They Won't Let Us Build Socialism
Published in VZ
(Russia) on 1 October 2013
by Vladimir Babkin (link to original)
(Russia) on 1 October 2013
by Vladimir Babkin (link to original)
Translated from
by Natasha Krauze.
Edited by Bora Mici.
The Obama administration suddenly waking up with empty pockets on Oct. 1 is not the biggest issue concerning federal expenses in the United States.
The executive branch can at least survive without an approved budget. It happens often, and not only in the United States. Every year, in every country with a competent opposition, a distribution of money between expenditures is a topic for long political and financial bargains. These bargains are not always over when scheduled: in other words, before the next fiscal year.
In the U.S. today, the main stake in these bargains is the reform of the health care system. Obama and the Democratic Party, which has a majority in the Senate, insists on passage of the reform, whereas Republicans, with their majority in the House of Representatives, insist on holding it back for some time or, even better, revoking it.
The outcome of this debate will define social and economic policies in the United States. In general, there are two alternatives: Either Obama's liberalization will continue, or conservatism will be restored in all its bloom, and not just in the social sphere.
Whether you like it or not, just like all powerful trends in the United States, the outcome will affect the whole world's politics and economics to some extent.
A Democratic victory — or worthy compromise with Republicans — will strengthen Obama's position. His defeat is more likely to weaken his leadership. It has already been shaken by his inconsistency (or flexibility?) in the Syria issue.
The significance of the health care reform Obama proposed during his electoral campaign is much broader than just supplying citizens with well-deserved health care. Along with the president's other initiatives, such as giving immigrants a right to citizenship, it can be considered a turn toward a "socialistic" state.
However, the conservative part of America holds strongly to its traditional values, within which there is no place for a "one-size-fits-all" approach.
The health care system has not been changed since 1965. Even today, many American citizens — according to some statistics, around 50 million — do not have health insurance and are obliged to pay for medical bills either with their savings, if they have them, by taking out loans, or being unable to afford to pay at all.
Back in 1993, Bill Clinton attempted to "socialize" the system. He suggested that employers should provide insurance for their employees. The Republican opposition, guards of those traditional values, responded with a law leaving workers to get their own insurance. Back in 1997, the only thing they could agree on was mandatory health insurance for children.
Obama went further. Since March 2010, his plan concerning quality and accessibility of medical assistance has become law. However, the implementation of the reform was very limited because of the opposition of congressional Republicans and the governors of some states.
The social and economic point of the reform is simple: The amount of insured people goes up; meanwhile, the medical expenses of the government and its citizens go down.
The expenses and the income, therefore, of those who provide people with medical assistance are not moderate. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. health industry earned an average of $8,608 on each citizen in 2011, almost 18 percent of the world’s largest gross domestic product. No other country in the world spends as much money — on either a one-patient basis or in proportion to the size of the economy.
It does not mean, however, that the U.S. is healthier than any other nation. Infant mortality, cardiovascular diseases and sexually transmitted diseases are much more common here than in many other developed countries. The injury rates are also shamefully high for this “exceptional” nation.
It is clear to everyone that given the current "state of health," reform is necessary. The question is who will gain and who will lose with these changes. In general, with implementation of the reform, low-income citizens will gain, while medical businesses and insurance companies will lose: The new law will place serious limitations on their activity in health care.
The majority of Americans do not support Obama's proposed health care reform, not because they are conservative, but because they do not find it "socialized" enough.
According to a rough understanding of conservatives, this majority and low-income citizens in general are the losers, while businesses, including medical and financial, are the core and the hope for the national economy and its order, as well as the future of the country and the world. It is no coincidence, probably, that in recent months mass media have written suspiciously often about the crucial role that health care plays in the economic recovery of the United States.
All these polemics, debates and reciprocal claims around the American budget have "tickled" the world’s markets just a little bit: The dollar went down slightly in value, gold became slightly more expensive. Traders and brokers have something to chat about.
The conflict between Republicans and Democrats about the "debt ceiling" — the maximum amount of federal debt — does not promise significant changes either.
Even after Oct. 17, when the U.S. can theoretically announce its inability to pay, if the "ceiling" is not raised, the world will not face any big changes.
