Indeed, some advocates do complain against the "haves" as a group, and that is just as wrong as complaining about other groups like "Muslims," or "blacks," or even "white folks." Group-think is the essence of bigotry. Each of us is entitled to be judged by our own actions and statements and not as a member of any group. So, it is wrong to blame all wealthy folks generally for the fact that Congress and many of the state legislatures have been unwilling to levy the necessary taxes to generate the revenues being spent.
Nobody likes paying taxes. Why should anyone be expected to ASK for a tax increase? Nevertheless, taxes are the price we must pay for a civilized society, and we cannot have "civilization" if there are people going hungry, homeless or whose disorders are untreated. I personally believe those are fundamental to our self-definitiion as a free, civilized society.
When he was the tax-supported President some thirty years ago, Ronald Reagan, without a hint of irony, famously declared "government" as the enemy. There has been a palpable hostility toward "government" among most of the wealthier folks ever since, and among some not so wealthy. There also is a widespread presumption that, BUT FOR "government," the taxpayers would have so much additional money. That ignores, however, the very complex ways in which higher gross earnings are derivative of stronger, more effective "government" that requires taxes to function properly. There are very few wealthy people in an anarchy. Too many Americans are taking their well-being for granted. That may well change when rusted bridges start tumbling and water and sewer systems start failing. Artificially low taxation for the past thirty years or so in the face of draining, adventurous warmongering has beggared our neglected and deteriorating infrastructure. Those chickens may be about to come home to roost! Flint, Michigan just may be the tip of an approaching iceberg of massive infrastructure failure all over the US.
It is a fact that wealthier people wind up keeping a larger PERCENTAGE (not simply total dollars) of their gross incomes after taxes and basic living expenses than do lower incomes. This has probably been true for a very long time, but those who presume to analyze economic policy must reckon with the fact that lower-income households spend most if not all of their after-tax net incomes. Their savings is virtually nonexistent. Many forego healthcare expenditures just to keep food on the table. It is unconscionable that ANY household in America must choose between illness vs. hunger. That is unacceptable to me.
"Healthcare" and "insurance coverage" should not be synonymous, but they are. When people complain about the high cost of "Obamacare" or whatever and tout the "free-market system" as a preferred alternative to managing healthcare costs, such a proposal would leave many ignorant, powerless, low-income folks at the risk of a brutal marketplace, as before. Until "Obamacare" was adopted, American families were subject to a "free-market" healthcare system complete with mostly unregulated for-profit insurance companies that are not, BY LAW (still), subject to the antitrust laws. Anticompetitive practices furthered excluding those with "pre-existing" disorders, exclusionary monopoly markets (still a problem), premium-cost collusions, coverage-limitation collusions, and a host of other expensive realities that impaired any insurance coverage for some and expensive coverage for others. Yet increases in taxes are never compared with the former COMBINED costs of uninsured healthcare and for-profit insurance, and many geographic areas are still served by only one or two companies, furthering the effective monopoly referenced above. For-profit insurance companies are permitted to NOT compete area by area, are permitted to charge whatever they can collude is reasonable, and they do not suffer whenever a healthcare provider refuses to play in their colluded sandbox. More and more providers are opting out of the insane system that prevails.
Notwithstanding my favor for public healthcare, "Obamacare" is a far cry from being a good system. It was the product of a nefarious bargain between Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the insurance companies who were basically left in charge. The House of Representatives acted first on the issue of public healthcare, and the House bill that was sent to the Senate was a pretty good bill: it provided universal public healthcare, exclusive of private insurance company control; it provided serious cost controls, yet did not saddle healthcare providers with the pointless need to generate a profit "envelope" for the insurance companies, as does "Obamacare." In short, by gutting the House-passed bill and forcing he American people to buy into a for-profit system, "Obamacare" has continued some of the many shortcomings under the prior system.
Bernie Sanders is advocating "Medicare-for all," which the House bill more closely resembled. There is no reason why this is not an acceptable goal. It does not prevent health-insurance companies from participating, just as they now participate by writing Medicare supplemental policies. But, it would provide some "universal" healthcare availability that would not be CONTROLLED by the health-insurance companies, whose participation should be submitted to competitive forces that would require healthcare-insurance companies to compete in ALL markets as a condition of participating at all. The territorial exclusions should be eliminated. If supported by higher taxes on higher incomes, the true "middle class" could be spared much of the additional cost that would be borne, instead, by those who can AFFORD to do so. The costs of private insurance could be drastically reduced for all, including the wealthy, and non-participating providers (who would be spared much of the burden of bearing the profit "envelope") would be more likely to stay in the game. Paid benefits would be even and certain, being of benefit to healthcare providers and, ultimately, to patients.
And, the net IMPACT on most taxpayers would likely be lighter if the insurance-company profit margins were subtracted from the costs equations. Again, the core issue is not who shells out what, but who has what left over. Those in Sweden, for example, who are in a 60% income-tax bracket know that they are getting a lot of "civilization" for their money. Even though a 60c bite is being taken out of every top dollar (not all of them), they are getting a lot for their money. And, even if they are in the 60% bracket, they still have quite a bit left over.
"Class warfare" implies a certain unfair and hostile seizure of private property that would otherwise be available BUT FOR a government riddled with "waste, fraud and abuse." Ever since Reagan, many people have come to ignore the many good and efficient things that "government" does and look only at the admitted shortcomings. Too many idealistically obsess about living in an utopian anarchy, free of pesky "government." Providing fundamentals for everyone in society does not mean a "war" on any segment. How much pleasure and satisfaction can a wealthy person derive from his bounty if there are hordes of hungry, desperate people hanging out on street corners begging, vomiting, committing crimes, etc.? How much enjoyment of that wealth can he or she have if lying in a bed, paralyzed with a broken back because a bridge collapsed? What might the health-insurance company try to declare as "uninsurable" then?
"Class warfare" indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment