A reader sent me a photo last week that he had come across on the Internet. The photo shows a man at a group gathering (probably one of those tea-bagger events) carrying a sign. The sign states in simple, unadorned, albeit not exactly correct English a pretty clear message. It read as follows:
MEDICARE – BROKE
MEDICAID – BROKE
SOCIAL SECURITY – BROKE
U.S. POST OFFICE – BROKE
CASH FOR CLUNKERS – BROKE
FEDERAL HEALTH CARE – ?
The reader asked me if I had a response to the sign and its apparent implication, to wit: if the federal government can’t design and run these programs well enough to keep them in working order, how can it be expected to enact (and run) a federal health care program that will work?
Never one to turn from a challenge, especially one that is so clearly directed at the thrust of many of my columns over the last several years, I’m happy to provide my answer to the reader and to anyone else who might be interested in a different perspective from that represented by the sign and its holder.
For openers, let’s clarify a basic point. The current legislation under consideration is not intended to create a federal health care system. This misunderstanding is largely due to the false representations that are made by opponents of the measure, which, correctly stated, is intended to reform our current private health care system by regulating the health insurance industry.
Okay? Just to be sure, let’s try that one again. The current legislation is not going to establish a federal health care system. It is going to change the existing private health care system, primarily by regulating the health insurance industry. If the legislation were intended to establish a federal health care system, we’d be talking about nationalizing our hospitals and putting medical care providers (doctors, nurses, technicians and clerical staff) on a government payroll, like the U.S. Post Office.
When your local mail carrier delivers your daily ration of advertisements, political junk, donation requests and the usual complement of greeting cards and occasional letters, he or she is doing so under the auspices of the United States government. Nothing in the current health care legislation would result in a similar relationship for the health care providers of your choice.
But what about the sign and all the “broke” federal programs? Let’s take them one at a time.
Medicare – I have no idea what is claimed to be “broke” about this program. Without it, many seniors would be going without any health care, since private insurance companies wouldn’t insure those with “pre-existing” conditions or those who were otherwise deemed “uninsurable.” Medicare will face financing problems within the next ten to fifteen years, but it certainly isn’t “broke” now. Just ask any senior.
Medicaid – It certainly isn’t “broke” if you qualify for it, because, again, without it, the people who do qualify would not be able to afford health care of any kind (which is why the program exists in the first place). Moreover, since it is administered by each individual state, this program isn’t really a federal program at all.
Social Security – Ask the millions of seniors how “broke” it is. Many literally live on the monthly payments they receive. Others use the payments to supplement a healthy income they are still getting from the jobs they have. True, it too will face financing issues in a generation or so, but it is a far cry from “broke” currently.
U.S. Post Office – Let’s see, for 44 cents anyone in the country can send a letter (or a greeting card) anywhere else in the country (a country with over 300 million residents and with a land mass that extends almost half-way around the globe) and know that it will arrive at its destination in a matter of days. How is that system “broke”?
Cash for clunkers – I’m not sure how this one got added to the sign, but I suppose the idea is to claim that the concept was dumb, because a lot of people got to trade in a perfectly fine car just to be able to buy a new one. True, but the program did seem to rejuvenate General Motors, which was its goal. So, again, how was it “broke”?
Of course, the whole idea behind the sign is the innate bias against any government program. In that regard, I am frankly surprised that the biggest government program of all was left off of it. Nothing the federal government does in domestic programs comes close to matching the money spent on our military establishment. And while we are still able to bomb any country at will with seeming impunity, I’d say our current and long-standing excursions in Iraq and Afghanistan (which the president has decided will now continue for who knows how long) are far closer to “broke” status than any of the programs listed on the protester’s sign.
But let me not stop here, because in order to be “fair and balanced” on the subject of “broke,” we need to consider a few other possible contenders. And so, here’s the sign I would promote as an alternative –
Private Deregulated Banking System – Broke
Private Auto Industry – Broke
Private Deregulated Home Mortgage Industry – Broke
Private Deregulated Airline Industry – Broke
Private Deregulated Savings and Loan Industry – Broke
Private Unregulated Health Care Insurance Industry – Broke
In the end, what’s “broke” may all be a matter of perspective. For doctrinaire disciples of the Chicago School of economics, anything that has even a hint of government involvement is automatically “broke,” because, by definition all aspects of the economy should be run entirely by private enterprise.
On the other hand, for those who are committed socialists, anything in an economic system that is not run and owned by the government is “broke.”
For everyone else, whether a product or service results from private enterprise, government programs or some combination of the two should be far less important than whether the thing we are getting is of sufficient quality to justify the expense required to receive it.
In a vibrant economy, there is a role for private enterprise and for government. And both are capable of working well or of becoming “broke.”
very interesting Ed, it’s funny to me that you had to claim that all of the private industries you list are deregulated, if that was anywhere close to true you might be able to make those claims.
Remember the government doesn’t have its own money and it can only afford to pay for these programs by taking our money… two words can discribe people general distrust of the government “LOCK BOX”…
Maybe you should ask a senior that is on one of those programs, i know they are glad to have it. but all it takes is 550 plus “God Complexes” who cant balance a budget to cause millions of seniors to live in fear.
Keep up the good work Ed, you keep my brain strained…
Thanks, Roshawn, for hanging in there and for your contribution.
What I’m suggesting is a healthy symbiotic relationship between the private sector and the government. Achieving the right balance is obviously the key. Yes, taxes are part of it. But I think of taxes as a way to pay back to the country that provides the opportunities we have.
