« Reforming Health Care...With No Sudden Movements | Main | The Dark Side of Apple Picking »

October 09, 2007

SocializzzzZZZZzzzz

Ezekiel Emmanuel deserves props for assuming the thankless task of slowly and patiently explaining that nothing the major Democrats are proposing even nears the dread "socialized medicine." But it's basically irrelevant. Republicans aren't using "socialist" as a descriptor. They're using it as a smear. And they'll continue to do so until the world loses its power, or the press pushes back -- in accordance with what it already knows.

Emmanuel, remember, is writing this in The Washington Post. So everyone at the paper now knows that the Republican presidential candidates are lying when they utter this attack. The question then becomes one of courage: Will The Post take this newfound knowledge to heart, and every time Rudy Giuliani uses the term "socialized medicine," run a ponderous article about Giuliani's willingness to lie to the electorate in order to gain political advantage? That's certainly as important, and newsworthy, a piece as "For Fred Thompson, It's TIme To Turn On The Gas." And it's indisputably true, which should qualify it as "objective."

As for Democrats, it's time they stopped explaining that their plans are being misrepresented. There's no reason that the party with the comprehensive, popular proposals and the public lead on the issue should be the one constantly defending against attacks. That Democrats repeatedly explain that their plans don't count as socialism, while Republicans aren't feeling forced to explain how they can possibly countenance leaving tens of millions of Americans, including millions of children, without health insurance, is ludicrous. The Left needs to learn to attack, not simply assume their policy superiority will carry them through.

Update: El Cid notes:

Still, I think it was a strategic error for Democrats to name their health program The Heroic Strength of the Proletariat Preservation of Health and Medical Defeat of Capitalism Act. I know names aren't important, but this might have not been the best spin.

Fair enough.

October 9, 2007 in Health Care | Permalink

Comments

American medicine is currently over 50% socialized.
Are the Democrats proposing something that makes it more market based?

Posted by: Tom | Oct 9, 2007 8:39:13 AM

Really? So are you saying more than 50 percent of our doctors are employed by the government?

Posted by: Ezra | Oct 9, 2007 8:55:50 AM

They need to learn to attack, not simply assume their policy superiority will carry them through.

Bingo. The Dems need to have this tattooed on their foreheads.

Thank you, Ezra.

Posted by: dolphy | Oct 9, 2007 8:56:55 AM

Two points:

1. Since any health care plan proposed by any Democrat will be labeled "socialized medicine" by the Republicans and roundly opposed by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, it makes sense to offer the best plan (single-payer) rather than some complex attempt at compromise.

2. Instead of always defending themselves, Democrats might want to consider attacking. They could denounce Republicans as being in favor of rationing health care on the basis of wealth, or putting corporate profits above your health.

Posted by: Charles Dunaway | Oct 9, 2007 9:16:05 AM

also, what about a point that some economists make -- that the higher taxes associated with a single payer system would be offset by 1) less inertia on the part of employees, more risk-taking and assertiveness in seeking jobs based on interest and passion rather than security (which might increase enterpernurial output, might increase job productivity); 2) Increased wages as a reflection of employers not having to pay the phenomenal costs associated with providing health care. Wages that are in-pocket and don't have to be waited upon at tax refund time.

I am so SICK of the reflexive habit Democrats have of retreating into a corner. Haven't they learned anything from the pit bull attacks of the republicans: It's not so much what you say as the nastiness, conviction and contempt of the others with which you assert it. People don't like Hillary, but frankly the reason I think she's our best candidate is because she's the meanest. I jsut wish she'd stick to her guns, not pander.

Posted by: conner | Oct 9, 2007 9:37:20 AM

Still, I think it was a strategic error for Democrats to name their health program The Heroic Strength of the Proletariat Preservation of Health and Medical Defeat of Capitalism Act. I know names aren't important, but this might have not been the best spin.

Posted by: El Cid | Oct 9, 2007 9:40:37 AM

It's quite the family those Emmanuels.

Zeke is the head of NIH medical bioethics. Brother Rahm is, well, Rahm. And then there is Brother Ari Emmanuel, who is the basis for Ari Gold.

Imagine being the head of the DCCC and a major player in national politics, and having your mother say, "yeah, but your brother is an MD/Ph. D."

Posted by: Joel W | Oct 9, 2007 9:42:44 AM

I don't think DC Democrats actually believe that we have the advantage in public opinion on anything. At least, I can't think of any other way to explain their behavior.

Since becoming the majority, Congressional Democrats have pressed their advantage on precisely those issues which the conventional wisdom says Democrats are preferred, and have backed down and/or run completely away from those issues that the conventional wisdom says favors the Republicans.

So Democrats ram ethics reform through and pass an increase in the minimum wage, but they back down whenever it comes to foreign policy or large social programs like universal healthcare.

If there weren't so many Republicans in favor of the SCHIP legislation, the Democrats would have "compromised" by cutting the program. There's no way they would have tried to increase its scope, because things like SCHIP are always twisted by conservatives into "socialism/communism."

