2 of my socialistic policies
on a whole i'd say i'm pretty libertarian. i have no desire
to help someone (or anyone) out. there are only two
policies in which i can imagine a socialized approach.
those being health care and education.
the deal with education is that i just feel that it's the
most fundamental building block to our society. education
can never be a bad thing in my mind and i also think that it
is a thousand times more valuable than anything else you
could give to a person.
what i see as the problem with education is that there
always seems to be a tug of war between the haves and have
nots. but unlike most policies this one i believe is a
complete fabrication. many complain about the inequities in
the elite schools of this country and how there elitism has
permeated all the way into kindergarden. as usual there is
this basic fear that some have of those that are "being left
behind". in fact one of the most controversial policies in
our country is based on this notion.
concretely this worries stem from the underrepresentation of
minorities in the 'privileged' schools. those schools that
parents strive to get their children into for the hopes that
they can somehow shiny their way into a harvard or a
princeton. these so-called gifted and talented schools that
pop up here and there. those schools that are
'over-reprsented' by asians, indians, and whites. the
primary focus of our system is to level the playing field.
and proponents of leveling the playing field erroneously
believe that equitable representation in the upper tiers is
the answer. it is not.
the main focus of an educational policy should be to prop up
the bottom half and not to worry about the upper half. in
my opinion it is more important that any money or thougth
that would be put into getting one more hispanic into a
'gift and talented' school would be expended on getting air
conditioning into the inner city schools of baltimore. but
that's the problem with such a social policy. what can you
point to with one more air-conditioning unit? what sort of
satisfaction do you get out of a policy that doesn't
generate marketable results ("hey look at this hispanic my
policy put in the GT school!"), not much.
the socialism i propose is that all tax money be put into
upgrading the lowest tiers. those rural schools that fall
apart at the seams and those inner city schools plagued by
crime. you see the reality of it is that one really only
needs a very minimal amount of intelligence to make
something out himself. intelligence is vastly overrated and
raw ambition is often times frowned upon as not being
enough. the difference lies in actually having that basal
knowledge, that ability to read, write, and add. the rest
lies in your own individual ability and determination. we
shouldn't focus on battling for equality in the upper tier
but should aim our social policy and money in picking up the
as for health care i am a firm believer in a universal
health care system. one thing i know is that there is
nothing worse than being sick; it resigns you into behaving
like the most primitive person, just wanting relief from
your ailment. the thought that someone could silently
suffer due to not having the means or money for health care
is sickening to me. i really base it on the premise that
everyone should have a right to life and by limiting the
ability to excercise one's right through an inadequate and
broken health care system we just create a farce out of what
we pillor our country on.
there are two main problems i see with the universal health
1.) the expense...i come from a country which has bankrupted
itself on universal health care
2.) a disincentive for innovation. the beauty of a
non-socialized health care industry is that it enduces
doctor's to take risks and innovate through knowledge of a
now the deal is how you can possibly solve those two problems.
well first off i would imagine that creating a national set
of health providers rather than allowing individual state
regulations to cater to the monopolization of health care
availability woudl be a good start. furthermore i am a
strong proponent of a flat tax. a flat tax coupled with a
complete abolition of any investment taxes. a low sales tax
and that's all. i truly believe that this would stimulate
market activity and the founding of many more businesses and
innovation as capital becomes cheaper as it doesn't cost
people to invest their money.
i would reject individual HSAs as inadequate for really
solving the problem i posit for the sole purpose that they
don't make sense if you take a look at the realistic nature
of health problems. the problem with our health system is
that it does not cover the cover. the health problems in
our society are not a normal distribution. instead it is
skewed towards a few who have chronic conditions. the
majority of us don't need healht care anyhow, we hardly get
sick other than a flu here or there. for us HSAs are great.
we accumulate money and don't have to pay for something we
don't use until we need it.
but for someone who is chronically ill it's the most
ridiculous premise ever, in that there is a strong
disincentive to just not save and forego it anyhow.
the problem is that our system now is broken. we need a
true reform and i think that universal health care is the
most equitable option. a flat tax with a minimal sales tax
in my opinion would raise tax revenues substantially,
curbing spending on ridiculous earmarked provisions made by
our lawmakers would also help...but that's just idealism.
as for the problem of innovation i propose that we offer tax
incentives to private enterprises who 'donate/invest' in
grants/funds which go to the innovation of medical practice.
there you would still have hte accolades and financial
incentives for innovation while allowing the intangible of
good-will (can you imagine Target's spokesperson coming to
podium and presenting Dr. Schmoe with the "you rid our world
of cancer award"? i think you get my point).