Obamacare was advertised as
a way to make sure all Americans have access to affordable health care. It has become increasingly clear, however,
that it is one more way of transferring wealth from the haves to the
have-nots. Notice I did not say from the
rich to the poor because most of the confiscated assets will come from the
middle class.
During his first campaign
for president, Barack Obama reluctantly admitted to Joe the plumber that he
found nothing wrong with redistributing resources. It has since become apparent that this is one
of his principal objectives.
What has likewise become
apparent is that this strategy cannot work.
It simply cannot achieve what its architects hope. In my book Post-Liberalism: The Death of a
Dream, I argue that liberalism not only will not work, but cannot. The Affordable Care Act provides one more
example of why.
During a recent debate about
Obamacare at KSU’s Marketplace of Ideas Day, I further contended that merely
providing the poor with more expensive health insurance will not necessarily
improve their health. There is, I said,
a difference between making a service available and accomplishing what was
intended.
Afterwards, a member of the
audience chided me for being hard on the poor.
I responded that this was so and for a politician would have been poison. But I am not a politician and therefore can afford
to voice uncomfortable truths.
The fact that the poor are
frequently the authors of their own misery is indeed a painful truth. Liberal sociologists term this “blaming the
victim,” but it is no more than looking reality in the eye and calling it by
its rightful name.
The poor, because they are
poor, see the world differently. Their
social situation, not their biology, influences what they believe possible and
therefore what they attempt. Given their
sundry handicaps, they are frequently fatalistic and consequently either
passive or oppositional.
During the debate my
opponent suggested that if provided with the proper resources and
opportunities, the poor would flock to start new businesses. I scoffed at this then; I scoff at it
now. While some of the poor may be
entrepreneurial, the vast majority is too disorganized to make such efforts.
With respect to medical
care, this orientation manifests itself in several ways. First, the poor, even if they have insurance,
often do not seek help. Doctors, whom
they regard as of a higher class, make them uncomfortable. As a result, even when they have Medicaid,
they tend to stay home.
Second, when they do see a
physician, they are inarticulate when explaining their symptoms. Both intimidated by the doctor and generally
inartful in expressing themselves, they make poor reporters of their own
conditions. But since self-reports are a
physician’s primary means of initiating a good diagnosis, understanding what is
wrong becomes problematic.
Third, the poor don’t enjoy
being pushed around—by anyone, and that includes doctors. As a result, they are less apt to follow medical
directions. Perhaps they do not get off
their feet when so advised or they refuse to take a prescribed medication. In either event, their health is less likely
to improve.
Fourth, the poor often have
unhealthy lifestyles. They drink too
much, smoke too much, and eat too unwholesomely. Oddly most do not even exercise
sufficiently.
In other words, we can
transfer money to upgrade the health insurance of the poor, but we cannot
transfer good health. Whatever the
intension of liberals, if they refuse to accept these hard facts as facts, they
can scarcely arrive at viable solutions.
Merely punishing the well-off to compensate for the liabilities of the
poor helps no one.
This does not mean, however,
that we should be insensitive to the plight of the poor. Rather it means that if we are to help, we
must help in ways that work. Simply
increasing the dependency of the poor is not one of these. Insisting on shared efforts that promote
social mobility is.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment