Democracy and universal health care
In Paul Krugman's June 13 column, he notes that a 2003 poll showed that "72 percent of Americans favored government-guaranteed health insurance for all." This percentage appears not to have changed much over more than half a century, because he also notes that in 1945, 75 percent of Americans favored nationalized health insurance.
So if the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans favor universal health care, and have done so for 60 years, why is it that we don't have it? Answer this question, and you will discover so much that is wrong with the existing political and economic system of the United States. After all, we're supposedly a democracy, aren't we? But how can that be, if the vast majority of the people are unable to obtain something important that they want in overwhelming numbers?
Krugman also notes that the Democratic Party, which kinda sorta endorses national health insurance, nevertheless continually shies away from a single payer solution, thus illustrating once again why the Democrats are ideologically impotent and hopeless, and anything but a party of progressive principles. As Krugman points out, Clinton's convoluted universal health care proposal, which was dead on arrival, was not a single payer plan. But the Democrats, rather than taking away from that the lesson that perhaps a single payer plan is the way to go with universal health care, instead are even more committed to appeasing the corporate elite, in this case the insurance industry, and thus in supporting market-based solutions. Thus the Democratic Party once again shows itself to be mired hopelessly in its dead-end neoliberal ideology.
When the institutions of power, and the dominant political parties, cater not to the people but to corporate interests, what does that say about the supposedly democratic nature of society?
So if the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans favor universal health care, and have done so for 60 years, why is it that we don't have it? Answer this question, and you will discover so much that is wrong with the existing political and economic system of the United States. After all, we're supposedly a democracy, aren't we? But how can that be, if the vast majority of the people are unable to obtain something important that they want in overwhelming numbers?
Krugman also notes that the Democratic Party, which kinda sorta endorses national health insurance, nevertheless continually shies away from a single payer solution, thus illustrating once again why the Democrats are ideologically impotent and hopeless, and anything but a party of progressive principles. As Krugman points out, Clinton's convoluted universal health care proposal, which was dead on arrival, was not a single payer plan. But the Democrats, rather than taking away from that the lesson that perhaps a single payer plan is the way to go with universal health care, instead are even more committed to appeasing the corporate elite, in this case the insurance industry, and thus in supporting market-based solutions. Thus the Democratic Party once again shows itself to be mired hopelessly in its dead-end neoliberal ideology.
When the institutions of power, and the dominant political parties, cater not to the people but to corporate interests, what does that say about the supposedly democratic nature of society?
Post a Comment