in a few months from now, those of us who vote in the presidential election will have a great say in what direction this country should take in the coming years. contrary to bush's declaration of a mandate from the american people, he failed to acknowledge how difficult it is to change political course in the middle of a war. in the fall of '08, however, the nation will indeed be voicing their opinions about the direction of this country. while the country as a whole may still be 'moderate' (a term that has no true meaning, but can only be determined in context to the times), the public debates on issues such as health care, foreign policy, immigration and others are truly based on polar ideologies.
when it comes to health care, however, i believe there is one thing we should all agree upon. the dems may want to keep the standard employer-based public health care system, including medicare and medicaid. the government stays heavily involved and health care costs increase.
on the flip side, the neo-cons (i just enjoy that term, no idea what it means), may want to privatize health care, taking it out of the government's hands and putting it into the hands of the people. individuals will have great discretion in how they choose to spend their money, while still being protected in case of a serious illness. the plan hopes to increase efficiency and drive down the cost of health care to society in general.
i am not writing to comment on which system is 'right' or 'wrong' or which one would work better. the only thing i can say is that we shouldn't put it on the kids. if you believe in government involvement in health care, then create a system that protects all the children in this nation. just like medicare protects retirees and just like medicaid protects the indigent we could have a system called medikid. we strive to protect those that can't protect themselves and that includes the elderly, the poor and definitely the children.
if you desire to privatize health care, on the other hand, then i have some words for you as well. if you embrace privatization of social institutions, then it probably follows that you believe in the essence of capitalism, which is that people should reap the benefits of what they sow, that individuals should be free to do what they please with their money, and that market forces should rule. this is why they believe in low taxes because the government should not be taking the money that people have 'earned' out of their hands.
i can only respond by saying that children should not bear the burden of their parents' inabilities to provide for them. if parents have not been able to 'succeed' in society, then i can see how that is a reflection of their poor choices or their poor skills. i can also see why many people do not believe that society should care for these people. i do not agree with this point, but the argument has consistency and is at the very least logical if you start off with certain basic assumptions of humanity.
children, however, do not fall within this logic. they do not fail to provide anything substantial to society. they do not falter because of their bad choices. society does not allow children to provide to society nor to make bad choices. rather, society is designed to protect children. we have schools that educate kids, maternity leave so that mothers can be there for the kids right after they are born, statutory rape laws to protect kids from adults who can take advantage of them, and other laws that protect minors. we, as a society, deem children to be unable and unfit to participate in society completely.
if we view children this way and limit their means, then why do we punish them for our imposition of limitations. if we don't want to guarantee them health care, then maybe we should let them join the workforce, allow them to leave school early, because if their parents can't provide for them in this capitalist setting, shouldn't they be able to provide for themselves?
it makes no sense... do not treat them as kids (which they are) in almost every aspect of society (except murder perhaps), then turn around and punish them as adults. if capitalism is about the individual, then don't punish the child for a parent's shortcomings. the poor are poor because they have failed. old people should have saved more. fine, these statements can be defended, but children? where did they go wrong? are we punishing them because they happened to be born into the wrong family?
i pray that we do not employ this logic for much longer because how can we be proud of a nation that does not even care for their young...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
the problem is that children are the most marginalized political voice in america because they pretty much have no voice. most privileges, including voting, are not available until you turn 18. kids, those who will have to live in our society farthest into the future and thus see the long-term ramifications of our decisions, have the least say in the direction of our country. i don't advocate allowing children all sorts of rights and privileges. however, it is our duty (if we have any such duties) as a society to protect their interests not as we see fit, but as we WOULD see fit if we were kids.
Please don't use the word "marginalized". I hate that word. It's reminds me of feminazi women's studies classes.
So, I'm not sure you mean "neocons" in this case. You should probably just use "conservatives".
The term "neoconservative" mostly refers to a foreign policy and moral philosophy.
Many neoconservative goals came out of the Cold War and those in the movement also align themselves with the Zionist movement. They tend to support big government (like Homeland Security, for example).
They're the kind of people who would likely meddle with privacy and adhere to conservative social principles such as a rejection of gay marriage.
When it comes to health care, neoconservatives probably favor the system that is in place, where businesses bare some burden and there are still large programs like Medicaid and Medicare.
Medicare, by the way, does NOT work. The doctors hate it. It costs a bloody fortune and we won't be able to afford it as our population ages. Many doctors do not even accept Medicare payments anymore, since the negotiated rates are so low. The government can barely deliver the mail. How are they going to provide health care for everyone? Social Security is a disaster about the happen, but nobody wants to deal with it yet and Bush can't speak English so he couldn't articulate the GREAT idea that is privatization of Social Security. It works in many other countries with fabulous savings rates.
Bush vetoed SCHIP because it's too big. On the other hand, the program is dirt cheap compared to what we spend in Iraq. It's hard to argue against "charity begins at home".
By the way, you're not a Capricorn.
Post a Comment