#LowerCosts #socialism #PublicOptionInHealthInsurance #MedicareForAll #PrivateSector #PublicSector
People complain that life costs too much.
But, if the new Congress takes bold action to address it, will those same complainers call such action “socialism,” and oppose it?
So, what might the new Congress do? First, they could address health insurance and health care costs.
Many think a health insurance “public option,” or “Medicare for all” is socialist.
But, the private insurance market will not lower insurance premiums on their own. As we are the only nation who puts health care in the free market, costs here are out of control compared to other countries.
The private insurance sector has no problem socializing risks in health and other types of insurance. If people want government to be more like a private business, why can’t it socialize the risks for more people to bring down premiums?
If the government does that, chances are private policy costs will come down to compete.
Though previous action has allowed the government to negotiate prices with drugmakers and other providers for Medicare recipients, it would really help lower costs if they could do that with a full roster of recipients of all ages under a “public option.”
Of course, the pushback will come not only from the so-called “anti-socialist” crowd, drugmakers will vigorously oppose it. Since the drugmakers earn their profits by selling new blockbuster remedies, perhaps the prices of their older versions of those drugs, or those drugs off patent, could be negotiated.
If you are very wealthy, and paying taxes really doesn’t affect you, why do you care so much about paying taxes?
Taxing the wealthy and high-income earners more to ease the burdens of those barely making a living would seem a logical step. (As an aside, many of those who are barely making a living are working to enrich the wealthy and high-income earners.)
Certainly, there’ll be pushback from the wealthy, but those who are struggling expect their representatives to help ease their pain.
It seems a small price to pay for overall societal gain. Plus, the tax increases on the wealthy do not have to be drastic to make a difference. Unselfish wealthy folks should be willing to make the sacrifice. Those unwilling to do so says a lot about them as people.
In that same vein, what if EVERY earned dollar were taxed for Social Security? That step alone, over time, will make Social Security and Medicare sustainable.
Most of the folks paying the extra taxes will not feel them. But, they could make a world of difference for those who depend on those programs.
The bottom line: Some tinkering with the federal tax structure could make life more affordable for many people. It’s something the new Congress can do to answer their voters’ request. Addressing health insurance is something else the new Congress can do, as well as helping negotiate lower health costs.
Raising the minimum wage to ensure those earning it find going to work worthwhile is another option for the new Congress. Consumers may have to pay more for this to happen, but it may be worth it.
None of these actions is “socialism,” as described in the public discourse. The private sector does much the same thing.
But, if the new Congress acts, the private sector may eventually cooperate and work with them to help lower prices. If the president vetoes such actions, he must accept the consequences down the road. Some in his party could help override such vetoes.
Your vote mattered in this election. Tell your new, willing representatives what they should do. Those not willing to do so should accept their own consequences in the next election.
Peter