Those who know me know that my academic background is in Economics. Of course this would mean that in theory I should be all in favour of free markets, small regulation, business self regulation, and as little government as possible.
This could not be farther from the truth.
The truth is, I do not believe that so called “conservative” economic policies work at all.
Let me explain myself for a bit before going more in detail.
You see, it all started in the 1970s, when the theory of “Supply side economics” became the prevalent idea for economic development in the United States.
It is based on the principle that, given a the proper incentive, like a lower taxation rate, enterprises will invest the money that they save from not being taxed.
This, paired with a favourable economic environment, should mean that those tax savings the enterprises get will “trickle down” to everybody else down the line. That could be anything from higher wages to innovation — anything else, really.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The truth is, Trickle down economics is a con.
The alleged savings that are supposed to be reinvested down the line are instead reinvested into company stock and distributed to stockholders and executives as dividends and bonuses. Better wages? no. Innovation? Don’t bet on it. Better working conditions? dream on. Trickle down economics benefits shareholders. It leaves everybody else out to dry.
This is so much so, that economic disparity in the United States of America has increased since the 1980s, instead of decreasing. If that isn’t a policy failure, I don’t know what is.
The Conservative quest for small government has also left the United States behind in terms of infrastructure repair, technology, innovation, competitiveness, and access to health care.
Three weeks ago, I underwent a shoulder surgical procedure. With my private insurance plan, which I was able to easily access, regardless of past medical conditions or age, and in spite there being a robust public healthcare system, where I could have had my surgery for free, I paid all of €250 for the whole of it.
I have been told that in the United States a similar surgical procedure costs several thousands of dollars, even with insurance. I consider that that is a failing of the United States in being the steward of its citizens’ health. Personally, and being a self-avowed Americanophile, I think that it is immoral and appalling that in the most powerful country in the world people should be faced with the conundrum: Food or health?
I digress, though.
The same kind of politicians that hold as good the belief that supply-side economics are valid also hold the belief that when it comes to healthcare it should be the private market who drives it, instead of it being a joint venture between private providers and local, State and Federal authorities to make sure that healthcare is not a privilege but a right.
That is the point of universal healthcare.
Surely, there are private hospitals who can practice por-profit medicine; but they must to so in such a way that it does not exclude anyone from accessing healthcare, which is a fundamental human right.
So in short: For the people who work and have either employer-provided or individual healthcare plans, they have a choice: Free healthcare at State-run facilities or low-cost private healthcare at the health facility of their choice. For those out of work or retired, there is free healthcare provided at State-run facilities. The social net is closed, and very few people slip through it.
I don’t call that Socialist. I call that Humanist.
Whoever tells you otherwise… They’re fools.