Defining ‘socialized’ medicine
Pat LaMarche

Defining ‘socialized’ medicine


I got an e-mail yesterday afternoon from a friend of mine who worked on my 2004 campaign for U.S. vice president. He was pretty disheartened with the way things have been going the last four years and asked if I could explain the stock market crisis and what’s happening in the world — because after years of activism and giving a damn — he feels like giving up.

He’s a proponent of single payer universal health care but has long faced the philosophical stumbling block of people calling it “socialized medicine.” He knows that this is not what he’s after, that industries aren’t socialized just because the government buys product or services from them. The defense industry, for example, is paid for by the government but not owned by it. Something gets socialized when the government takes ownership.

In a single payer health care system, a doctor submits a bill and the feds pay it — similar to Medicare. It’s only socialized medicine if the government owns the delivery system and the doctors are federal employees — like the Veterans Administration.

But my friend is upset because he has worked for universal health care and his ideas have been ridiculed as fringe or antibusiness, or even anti-American. But now the government is taking ownership of the banks — and nobody’s outraged by socialized banking.

Well, maybe the Washington Post is.

Yesterday’s headline read, “U.S. forces nine major banks to accept partial nationalization.” Yesterday’s story goes on to say, “In pressing the bank executives to accept partial government ownership, [Treasury Secretary] Paulson's message was clear: Though officially the program was voluntary, the banks had little choice in the matter.” The banks can submit to government takeover or go under — and considering the way the stock market rallied — it appears to be their national duty to acquiesce.

So why can’t we do the same for our antiquated health care financing system? According to Health Affairs, a public policy think tank devoted to analysis of public policy on health care, more than 75 percent of health care-related bankruptcies happened to Americans who had health insurance at the time they became ill. Why not close this gaping hole in the U.S. economic fabric? There’s just no good answer to that question and consequently I didn’t have a thing I could tell my friend to help him justify his life’s work against the inconsistency of U.S. politics.

Still, I felt bad about his level of despair as he struggled to come to terms with living in a democracy that was increasingly undemocratic, as the government forced compliance on our financial institutions.

The Washington Post story went on to explain that banks reluctant to become nationalized were exposed to a sort of peer pressure as Treasury Secretary “Paulson told them the moves would shore up confidence in their own institutions, spark lending throughout the system and send a message to smaller institutions that there is no stigma in accepting federal funding.” Yeah, get those smaller institutions to go along by showing that the giants aren’t afraid of government ownership. Of course, when faced with a world economy crashing so loudly even the poor can hear it, they had to go along, “Though some were reluctant, all of the executives complied.”

Secretary Paulson wants to set the example that there’s “no stigma in accepting federal funding.” My friend who contacted me wants to know when the government will tell us that about health care. When will we accept federal funding without stigma to save human lives?

It’s as simple as this. Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch died a few weeks ago. Our government, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve don’t want any more of these financial institutions to fail. So something had to be done, even if it meant shelving capitalism and adopting a socialized form of banking.

According to USA Today, “18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care.” And about 1,400 of them die because they don’t have treatment for their high blood pressure — a condition that doctors treat in less time than it takes Secretary Paulson to twist a Wall Street banker’s arm or convince Congress to approve government ownership.

Maybe you can tell my friend when we’ll find human life as valuable as Wall Street.

Pat LaMarche of Yarmouth is a spokeswoman for The Olympia Group and its campaign for a casino in Oxford County. She may be reached at PatLaMarche@hotmail.com.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
9 comments on this item

Agreed.

You are so right.. I mean correct.

"...stock market crisis..."

Regarding the stock market, Pat, you and your readers might be interested to know that 8 of the 10 LARGEST gains in the history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average took place between Oct. 30, 1929 and March 15, 1933. There's a table showing those large gains accompanying a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Dow Takes Giant Leap as Bailouts Snap Gloom" at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394011082730699.html

And in a "We're all in this together" aside, the Nikkei plunged over 11% last night.

All the major world markets on a single page can be viewed at http://www.reuters.com/finance/markets/indices

A cynical observer (Who? Me?) of all these recent shenanigans by the "financial powers that be" might conclude that the recent "$700 Billion Bailout" was merely a maneuver to make sure the Big Boy Buddies of those FPTB don't get hurt too badly when the world economic system, not just the United States', crashes.

I really do not know what is actually happening back in the USA, anymore. Pat LaMarche running her private campaign to be Vice President of the United States. Pat LaMarche supporting the casino, along with money mangets from out-of-state destroying more of Maine's pristine enviromnment and cultural aspects. Pat LaMarche not visualizing that a complete stop and halt, cease and desist should prevent this Bush Administration from doing anything more, making any decisions, or signing any more bills, or spending any more money...whatever...stop them! This group are completely out of control already, and everything they say and officially do, just creates more intertwining of the problems and makes it impossible to readjust or unravel...which may just happen someday to get the USA out of this mess it's in. These old heads in the political system in Washington,DC and their inadequacies, inabilities, dynasty-like tenures, and "Washington-As-Usual" standard operating procedures (SOP's), have destroyed this country. With the proclamations Pat LaMarche is advertising, it should be best not do do anything more right now to screw things up...in the USA or Maine...and leave the cleaning up for the next two administrations to come before anything can be accomplished that makes any sense.

How can you comment about the intricacies of politics in Maine if you don't live there? I hope the casino referendum passes. You love to trash Pat LaMarche who is just doing her job. You could find some of her debates over the internet. At least, you would get an idea of what is at stake for the state of Maine. If you can defeat her logic, you will join the elite. She seems to me to be a person who is always thinking about those who are more than numbers on a cash register.

"marccreate"...the only cash register Pat LaMarche is thinking about is the one in her own private money bin...like Scrooge McDuck.

Hey, EVERYone!

Can we say "definitional fascism?"

Can we say "socialism?"

Can we say "taking 700 Billion dollars of OUR money to give to banks so that the banks can LEND it back to us is a MARVelous idea?"

Pat...if you ever want to run for any political office, notwithstanding the United States Vice President position, I would highly suggest you distance yourself from writing articles in local newspapers and completely forget and eliminate associations to gambling casinos. Bangor Daily News has my email address...send me a letter and I will respond and make suggestions to you about this. But, Pat...you cannot have your cake and eat it too, as the sayings go.

"...you cannot have your cake and eat it too..."

George Bush got away with it and when he was done, he took a crap on the serving plate.

"...eliminate associations to gambling casinos." But then again, look how far the wealth, power, and influence of guys like Greenspan, Bernanke, and Paulson have advanced with their associations and support of the financial stock markets, which are just other forms of "gambling casinos." Don't like to gamble? Do something safe and secure with your money like put it in a bank. OOPS! Maybe that ain't such a good idea either. At the rate banks have been failing lately, perhaps the best thing to invest in is canned meat and vegetables.

You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.