STATICRHETORIC

by C.S. Jefferson

The question isn’t “Can we afford to insure all Americans?” Rather, the question is “Can we afford not to insure all Americans?”

Frame the question correctly, and the answer becomes apparent. Solutions are found when necessity dictates the agenda. If we continue to allow the political discourse to simply punt the ball, no one will ever cross the goal line. Some of the most important innovations come from recognizing that there is actually a problem that needs to be solved. And changing the debate is the first step in addressing the issues.

I believe, strongly, that America’s most valuable and precious treasure is its people and the measure of our success as a nation is how we take care of our own citizens. Nothing depletes the wealth effect of middle-class and working families as much as health care expenses. It remains the number one reason for household bankruptcy (at least prior to the current implosive real estate debacle) and, unfortunately, is often neglected until you need it most of all at a time when you can least afford it.

No one thinks of universal health care as a necessity when you are young or when you are better situated in a profession that includes provisional health care as part of your work benefits. But as people age or endure job and career transition, any lapse in coverage can spell financial disaster and wipe out everything you sacrificed and saved for so many years.

Proponents of a health care program for all Americans are often trapped by the wrong questions and the wrong arguments determined by a subservience and false allegiance to conflicting interests. It’s political distraction and sleight of hand. Don’t be fooled by the knee-jerk Q&A sessions that deflate the momentum from gaining any real traction by political debates that play out as nothing more than infomercials.

The coming election season is important for so many reasons, not only to correct the wrongs and mistakes set upon a dangerous and treacherous path, but to set the tone and correct direction for America as a global leader into the 21st century. And I am afraid that neither of the two-party candidates still standing have the political will or moral conviction to prioritize the value of life as being the number one issue we face in America.

The argument and issue of current debate must stand upon its own merits and not be redressed or assaulted in divisive labels of “liberal” or “conservative.” The issues should be judged on one criteria alone, with the most unassailable definition and conviction: Is such issue at hand ultimately for the good of the people? If it is yes, then the answer cannot be distracted or dismantled by common rhetoric; and, if the answer is no, the question no longer has foundation.

Health care is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is, by right, a humanitarian issue and as Americans, it is, perhaps, the most important issue that we face collectively as a nation.

VALUE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS...

America’s most important asset is its people, the very human lives that make up a great nation and the continuing generations that pass the torch from one to another. From innovation and leadership to the hard-working people that built the very foundation upon which we exist, we owe a debt of responsibility to improve the livelihood of all Americans.

I can’t tell you how many people I know personally that have to pay for their own health care providers because they are independent business owners or self-employed. Or how many people simply cannot afford to pay for insurance all together. It is truly an issue that I feel passionate about because health care is the dividing line between wealth and poverty in America. It’s not a question if you need it, it’s a question of when you will need it.

I actually believe that medical coverage for all Americans is a priority which, by definition, as a social program would not seem to be in line with libertarian or conservative views that I tend to favor. However, mandatory health care would actually do more to help preserve individual rights by not driving people into poverty or excessive financial difficulty and credit delinquency.

In fact, it is by true definition that we can extrapolate a conservative issue, because conservation of life and liberty through the protection of universal health insurance validates the sanctity of what all conservatives should fundamentally believe: The value and preservation of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Health care is the number one reason for personal bankruptcy filings in America, and reflects the disproportionate balance between those that work hard but live check-to-check, for the most part, and those that can or cannot afford the “luxury of health care.” When, and by what definition of distortion, did the fundamental issue of health care become equated with a luxury item as discretionary spending?

Because of this, I view money as a form of self-empowerment and anything that takes away or undercuts a person’s or family’s financial stability is not only a threat to personal liberty, but a crime. I believe, if considered as a way to support and fully guarantee “liberty,” you could make a reasonable argument in favor of a universal health care program as mandated by the Constitution.

Think about it, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” By definition and consequence, universal health care accessible–not necessarily “mandatory”–to all Americans would fulfill strict definition of the Constitution because there is absolutely no moral equivocation when it comes to protecting the life and welfare of all Americans.

Even if you were a die-hard “capitalist-fundamentalist,” as I like to jokingly refer to them, making no moral judgment between right and wrong and only equivocating to protect the bottom line that determines a company’s profit margin…well, even you should want a healthy America so that you can maintain your consumers. After all, healthy Americans make good consumers and even the local dope dealer knows better than to O.D. his clients needing a fix, because who else will be left to buy their products?

WORDS LIKE “FREEDOM” AND “LIBERTY” ONLY HAVE SUBSTANCE WHEN WE PROTECT AMERICANS FIRST

It is indefensible for politicians to argue against the merits of a universal health care program by suggesting that it is too cost-prohibitive or unaffordable–attributing it to hot button phrases such as “more government spending gone wild.”

