I'd need to know much more to decide the merits of the AZ healthcare plan. I know OR has a good one for the poorest; it was launched by the physician-turned-governor, John Kitzhaber.
I've long felt that given the twin tools of simple survival - food & medical care - that most poor people would not become institutionally addicted to anti-poverty programs, but could springboard higher from that life-sustaining foundation beneath them. And the turnover rates within existing social programs support that notion.
Socialized survival programs are not all about the poor, either. Food stamps are administered by the Dept. of Agriculture for the significant reason that it represents a major subsidy to farmers.
Education has long been socialized in this country, with 'free' public education and 'free' public libraries. We don't scrap it because of a high dropout rate, yet social programs providing minimal survival needs are often under the threat of the axe because perhaps 12% of its recipients seem to get stuck there, overusing or abusing its remedial aspects.
Seemingly, we are mature enough as a civilization to recognize that:
a) there will always be poor people;
b) some will be too ignorant, ill, irresponsible or what I call 'terminally stupid' to survive without social largesse;
c) whether provided a means of independent living (AFDC) or collective living (missions, shelters, jails & prisons, etc), we'll foot the bill;
d) the only real alternatives to #c are to let them die or to kill them outright, and from a moral standpoint, these two options are identical to each other.
Beyond such basic survival programs, the only truly revolutionary social program that will never be fully implemented would be socialized legal care. If everyone could afford competent legal representation in civil matters, the concept of 'equal treatment under the law' would be more than romantic fiction. The capacity to get legally compensated a fair amount for injuries suffered would move quite a few off the welfare rolls.
As I said, such a plan would never be fully implemented. It would cut into too many pockets, including those in the legal profession, whose ranks include most of our national legislators. Civil justice, then, will remain the province of those who can afford a retainer.
But if they can't access justice, the poor should be granted bread and medicine. Unless we choose the option of letting them die.
And even then, we will bear the costs of autopsies, burials and cremations. |
