In The Blogs

Health Care Reform As Socialism Meme Dates To Roosevelt

| Mon Sep. 14, 2009 8:42 AM PDT

If this weekend's big Tea Party rally in DC was any indication, a lot of Americans believe that Democrats trying to reform health care are secretly plotting a socialist revolution. According to Bloomberg, though, this is nothing new. Health care reform opponents have been stoking fears of socialism during health care debates since at least Franklin Roosevelt's day. The story even digs up a 1961 quote from Ronald Reagan invoking the term—long before he went into politics.

"From here, it’s a short step to all the rest of socialism,” Reagan, then an actor, warned in a 1961 record sponsored by the American Medical Association after President John F. Kennedy created a commission that laid the foundation for Medicare.

There's a reason reform opponents like to throw around charges of socialism: it works. Bloomberg says:

Once the public associates the word “socialism” with a plan, it’s hard to change the impression... In 1945, when Truman addressed Congress about a national insurance plan, 75 percent of Americans supported the proposal. By 1949, after it was targeted by opponents, only 21 percent did, according to a book by former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.”

Sadly, history seems to be repeating itself. According to a recent poll, since Republicans and others have been invoking socialism to defeat Democratic reform bills, 52 percent of Americans now disapprove of President Obama's handling of health care, up from 28 percent in April.

Advertisement

Stephanie Mencimer is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here.

Comments

Thought Processes

Submitted by avannavon on Mon Sep. 14, 2009 10:58 AM PDT.

Socialism is basically a twisted spin-off of Christianity, which is why it only afflicts countries with predominately Christian histories. Get off it, already. Look at the premise.

Socialism proposes that you can somehow take my lunch away from me, give a large portion of it to someone else, and benefit BOTH of us. Is that possible? Is that true?

Unless you invoke intangible spiritual "benefits" a la religion, there is no possible benefit to me from such a proposition.

Socialist dogma comes from the superstitious Judeo-Christian concept of "sacrifice is good for the soul" being regurgitated by a self-serving and cynical government entity.

All that happens when the government takes my lunch is that the government eats the lion's share and parcels out a bite back to me and a bite to my neighbors. What further happens is that I am cheated out of what I earned and resent my slacker neighbors while they worship the government as "the source" of all this goodness.

So the government is using MY productivity to buy votes and using the "self sacrifice" traditions of the Judeo-Christian community to undermine resistance to this patently evil and unjust seizure of private wealth and property.

Just picture Obama and Pelosi.....Duh, hey, Boo-boo, I think I smell a picnic basket.....

I bet you are a socialist

Submitted by Gary K on Mon Sep. 14, 2009 11:55 AM PDT.

Neither you nor your kids went to or will go to a (socialist) public school? You don't drive on any (socialist) roads? When you get old, you won't accept (socialist) medicare or (socialist) social security? You don't breathe any of the (socialist) clean air (environmental laws). You don't walk on the (socialist) sidewalks? You never visit any (socialist) federal, state, or local parks? You refuse protection of the (socialist) police, fire brigade, and armed forces? You stay in at night in order not to use any of the (socialist) street-lights?

you forgot about the

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Sep. 14, 2009 12:08 PM PDT.

you forgot about the socialist practice of writing your kids off you income tax

you also forgot...

Submitted by justinhubbard on Mon Sep. 14, 2009 8:51 PM PDT.

Money! It's hypothesized that the legendary John Galt printed his own money, too!

Right-wingers need to unpack the term 'socialism'

Submitted by Sykes (not verified) on Thu Sep. 17, 2009 9:18 AM PDT.

Right-wingers and others opposed to a universal healthcare plan in the U.S. need to unpack what they mean by the term "socialism". The person who made the first post demonstrates why this is necessary. The idea of socialism is NOT that it will take away your own possessions.

Think about this: right now what is happening is private health insurance companies are taking away YOUR MONEY and making profits FOR THEMSELVES and not anyone else. And yet, you are NOT complaining.