And let me take this opportunity to make a correction. Another reader pointed out an error in my original column. Since 1971, the Post Office has been run as a private entity under the title U.S. Postal Service. So that sign that said it was broke was actually referring to a non-government private corporation.
Guess I’m guilty of some know-nothingness, too.
-Ed
This is a good article.
I want to address the issue of the original sign and the people that hold such signs. (btw, you should have a hyperlink to an image of it, dad.)
The conservative agenda makes a lot of sense to me: grow rich, stay rich, enjoy opulence, fuck everyone else. This agenda befits the 5% of the population that actually benefit from it. The other 40% of their supporters (Republicans) get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from it whatsoever. Religious people, were they truly religious, would practice Jesus’ teachings of compassion and love in regard to unfit mothers in search of abortions, gay lovers in search of civil rights, hardened criminals in search of living another day, etc.
The conservative agenda, fighting all these things, is using its supporters as pawns. The people only benefit from liberal goals: public services like the ones you’ve mentioned, a cleaner earth for the future, peace on earth.
The people are all of us. It makes no sense that we are divided politically. War hurts all of us (by hemorrhaging our collective money – as you point out – as well as morally and energetically). Corporatism hurts all of us.
The person carrying this sign is an absolute moron: hateful, blind, ignorant, simply taking up space and making bad vibrations everywhere he goes. I’m not sure if I hate him or pity him. He has no intelligent ground to stand on, or even a moral one, from how I see it. The spirit he wants to embody is that of our founding fathers, who were all radical revolutionary leftists tired of tyranny. Our current tyranny is the corporate agenda, which has infiltrated our government completely. But it is not the government itself that is evil. It should be of, by, and for the people.
Reclaim our government! Don’t help the ruling class dismantle it for their own selfish motives!
Thanks for putting this idiot in his place, dad.
Also, what is the goal of this sign? To oppose free health care for all people. Who benefits from this opposition? Insurance companies. Who suffers? Actual working and non-working people. Universal health care – the extreme (ideal) version of what’s on the table, as I understand it – has been shown by actual experts to be more cost-effective than our current system. The motivation surely can’t be taxes/money… Besides, health is much much much more valuable than money. We all know that when it comes down to chosing between the two.
What is his logic? Whatever it is was surely taught to him through far-right indoctrination. It’s repulsive.
Well-said, Professor Telfeyan! Exactly.
And I concur with Keith. He took the words right out of my mouth (oh, except for “taking up space and making bad vibrations everywhere he goes”–hee! That’s awesome).
But dude, he’s not thinking. There is no logic. Hasn’t even been tried. Don’t burn calories trying to understand it. These are the same sort of people as all of those Palin supporters standing outside of the Borders waiting for her to sign a copy of her crappy book.
Who can understand the angry, the bitter, and the mean-spirited (except the angry, the bitter, and the mean-spirited)? There you go, that’s the energy behind those signs.
And is he really wanting a thoughtful answer or engaging in a meaningful discussion–or is he (as I suspect) just being snide?
Congratulations, Keith just spared everyone from another one of my long tirades. Well-done.
Ed I will respond to you because if I ever thought you were out on a limb, Kieth and Ashley are out passed you hanging on to the tip of it.
Maybe that’s not fair, but as Ashley said the only people that can understand angry, bitter, and mean spirited people are those same kind of people. Well both keith and Ashley should have no problem understanding the person that made the sign, and as keith said “The person carrying this sign is an absolute moron: hateful, blind, ignorant, simply taking up space and making bad vibrations everywhere he goes” and Ashly agreed, this lets me know Im thinking correctly.
Not that it’s all bad, keith did make some valid points, If he thinks it’s the far right republican or conservative ruling class that’s causing the problem then he is only half right. The Liberal ruling class is just as bad. The only difference is the Right can be “greedy” if you will and call it ingenuity and self reliance. The Liberals on the other hand will be just as “greedy” if not more, do it covertly, and then claim that everything they are doing is to help the helpless…
Any form of government can be good until you get people involved (Left or right). We do need to take it back.
Roshawn, never missing an opportunity to weave in a dig at the left. . .Well color me shocked! 😆
Actually, you raise a good point about people (regardless of political affiliation). There are a lot of “liberals” out there who talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. And they are hypocrites, too. And liars. I don’t give them a free pass, either.
People are the problem. People, generally, suck.
But in order to solve society’s problems, we need to start addressing the root. For our government to be good, the people must have those values. We need to stop the bleeding if things are ever going to get better.
Personally, I think the solution to most of society’s problems (crime, poverty, violence, war, education, the environment, resources, the economy, corruption, etc). . .Birth control, people. Education, availability, and access to birth control. Across the board. I’m telling you. All of our problems are just a result of effed up people crapping out too many kids. And those effed up kids, grow up to be effed up adults. And they just end up crapping out even more kids. It’s a vicious cycle. Take any social problem, and you can trace it back to this. The Bristol Palin plan doesn’t work.
But of course, no one ever wants to talk about this. And whenever I raise it, I just get the, “How DARE you!” followed up with the Stink Eye. No politician wants to touch it, and the few who do–End up getting called “Nazis” or “socialists” (gasp!). All of the rest of this shit, without addressing the root of the problem, are just band-aids.
Roshawn’s point is why most conservative economic theories don’t work: They rely too heavily on the better nature of our species. Liberals understand the failings that are all too much a part of the human condition, which is why they stress the need for regulation of private commercial enterprise.
Of course, all government intervention must be carefully considered and constantly reviewed, but let’s not confuse the issues. The need to regulate should never be conflated with the inefficiency of the regulations.
We can only try to contain the beast, in all its forms.
Thanks for the most thoughtful contributions,
Ed