What do the events in Ferguson, economic disparity, non-labeling of GMOs, racial discrimination, abusive professional football players, and environmental problems all have in common? This diary is a continuation of a series having to do with why Ayn Rand and the Tea Party will fail America. In the last diary I suggested an alternative to the Tea Party's solution to some of the country's problems. I labeled it the Individual Right to Health Solution. In this diary I will analyze the obstacles to implementing the IRH.
The Individual Right to Health (IRH) Solution involves the right of everyone to afford a healthful lifestyle (See Daily Kos diary, 9/23/14, 2:01 P.M., section entitled The Right of Life=The Right to Health) and every one's access to a quality Common Good (See same diary, section entititled The Common Good). By everyone I am referring to Native Americans and American citizens, specifically to those people who are unable to work for a living and to those who are able and willing to work. I, personally, don't believe that there are people with the ability to work and who have a need for money, but who are unwilling to work ever, under any circumstances, if given the opportunity. I don't think society nor the government has an obligation to provide for adults who are able but unwilling to do decent productive work.
The IRH solution could allow unemployment insurance and public assistance for the long-term unemployed to be virtually eliminated. If private enterprise cannot or will not provide enough decent jobs that pay a minimum healthful living wage, the government could conceivably intervene. The government could employ those people willing and able to work but who cannot secure a job at a healthful living wage in the private sector. The government-created jobs could be designed to maintain and/or enhance the Common Good while being designed to suit the abilities/talents of the hired workers. The workers hired for this purpose could receive benefits comparable to other government workers doing similar jobs and could be held to the same standards of performance as any government worker. Failure to meet those standards of performance could be interpreted as an unwillingness to work. The wage for each government-created job could be the minimum healthful living wage for the person hired for that job.
Two of the problems that would need to be overcome in order to implement the Individual Right to Health Solution would involve the financing of the Solution and the political opposition to its implementation. Financing first.
Paying for the IRH Solution
A healthful living wage is an amount that allows one to afford a healthful lifestyle. The formula for determining the amount of a healthful living wage might be a bit complicated but would be similar to the formula for determining the amount of food stamps for which each applicant is eligible. The cost of living where the person resides would be one factor in determining the cost of his/her healthful lifestyle.
One needs a warm, safe place to live in order to remain healthy. The cost of renting an apartment varies greatly depending on where one lives. The average monthly cost could be as low as $623 or as high as $4000 according to CBS MONEY WATCH (http://www.cbsnews.com/...). The average rental cost nationwide is $1200/month according to this source.
To be healthy, one must heat one's residence and one's water supply. The average energy cost for residences in the U.S. according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration is $107.28 monthly (http://www.eia.gov/...).
The right to health should include the cost of an organic diet. One study found that cost was 70% higher than the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/...). According to the USDA (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/...) an average American male 19-50 years old, as of August, 2014 could feed himself adequately on $43.30 per week. If an organic diet is 70% higher, that cost would be $73.61.
One needs a reasonable amount of exercise to stay healthy. One can get an minimum of healthful exercise through walking or jogging. A good pair of jogging or walking shoes can be purchased mail order for ap. $90. Two pairs would hopefully be adequate for a year.
In regard to dental care, one can purchase a dental plan for about $50/month. But that will not pay 100% of crowns, etc. If one is working for the government or a large business, one's benefits package hopefully includes medical coverage.
In regard to health insurance, some of us believe it is unfair that those who live a healthful lifestyle should have to pay higher rates because their insurance carrier insures those who voluntarily engage in health-endangering behaviors such as smoking, drug or alcohol abuse, overeating, violent criminal activity, reckless driving, etc. Under the IRH solution, these people would ideally be insured by higher-risk insurance plans.
So far, for an average American male 19-50 years of age, a healthful living wage could be $20,280/year or $1690/month or $9.82/hour for a 40-hour work week. The healthful living wage might be lower than that for someone whose rent is only $623/ month. But if one lives in San Francisco where the median rent rate is $4000, $9.82/hour could be grossly inadequate for a healthful lifestyle.
In regard to children of working parents, part of the IRH solution would be quality government-funded day care for low-income parents. This would allow single parents to work full-time.
As one might imagine from this brief description, the expense of the Individual Right to Health (IRH) solution would partially depend on the reaction of private enterprise. With virtually full employment, consumption of commercial goods and services would probably increase which would hopefully increase the demand for workers in the private sector and decrease the number of workers in the public sector. But there is no guarantee that that would happen. The purpose of the IRH solution is to help secure for all individuals the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to guarantee a prosperous economy for the 1%.
