Why Obama’s views on public health regarded so radical and he be dubbed Socialist? Is Socialism a bad word?
I am no American, nor profess to understand why he [President Obama] should be so demonized! All I understand is that he wants to offer his people a choice between health insurances offered by ’private enterprise’ and the State. The choice still will be with the masses.
What one fails to understand is that - is the government not accountable for administering policies for good of public? Should not the government intervene when ’market forces’ become subservient to forces of greed and profit at the cost of destabilizing any established social order? Just in case my usage of ‘Established Social Order’ offends the sensibility of any of my friends, I will use a term closer to their heart, ‘Established Industrial Order’. Or, better still, ’Established Economic Order’, though I think the term ‘social’ is more appropriate as it encompasses human activities (needs & desires) beyond the realm of trade and commerce.
True, central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. It implies that the resources of the world are owned in common by the entire global population. However, it really does not make sense for everybody to own everything in common. Yes, some goods tend to be for personal consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. Yes, the concept of private ownership and its ‘reward’ for enterprise has definite merit. Then so does the concept of ‘corporate citizenship’ and being one's brother and sister’s keeper... or is it too socialist a viewpoint!
In practice, common ownership implies everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources should be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions. MNCs may serve well for the ’developed western world’ interests but not necessarily in the interest of rest of the world. Is building of a Just Social Order and addressing ‘social injustice’ a dream, nay, should be mandatory to all forms of government. Is the concept of the welfare state a form of socialism!
Enlightened Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism, an Arcadian or Utopian concept, refers to a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social and political decisions that affect them. I think for this to happen should not the populace be educated and well versed in logic before they can make an informed choice/decision. But some group of thinkers, in America, may find ‘Education for All’ or the concept of ‘Affordable Education for All’ – socialistic!
Production of goods and services, under tenets of socialism, should cater to human primary needs and then, only then, for other forms of gratification. You may wonder how would or who would decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety.
In MATTHEW 19:23 we find Jesus warning about the peril of riches, but at the beginning of MATTHEW chapter 20 (verse 1), Jesus compares God to a wealthy landowner. Is the problem wealth itself or something else? In LUKE 12:16-21 we have the parable of the rich fool. Was the man's sin in having wealth?
Maybe, Socialism is not so bad a concept, at least in parts...surely un-reigned forces of free market did muck up and create the present day economic scenario. I hope, my friends will throw some light and help redeem my blurred vision for I am neither a Socialist nor a Capitalist!
Comments:
Chakravarthi Suchindranam no american either, but i understand practical "socialism" ... have had occasion to sample it. the amorphous american "state" is not, has never been, and will not be in the conceivable future, "people friendly". hence the opposition, imho ....
Joyce Singha-Ghosh As I understand, the govt run policy will be like the one in India, which I remember was in complete shambles. As I have never experienced it here in the Sates, I wouldn't know and in reality would like to see how it works out. But the bottom line is any govt run programs are a mess just because nobody takes responsibility and nobody is answerable ... Read moreto anyone. It's like they say the system is bad. All in all we have to pay which ever way one looks at it. There's no free ride. The current one with private health and insurance sucks because it is so expensive.
Adil Abdalla Should I say that the true triggers of this fierce battle has nothing to do with either political theme or social platforms.. I can read it in a different manner as a battle to maintain or reduce the profitability of insurance industry.. In many countries, west, north and east; the so called universal health care is provided, either within public ... Read moreor private programs.. The giant US Insurance enterprising already covers the assets of the entire world at $ 36 trillion, which is simple triple the actual value..!! This had been little mentioned as contributor to the financial crisis..
Rashid Narain Shukul Finally, somebody hit the nail... it is all about the economics. It is about factions wanting to protect their deep pockets and the rest is politics....
Adil Abdalla No wonder that Obama will eventually lose it, while a new Democratic Candidate for 2013 is in the selction process by the System Guardians....!!
