Relax, Obama's Socialist Agenda Is Capital Friendly 15 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
A third of Americans under the age of 65 went without health insurance at some point in the last two years. According to data released by the US Census Bureau last August, 47 million Americans had no health insurance. Precise figures for today are unavailable but it is fairly safe to assume, from statistics relating to unemployment and household wealth, that at least 20% of Americans can no longer afford any kind of health care coverage at all.
While the Obama Administration is dedicated to expanding the scope of health care, qualitatively and quantitatively, its stated objective of setting aside $634 billion over 10 years is both ideologically flawed and fundamentally unrealistic. In fact, for all practical purposes, rising medical expenditures are destined to further erode family surpluses through 2009, thus impacting directly on the American consumer’s ability (let alone willingness) to spend on items like new cars, restaurant meals, summer holidays and entertainment. “The housing stimulus has no chance of working effectively if family balance sheets don’t improve,” said an anti-poverty activist in a web posting yesterday. “And if basic and advanced medical costs go any higher, the working poor will be surviving on a day-to-day basis only.” But who cares about the working poor?
In fact, regardless of the official employment forecasts, what America is witnessing for the first time is the consolidation of a “working poor” class, to specifically include those who actually have jobs (and families with two jobs) but whose debt servicing ability stands seriously impaired. Social justice demands the guarantee of blanket health care coverage, for a nominal cost to those who cannot afford to pay their premiums, and for no cost to those who are at the bottom end of the poverty scale, i.e. annual income of $21,200 and lower.
A minimum of 48 million adults and 21 million children in America have been without health care coverage for six months; the outlook is bleak, particularly within the context of a potential worsening of the national jobless rate, despite the Obama stimulus plans. To make matters worse, the health care allocations in the Obama budget are not final by any means, unlike what many observers are being led to believe. Whether the “blueprint” ever becomes a reality depends upon the reaction of several interest groups, e.g. insurers, doctors, drug companies, hospitals and small businesses.
In the 1990s, the much-touted health care bill carefully crafted by Bill Clinton (and Secretary Clinton) went nowhere. “There were too many competing factors, and Congress did no have the will to legislate socialism,” a former Hillary Clinton campaign manager told CNN over the weekend. But socialist considerations apart, social justice, if not social equality, cannot be achieved without universal health care.
Speaking of social equality, the sooner America’s workers (and those seeking work) realize that they are solidly entrenched in the lowest echelons of the class divide, the better. And, quite unfortunately, sharpening class divisions, under capitalism or European-style socialism, actually facilitate corporate profits. “Let me make this clear, our brand of socialism is very good for business,” a Munich-based board member of BMW declared at a conference of European industrialists shortly after the unification of Germany. The Obama brand of socialism should also turn out to be good for America’s elite corporations, once the dust settles.
The working poor and the poorest may not be able to contribute to consumer demand; however, they can be safely ignored. At current stock price levels, numerous components of the S&P 500 are already positioning themselves to restate their earnings and to attract long term investors on the basis of restated asset valuations.
In other words, Wall Street does not need to fear Obama Socialism, since that variety of socialism will fall far short of meeting either lofty social justice targets or social equality thresholds. Wall Street does not need to fear food riots either, given the element of sheer hope which has filtered through the inner cities, the industrial wastelands and the six-million-odd undocumented migrants ever since Barack Obama won the presidential election; in any event, the government is quite well equipped to control street unrest.
What Wall Street needs to be concerned with exclusively is the ability of Washington regulators and lawmakers to recognize and control systemic risks, something which has been highly unquestionable thus far. A new class matrix will be acceptable to business, as long as the core financial fabric, driving the capital accumulation process, remains in intact.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 15 comments:
This makes actually very little sense to either the economy or the country as a whole. Regardless of labeling the provision of health care 'socialist', 'managed-market', 'European socialism' or whatever, healthy population is a prerequisite for a healthy economy. Emphasis should be, for example, on preventing the losses stemming from millions of sick days that could save companies billions of dollars annually.
Easy access to adequate health care for all, with emphasis on prevention, not only for the privileged workers in higher paying jobs or UAW retirees, but for the entire population, will in the longer run be much cheaper than the current system of spotty coverage and expensive complex cures for neglected ills.
It would perhaps make sense to have a two- tier system, with a basic coverage guaranteed to all, and a gold or platinum-plated care for those who can afford it. I would not call this socialism - even in the so-called socialist and communist countries of Europe and Asia in the past, the working poor had access to the basic care - to assure human dignity on one hand and maintaining healthy and capable labor on the other - while the the elite and people with additional means always had access to gold-plated care home or abroad.
It seems to me that the right to quality of life is at least as important as the right to bear arms...
On Mar 05 09:33 AM CLH wrote:
> People with out health insurance should be jailed. They suck the
> blood of the workers. Lets wake up-- no one should have to pay health
> costs for the lazy.
Just to get it out of the way, healthcare should not be a right, because it basically means your neighbor is obliged to take care of you. Rights are things like free speech. It could be an obligation of the government to provide the service, just like the government must provide for the defense of the country.
The most significant problem with healthcare in the US is that we do not have a system, we have a market. The problem with that market is that it is poorly regulated, with each state running its own market differently, adding to the price in many cases. Then there is the on going game between doctors and the insurance companies as to who can extract the most out of the other. Then, between each insurance company the benefits actually given will vary, even with similarly priced plans. There is no benefit to consumers, no one can adequately compare or shop for plans no matter how sophisticated they are. There also seems as though there is a constant "gotcha" on the benefits. Also, patients often get shafted in the spat between doctors and the insurers.
SO, WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONSIDER DOING BEFORE IT DOES ANYTHING IS DEFINE WHAT A BASIC PLAN IS IN EVERY STATE. Then, people can really compare and shop based on service and price, just like they are supposed. If people want more than a basic plan, they can evaluate and buy those benefits with supplementary plans. I don't have evidence for this, but I believe it will intuitively make the market more efficient. And, unless the government does this, what is the sense of the government buying insurance for those who cannot afford it?
The best example of a system that would work in the US is the Swiss system which was put in place in 1996 and has no socialist agenda. By law people must have coverage--it is not a right. Those who cannot afford it have it paid for by the government. Insurers that offer it are mutual companies, who earn low margins and are basically expected to breakeven on basic plans. The companies make money by selling expanded coverage and by competing on service. The cantons (states) make sure that no company is left with a more sickly or costly insurance pool than other plans and each year the cantons negotiate prices with health providers. Though the cost of the Swiss plan is higher than European neighbors, it is still less expensive than the US, and the Swiss are known for having a high quality health system, similar to what Americans would demand.
It short we don't need to be socialist. We might need to spend more public money initially, but having all people covered should be less costly than emergency room care for low income citizens, in the long run. The important thing is choosing the right approach, the right system for Americans and over what time frame it would be appropriate to implement.
On Mar 05 05:53 AM drevno wrote:
> However sad the statistics on the situation of the health insurance
> in the US are, they should not be surprising. USA is not a country
> of equitable wealth distribution while at the same time it is a country
> with some of the highest costs for health service in the world.
> Furthermore, despite attempts in the past, the access to health
> care is not a right in the US, but a privilege.
>
> This makes actually very little sense to either the economy or the
> country as a whole. Regardless of labeling the provision of health
> care 'socialist', 'managed-market', 'European socialism' or whatever,
> healthy population is a prerequisite for a healthy economy. Emphasis
> should be, for example, on preventing the losses stemming from millions
> of sick days that could save companies billions of dollars annually.
>
>
> Easy access to adequate health care for all, with emphasis on prevention,
> not only for the privileged workers in higher paying jobs or UAW
> retirees, but for the entire population, will in the longer run be
> much cheaper than the current system of spotty coverage and expensive
> complex cures for neglected ills.
>
> It would perhaps make sense to have a two- tier system, with a basic
> coverage guaranteed to all, and a gold or platinum-plated care for
> those who can afford it. I would not call this socialism - even in
> the so-called socialist and communist countries of Europe and Asia
> in the past, the working poor had access to the basic care - to
> assure human dignity on one hand and maintaining healthy and capable
> labor on the other - while the the elite and people with additional
> means always had access to gold-plated care home or abroad.
