I’m not exactly a huge Hillary Clinton fan, but this brief video of her responding to an idiot questioner calling universal medicine “socialized” is pretty funny! Almost more amusing is that there was a Republican in the audience of African-American journalists!
Categories: Uncategorized
I also agree with many of you. The plan that Hillary proposes is not the way. It takes away our right to choose what type of insurance we want and she wants to force everyone to pay. If she takes away our right to choose insurance providers whats next?
I also agree with many of you. The plan that Hillary proposes is not the way. It takes away our right to choose what type of insurance we want and she wants to force everyone to pay. If she takes away our right to choose insurance providers whats next?
I think this video brings up some interesting issues that seem to be playing a large role in the debate about what to do about America’s uninsured population and yet are largely misrepresented and/or misunderstood by much of the population.
Both the questioner and Clinton imply that a “socialized” program, at least as far as medical care, has some kind of intrinsic defect. The questioner says that socialized systems of medicine disproportionately hurt the poor, which seems a bit contradictory given that the United States, with its largely private health insurance system, has the largest health disparities and very modest (at best) health outcomes compared to developed nations. Clinton defends her platform by asking if the questioner thinks that Medicare is “socialized,” to which he replies “to some extent…”, and she replies “…then you’re in the minority” and lists the positive effects of that program. To me, it seems like they’re both agreeing that “socialized” programs are bad and are disagreeing as to whether or not her plan is “socialized health care”.
It is understandable, given the United State’s history, that there is an intense fear of socialism (read: communism) in our society, but there is a big difference between a socialized program and socialism. As Peter pointed out, many of our systems are socialized, even if people don’t necessarily think of them as being that way – although, I would hesitate to bring up Medicare Part D or farm subsidies as triumphs of socialized programs, but then those are both separate discussions entirely. This distinction is significant but involves perhaps more explanation than political candidates are willing to give or the American public is willing to hear.
Something else that I think this brings up is the distinction between universal health coverage and socialized health care, two distinct concepts that often seem to be equated in political discussions. Universal health care or health coverage simply means that all citizens are able to utilize the health care system or have their costs covered by some mechanism. Socialized health care implies that the national government is in some way involved in the administration of this system.
The United States, as Clinton mentioned, has the highest proportion of uncovered individuals of any developed nation, which has resulted in the call for universal health coverage. This does not mean, however, that if the United States adopts a policy of universal health coverage that it must adopt socialized health care. Just because everyone in a society is covered does not mean the government has to be in charge of everyone’s insurance as in the single payer system (which I personally think is a pretty bad idea, at least in this country) or the administration of everyone’s medical care (which I personally think would result in disastrous consequences).
Clearly health coverage and health care systems are incredibly complicated. Everyone knows this, and it would be unreasonable to expect the entire American public to learn all the nuances of different health care systems. It seems equally fallacious, however, not even to attempt to explain any of these distinctions to the public and instead have candidates snipe back and forth at each other calling each other socialists or radicals or indignantly refuting such slanderous accusations. If these problems are really going to be solved, it will take, among many other things, a rational and thoughtful (and hopefully bipartisan) debate and the proposal of numerous solutions attacked and defended with more sophistication than “You’re a socialist!” “No I’m not!”
That all said, I do still love a good old-fashioned tongue lashing.
I am not a clinton fan
Was that Stuart Browning undercover?
“Almost more amusing is that there was a Republican in the audience of African-American journalists!” Okay, you lost me with that one.
Anyway, what is “socialized” medicine to Americans? I don’t get it. Or do they prefer the “unsocialized” medicine that the former Mayor of NY wants so that his Republican, big-monied buddies in insurance companies can continue to line their coffers with your monies? You know, the one, that leaves you one catastrophic event away from the poorhouse.
VA is “socialized” medicine, medicare is “socialized” medicine, Med. PartD is “socialized” medicine, Medicare Advantage is “socialized” medicine, DOD is “socialized” defense, police departments are “socialized” protection, fire departments are “socialized” fire protection, agriculture subsidies are “socialized” farming, corporate tax incentives are “socialized” production, school system is “socialized” education.
Boy do I wish we had “socialized” political funding.