I recently saw a clip of Glen Beck talking about how the S-CHIP program is taking us down the road to socialism and eventually communism, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents. I know that this is more than a little behind the times seeing that this aired way back in February, but the clip was new to me (since I rarely have the stomach to listen to Mr. Beck for more than a minute at a time.) If you're as behind as I was; basically S-CHIP is a program that is intended to help underprivileged children get health insurance. The irony in the attack on the Obama administration by Mr. Beck is that he tries to make it sound like S-CHIP is a program that was suddenly foisted on the American people, one that they didn't want or have any idea was coming. Glen starts his segment with the sarcastic comment "now we've got that S-CHIPs thing going for us, now there's the change we were looking for!" I think that's funny because it would actually be accurate if he weren't being sarcastic. The program has been debated and passed twice during the Bush administration only to be vetoed at the President's desk, so it should be no surprise that once a president that agreed with the legislation was in office it finally passed. In other words; for those of us who voted for Obama, this is exactly the type of change we were looking for.
I don't want to dwell on the inaccuracies of fox news and its minions, but I think one point should be made clear (actually, a lot of what was said in this clip deserves to be debunked, but that's not what this article is going to be about.) Glen points out the fact that the S-CHIP program will supposedly define children as people up to 30 years old. This is at best misleading; the program lets each state decide exactly how the money will be spent, and I haven't been able to find which state is letting people 30 years old take advantage of the program. As if this weren't misleading enough, he goes on to call the people who would take advantage of the program as "deadbeats" saying that "if that's my kid, get the hell out of my house." When you put it that way, it conjures up images of a spoiled rich kid that has had every opportunity to get a job and has just been too lazy. In reality, anybody who would be eligible for this program at that age (in states that have expanded eligibility to adults) are more often than not working 2 jobs to pay the bills. Let's stop pretending that people in America that receive financial aid from the government either don't actually need it, or are just too lazy to go out and get a job so that they can fend for themselves. The reality is that in America there are an astounding number of people that despite a fantastic work ethic and their best efforts are unable to pay the bills.
Let's talk about something completely different for a moment. When's the last time you heard somebody say that publicly funded schools are a form of socialism? It's not an argument that you hear that often, yet it's completely true. The government owns the school, they pay the teachers, they decide the curriculum, etc. The truth is that hands down, public schools are the best example of socialism in America and yet very few people have a problem with the fact that schools are publicly funded. Now I'm not saying that everybody loves public schools and there isn't a thing wrong with them; I'm just pointing out that the problem that people tend to have with public schools is not the fact that they are publicly funded. I think that there are 3 reasons that people don't raise a stink about this;
1) Most Americans owe their education to the public school system.
2) Americans feel it gives everyone a fair chance to get their start, that it gives people a chance to shine regardless of their background, and that it will benefit all Americans to have a more educated workforce.
3) I believe that Americans see education as a fundamental right, something so important that it should not be withheld from anyone.
I agree with all these reasons, but I wonder why they don't extend to other areas like universal health care. People are terrified by the very mention of the name; if you ever ask somebody why this is they tend to answer "because it is socialistic." This doesn't make sense to me, because the same people will be on a school board for a socialistic public school and not think twice about it. I think this is due to the first reason I mentioned. Because people are used to the idea of a public school and can see that fascism has not spontaneously overtaken the government they can see the merits of the program. To see examples of this we can look to other democratic nations that have opted for universal health care. The easiest (and closest) example of this is Canada. I had to laugh when during his campaign McCain was speaking about "socialized medicine" and told people that if they wanted to find out why it didn't work they should "ask a Canadian!" Having friends and family in Canada, I decided to do just that. Of those I polled (in my ultra scientific and accurate process) Canadians seem to actually like the fact that they don't have to worry about the expense of health care. Crazy isn't it, but Canadians have had publicly funded health care for years, many of the less wealthy people in Canada owe their lives to the socialized medicine that so many people here in America dismiss so readily. With that said I would encourage you to take John McCain's advice and ask a Canadian, find out what the health care in Canada actually means to the people there.
This is getting long winded, so let me just abbreviate the last two points. The same way that education levels the playing field for less wealthy Americans so would health care. How often do you hear stories of middle class families that are making a good living and when a tragedy like cancer strikes loose it all to pay for treatment. It is so sad to me that one of the first questions that a family has to ask themselves after hearing bad news from the doctor is "how are we going to pay for this?" My point is that by giving access to medical help we would be leveling the playing field for so many families facing critical illness. Imagine if everyone were able to receive the best health care available, that would help people to get better faster so that we can have more people back in the work force. These aren't lazy people looking for handouts, they're just sick people who need medical care.
My last point is that Americans see education as a fundamental right, so why not health care? Is good health any less important than education? Is it less important than religious freedom or the freedom of speech? How about the right to bear arms? Is it less important to you that all Americans have access to a doctor and medicine than it is for you to have your collection of handguns and assault rifles? The most interesting thing I see with people's reluctance to socialize medicine in America is the fact that the people who claim that it would be stealing from them are the very people that would benefit from the program. Most Americans could not afford to pay out of pocket the expense of a lengthy hospital stay and are under-insured and would therefore have to pay it. You should do yourself a favor and rethink your stance on universal health care.
