Not too long ago George Bush Jr., while President, denied universal health care coverage for school children out of a concern for the cost; $25 billion.

No too long afterward we found out that he had somehow mislaid $12 billion in cash in Iraq, a story never persued by our media to conclusion. The UK’s BBC however did investigate and discovered that the missing cash had been dispersed among 'projects of importance and miscellaneous expenses' in Baghdad or, what we in the real world call 'bribes.'

I bring this up as we – during the Republican Bush years – had no problem piling our coffers high with debt ‘liberating’ Iraq to the tune of $2 trillion while killing in excess of 1 million Iraqis in the process.

There were no Tea Parties or Town Hall Tantrums in response to this lavish expenditure of our money; nor were there when Bush panicked and demanded that $700 billion be spend bailing out banks - an amount that has never been accounted for. Imagine that – dropping $712bn and never having to provide a receipt. Says a lot about politicians - and about ourselves for not demanding more from them - doesn't it?

We are now faced with a healthcare reform bill and Republicans – conservatives – call them what you want, are out stomping their feet insisting that they don’t want it. They’re not quite sure why they don’t want it as an article in the McClathchy Newspaper points out (see link below). Never mind that most have never read the 1,000 page bill draft. These guys don’t want it and will resort to just about anything to stop it. You may read the bill if you like - there's a link at the bottom of the page.

Personally I think that they are reacting so aggressively because of a closely harbored group racist anger against having a president of color in the White House. A president, I might add, who has achieving more in six months than GWB did in eight years; that’s just my opinion of course.

The fact is that in countries with socialized healthcare, everyone has coverage. Interestingly enough everyone in America has coverage now, as hospitals and doctors are obliged to treat everyone who walks through their doors. The difference is that these doctors and hospitals don’t get paid for providing treatment nor are they reimbursed for the most part by Uncle Sam. You and I end paying through increased medical costs, assuming we have health insurance; 40 million Americans don't.

Close examination of countries with social healthcare will show that there is a two-tier systems of care available. You honestly didn’t think that even foreign politicians would share the doctor's waiting room with the great unwashed did you?

There’s universal care for everybody (what Obama’s proposing) and then there’s private care for those who can afford it (as we have now). Private is just that – it provides insurance-backed care in private clinics with private-pay doctors and healthcare professionals. If you have a job that provides insurance you get tier one – which you pay for - and tier two which comes out of your taxes. No job? No problem, you benefit from tier two coverage. And you won't die broke as most do now thanks to our current healthcare system. What it comes down to is that healthcare is a shared societal cost whatever way you put it.

So what really is the problem? Could it be that at last we can see that these militant baying Republicans are really a bitter narcissistic bunch who don’t give a damn for their poorer countrymen, women and children? Or is it that Obama is pressing buttons that are setting these guys off that someone else, and not they, are responsible for implementing much-needed social change?

The cries of ‘socialism’ ring loud and clear across the plains. However these cries are the cries of the not-too-bright. In reality ‘socialism’ came roaring into the United States, not on Obama’s shoulders, but on the stooped back of Bush when he demanded the first (and second) bank bailout.

Instead of letting capitalist market forces work and allowing the broke banks to fold, Bush decided to step in and bail them out in a move comparable to the worst days of Labor in Britain in the early 1970s or in a ploy frequently employed in Mother Russia (where accountability for state expenditure, funnily enough, was never an issue either).

Under our current system the market is providing the healthcare blanket; its cost generously absorbed by doctors, hospitals and pharmacies. In times of recession – caused by Bush’s failed economic policies - even some of the staunchest Republicans will lose their jobs. Ye gads. As the din dies down they will come to realize that their fellow party members now regard them no longer ‘one of them’ (being potentially poor and all) and they will be cast in to the pool with the rest of us regular folks.

Republicans did not want our poor benefiting from Social Security or Medicare any more than they want them benefiting from affordable healthcare today.  Shakespeare’s immortal words in the title above lead us to understand that they have little to contribute that benefits society in general and the less fortunate in particular.
 

Reference:

McClatchy Article - Headed to a health care 'town brawl?' Read this first

H. R. 3200 - U.S. Congress Health Bill (pdf)

Back to the ButlerReport