What what you call "socialism" is proposing is that instead of private health insurance companies taking away YOUR MONEY and making profits FOR THEMSELVES, that money goes into a common PUBLIC POT where it will go to fund everyone (including yourself) for necessary medical care, and medical facilities. How is this possibility worse that the first one where private health insurance companies are taking YOUR MONEY and PROFITING THEMSELVES?

And then another poster made the absolutely great point that there are already in existence services, programmes, and institutions that right-wingers and others label as "socialism" and yet they are NOT OPPOSING those so-called "socialism". Examples of this are your city or county library systems, police and fire service, water and sewage systems, electric and gas utilities, and public K to 12 school districts. All of these are either funded in part by your city/county taxes and state taxes which YOU PAY INTO. And there's more! There is the military, national guard, public transportation systems, national park systems, state park systems, and so forth. All of that you contribute your money to through taxes at different levels of governance.

Given that you don't oppose most or all of these existing so-called "socialised" services, then why oppose universal healthcare? Right now, you are only paying into private health insurance so that private insurance companies profit themselves and no one else.

Also, universal healthcare does not actually prohibit the existence of private healthcare insurance. What will change though are rules that private healthcare insurance will have to stand by. For example, in Germany and Switzerland where healthcare is universal, there are private healthcare insurance plans that people buy. What these insurance companies cannot do (like they can do in the U.S.) is prevent someone from getting insurance due to pre-existing conditions. In these two countries, as long as the private citizen can pay the premium (and the premium is the same for everyone, with some exceptions for the low-income and disabled) the insurance company must grant the citizen the insurance. And furthermore, the regulation is that private insurance companies cannot profit from their services.

In America, insurance companies screen the private citizens and determine whether or not the citizen will be given coverage or not. And not only that, there are many cases when a citizen who already has coverage for years can be denied coverage once they develop illness. So, there are many cases where someone who develops cancer is told by the insurance company their insurance is no longer valid (essentially they have been dropped from the program). Now, does this make any sense at all? If healthcare coverage is not to provide a person the healthcare need when they are sick, WHAT THE HELL IS IT FOR?

American private healthcare insurance is FUCKED UP.

Gary K, why stop when you're

Submitted by gomez (not verified) on Mon Sep. 14, 2009 12:05 PM PDT.

Gary K, why stop when you're on a roll?
Food is a human right. Nationalize the agricultural businesses.
Freedom of movement is a right. Nationalize the airlines.
Health care is a right. Nationalize the health delivery and pharma industries.

In fact, just follow the dictates of the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Nationalize all of the goods and services stated as rights.

Perhaps you might tell us what is left?

That is the socialist goal.

This would

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Sep. 15, 2009 7:28 AM PDT.

Actually be a good thing just fyi(Tho it's help out those not white people a little more then you would probably like I understand)

Insurance industry renders US uncompetitive.

Submitted by evdebs on Wed Sep. 16, 2009 6:59 AM PDT.

The airline industry, agri-business, etc., do not take an oath to always place the best interests of their customer first and to do no harm. The insurance industry, with its first priority being profit, obstructs this oath, but only in the US.

Our global competitors administer health care to all for about half the costs per capita of what we spend to cover just 83% of our population, and many of those are covered meagerly. More efficient. more humane, and above all, from a conservative point of view, more economically viable and competitive.

Beware, the CDC tells US that there is a severe epidemic on its way that will infect about half our population, and that hardworking person that just prepared and served you that sumptuous meal at your favorite restaurant probably lives paycheck to paycheck, has no paid sick days, and has no health insurance.

Bon appetit!

Not convincing

Submitted by Boo (not verified) on Tue Sep. 15, 2009 4:27 PM PDT.

Sorry Gomez, we ain't falling for your 'Straw Man' tactics.

As for UN declarations and resolutions, I only have one thing to say -- "LOL!"

The point was, Gary K was

Submitted by Talphon on Mon Sep. 14, 2009 3:15 PM PDT.