Before one single dollar is spent for foreign aid or sent overseas either through the IMF or World Bank program, American citizens should be recognized as the first priority. Period. Before one dollar was spent to bailout Bear Stearns or any other insolvent financial institution at risk for bankruptcy filing, American citizens should come first. No war is worth fighting for if we cannot take care of our own citizens; no cause is worth rallying for if we fail to protect our own interests first.

It’s not about lacking a global perspective, on the contrary, I would argue that by strengthening America first, we help to stabilize the economy worldwide. Of course, as world leaders, America has an obligation to help others but, you give when you can afford to be charitable, you do not starve your own people to feed the rest of the world. I believe we can do both by helping others and ourselves, but I make the argument because I despise the disingenuous rhetoric that challenges the merits of the issue based upon whether or not we can afford it.

I mean, seriously, if the criteria for a deflective question is whether “we can afford it,” then let’s at least have some consistency with this feigned desire to curb pork-belly spending and apply the same standard across the board to every elective discretion that seeks to mandate policy into action.

You could probably name a few wars and incursions that didn’t need to occur by this standard alone. This perpetual and ongoing bailout of the current real estate debacle would be enough to support universal insurance for everyone. Actually, not to be ridiculous, but I bet once the final tabulation occurs for the current bailout, you could have essentially bought out every person at risk for default on a home loan or credit card payment and given them the house free and clear for less than the cost that it will be to “de-leverage” the entire financial system. But, of course, that would be “social welfare” instead of “corporate welfare” which, somehow in the grand scheme of all things, resonates differently when morals are determined by which side of the line you stand on.

And what war could be more important than the fight to combat disease and ailments that undermine the livelihood and health of our fellow Americans? Words like “freedom” and “liberty” only have substance and meaning when all citizens of America have access to health care because if it is government’s obligation to protect and defend its people, then universal health care is one helluva place to keep that promise.

It’s not even complicated, rather, the arguments are made with intentions to confuse the public at large and dilute the significance of the issue by using any measurable excuse to invalidate a moral obligation and responsibility to all Americans.

Because the flipside is that any argument that states it is not the government’s responsibility to protect and care for its citizens–and while this may or may not be the sad, ultimate truth in reality–and we are truly all on our own, then there is no justification to have any income tax whatsoever. Instead, allow the average working American to retain all income and then spend their money as they choose and please. At least allow Americans to have enough retained income to protect and defend themselves.

OF CORPORATE INTEREST AND PERSPECTIVE, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE COULD STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH TO UNPRECEDENTED LEVELS:

What makes this argument even more interesting is that most corporations that bare the high-expense of health care for their employees recognize that universal health care programs for all Americans can reduce costs significantly so that it translates into the bottom line of a spreadsheet come quarterly earnings season. It actually is one of the most promising ways to boost our own domestic economic interests.

By removing the financial liability and obligation of all the Fortune 500 companies as well as the insurmountable cost to small business interests, a dynamic universal health plan could propel American business toward unprecedented profit levels that takes on a new generation of prosperity and growth in this nation.

Add into the mixture of our consumer-based economy that average consumers would have more pocket spending money, that free cash flow would take us out of any potential recession and ultimately relieve a considerable amount of lingering debt that traps individuals into filing for bankruptcy.

Since we are, primarily, a consumer driven economy that needs people to spend money, then removing the cost to businesses and individuals alike for health care would induce more stimulus than any rebate check.

Universal health care would also position our economy into solving the current pension crisis we face in America. By removing the necessity for labor unions to maintain health care benefits for retirees, you could begin the transition from pension funds over to private retirement accounts through 401k’s and, the preferable choice, Roth IRA’s.

The beauty of adopting such a system would remove the personal risk of having your retirement fixed to the solvency of one single company employer, instead, your retirement is tied to the individual and transfers no matter what job transition a person endures over time.

How many so-called secure pensions have been wiped out due to corporate bankruptcy? Enron anyone? Such risks are not only unnecessary, but they destabilize our economy by the erosion of middle-class families wealth accumulation over time.

I would argue the single, most important component of a pension system is the medical benefits. Of course, this would require that an education of finance would have to occur across the board so that people would not incur unorthodox risk to their portfolios by placing bets at a Vegas casino line.

You could even impose requirements to invest in secure Treasuries, AAA-rated municipal bonds and fixed income securities which would also, believe it or not, help our American economy as a new flow of cash would be invested into U.S. debt from domestic sources, as opposed to being almost entirely dependent on foreign sovereign wealth funds to buy our debt. And why not have Americans own a piece of America instead?

I would even suggest that this would be the sure-fire way to inject real world economic stimulus that would save the housing industry and credit crisis that faces us today. As opposed to a few hundred dollars tossed our way that can barely cover a few tanks of gas at the pumps and a happy meal at McDonalds.

