That America already has socialist programs is undeniable. I have mentioned several of them in my previous posts on the subject. Reform of America's social programs as they currently exist should be the first step toward creating an American socialism that would at once be superior to existent and previous forms of socialism in the world.
Before taking on reform, it is important to decide what the goals of any comprehensive social program are. I think that the objectives fall into two broad categories. First and foremost, a safety net for the unfortunate and yes, even the unwise. This first category (safety net) would include health care, disability, and unemployment. The second category would address equal access to society's network of opportunities in the government and private sectors. There are many discussions to be had regarding the flushing out of these two categories. However, that is another post.
Reform. All laws and programs have loopholes. We see them in every new legislation. Some of them are left in policies accidentally, others perniciously and on purpose.
Here are some examples of reform:
First, the experiences that Nick and I had with social security disability. We had been wise. We both had and do now have long and short term disability insurance. Nick had expressly bought short term disability insurance, his long term being offered via SkyWest as a benefit. When he fell in, the Hartford Insurance Company fulfilled its contract and paid its contracted amount monthly (even though the paperwork was onerous, it was doable.) What a tremendous help that was to us! However, when it was clear that Nick would transition from short term to long term benefits, the Hartford required us to apply to the government for disability payments before it would pay the long term benefits for which we had contracted with them. The nature of Nick's disease was rare and severe; he was accepted by the government program immediately (much to the surprise of our case workers who said that the government turns down most applications on the first and second attempts, by the way, that process was more onerous that the Hartford's). As soon as the government granted Nick disability payments, the Hartford was off the hook. In essence, the government paid what the Hartford was legally bound to pay. Big business won at the expense of tax payers even though Nick had been paying his premiums since 2002. Lesson: social security should only step in as a last resource, the final safety net, and it should be the least desirable option because it pays less than the private sector, so private sector contracts must take precedence over government programs. To underscore the difference this makes: 20 months of long term payments ended up costing the government $22,68o for which, under contract, the Hartford should have been liable!
In my next post, I will continue with the loopholes we continued (and continue!) to face.
3 comments:
One of the problems with large insurance companies is that they often know they are liable, but refuse to pay because they know the little guy does not have the resources to fight insurance company lawyers should it turn into litigation. It depends on the good conscience of the company involved.
Yumi and I recently had a new refrigerator installed by Lowe's. They messed up the installation and water leaked all over our wood floor. It warped and it needs to be repaired. After jumping through some hoops (mostly reasonable hoops, I think). Lowe's has promised to pay the damages. We are waiting for the check, but on the whole, I think Lowe's was honest and forthright with us. I comes down to the integrity of the company. Hartfords probably has an integrity problem.
I also might add that I am sure we all acknowledge the existence of social(ist) programs in our government. Even the paving of a road using public money is a social program of sorts, i.e., a project that benefits society.
However, there is always a cost, and the big issue this year is how to pay for the programs. Since Obama's famous statement to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth, I have given a lot of thought to socialism and socialist programs. I have come to a conclusion that, within my own heart and mind, I could accept pretty much anything the left wants to do in this country if, and this is a BIG IF, they would avoid debt to achieve their ends. If the left can't do that, then I see no need to listen to any of their ideas.
Fair enough. I too feel strongly about debt and deficits.
We will continue the discussions incrementally...(time, time, time!)
No idle intellectuals we!
Post a Comment