healthcare

In accord with my "policy details" entry under "issues", I don't really have any details to offer when it comes to health care. But, still, I have some thoughts:

1. As I've noted in a few spots elsewhere, I endorse some sort of national healthcare system which provides at least minimally decent health care for every US citizen. This includes US citizens who, for whatever exact reason, do not (or would not, absent this universal coverage) have independent coverage because they are lazy or irresponsible (or stupid). This explicit inclusion of the lazy and irresponsible has in particular been mentioned in a few previous blog entries, most recently and importantly in "more on taxes" under "issues". I have no remotely firm views on whether this universal coverage should be (because most efficiently) achieved through relatively direct governmental provision, or instead something that is provided through employers or in some other private fashion, just in accord with governmental requirements. Offhand, though, I must admit, it seems like certain desirable features of an individual's health care, such as portability, would be more efficiently achieved through some more kind of direct governmental provision. But this is just my best guess (and nothing more than) about one of the very many considerations that would need to be taken into account to decide this practical issue.

But the relevant high-level view is: minimally decent universal coverage that is ultimately governmentally required and funded. (As discussed in "policy details" under "issues" - and in a few other spots - it's in part on the basis of these sorts of claims that I think a careful and responsible voter should choose her candidate.)

Thankfully less in fashion right now, it wasn't long ago when you were apt to be branded a "socialist" for endorsing such a view. Here's what I have to say about this.

A. Let "strong socialism" label the view that there should be no private legal property of any sort. Let "weak socialism" label the view that there should be no private legal property in the means of production. So understanding these terms, universal health coverage is socialist in neither the strong nor weak sense.

B. Let "super-weak socialism" label the view that the government should provide certain goods and services to its citizens, something funded by taxation (and so, in most cases, something funded by taking money from some to pay for goods and services provided to others). (By the way, I offer this label out of generosity to my opponent; it is not really socialist in any traditional or interesting sense. The proper label is "welfare capitalist".) Then, in that case, universal health coverage is super-weak-socialist. But, at the same time, the United States has then been a super-weak-socialist country for quite a long time. Granted, it's establishing universal health coverage (while changing nothing else) would mean that the US comes to be a bit more super-weak-socialist than it previously had been. But I'm fine with that, and it would be silly to let a mere label (even one containing the word "socialist") to stand in place for a real argument.

My basic thought is simply: on the whole, the United States is quite wealthy; even if some do (or would, absent universal coverage) deserve their situation of having no health coverage (say, due to laziness, irresponsibility, stupidity, etc.), it still would be a morally good thing if they were to have coverage; so the United States should providing universal coverage to its citizens.

Some may object that it is still bad/wrong, since it involves taking money from some (money they own and/or our money they earned and so deserve) and giving to others, but I have dealt with such objections in "more on taxes" under "issues".

Others may object that significant taxation for this or any purpose is just overall bad (because a detriment to the economy, yadda yadda, ..., ..., ... trickle down ..., everyone (supposedly) suffers), but I've dealt with such objections in "taxes" under "issues".

2. non-US citizens, e.g., legal and illegal immigrants

3. 2-tier

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

TO BE FINISHED VERY SOON