The point was, Gary K was listing things we already have. It is an attempt to refute the argument that any government provided service is a de facto catastrophic slide into a repressive communistic socialist regime. As opposed to the polar opposite, as in requiring everyone to build their own section of road, police their own property, and provide all military and diplomatic protection for themselves.

The charge of socialism is a red herring, a deliberate attempt to blind people to the actual debate.

And Gomez, your being disingenuous. In order to feed the hungry, we don't have to nationalize agribusiness, we simply give them food stamps, which we have done for many years now and nothing horrible has come of it. And freedom of movement is also a right, luckily we don't have to subsidize our own two feet. Likewise, in order to garuntee healthcare to everyone, the government doesn't have to nationalize all the hospitals and doctors. It merely has to subsidize the working poor, while giving the private insurers a bit of competition to bring prices down.

That's all the public option is, merely the post office of the health insurance world. Nothing flashy, nothing overly quick, merely a dependable reliable affordable alternative. Through rain, sleet and snow and with out recission....

You forgot

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Sep. 15, 2009 7:31 AM PDT.

That our Airlines are subsidized like crazy to keep ticket prices down already.

That's right

Submitted by Sykes (not verified) on Thu Sep. 17, 2009 9:33 AM PDT.

Talphon writes:
"Likewise, in order to garuntee healthcare to everyone, the government doesn't have to nationalize all the hospitals and doctors. It merely has to subsidize the working poor, while giving the private insurers a bit of competition to bring prices down."

That's right. Providing universal healthcare does not necessarily mean making the entire healthcare industry and providers public. The two are separate things.

Compare two vastly different systems but both of which provide universal healthcare coverage: United Kingdom and Canada.

1. United Kingdom-- universal healthcare coverage is provided and the entire health care industry is nationalised meaning that it is public. This goes from the hospital, clinics, healthcare centres and so forth. The doctors and nurses are employees of the government.

2. Canada -- also provides universal healthcare coverage and the healthcare industry is a mix of public and private. There is not nationalised healthcare industry because in Canada, universal healthcare coverage while a federal mandate is taken care of by each province. Therefore, this means that Ontario's healthcare system works a little differently than say for example British Columbia's, though both have universal healthcare coverage. In Canada, there is a mixture of private and public healthcare industries. Doctors, nurses and healthcare practitioners are not necessary employees of the government and most have their own private practice. Hospitals are mostly public but there are a few private hospitals. Clinics are generally private. But so what does universal healthcare coverage mean in this case? It means that who directly pays for the healthcare services rendered is not the patient but instead the government.

In British Columbia, which I'm most familiar with, it works like this: every resident of British Columbia must pay into the Medical Services Plan. This is their name for their universal healthcare coverage. This plan is administered by the province. When you're sick, you go to any doctor you want (hint: you're NOT restricted to who you can see!!), give them your insurance number (which is called CareCard number) and then that's it. You consult to the doctor. No money is exchanged between you and the doctor or you and the healthcare company. So who directly pays the doctor or healthcare company? It's the province's Medical Services Plan. They are the ones who pay them, even if the doctor or healthcare company is private.

See, these two systems are vastly different but both provide universal healthcare coverage. And again, I must emphasise for you right-wingers, there is private healthcare industry in Canada and doctors have their own private practice. It's not not nationalised like it is in the U.K.

And YET, BOTH COUNTRIES have universal healthcare coverage but BOTH are VASTLY DIFFERENT.

The "public option" is a fail :\

Submitted by Aaron Smith on Wed Sep. 16, 2009 10:22 AM PDT.

The reason why I don't support Obama's healthcare plan is because it's not going to help matters much. Single-payer is really the only thing that's going to cut down costs the way that we need them to - public health insurance isn't going to reduce our enormous administrative costs, first of all, and secondly private insurers are going to find SOME way to cherry-pick the healthy ones, which will make the public option even more expensive.

According to the plans Obama has released recently, furthermore, illegal immigrants won't be covered - which means that they'll mostly have to wait until it's an emergency to receive care, which means we'll be paying fifty thousand dollars for emergency care instead of five hundred for preventive care. We're paying for the "illegals" either way, so why can't we do it the cheap way?

I know everyone will say that single-payer isn't possible, but for crying out loud, polls have put single-payer support as high as 50%. We elected a Democratic majority because we DIDN'T like the way things were going, and then we elected a Democratic president specifically because he promised he was going to do things differently. Instead, it seems like we just get more kowtowing to the nutter minority and insurance companies that make more money by denying care than by giving it.

Why assume private insurance companies can cherry pick?

Submitted by Sykes (not verified) on Thu Sep. 17, 2009 9:41 AM PDT.

Aaron Smith wrote:
"public health insurance isn't going to reduce our enormous administrative costs, first of all, and secondly private insurers are going to find SOME way to cherry-pick the healthy ones, which will make the public option even more expensive."

My question is, why do you assume that private insurance companies can cherry-pick the healthy ones? In Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands where there is universal healthcare coverage AND private insurers the regulation is this:

1. private insurers cannot deny coverage due to "pre-existing conditions"

2. private insurers must provide coverage to anyone who can pay the premium

In other words, having private insurance does not mean that the regulation for those industries will stay the same. It doesn't have to be.

What Socialism is...

Submitted by crazylib (not verified) on Sat Sep. 19, 2009 2:31 AM PDT.

What Socialism is seems to have been perverted by Ronald Reagan during his presidency to help provide a simpler definition for how the world should view the Soviet Union during the 1980s. However the fact is that the world was not collectively fighting a "Cold War" against socialism, we were fighting a war against communism. But thanks to people like Joe McCarthy the term communism took on a whole new definition, and so during the 80s the NeoCons began using the term socialism to describe anything that was the opposite of capitalism.

But what is "socialism"? Socialism is the means by which the state gives and provides specific services to the citizens of the state. Socialism is not a government takeover of anything, but a system by which specific services are provided to ensure that everyone has the same access to them. You don't see the police, fire, or ambulances rushing to someone's aid faster because of how much they pay in taxes do you? We all utilize services that the conservatives and libertarians like to call "socialist", because this term has been so ingrained into us for several decades now to make people believe that to believe in such a thing would make the U.S. like the former Soviet Union.

But guess what? Without those "socialist" services, paid for by the tax dollars of every person who receives a paycheck, we wouldn't have roads to drive on, we wouldn't have clean water, and most of all we'd be a third-world country. So the next time you hear someone saying that healthcare reform is a "socialist" plan or agenda, remember that if you lose your job, your health insurance, and need healthcare, where would you get it from? Will you be one of those that isn't paying into the system, yet visiting the emergency room demanding care, but unable to pay for it?

Here's more food for thought. Look at what you pay right now for your "employer based" health insurance policy. Has no one stopped to realize that if we had National Healthcare the slight increase in your taxes would be less than you would actually pay in an annual deductible and premiums to a private insurance company? The neocons want you to believe that paying more in taxes is bad, but what they don't tell is that in systems with nationalized healthcare, the marginal increase in their taxe rate actually is less than what they would pay for healthcare here in the U.S., and they have full coverage for anything that ails them. In some countries with a national healthcare system they even have doctors that come to your home, instead of you coming to an emergency room with your coughing, fever, etc.

The next time someone says that healthcare reform is bad. The next time someone says that this is all a "socialist" agenda. Ask them exactly what they mean. I bet they can't explain it, because all they know are the soundbites they get from FOX News. None of them have bothered to take the time to go online and actually read the healthcare proposals being worked on by Congress. And I'd bet none of them have ever actually looked up the word "socialism" in a dictionary. :P

Adam Smith would be called a socialist by US standard.

Submitted by evdebs on Sat Sep. 19, 2009 6:37 AM PDT.

“The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations 1776