Capitalism’s done deal By Nick Egnatz Online Journal Contributing Writer Aug 20, 2009, 00:14

Email this article Printer friendly page

A socialist advocates ownership of the means of production by workers collectively or through the government, an equitable sharing by all of the burdens and benefits of a society and the realization that justice denied to anyone, anywhere is justice denied to all.

A capitalist believes in free markets, free trade and no government regulation of his enterprises. He believes that justice is protecting his property and interest, even if it means others may starve and die as a result. Basically he believes “I’ve got mine and let everyone else pull themselves up by their bootstraps to get theirs, although I will do everything in my power, both inside and outside the law, to keep them from succeeding.” Shortened version, “I’ve got mine and screw you.”

It seems the healthcare reform deal has been struck and the ‘reform’ will consist of little more than an increase in health insurance companies’ business and profits. There will be a mandate to purchase private health insurance and the government will provide subsidies for many to do so, but still all will not be covered. The health insurers will continue to siphon one-third off the top for profit and expenses, as costs continue to escalate. We have been told that pre-existing conditions will no longer be grounds for non-coverage, but non-inclusion of dental and mental health will continue, along with co-pays, deductibles and limits on coverage.

Socialists supported adoption of a government single-payer system in which we would continue to go to our doctor or hospital of choice and the government would handle all the payments. Dental and mental health would be included and there would be no co-pays, deductibles or limits on coverage. Keeping in the democratic spirit of socialism, everyone would be covered. It would be paid for by redirecting employers’ present insurance payments to the federal government and taxing those most fortunate in our society. In addition to the more expansive coverage, families would no longer be burdened with insurance and other medical payments.

Socialists would also support actual socialized medicine similar to the VA system or the medical treatment given to our service members and their families. One in which the government employs all the healthcare workers and owns the facilities. The choice of doctors and hospitals would limited, but is that really a concern? Or is the concern that we the people will be treated by competent professionals.

For the 45 years from 1935 through 1980, the income tax rate for the top earners that had benefited most from our capitalistic system was between 70 and 93 percent. This was the one period in American history when we actually had an expanding middle class and democracy started to take root as citizens with a few bucks in their pockets had the confidence to stand up for those less fortunate and take action against segregation and poverty at home and our wars of aggression in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Raising the top income tax rate to the 90 percent range would be the democratic way to pay for social programs like single-payer or socialized healthcare. If this is done we will still have the rich, just like we did from 1935-1980, they just won’t be so excessively so.

I enjoyed four years of socialized medicine while in the Air Force and found the care to be very good. In addition to annual physicals and dental exams, I had an appendectomy, hospital stay for pneumonia and a prolonged hospital stay and recovery from hepatitis contracted while serving in Vietnam; all at no cost to me. Personally now, we are among the fortunate with my wife having a healthcare policy through her employer which covers the two of us. Our son and daughter (both in their twenties) do not have insurance through their employment and cannot afford to purchase it, so my wife and I pay for their private policies which cover very little. Although we have a healthcare policy through her employment, we really have no insurance, defined as a means of guaranteeing protection or safety, since our protection or safety is only there as long as her employment. If my wife loses her job, as so many others have, there goes our healthcare.

I remember when our daughter was born. Another little girl her age had leukemia and there was no insurance in the family. I was happy to make a small contribution to their fundraiser, but knew that it would be impossible for them to raise what it would cost for her treatment. Because of our little girl who was thankfully healthy, I began to notice a constant stream of fundraisers for others less fortunate in health and medical insurance. I came to the realization that attempting to provide care to families with catastrophic illness through fundraisers was a hell of a way for the most prosperous country in the world to behave. I believe this was the beginning of my long conversion to socialism.

In another era, my father was a general surgeon who practiced in NW Indiana until his malpractice insurance carrier refused to renew his coverage at age 70. He never sent a bill to anyone. If they couldn’t afford to pay, he accepted that. He allowed his patients to pay by giving him vegetables from their garden or a quilt they had made and thus keep their dignity. I certainly was fortunate to have him for a role model.

Our new president was elected on the hopes of the American people that he would change the status quo. We the people knew something was wrong. The corporate news media sticks to the capitalist script, with both political parties supporting elite capitalist rule and the progressive inequality it naturally creates. Still the people knew that something was wrong and change was needed. But the self-proclaimed agent of change has claimed at his New Hampshire town hall meeting that a government single-payer system would be “too disruptive.” Will it be “too disruptive for the 50 million currently without health insurance? Will it be too “too disruptive” for the untold millions more with lousy policies that cover little when you actually get sick? Will it be “too disruptive” for the millions more with so-called ‘good’ policies that will lose both job and policy under the ‘bankster’ capitalism currently in vogue?

Of course, reform like single-payer or socialized medicine is anathema to capitalism and the corporate medical insurers got out their checkbooks and paid off our president, senators and representatives to guarantee that it was never even included in the president’s so called ‘all inclusive’ discussions on the subject. So goes life under capitalist two-party rule.

Nick Egnatz of Munster, Indiana, is a Vietnam veteran and member of Veterans For Peace. He has been actively protesting our government’s crimes of empire in both person and print for some years now and was named “Citizen of the Year” for Northwest Indiana in 2006 for his peace activism by the National Association of Social Workers.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal