Health Care Fascism

The American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism as: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. The same dictionary defines fascism as: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Socialism and fascism are two terms that have been bandied about a lot lately as people voice their dismay with various policies being proposed or pursued by the United States government. In particular, the prospect of new health care legislation has led to outcries that the government is trying to take over our lives, and that if it is passed, the country is one step closer to socialism, if not outright Communism (the capital C is an important distinction, marking a governmental system as opposed to a traditional style of communal, cooperative living typical of small hunter-gatherer societies). I suggest, for those who fear that the new health care system is socialist, that they closely study the definition of socialism posted above. What the new legislation proposes is just about as far from socialism as you can get. For one thing, it vastly increases the market share of private insurance companies. The government mandating that all citizens purchase health insurance means a massive increase in revenue for existing insurers, whether those premiums are paid by citizens as individuals, by businesses, or by the feds. And, in any case, what the government is trying to do is make people responsible for their own health care, instead of having them wait for an emergency they can’t afford, and which the government (whether state or federal) will end up paying for anyway. But the socialist point is, if the industry is still in private hands, then in no way does this legislation constitute socialism.

Many of the people who are opposed to mandated health insurance are upset with the idea that the government can force you to do certain things. I will admit that I tend to be somewhat libertarian about the government’s role in things that should be personal choice. Philosophically, I oppose helmet laws, seat belt laws, smoking laws…. basically, if you choose to do things that are risky to your health and safety, so be it. It’s not government’s place to make me wear a helmet, etc. And I suppose I could say the same for mandated health care. The reason I support health care legislation (even though I believe the current bill is massively flawed for failing to include a public option) is because of the structural inequalities that make access to health care so difficult for so many in this country. From an economic perspective, I support the legislation because I believe that ultimately, access to care makes for a healthier population, which costs society much less and saves a lot of money in the long run.

But back to socialism/fascism. For those who are afraid of the government “taking over our lives,” let me ask you this: is the government telling you what health insurance provider to use? Is it telling you what procedures or medications you can or cannot have (answer: no – the insurance companies are the ones who still get to do that). In other areas of your life, does the government mandate what food to buy? What car to drive? What books to read? What magazines to subscribe to? What news channel to watch? What TV shows to follow? What websites to read? What sports team to root for? Who to vote for? What you can say in public, on television, on the internet? Where you can go? Who you can talk to? What job you have? And, if the government has too much control of our lives, takes too much of our money, then I guess they should stop funding schools, roads, public safety, scientific research, job training, higher education, etc. They should also stop legislating things such as sanitation standards in restaurants, truth in advertising, product and consumer safety (lead-based paint or toys, anyone?), drinking and driving, traffic laws, tracking of sex offenders (oh, except wait – the government doesn’t do enough to keep us safe from sex offenders!). After all, if we as citizens are responsible for making the right decisions, then we don’t need to legislate all those things, because people will do the right thing without having to be told (end sarcasm). This is the tragedy of the commons – we cannot assume that people or industries will police themselves, if there is no cost associated with the use of the commons (read: laws that make people behave). This is not socialism or fascism – this is the consequence of trying to maintain social order when dealing with enormous groups of people.

Requiring health insurance is, in my opinion, no more socialist than requiring car insurance. It makes people take personal responsibility (gasp!) for their own health, just like car insurance covers your liability if you are in an accident. Hmmm, personal responsibility – isn’t that a conservative value? Isn’t it worse when people don’t have health insurance and expect the government to pay if they need medical care? Frankly, this legislation is less socialist than the current system.

5 Comments Health Care Fascism

  1. Tylyn

    I appreciate the view. This is the problem The government mandating that all citizens purchase health insurance means that we are no longer free. It is now my OBLIGATION to the government to purchase healthcare. And at that i have to choose a government approved company. WE ARE NO LONGER A FREE SOCIETY !! I have the choice, right now, to pay for healthcare on my own, OR have none. I will no longer have a choice. IS THAT WHAT AMERICA IS ABOUT? NOPE IT’S ASS BACKWARDS !!!
    second. OUR CONSTITUTION states that anything not in the original doc should be left to the state level. for example, If you make less then $30,000 a year with a family of 4 you get whats called AHCCS. And in response to the socialism our governemnt does control the media. we no longer have that 4th branch. control of Higher education is next with the student loan reform. they already run the auto industry and a large majority of our bank system. And also his last referrance to car insurance. The difference is I HAVE A CHOICE IF I WANT TO DRIVE !!! there are similarities with car insurance. I WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THOSE WHO DONT PAY like now i have an uninsured motorist coverage as mandated by the feds. Driving is a privilage. I choose to drive i choose to pay for insurance. Health insurance is now an obligation.

  2. Shasta

    Tylyn – the government mandates many things. From my perspective, this does not make us any less “free.” The government mandates how fast we can drive our cars, what activities are considered criminal, the sentences for those who are guilty of breaking the law, the regulation of education, what companies can claim about products, etc, etc, etc. This is one of the consequences of living in a large group of people – regulations and rules are required so that society operates as smoothly as it can, and so that no one can take advantage of the commons. In this particular case, mandated health care is also about making sure that health care is available to all Americans – and that’s not something I am opposed to.

    Thanks for your comment – and by the way, do I know you?

  3. spin1969

    Shasta, he’s one of my graduates. He was expressing his dislike of the decision about health care on FaceBook and I directed him to your blog as an opposing view since you are far more eloquent (and educated) about it than I.

  4. Tylyn

    I think you are comfusing a REGULATION and a MANDATE. We can choose to operate a car and we have Regulations set to drive a certain speed. You ARE NOT mandated to drive though.

    And to your lst point, Healthcare is available for ALL PEOPLE. For instance, In my stae Arizona if you do not have insurance you can apply for ACCHS. Which is a state insurance. I just belive that anything that is not a GOD GIVE RIGHT/LIBERTY should be left to the state. If my state wants to adopt a program like this is fine. I have the choice to LIVE WHERE I WANT. FOR NOW !!!

    Oh and i dont think i know you. An old high school teacher of mine referred me to your blog to get an educated opposing view since it is so hard to find !

  5. Tylyn

    SEE, our main difference is you belive the Government should set the “regulations and rules are required so that society operates” and I belive the THE PEOPLE should set “regulations and rules are required so that society operates”. They are so out of touch from reality. Have they ever made 15 bucks an hour trying to feed the family. Our system was set up so the people where in politics not the elite.


Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published.