However, the way these conflicts usually end up in the U.S. gives shape to the long-term strategy of the most powerful country in the world — still. Turns in this strategy can try nerves, and not just those of traders and brokers.
The executive branch can at least survive without an approved budget. It happens often, and not only in the United States. Every year, in every country with a competent opposition, a distribution of money between expenditures is a topic for long political and financial bargains. These bargains are not always over when scheduled: in other words, before the next fiscal year.
In the U.S. today, the main stake in these bargains is the reform of the health care system. Obama and the Democratic Party, which has a majority in the Senate, insists on passage of the reform, whereas Republicans, with their majority in the House of Representatives, insist on holding it back for some time or, even better, revoking it.
The outcome of this debate will define social and economic policies in the United States. In general, there are two alternatives: Either Obama's liberalization will continue, or conservatism will be restored in all its bloom, and not just in the social sphere.
Whether you like it or not, just like all powerful trends in the United States, the outcome will affect the whole world's politics and economics to some extent.
A Democratic victory — or worthy compromise with Republicans — will strengthen Obama's position. His defeat is more likely to weaken his leadership. It has already been shaken by his inconsistency (or flexibility?) in the Syria issue.
The significance of the health care reform Obama proposed during his electoral campaign is much broader than just supplying citizens with well-deserved health care. Along with the president's other initiatives, such as giving immigrants a right to citizenship, it can be considered a turn toward a "socialistic" state.
However, the conservative part of America holds strongly to its traditional values, within which there is no place for a "one-size-fits-all" approach.
The health care system has not been changed since 1965. Even today, many American citizens — according to some statistics, around 50 million — do not have health insurance and are obliged to pay for medical bills either with their savings, if they have them, by taking out loans, or being unable to afford to pay at all.
Back in 1993, Bill Clinton attempted to "socialize" the system. He suggested that employers should provide insurance for their employees. The Republican opposition, guards of those traditional values, responded with a law leaving workers to get their own insurance. Back in 1997, the only thing they could agree on was mandatory health insurance for children.
Obama went further. Since March 2010, his plan concerning quality and accessibility of medical assistance has become law. However, the implementation of the reform was very limited because of the opposition of congressional Republicans and the governors of some states.
The social and economic point of the reform is simple: The amount of insured people goes up; meanwhile, the medical expenses of the government and its citizens go down.
The expenses and the income, therefore, of those who provide people with medical assistance are not moderate. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. health industry earned an average of $8,608 on each citizen in 2011, almost 18 percent of the world’s largest gross domestic product. No other country in the world spends as much money — on either a one-patient basis or in proportion to the size of the economy.
It does not mean, however, that the U.S. is healthier than any other nation. Infant mortality, cardiovascular diseases and sexually transmitted diseases are much more common here than in many other developed countries. The injury rates are also shamefully high for this “exceptional” nation.
It is clear to everyone that given the current "state of health," reform is necessary. The question is who will gain and who will lose with these changes. In general, with implementation of the reform, low-income citizens will gain, while medical businesses and insurance companies will lose: The new law will place serious limitations on their activity in health care.
The majority of Americans do not support Obama's proposed health care reform, not because they are conservative, but because they do not find it "socialized" enough.
According to a rough understanding of conservatives, this majority and low-income citizens in general are the losers, while businesses, including medical and financial, are the core and the hope for the national economy and its order, as well as the future of the country and the world. It is no coincidence, probably, that in recent months mass media have written suspiciously often about the crucial role that health care plays in the economic recovery of the United States.
All these polemics, debates and reciprocal claims around the American budget have "tickled" the world’s markets just a little bit: The dollar went down slightly in value, gold became slightly more expensive. Traders and brokers have something to chat about.
The conflict between Republicans and Democrats about the "debt ceiling" — the maximum amount of federal debt — does not promise significant changes either.
Even after Oct. 17, when the U.S. can theoretically announce its inability to pay, if the "ceiling" is not raised, the world will not face any big changes.
However, the way these conflicts usually end up in the U.S. gives shape to the long-term strategy of the most powerful country in the world — still. Turns in this strategy can try nerves, and not just those of traders and brokers.
Next article![]( "US-Russia: The New 'Cold War' on Energy")
