Check Out Our Sports Photo Galleries Contact Us
What’s anti-American about wanting public health care?
by David Farside
Apr 19, 2010 | 709 views | 9 9 comments | 12 12 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The polemics of change is what democracies are built on. In 1944, socialist Norman Mattoon Thomas, a six-time presidential candidate representing the Socialist Party of America, announced he no longer needed to run for office.

He said the American people will never knowingly adopt socialism but, under the name of “liberalism” the Democratic Party will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until we become a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. Almost 70 years later, we are still debating whether our nation has fallen into the hands of the ultra- conservatives, moderate liberals or democratic socialists, lurking deep within the boundaries of our Constitution.

The preamble of that Constitution mandates that the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union (society), promote the general welfare of all American citizens. So, let’s see if that’s just a rhetorical dictum promoting socialism or a literal aphorism justifying liberal politics.

It might be said that the first major step towards socialism in America began in New England in 1767, when the first tax-supported public school for girls was established.  At the time, there were public schools for boys, however, women were considered second-class citizens and were excluded from public schools of any kind.  Most rich families in high- society were opposed to paying taxes to aid the poor and giving young women the same rights as men, claiming it was socialism.  Sound familiar? But the gradual move towards what some call socialism didn’t stop there.

Socialism is viewed through the eyes of the beholder. Today, most veterans, and in some cases their family members, benefit from government-sponsored “socialized” medicine. True, they deserve medical care, but some of these same veterans are opposed to a similar government-funded healthcare option for all deserving Americans including the homeless and families who are poor, claiming it’s socialized medicine.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry ran against former President George W. Bush for the White House. About 200 veterans organized “the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” campaign against Kerry. More Republican vets joined the propaganda machine questioning Kerry’s valor and claiming he was too liberal because he supported Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. Hilary Clinton’s proposals for national health care insurance. They were instrumental in defeating their fellow veteran who, unlike most of them, was decorated with the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for his three-year service in the Vietnam war zone. I wonder how many of those vets who can afford their own private insurance and complain about liberals still take advantage of Veterans Administration facilities?

In 1935, the Social Security Act, a government insured pension plan, providing financial security for aged retirees was passed by Congress. Every working American pays an additional tax (insurance premium) to the fund until retirement. Then, they receive a monthly check for the remainder of their existence. Everyone, rich or poor, receives the benefit of their initial premium payments. In some cases their total retirement funds received exceed their premiums paid.  However, I don’t see any wealthy Conservatives who argue against socialism refusing the overpayments subsidized by other tax payers. Do you?

The Social Security Act also established unemployment insurance for those temporarily out of work. It is funded by both federal and state unemployment taxes paid by employers. Today, government, business and labor credit unemployment insurance for reducing the severity of recessions and fluctuations in our economy. I wonder how many Americans opposed to socialism have collected unemployment insurance while working and getting paid “under the table” by conservative Republican businessmen opposed to fraud, government waste and socialism.

In 1965, Medicare became part of the Social Security Act, providing a national healthcare plan for all seniors collecting social security checks. Unfortunately, because of fraud committed by patients, insurance companies, the medical profession and frivolous lawsuits initiated by unscrupulous lawyers.  Socialized medicine for the elderly is rapidly going broke and is strongly criticized by both the left and right of the political center. The left blames the lack of regulation on the Republicans.  The right argues socialized medicine just doesn’t t work. In this case, both sides might be half right and all wrong.

Public organization is the basis for any society. How we organize our society is prescribed in the Constitution. The Constitution provides the instrument for change through amendments and is the fulcrum between individual rights and collective freedom. The polemics of change is what democracies are built on. The results of those changes will always be subjectively viewed as being too moderate, extremely liberal or ultra conservative.

The national healthcare plan is just another social step in our organized society towards creating a perfect union that promotes the general welfare of all Americans.  It may be considered socialism by some but every American will have similar healthcare options as our veterans. What is so anti-American about that?

David Farside is a Sparks resident and political activist. The polemics of his articles can be discussed at farsidian2001@yahoo.com. His Web site is www.thefarsidechronicles.com.

Comments
(9)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
sparks345
|
April 22, 2010
Well there goes the cost.

If they say its going to cost more now,Just wait.

They have not told the people the truth on anything
sparkeyone
|
April 21, 2010
We have no money, and yet they spend,The people say no and yet they do it anyway.

This is govenment out of control.

People that think this healthcare is a good thing are not thinking.

And the old line to blam it on Busch,Get real Wake up
Reno saoose
|
April 21, 2010
Its Obama's war and he wants more money for it now.

Government healthcare will cost more the you would ever think and you will still pay for welfare.

If you know a bad man that was hurting people and not telling the truth would you let your kids take ice cream from him, I love my kids more then that
sparks345
|
April 21, 2010
You must be a lib from kalif.We dont need or want you here
anonymous
|
April 21, 2010
Bushes war takes lives. Obama's healthcare saves lives. There is a difference between government healthcare and welfare. It sounds like you would be opposed to obama even if he gave every child in America free ice cream.
sparks345
|
April 21, 2010
Do not forget 911 is why we are fighting. They will and are killing us.

If you cant see government health care is bad for the USA and the key word is government then there is no hope for you.

Your children have been sold out by obum/reid/pelosi
kinsman
|
April 21, 2010
Anon:

What?? Are you saying it's OK to steal from current and future generations, as long as it's 'better' stealing? If you don't like spending for the Obama/Reid/Pelosi war on Moslems vote them out.
anonymous
|
April 20, 2010
Public health care is better for society than paying over $1 trillion killing muslems , ourselves, our economy and the financial future of our children.
kinsman
|
April 19, 2010
Socialized heath care is generational theft. After the government steals as much as it can from working people to pay for nonworking people, they borrow the rest to force people who aren't even born yet to foot the rest of the bill. It makes more sense to take that multibillion dollar slush fund the Feds are sitting on and open a thousand medical schools across the nation to crank out Dr's and nurses etc. to stimulate competition rather than the Obama/Reid/Pelosi welfare program called "heatlth reform".
Featured Businesses