>
> It seems to me that the right to quality of life is at least as important
> as the right to bear arms...
>
On Mar 05 12:40 PM abeoman wrote:
> Obviously a comment meant to incite and an arrogance to boot....
>
On Mar 05 01:37 PM really wrote:
> No matter which side of the politics you're from, it is obvious that
> something needs to be done about healthcare that can only be done
> by the government. While the timing on expanding this is terrible,
> the number of people on Medicaid roles will expand in 2009, simply
> because more people will qualify because the state of the economy,
> so more money will go into this year. And while timing is bad, because
> of the shift in Congress, it would seem that expanded spending on
> healthcare is inevitable, so perhaps the better question is whether
> the idea of the plan is good. I say not.
>
> Just to get it out of the way, healthcare should not be a right,
> because it basically means your neighbor is obliged to take care
> of you. Rights are things like free speech. It could be an obligation
> of the government to provide the service, just like the government
> must provide for the defense of the country.
>
> The most significant problem with healthcare in the US is that we
> do not have a system, we have a market. The problem with that market
> is that it is poorly regulated, with each state running its own market
> differently, adding to the price in many cases. Then there is the
> on going game between doctors and the insurance companies as to who
> can extract the most out of the other. Then, between each insurance
> company the benefits actually given will vary, even with similarly
> priced plans. There is no benefit to consumers, no one can adequately
> compare or shop for plans no matter how sophisticated they are.
> There also seems as though there is a constant "gotcha" on the benefits.
> Also, patients often get shafted in the spat between doctors and
> the insurers.
> SO, WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONSIDER DOING BEFORE IT DOES
> ANYTHING IS DEFINE WHAT A BASIC PLAN IS IN EVERY STATE. Then, people
> can really compare and shop based on service and price, just like
> they are supposed. If people want more than a basic plan, they can
> evaluate and buy those benefits with supplementary plans. I don't
> have evidence for this, but I believe it will intuitively make the
> market more efficient. And, unless the government does this, what
> is the sense of the government buying insurance for those who cannot
> afford it?
>
> The best example of a system that would work in the US is the Swiss
> system which was put in place in 1996 and has no socialist agenda.
> By law people must have coverage--it is not a right. Those who cannot
> afford it have it paid for by the government. Insurers that offer
> it are mutual companies, who earn low margins and are basically expected
> to breakeven on basic plans. The companies make money by selling
> expanded coverage and by competing on service. The cantons (states)
> make sure that no company is left with a more sickly or costly insurance
> pool than other plans and each year the cantons negotiate prices
> with health providers. Though the cost of the Swiss plan is higher
> than European neighbors, it is still less expensive than the US,
> and the Swiss are known for having a high quality health system,
> similar to what Americans would demand.
>
> It short we don't need to be socialist. We might need to spend more
> public money initially, but having all people covered should be less
> costly than emergency room care for low income citizens, in the long
> run. The important thing is choosing the right approach, the right
> system for Americans and over what time frame it would be appropriate
> to implement.
If any here believe capitalism is forever, or that it is the "best" and therefore will continue, you need to get out more often...
The USA is not a third world country with a working class paralyzed by poverty. Nor is it a country like India, where the working poor are orders of magnitude below our working poor. If the masses mobilize in their 10's of millions, do you think the USA ruling class will not fall to the people as the USSR did back in 1989-1991?
Recall that the USSR was one of the most repressive regimes in history but, after years of the system failing to use the productive sources, the system completely collapsed.
In a similar way, we are witnessing a failure of the capitalist system to make effective use of the productive sources and, as has happened throughout history, no system can survive in that condition for very long...
Remember France 1968, Portugal 1974, and, although those revolutions were betrayed by the leadership of the masses, this time around, there is no safety valve for capitalism, no new lands to conquer, no new markets to open up new demand and no option for starting a World War (nuclear argameddon) which would result in destroying the productive sources and allowing new investments to extract surplus value.
The ruling class knows this, this is not "news" to them, but like Lenin said, "The capitalist will sell the rope used to hang him", so it seems the American ruling class is heading towards that path, in my opinion.