Why in five years, the American right will embrace socialized medicine.
By Chase Madar
The American Conservative, July 25, 2017
Donâ€™t tell anyone, but American conservatives will soon be embracing single-payer healthcare, or some other form of socialized healthcare.
Yes, thatâ€™s a bold claim given that a GOP-controlled Congress and President are poised to un-socialize a great deal of healthcare, and may even pull it off. But within five years, plenty of Republicans will be loudly supporting or quietly assenting to universal Medicare.
And thatâ€™s a good thing, because socializing healthcare is the only demonstrably effective way to control costs and cover everyone. It results in a healthier country and it saves a ton of money.
In fact, in every first-world nation that has socialized medicineâ€“whether it beÂ a heavily regulated multi-insurer system like Germany, single-payer like Canada, or a purely socialized system like the United Kingdomâ€“-it costs less. A lot, lot less, in fact: While healthcare eats up nearly 18 percent of U.S. GDP, for other nations, from Australia and Canada to Germany and Japan, the figure hovers around 11 percent. (Itâ€™s no wonder that smarter capitalists like Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway are bemoaning the drag on U.S. firm competitiveness from high healthcare costs.) Nor are healthcare results in America anything to brag about: lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality and poor scores on a wide range of important public health indicators.
The barrier to universal healthcare is not economic but political. Is profligate spending on health care really a conservative value?
The objections to socialized healthcare crumble upon impact with the reality. One beloved piece of folklore is that once people are given free healthcare theyâ€™ll abuse it by going on weird medical joyrides, just because they can, or simply let themselves go because theyâ€™ll have free doctor visits. I hate to ruin this gloating fantasy of lumpenproletariat irresponsibility, but people need take an honest look at the various health crises in the United States compared to other OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries.
If socialized medicine could be in conformity with conservative principles, what about Republican principles? This may seem a nonstarter given the pious market Calvinism of Paul Ryan and Congressmen like Reps. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who seem opposed to the very idea of health insurance of any kind at all. But their fanaticism is surprisingly unpopular in the U.S. According to recent polling, less than 25 percent of Americans approve of the recent GOP healthcare bills. Other polls show even lower numbers. These Republicans are also profoundly out of step with conservative parties in the rest of the world.
Strange as it may seem to American Right, $600 EpiPens are not the sought-after goal of conservatives in other countries. In Canada, the single-payer healthcare system is such a part of national identity that even hard-right insurgents like Stockwell Day have enthusiastically pledged to maintain it. None of these systems are perfect, and all are subject to constant adjustment, but they do offer a better set of problemsâ€“the most any mature nation can ask forâ€“than what we have in the U.S.
And virtually no one looks at our expensive American mess as a model.
Even in the GOP, this is where the votes are: Trumpâ€™s move to the center on questions of social insuranceâ€“Medicare, Medicaid, Social Securityâ€“was a big part of his appeal in the primaries. The rising alt-Right, not to hold them up as any moral authority, donâ€™t seem to have any problem with universal Medicare either.
It will fall on â€œreform conservativesâ€� to convince themselves and others that single-payer or some kind of universal care is perfectly keeping with conservative principles, and, for the reasons outlined above, itâ€™s really not much of a stretch. Lest this sound outlandish, consider how fully liberals have convinced themselves that the Affordable Care Actâ€“a plan hatched at the Heritage Foundation for heavenâ€™s sake, and first implemented by a Republican governorâ€“is the every essence of liberal progressivism.
The real obstacle may be the Democrats. As Max Fine, last surviving member of John F. Kennedyâ€™s Medicare task force, recently told the Intercept, â€œSingle payer is the only real answer and some day I believe the Republicans will leap ahead of the Democrats and lead in its enactment,â€� he speculated, â€œjust as did Bismarck in Germany and David Lloyd George and Churchill in the UK.â€� For now, an invigorating civil war is raging within the Democrats with the National Nurses Union, the savvy practitioner-wonks of the Physicians for a National Health Program, and thousands of everyday Americans shouting at their congressional reps at town hall meetings are clamoring for single-payer against the partyâ€™s donor base of horrified Big Pharma executives and affluent doctors. In a few years there might even be a left-right pincers movement against the neolib/neocon middle, whose unlovable professional-class technocrats are the main source of resistance to single payer.
I donâ€™t want to oversell the friction-free smoothness of the GOPâ€™s conversion to socialized healthcare. Our funny country will always have a cohort of InfoWars ooga-boogas, embittered anesthesiologists and Hayekian fundies for whom universal healthcare is a totalitarian jackboot. (But, and not to be a jerk, itâ€™s worth remembering that Hayek himself supported the socialized healthcare of Western Europe in one of his most reasonable passages from the Road to Serfdom.)
So even if there is some banshee GOP resistance at first, universal Medicare will swiftly become about as controversial as our government-run fire departments. Such, after all, was the trajectory of Medicare half a century ago.
Although this article was published a year ago it is even more pertinent today considering the ever-deteriorating political milieu. Not only are the left and right divided, the left is divided amongst itself over support for a market-based versus a public service approach to financing health care, and the right is divided amongst itself over a Trumpian-style market-based versus a nihilistic drown-Medicare-in-a-bathtub approach.
Liberals or progressives – whatever you want to call them – have long been supportive of a national health program along the line of Medicare. However, their concept of political pragmatism has stifled their open support of such an approach, though that is now changing as we see how popular advocacy for Medicare for all has become.
Conservatives or libertarians have fixated on anti-government rhetoric, though views such as those of Friedrich Hayek, and those of the conservative leaders of European nations have long supported a prominent government role in ensuring health care for everyone. So it is not surprising that a conservative publication – The American Conservative – publishes an article on anticipated conservative support of “socialized medicine.”
Though we may have continued political turmoil, it is agreed that health care costs must be contained, waste reduced, and that everyone should have health care when needed. Those are concepts shared by conservatives and liberals. It’s about time that we adopted policies that would make them a reality, i.e., an improved Medicare for all.
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.
Source: Finance Solidaire