THE DISTRACTION, SLEIGHT OF HAND, AND COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS:

Unfortunately, not enough people care about this issue until they need health care. Often lambasting the topic of universal health care as if it were the equivalent of issuing food stamps and welfare or waiting in line for “guv-uh-ment cheese.” The issue is usually twisted and contorted into a stereotype that preys upon racism and class warfare.

And this is the ultimate shame of all. Because hard-working Americans that are currently and gainfully employed are often tricked into thinking that such a program would eat away at their take home checks. The mistake in believing that not having health care equates to free-loading bums that don’t want a job or refuse to work and contribute to society.

Believe me, many Americans have built their wealth honorably through various means of self-employment and face unforseen risks of a health crisis that could eat away almost everything if not all that they worked so hard to build. People that have real estate assets that are forced to borrow equity to pay for surgeries and medical help–that is, when you could tap into equity lines of credit.

Is bankruptcy and wealth deterioration the answer and reward for so many hard-working Americans that struggled to find success? Is it fair to cripple a family’s earnings or squander away a rightful inheritance? Is this the “pot of gold” at the end of the rainbow?

And even for those that are employed by the traditional “9-5 punch-the-clock” career that believe they are covered can find that a sudden job change, layoff or “corporate restructuring” can have dire consequences that radically remove or alter what they took for granted. “COBRA” healthcare options while in financial transition are not cheap and usually prohibitive for those seeking alternative employment.

And those commercials by companies we never heard of promising private health care plans like they are selling auto insurance are questionable in the least, right? Counting on a company fly-by-night marketing campaign that may not be adequately funded or underwritten is not a stable way to provide healthcare for people. Financial insolvency risk or a busted pension fund may no longer be able to keep its promise and obligation for retirees. And social security is supplemental income at best, if not woefully inadequate to keep the average American retiree maintaining the lifestyle they worked so hard to earn.

So, for those that degrade the value of other countries and their “universal health care programs” as being second-rate, what ever happened to your entrepreneurial spirit to compete? If we are so fixated on being “number one” then let’s do it better than anyone else has before. Let’s step up to the challenge and set the standard by which others measure themselves.

A SOLUTION THAT WOULD ACTUALLY WORK:

I would really be remiss not to offer some conjecture and opinion that renders a real-time solution for the problem.

My argument would suggest that regardless of providing universal health care or not, our nation is already incurring the expenses by cost overruns relative to subsidies for hospitals, clinics and a deluge of well-intended but, ultimately, wasteful social programs that fail to strike at the heart of the problem.

Like it or not, taxpayers are already overburdened with health care related expenses, whether directly or indirectly. This solution is more about removing the pretense and artificial stigma that universal health care is nothing more than a welfare program and creating efficiency in the marketplace. This will actually work to dismiss the propagandist notion that universal health care programs would be the equivalent to foods stamps and welfare.

Ok, I’m a realist and rarely do things work without compromise. So, let’s consider the corporate lobbyists that represent group health care providers and companies that profit on receiving premiums for promises not yet delivered.

All current and financially solvent private health insurers and providers could and should–yes, should–remain in business. Universal health care should be a right of all American citizens, both underwritten and guaranteed by the U.S. Government, but government should not be the actual health care provider.

Yes, that’s a major point to make and underscore. That means that no hospital or prescription supplier can deny any American to treatment ever, no matter what. The universal health care program would protect private hospitals and doctors from non-payment. And, once again, the universal health care program should be about being a financial guarantor, not the actual service provider.

However, all Americans that have and are used to their current health care providers will have the opportunity to stay with those same providers and, in addition, continue seeing doctors they normally see or visit. And just like the normal convention of “open enrollment” that allows clients to pick what suits them most, people may choose at select periods of time to switch their care provider.

The difference is that all those private health care providers stay in business to make money, but they are required to make “open bid contracts” with the U.S. government to become sanctioned providers on the list.

This would both streamline and mitigate spending waste, but continue the fine example of American capitalism that allows competitive interests to force the most efficient and cost-effect markets we could potentially endure. If a corporation cannot maintain adequate profit margins or manage costs to present affordable coverage they don’t remain solvent or stay in business, and being a contract bidder as a listed health care provider wouldn’t be at all any different. If they overcharge, they risk loss and forfeiture of their contract. If they don’t provide adequate care, they also forfeit by lack of delivery.

Truly, the primary difference would be that our government would be the party responsible or financial guarantor of all health care payments billed directly to Uncle Sam. So, the fallacy that people would lose their current coverage is no longer a credible or tangible argument by those that would have you believe the quality of health care would deteriorate because government would be running your managed care. They wouldn’t, they would only be the financial backing and have no say in what qualified doctor you choose to see.