Maliha Raza Khan Actually - most common americans wont mind a government run health care system - so long as they get good qualiity medical care and lower insurance bills! We are one such family!
Mark Young The main problem people here have with this program deals with govermental intrusion into our lives. 83% of U.S. citizens already have health insurance in one form or another, and 100% have access to health care. All this new health care programs that is trying to be forced upon us just deals with the goverment having control over it's citizen's ... Read morehealth care. With this new system, I will eventually lose the insurance I have and be forced to purchase the goverment's plan on top of drastically raised income taxes. It will cut 20% of what is paid into the senior citizen's Medicare program, effectively destroying the health plans that they get now. The goverment will pay doctors less than they are now, causing more and more doctors refusing to accept the goverments health plan. That will lead to rationing what little care that will be provided by doctors who will take it.
There will be less care availble to those who cannot afford it, while those who can afford to pay out of pocket will still get the best care available as soon as they need it. Doctors will have lines just to schedule an appointment. This will end up being worse than what we have now. Is the current system in this country perfect? By no means it... Read more isn't. What system is perfect? If anyone can get immediately access to emergency care or go to a free health clinic for minor needs or even qualify for medicade for more serious problems, why should this system be destroyed for the goverment just to have more control over it's citizen's health care? No one in this country wants to see their felow citizens go without medical care, we just don't want the goverment to control our care or force us to purchase their product under the threat of tax penaltys.
To add another point, this proposed program will actually costs the majority of Americans even more money. Higher income taxes along with having to pay a premimum for the goverment's plan will cost people a lot more in the long run. The only ones who will not end up paying more than now are those who already aren't paying for anything. It has ... Read morealso been shown that in other countries that have universal health plans where everyone has equal access to health care does not mean they recieve any better health care. Acuatally, they get less time with doctors and worse care because of the increased workload.
From what everyone has read, it is quite obvious that I am against this goverment plan. I don't mind paying a little more to help those who need it, but to give up a double digit percentage of my income to get less care is wrong. Not only that, this plan is completely unfair to those who really don't need or want to have health insurance. I have... Read more 2 step-sons, ages 20 and 21, both of whom are very healthy and in no need of insurance at this time. Under this plan, the will have to purchase what the goverment offers. The big problem is that the goverment has an across the board plan rate. This means they could be paying the same amout monthly that I do ( I pay $200 a month now just for my plan). Why should 2 healthy men be paying the same amount for something they may not even want to use less care than someone like me who is on a lot of medicines for Diabetes and Choloesterol problems? That is unfair to them. There are way too many flaws with this plan to be put into action.
There are many other things that can be done to help those without insurance who want or need it to be able to afford to get some insurance without the goverment taking control. I will shut up now.....: )
Dee Parker We beed ti help ourselves & each other. What has happened to this country that we have forgotten the Golden Rule. We need to get rid of lobbiest oa all kinds & stop our legilsators from taking $$ for their votes in congress. Please keep an open mind. Our President has put out a wish list & the legislator needs to be locked up until they get their ... Read morework done. Be kind, considerate & hewlpful to all & you shall receive ten fold back. The USA big bus. Wall Street, Ins. Banks & greedy people have left the USA & the world in a terrible place, all for $$$ in their pockets.
Joyce Singha-Ghosh I am glad you invited this informal debate without all of us calling each other names etc. Quite a civil debate in fact. But the bottom line is any time the govt tries to run things they invariably screw up. Well here it's another 3-4 years and then if things don't work out the people can choose another candidate. Obama could have taken on the ... Read moretask of reforming the current health care and that would have saved us tax payers a whole lot that would go in completely overhauling the system.
Rajiv start another topic after this one. When I was in school socialism and communism seemed so wonderful - all good for everyone. But of course with age and knowledge the reality of living in this kind of la la land - have slowly dawned. Both these systems have a pathetic record wherever they have been or still are. Perhaps we can find something between these and capitalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment