Practical Progressive? - Granite Grok

Practical Progressive?

Is this a new addition to the ever increasing set of oxymorons?  I guess Chaz Proulx didn’t like it when I called him a socialist as he’d rather call himself a practical progressive.  Now, I have nothing personal against Chaz, but if the claims are to be made, let’s have the debate!

Just for the record, a socialist can be defined as:

social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies.

If he is advocating for Universal Healthcare, then according to definitions, universal healthcare is a socialistic policy.  After all, even if government may not technically own the means of "production", if it controls the decision making of how the "means of production" will be used, regulated, rationed, and funded, isn’t that the same thing?.  If that isn’t a grand example of a socialistic policy?

A good example is the latest utterances of John Edwards (who as a Democratic Presidential candidate is preaching universal healthcare) shows the darker side of universal healthcare (H/T: JunkYardBlog):

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

I loved what Geoff’s rejoinder was:

I can’t wait for the floss police to come aknockin’.

So, Chaz is willing to cede his freedom to some faceless government bureaucrat in his own healthcare needs?  Does this mean that he acknowledges that others can take care of him better than he can himself?

Betsy’s Page add more and asks a very important question:

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said. 

What’s the penalty for not going in for your checkup? And how will the government know if you’ve gone or haven’t gone? Will our doctors have to file reports on their patients’ pattern of visits?
 
Yes, we can all agree that regular preventative checkups are a good thing. But should the government really be in the business of requiring everything that is good for us? Steven Taylor has some more questions on how this wondrous plan would work.

She hits it on the head. Why should government be responsible for my healthcare?  After all, look at Katrina – one of the worst failures of government at all levels that has been seen recently. And you want government to be in charge of your family’s well being? And if need be, in a hurry (wanna start looking at some stats, Chaz)?

While Chaz says that government can be an agent of good (which it can be, given a topic like the military), is he willing or advocating for the all-encompassing intrusiveness of government into our individual lives to make that good possible? 

Gee, I thought those on the Left were against Government spying on people?  And this would require it legally – can you say doubleplus ungood?

Why SHOULD government ALWAYS be looked upon as THE solution agent?  Chaz, read Dr. Arthur Brooke’s book!  Frankly, I loathe the idea that my solutions should be come from my government and in my philosophy,  that’s not being self-reliant and being responsible for myself.

While it may be altruistic to believe that government can be all good to all people, it is a truism that cannot hold true in practice.  Can you imagine the amount of regulations, oversight, and red tape that would be needed to do this?  And trust me, it will be far in excess of anything that is now in place.

Last thought – Practical?  I want to hear this defined, explained, and detailed examples given, as I cannot see figure out how, in this are, government can do better than free markets if

Government gets out of the way and quits distorting the marketplace!

After all, it was because of FDR’s wage freeze policy that gave rise to present malfunctioning healthcare insurance in the first place.  Insurance premiums too high?  Stop government from ladling on forced mandates. Let small business’s aggregate purchasing power.  Let people buy across state lines.  Move it from an employer based system to an individual / family based one (like it used to be).  Broaden out HSAs.

Pro Choice people are usually Left leaning ones who advocate that abortion is between a women and her doctor – why force government into the breech for all healthcare if you are advocating for government to stay out of it in that case?

Cognitive dissonance, any one?

Competition works – just look at the price, quality, and function of consumer electronics!  That can happen in healthcare too – just give it a chance by getting government out of the way except for the needed safety net (and making SCHIP available to kids in $80K/year families is not a safety net for the poor!)

Univeral healthcare is just another code phrase for "we want you to be more dependant on government largess (after it takes the coins from your purse to begin with). 

>