Individual and private health care providers continue to stay in business and profit in a fair and competitive bidding process. Pharmaceutical companies continue to make profits without having to resort to generic drugs diluting the marketplace, insofar as they do not price gouge and maintain competitive interests that protect consumers.

However, the real difference that translates is that American citizens would no longer have the unnecessary financial stress and burden of making payments to their health care provider, or even having portions of their check contributing to co-pay. And on that same token, no corporation will have to be burdened with the cost of health care so that their profit margins rise and add to net income revenues. What conservative could complain about that?

So, where does the money come from to pay for all this? Well, the initial cost would come in the form of taxes–but not income taxes! Ideally, and I know this will never happen, you allow individuals to “check the box” on where they want their current tax dollars spent. Believe me, you’d be a damn fool if you didn’t check the box for coverage in your own health insurance before some lame-brained pork belly project.

And I really truly believe that there is more than enough money to pay for health care without raising taxes, but it must be determined through means of an absolute transparency as to where taxpayer money is spent.

Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz already forecast the cost of war to extend past 2 trillion dollars–that’s a “t” not a “b”–and I don’t hear anyone raising issue of whether or not we can afford it. So can anyone ever actually argue against protecting American citizens, first and foremost, no matter what the cost?

Now, I would argue that you could do this by not raising income taxes one penny. I think the first solution to finding the money is transparency and finding where all the current taxes are being spent now. Until every single of dollar collected for taxes is transparent and justified through public disclosure, I will never support raising anyone’s taxes ever.

I still believe that you can increase tax revenues overall by reducing the tax rate and capital gains. Yes, by stimulating the desire for businesses to invest in America we can increase our tax revenues by volume. This is no different than a corporation making more revenues and net profit based on thinner margins as volume and sales increase.

America has the opportunity to be globally competitive by reducing taxes in relation to other countries overseas, and by removing the burden of medical care from corporations and small busineses which will make our wages more competitive and increase the incentives for domestic enterprises to no longer outsource labor. Companies already have the burden of providing health care, but by adopting a universal health care you could decrease the financial burden significantly.

However, if and only if there was full transparency and we truly were net short the amount of taxable revenue to provide health care then there may be a legitimate reason to apply a tax exclusively for health care benefits. One that could be mandatory in contribution.

I know that if most Americans actually could trust, dollar for dollar, that the taxable amount was going exclusively for guaranteed universal health care, so that no individual would ever have to worry about being able to see the doctor, then I am sure most reasonable people would voluntarily sacrifice the cost in the short-term for the benefit long-term.

Such a taxable amount would have to be fair and proportionate to income and never to exceed a certain amount so that even the rich don’t have something to complain about. Proportionate to income is the key, not the actual dollar amount.

Seriously, though, there is a way if you actually created a fund similar to the social security program with the distinct exception that no one in Congress is ever allowed to tap into or withdraw funds like they did when it was once over funded!

There is a pervasive myth that has been created through the media that the social security trust fund is broken and at risk for default. The truth is that social security was over funded for years and that the real problem was that Congress tapped into the trust fund to balance the budget, simply replacing equity for I.O.U.’s. The risk wasn’t that social security was broken, the risk is that those are empty I.O.U.’s and may never be replaced.

It’s the 8th wonder of the world as Einstein described, compound interest that I’m talking about. And with such a potentially large pool of money dedicated exclusively to funding universal health care in a protected trust, a modest return on money would become exponential over time. Literally, like doubling one grain of rice on each space on the chess board.

The answer, my friends, is so damn simple that people neglect it on the basis of over thinking the issue. But everything comes at a cost, even if it means sacrificing your intellectual dishonesty and admitting that we have a problem that needs to be resolved…

IF ANY POLITICIAN VOTES AGAINST UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, START BY CANCELING AND VOLUNTEERING TO CUT YOUR HEALTH CARE FIRST:

Put up or shut up, that’s the bottom line. And, for those phony, individual and hypocritical politicians that are on the taxpayers dime with their healthcare plans, why is it ok for them to receive medical benefits from taxpayer money, yet they deprive American citizens who actually pay the bill from the same access?

I’m sure if they didn’t have that comfort level of health care billed directly to the taxpayers they wouldn’t be equating universal health care to a food stamp program. Hypocrisy has reached all time reflexive gag levels…

Folks, in all actuality, a universal health care program for all Americans would be the best way to secure every single family’s long-term stability both economically and fundamentally. It is both in America’s interests as well as the people that make our country not only what it is but, more importantly, what it could be when rhetoric turns to dialogue and conversation begins to forge real solutions.

If we care about America, then let’s take care of its beloved citizens that make America great and prosperous.

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 27th, 2008 at 6:28 pm and is filed under POLITICS, DIATRIBES AND EDIBLE RANTS, U.S. MARKETS AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.