USA: Troy Burns

The Obama administration won approval of the health care bill by a mere seven votes. This took place in total opposition of Republican banking interests, of more than forty members from the democratic faction of the House of Representatives and against the majority opinion of Americans. This event has been described by the U.S. press as historic, considering that the idea of a U.S. national public health system goes back a century to Theodore Roosevelt and, since then, attempts to enact it have failed time and time again. The second Roosevelt, Franklin, was defeated in his struggle to achieve this in the same manner that several of his successors were, including Bill Clinton. However, the law still faces a thorny path, to the extent that the Republicans in Congress and several governors have publicly announced their intentions to challenge it in court. Besides, those who voted in favor of the law face the threat of voter punishment during the November congressional elections.

Actually, what is significant is not so much the passage of this law, but the intensity of its rejection, considering that the U.S. was the only developed country that had no legislation of this nature, and given that the legislation reflects the most fundamental common sense.

Extending health coverage to 32 million Americans without insurance or preventing that the insurance companies drop covered people who become ill or refuse to cover those with pre-existing conditions appears like clear justice. Nevertheless, Troy burns. Why?

Cultural heritage may be the reason for this disregard, which so many Americans are proud of in relation to their less fortunate fellow countrymen. To begin with, we encounter the fact that the Calvinist church was the birthplace of American democracy.

From this perspective, the early settlers defined the idiosyncratic traces of a societal model that survives. With such a framework of reference, wealth or poverty became a mere expression of predetermination, of salvation or condemnation in the afterlife. Helping the underprivileged became, in their eyes, undue interference with the divine purpose in matters of salvation and material success.

However, there is a second explanation related to the notion of Social Darwinism and the subsequent natural selection of the fittest. It supports the idea of “creative destruction,” the essence of capitalism in its American version. From this perspective, wealth redistribution not only interferes with the natural reward corresponding to the fittest, but it obliges them to take responsibility of those who were unable to succeed for themselves.

In this manner, Puritanism and Social Darwinism go hand in hand to justify the prevailing social harshness. The following analysis by Joseph Stiglitz was not in vain: “Redistribution of income not only takes away incentives for work and savings but is almost immoral, for it deprives individuals of their just rewards.” (Making Globalization Work, London, 2006)