The only reason the Dems stood firm on Social Security is because it was obvious even to them how stupid it is to try and take on a massively popular entitlement at the very time the Baby Boomers are getting ready to benefit from it. But make no mistake, the current Democratic leadership is not what's protecting Social Security.

Better Democrats, please.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 9, 2007 10:04:58 AM

I agree with you Conner. And I don't even think Dems have to be nasty when attacking. A simple response to a question about a Republican accusation of socialized medicine is simply to say "If Rudy Guliani is going to lie to the American press and people now, how can he be trusted to run this great nation?"

An answer in the form of a question.

Posted by: Adrock | Oct 9, 2007 10:05:06 AM

Ezra-

Can you fix the link to the Emmanuel article, please? I can't find it on the WaPo site and would like to read it and join the discussion, particularly since I coincidentally posted on a similar topic this morning: http://myfriendscallmenikkos.blogspot.com/2007/10/defining-my-deviancy.html

Thanks!

Posted by: nikkos | Oct 9, 2007 10:49:21 AM

Yeah, what's up with the link? Did they ax the article because it was too critical of the Republicans?

Posted by: Steve | Oct 9, 2007 11:12:12 AM

"socialized

adjective
under group or government control"

The Gov't pays for >50% of medical care in the US.
I would call that under government control.

Posted by: Tom | Oct 9, 2007 11:44:26 AM

The Gov't pays for >50% of medical care in the US.
I would call that under government control.

Then you have a rather poor understanding of how things work.

Posted by: Stephen | Oct 9, 2007 11:52:03 AM

Isn't any health insurance in effect socialized medicine? If you don't pay for health care out of your own pocket (or don't get health care if you can't afford it) but instead are part of a larger group of people who spread the costs among themselves, then aren't you by definition participating in socialized medicine? The choice is not between socialized medicine and non-socialized medicine. It's between socialized private health insurance that tries to deny you coverage if it hurts profits and socialized public health insurance that doesn't.

Posted by: Ron | Oct 9, 2007 11:55:30 AM

"2) Increased wages as a reflection of employers not having to pay the phenomenal costs associated with providing health care. Wages that are in-pocket and don't have to be waited upon at tax refund time."

I'll bite. If my wages magically increase due to my employer not paying my health care costs then where is the $110 Billion coming from? Oh yeah, taxes. There goes my "extra" money.

Next, if by closing the horrible policies in Medicaid and Medicare we would save $55 Billion as Clinton proposes, then why have we not done it yet? We could be saving today and cutting down the debt that Bush and his Congressional yes men go us into.

Also, all this "everyone is for the greater good" crap needs to stop. Most businesses, like GM and Ford, will cut thier ties to the Health Insurance programs and rely on the Govt program. This saving will not be passed on to employees, it will be passed on to share holders.

This plan is to help bail out the huge corporations that got themselves in a world of hurt in the 80's when they offered health insurance for life and just indebt us to the the political powers that be. Make no mistake, in this there is no left versus right, they are all the same.

Hillary is just another peice of the Military Industrial Complex, she just hides behind the fence a little better.

Posted by: Bill | Oct 9, 2007 12:21:26 PM

I retrieved several pages of the Billings Gazette from under some flooring that was being replaced.
August 18 & 22, 1952. Good shape...flat nice ...legible.
Kept the pages.
Two notes:

1)The fifties were NOT a nice time...we just didn't know any better.
2)Even in THAT day, they were using the 'socialized' word.
Then -- it was in corporate resistance to
socialized power utilities.
It was the REA...we now recall fondly as the
Rural Electrification Administration.
Brought electricity to Americans across the prarie states...
who didn't have...any.

Never f*ucking changes....seems.

Posted by: has_te | Oct 9, 2007 12:58:55 PM

Who cares if they call it "socialized medicine"; this ain't the 50s anymore, no one's going to be scared by that.

And in a debate Hillary or whoever can patiently explain how universal healthcare is no more and no less "socialist" than Social Security, Medicare, the military, etc. They can say, essentially, that someone without health care doesn't give a rat's ass what you call it; they just want to be able to go to the doctor.

Posted by: Jason C. | Oct 9, 2007 1:20:39 PM

Here's the response: all the Republican plans are 'Nihilist Medicine.' As in, "we believe in nothing, Lebowski."

Posted by: Craig | Oct 9, 2007 2:11:29 PM

Wow -- I made the front page. I is humbled.

Posted by: El Cid | Oct 9, 2007 7:02:24 PM

Yup. The article was axed. The link is dead, and a search for the piece (and a search for the author) on WaPo doesn't bring up anything. Ezekiel Emanuel has been erased.

Posted by: olivier | Oct 10, 2007 4:53:54 AM

Want to do away with the whole "soicializzz" business?

Just ask Repubs what they would say instead if there had never been any Marx or Lenin or communism?

Ask them what their logical, a.k.a., factual arguments would be -- if they have any -- if they couldn't use that word for a prop.

Posted by: Denis Drew | Oct 10, 2007 1:29:19 PM

Post a comment