the market. More government is not the solution to problems it creates.

    EVERY government collects taxes.

    Sure, but the more taxes are taken, the less property rights people have. You’d think this would be germaine to an argument asserting that such-and-such policy that would require increasing taxes would “defend private property”.

    If slightly higher rates leads to fewer people losing homes, farms, and small businessess, then that defintely protects those private properties.

    And if it doesn’t? Or if “slightly higher” rates aren’t enough to accomplish those things?

    Why don’t I just steal all your money. Hey, if that prevents me from losing my home, then I’ve “protected private property”. Still don’t see anything wrong with this line of argument?

    As for the economic analysis that this is cheaper after initial set-up, it’s been done to death.

    I love this sort of thing, I really do. Step 1: make sweeping unsubstantiated contentless substance-free assertion. Step 2: when called on it and challenged to back up this assertion, just say “oh, it’s been done to death”.

    It’s so easy to argue for stuff when you don’t have to construct actual arguments!

    Comment by Sonic Charmer | August 15, 2009

  6. Good alternatives: Well, a Canadian style seems to work best, but it’s not even being considered. ANYTHING is better than the insurance companies. I could tell you horror stories all night long. If there is a hell, the CEOs of all these “death-by-spreadsheet” ghouls are headed there.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | August 16, 2009

  7. What do you know about “Canadian style” exactly?

    Again, nobody is proposing to get rid of insurance companies. I’m not sure where you’re getting this. But I guess I understand that it’s easier to become highly in favor of some reform proposal if you feel free to just make up stuff about it and fantasize about what you think it will accomplish. In your case, you’ve decided (based on nothing) that this proposal will get rid of, or you somehow won’t have to deal with, insurance companies anymore. Fascinating.

    Comment by Sonic Charmer | August 16, 2009

  8. […] the public healthcare will give everyone a nice pony too, it’s all just moving deck chairs on the […]

    Pingback by Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e81v1 | August 17, 2009


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: