Tag Archive for 'republicans_and_democrats'

For Better Or Worse: On Healthcare Reform

Written by Colin. Published on March 22, 2010 ago in Current Events. 40 Comments

Now that it’s a done deal. Let’s look at what ZFT has contributed to the debate on Healthcare Reform:

Health Care Is Already Socialized. The Real Question: Should It Be Expanded?
The argument over the health care reform package being pushed by Democrats has been over whether it would make health care in the US socialized, and whether US government  control over health care would reduce costs, increase coverage, and increase quality of care. The most fundamental flaw in the logic is that the government already pays 46% of all health care spending in the United States. The question really doesn’t seem to be whether we should have socialized health care, but if we should expand it.

Republicans and Democrats Both Trying to End Last Vestiges of Health Insurance
One of the major problems with the bill that will end up passing, is that it is a foregone conclusion that it will force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. If there is one thing that is going to drive up the cost of health insurance it is this. Insurance is a product that covers risk – not things which have already happened. It is a market articulation of the subjunctive – what “might” happen – not what “will” or “has” happened. Forcing insurance to cover conditions which already exist is not insurance – it is welfare.

A Moderate Proposal for Health Care Reform
This article lays out a few broad-based changes which may provide many more people with coverage, with very few fiscal and legal changes.

More Tales From Universal Healthcare: My One Hour Ambulance Wait
After an hour of shivering out in the rain, an ambulance finally arrived. It went first to a pub down the road – one of the people assembled around the man had to run over and grab the paramedics and bring them to the street-corner. Before even looking at the man, the lead paramedic slowly walked towards us and asked “who dialed for the ambulance?” I raised my hand. She then said, “right, I am going to beat you up.”

My Latest Experience with Universal Healthcare
The room I enter is even more disgusting. There is a thick layer of dust and dirt on the floor. The bright green (again 1960’s) chairs are torn. The cieling panels are broken and some have yellow stains on them. There is a broken table across from me with riped and torn magazines on it, and a big piece of chewed gum stuck on the front. The windows are so smeared that it is difficult to see out of them, and many have the insulation torn and hanging down in dried, cracked strips. Ants are crawling on the floor near my feet.

Christian Morality and Universal Heathcare
Christians are to be good Samaritans – if we see someone in desperate need of care, we should be the one stopping. But it would not be Christ-like to see someone in need, and rather than doing something ourselves, pull out a weapon and force someone else to help them. This is essentially what government control or provision of healthcare means in today’s world of scarcity.

Healthy Practices
There are “horror stories” on both sides about waiting times, claim denials, etc. One cannot argue from a few particular cases to a generalization (even if there were a thousand such stories, that makes up less than 1% of the population in either country!).  Many people that I’ve conversed with who have experienced both systems will prefer the waiting time to being denied the surgery (which Sicko emphasized as a large negative in the US).  Additionally, there are private insurance companies here in the UK which tend to give the benefit of less waiting times as well as covering surgeries not available under the National Health Service

Health for Profit
The nature of every for-profit corporation is to make a profit, typically by spending the least amount of money possible. This means that a for-profit medical company, whether it is a hospital, insurance provider, or medical expert, aims to make money on the majority of its transactions. An unjust strategy would be to deny as many services as possible by any means necessary (i.e. pocket as much money as possible). An idealist strategy would be to approve all services at whatever cost (i.e. run into bankruptcy).  When the goal of healthcare is a profit margin, the system moves towards the “unjust strategy” because the primary objective is money instead of healthcare.

Making Anti-Government Alliances

Written by Colin. Published on May 5, 2009 ago in Essays and Politics. 25 Comments

The fact of the matter is, there has been, is now, and will always be an alliance in the United State’s federal government. At times it is uneasy – spats emerge between Democrats and Republicans, normally over irrelevant side issues – but the truth remains that ultimately Republicans and Democrats are in this thing together.

The non-event of Arlen Specter’s recent switch of parties (with almost no switch in ideology) reminds us that we have an unholy binity in Washington: one party, manifest in two political factions. Despite the appearance of debating and battling over the years, these two parties have formed a bipartisan coalition to increase the power of the state, enrich the state and subvert the freedoms of the individual.

The primary way they have enlisted the support of individuals in the dismantling of their own freedoms has been through the appearance of fundamental, ideological divisions. Republicans have warned that if the Democrats are elected to power, there will be a kind of atheistic socialism – higher taxes, private property regulations, debauchery, immorality, appeasement and economic collapse. Democrats have said that if Republicans are elected to power, there will be Christian fascism – corporatism, erosion of civil liberties, big-brother, integration of church and state, wars and environmental destruction.

By painting the evils of the opposition with broad brush strokes, the average person has been scared into a never ending cycle of anti-government behaviour when not in power and support for pro-government behaviour when holding power. Since those in power actually have the reigns of the state – the pro-government movement always ends up accomplishing the majority of changes in the direction of expansionary government.

For example, all it took to pass the PATRIOT Act were a few days of Americans frightened over Islamic terror with Republicans wielding power. However, the PATRIOT Act has been immensely unpopular since, it has been opposed for years – yet very little has been done. Net gain: the state.

Now That We’ve Admitted We Have A Problem…
Recognising this reality is the first step towards breaking this cycle. This means being anti-government both in and out of season. It also means, and this may be difficult to accept for those who are deeply invested in partisan politics, that we must stop viewing those who are in the other party as 100% politically evil. We must abandon “our team” and forge a new alliance with those who abandon theirs.

I’m not suggesting forming a new party – God knows that will fail. Rather, we should being to recognise common ideals and goals and work together to support them.

Every political ideology, even those advocated by people who are genuinely Marxist, fascist, Anarchists, etc… would prefer to see some aspects of the current government eliminated. It may mean that a Republican is going to have to help a socialist protest the war. It may mean that a Marxist is going to have to help a conservative oppose hate crimes legislation.

Obviously, some issues are going to be deal-breakers – a Marxist probably wont join with a libertarian on certain tax reductions. But they might join together for a reduction in certain regulations. The key is acknowledging that some ideas of the “opposition” are held in common, and can be supported to a mutually beneficial end.

Words like “liberal” and “conservative” need to cease to be used as curse-words for the other side. Because a person takes an opposing view on one issue – does not automatically make them in opposition to your side in general. It definitely doesn’t make their pragmatic goals in opposition to yours.

One Example of This Happening Now
A current example of “alliances of issues” is Ron Paul’s HR1207. Ron Paul has dedicated his political life to, above other things, fighting the power of the Federal Reserve. He has hitherto had almost no support in this effort. But he has been able to get over 100 cosponsors for the Federal Reserve Transparency Act by appealing to common anti-government sentiments across ideologies. It is now actually possible (though still probably not likely) that the Federal Reserve could get audited in the future.

“But Ron Paul wants to legalise drugs! Ron Paul is ok with homosexual marriage! Bad bad bad! Liberal! Libertarian!” These are the words of a zealot – these are words that prohibit progress to be made in deconstructing the apparatus of government power. Fine, oppose Ron Paul on drugs and homosexual marriage – fight him until the bitter end. But admit that auditing the Federal Reserve is a good thing! As it stands, 100 other people, whose general disagreements with Ron Paul range from 50 to 99 percent, have formed an alliance around HR1207 to see something constructive done.

The ideas of bipartisan alliance have been used far to long to compromise the rights of the individual for government expansion. This weapon should be used for good – to slowly dismantle the state. Libertarians, Republicans, Anarchists, Democrats, Socialists and Marxists each have some anti-government issues that are important to them. Rather than seeking alliances on expansionary measures – alliances should be formed against the government.