Joe Conason: Why ‘Socialism’ Evokes No Fear

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



Why ‘Socialism’ Evokes No Fear

Posted on Oct 11, 2007
By Joe Conason

Once among the most frightening epithets in American political culture, “socialized medicine” seems to have lost its juju. Today that phrase sounds awfully dated, like a song on a gramophone or a mother-in-law joke or a John Birch Society rant against fluoridated water.

Yet despite that antique quality, the old buzzwords appear regularly in columns, press releases and speeches. Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican presidential pack run around squawking about socialism whenever anyone proposes health care reform. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak warns that the federally financed, state-run Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is essentially a socialist conspiracy. So does President Bush, who has threatened to veto a modest increase in that program’s funding because he doesn’t want to “federalize health care.”

Although the red threat still triggers an autonomic reaction among GOP true believers, the rest of the country no longer twitches to that high-pitched, far-right whistle. Most polls not only show enormous majorities favoring extension of coverage to every child, but substantial support for a radical change in how we pay and administer health insurance—including the possibility of a single-payer system.

Why doesn’t the traditional propaganda work any more? Perhaps the demise of the Soviet Union and the withering of Communism in China have had a delayed effect on public attitudes here. Both the Russians and the Chinese have turned more capitalist than the West, abandoning their former systems without substituting modern protections. The ex-Communists are more of a threat to the health of their own societies than to us. Most Americans may also have noticed that corporate bureaucracy and corruption, which figure largely in the present health care system, are not preferable to government bureaucracy. Doctors who used to wail about the dangers of Medicare have learned how unpleasant it is to deal with dozens of insurance companies, each creating different rules to cut costs and deny care. So have their patients.

This corporate model is more expensive and less efficient than the government plans that provide care in every other industrialized nation. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071011_why_socialism_evokes_no_fear/

[blondie58]

1. great article, thanks for posting

I like Joe Conason.

[madmom]

2. If "socialized medicine" is so bad why don't the prez and the rest of our reps give it up?

[laststeamtrain]

3. K & R

"Meanwhile, the credibility of conservatives has diminished steadily. These days they cannot even achieve clarity on the meaning of their favorite cliches. For instance, the president hates “federalized health care,” but sponsors a Medicare prescription drug program that wastes hundreds of billions on drug companies and private insurers. Right-wing definitions no longer seem so clear, either. When the government awards a billion dollars in sweetheart mercenary contracts to a wealthy Republican family in Michigan, that’s “private enterprise.” But when the government helps a struggling middle-class family in Maryland send its children to the doctor, that’s creeping socialism."

[PATRICK]

4. Besides the term

though we have not been provided with fair knowledge of "socialized" government policies in other nations. So, while the term is weak, so is our knowledge of comparative health care systems. Ignorance might give way to reinventing the "socialized" programs seemingly from scratch against the archaic whinings of the GOP social program haters. As real knowledge grows the simple movement for progressive reform can continue unimpeded. The GOP simply impedes as it can.

[Prophet 451]

5. The great lie of the "socialised medicine" trope...

...is that when the "socialised" system is run by well-monitored career civil servants (as it is in almost every nation with national healthcare), it's both cheaper and less regulated than the private insurance companies. Because corporations exist to make a profit, they will always look for ways to make an extra profit, no matter how immoral or illegal and thus, must be wrapped tightly in regulation. When the profit element is removed, there's no incentive to cheat and therefore, less need for regulation.