A Letter to Joe Hallett on his Sunday Dispatch Column
Dear Mr. Hallett,
I realize that my suggestion may sound very unfamiliar, but please consider it – at least momentarily – before dismissing it:
There is NO funding problem with Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid; there is, instead, a PRIORITIES problem.
It is true that retiring boomers will increase demands on these services and that medical expenses have been increasing faster than inflation and wages (I doubt they’ve increased faster than oil and pharmaceutical company profits). However, the problem isn’t that our nation CAN’T pay for the services. The problem is that the rich REFUSE to pay their fair share to provide them.
It has been demonstrated that extending the payroll tax beyond the $90,000 cap would end any problem for Social Security (see: http://www.ukuleleman.net/2005/05/fool-me-once-shame-on-you-fool-me-you.html ). Likewise, we are told everyday how our economy is working so well and that we are the richest nation in the world. How can it be, then, that – unlike Canada and Europe - we can’t find the money for universal health care?
We CAN find it. We already know where it is: in the bank accounts of the richest 10% of Americans – the ones to whom Dubya keeps giving tax cuts. Funding?? No problem; the money is there.
Hobson cries “if you try to make any changes in it [the services] you’re considered inhumane.” I should hope so.
The approach to this entire “problem” has seemed insane (as well as inhumane) to me from the start – at least if it is measured against all the altruistic clap-trap this country is supposed to believe in.
It is a clearly defined problem – notwithstanding all the smoke and mirror obfuscation put out by the wealthy and furthered blindly by the media.
The options clearly are:
1. Support the retirement of aged Americans by asking a little more of the wealthy – or – let large numbers of Americans slip inexorably into poverty as they work until they drop.
2. Provide medical coverage to all Americans by asking just a bit more from the Wealthy – or – let large numbers of Americans (particularly the most unfortunate among us) suffer unnecessarily and die prematurely.
Is there any difficulty in making a choice here? An honest choice? An honorable choice? A choice in keeping with America’s supposed “ideals” and “values”? A choice consistent with “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”?
This analysis is valid whether anyone in government or the media is willing to endorse it. I believe that if you give it conscientious consideration, you may think so too.
- Uke Man
I realize that my suggestion may sound very unfamiliar, but please consider it – at least momentarily – before dismissing it:
There is NO funding problem with Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid; there is, instead, a PRIORITIES problem.
It is true that retiring boomers will increase demands on these services and that medical expenses have been increasing faster than inflation and wages (I doubt they’ve increased faster than oil and pharmaceutical company profits). However, the problem isn’t that our nation CAN’T pay for the services. The problem is that the rich REFUSE to pay their fair share to provide them.
It has been demonstrated that extending the payroll tax beyond the $90,000 cap would end any problem for Social Security (see: http://www.ukuleleman.net/2005/05/fool-me-once-shame-on-you-fool-me-you.html ). Likewise, we are told everyday how our economy is working so well and that we are the richest nation in the world. How can it be, then, that – unlike Canada and Europe - we can’t find the money for universal health care?
We CAN find it. We already know where it is: in the bank accounts of the richest 10% of Americans – the ones to whom Dubya keeps giving tax cuts. Funding?? No problem; the money is there.
Hobson cries “if you try to make any changes in it [the services] you’re considered inhumane.” I should hope so.
The approach to this entire “problem” has seemed insane (as well as inhumane) to me from the start – at least if it is measured against all the altruistic clap-trap this country is supposed to believe in.
It is a clearly defined problem – notwithstanding all the smoke and mirror obfuscation put out by the wealthy and furthered blindly by the media.
The options clearly are:
1. Support the retirement of aged Americans by asking a little more of the wealthy – or – let large numbers of Americans slip inexorably into poverty as they work until they drop.
2. Provide medical coverage to all Americans by asking just a bit more from the Wealthy – or – let large numbers of Americans (particularly the most unfortunate among us) suffer unnecessarily and die prematurely.
Is there any difficulty in making a choice here? An honest choice? An honorable choice? A choice in keeping with America’s supposed “ideals” and “values”? A choice consistent with “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”?
This analysis is valid whether anyone in government or the media is willing to endorse it. I believe that if you give it conscientious consideration, you may think so too.
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home