The point is that this approach is not inexpensive. In order to pay for it as efficiently and responsibly as possible, the following steps would be helpful.
1. Paying off the National debt as soon as possible.
2. Eliminating government waste at all levels and in all departments, agencies and branches of government
3. Reforming the tax code
4. Stabilizing the size of the population
I'll explain what each of these steps might entail.
1. The National Debt
The National Debt is a burden on every taxpayer living and some not yet born, except for those taxpayers who benefit financially from the banks to which the Federal Government pays some of the interest on the debt. Those are probably some of the same taxpayers that resist paying higher tax rates that would enable the government to pay off the debt faster. Go figure. The sooner the government pays off the debt the faster the money that now goes for interest can be devoted to the IRH solution.
2. Government Waste
In order for IRH to be funded effectively, it would help to reduce government waste, including corruption. By wasteful I mean unnecessary. A significant reduction in government waste on the Federal level would require massive cooperation and willingness on the part of Congress, government agencies, and individual government employees. For examples of federal government waste check out Senator Coburn's annual wastebook (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/...). For an additional detailed discussion of wasteful spending see www.socialproblemsrg.blogspot.com, The National Debt post. Let's take one small example. If every federal employee wasted just $2.00 per day, be it from requisitioning a fancy pen, spending extra minutes on break, etc., that waste would equal $5,442,000 per day. If all federal government employees worked just 230 days per year and wasted only an average of $2.00/day the total waste of tax payer dollars would be $1,251,660,000 in one year.
3. The Tax Code
If the Individual Right to Health (IRH) was implemented, there would be a possibility that more American companies would relocate their corporate headquarters and/or operations overseas in order to avoid paying increased American Federal corporate taxes. In my opinion such companies are "American" in name only. There are a number of possible solutions to this problem. Passing a law requiring any company operating within the U.S. to pay corporate taxes, regardless of the location of their corporate headquarters would be one solution. It seems sensible that if one uses American property, etc. to make money, one should be willing to pay taxes on that money. Does not sound evil or unfair to me. An even better solution, one that would require more time and effort to implement, would be an international agreement among all the world's countries to charge the same corporate tax rate in every country in the world.
Another solution that would preserve rights and the separation of government and business, would be for American consumers and other businesses that are truly American, as well as all governments within the U.S. to voluntarily boycott the goods and services sold by any tax-dodging company. If a company does not wish to support the country, why should the country support the company?
We could do the same with "American" millionaires and billionaires who forsake their citizenship to avoid paying personal income tax. We could determine how they make their money and boycott those sources. An international standard personal income tax for millionaires and billionaires, regardless of citizenship, would probably be more effective.
The IRH solution would require a considerable increase in revenue to whatever governments decide to implement it. A tax reform that has been suggested and that would help increase revenue is for investment income to be taxed by the Federal Government at a rate equal to regular income. In addition to that, it would be helpful to deny all tax exemptions, deductions and loopholes to large corporations and the upper 1% of earners. Also, the income rates on top earners could be raised. For example, a 50% rate on earnings of $500,000 increasing to 90% for those earning the most might not be unreasonable. Once the National Debt is paid off, the rates could be gradually lowered to a level sufficient to pay for all necessary expenses of the federal government.
The choice is clear. We will either adjust the tax system to secure individual rights and access to a quality Common Good for all Americans or we will allow America's millionaires and billionaires to continue to increase their share of the nation's wealth while not paying what many of us consider their fair share of the tax burden.
4. Population Growth
The goal of ensuring the continuing right of all citizens to a healthful lifestyle and access to a quality Common Good could fail in the future due to overpopulation. At the present time, there is enough income in this country for all adult citizens to earn enough to live a healthful lifestyle (See Section B. Government or daily kos diary, 9-9-14, 11:59 A.M.). Let's imagine that there are twice as many American citizens living in the U.S. (620 million instead of 310 million), but no more total private wealth/income than there is today. If that were to occur, there may not be enough money in the whole country for all 620 million people to live a healthful lifestyle and to have access to a quality Common Good.
The physical resources necessary to survive and thrive on the planet Earth are limited. Even if all resources were evenly distributed among an expanding population, everyone would have to get along with less and less over time until eventually people started dying from exposure, starvation, etc. Before that happened, the most powerful individuals would form groups to hoard the remaining resources in order to ensure their own survival. It seems to me that that's pretty much what is happening today. The Tea Party laissez-faire solution would simply allow that process to accelerate and intensify.
I hate the idea of dictatorships. But when the Chinese communist government instituted the rules limiting family size, I realized that dictatorships have certain advantages. If we had a dictatorship, there might be a law requiring people to be licensed in order to birth a child. Passing a parental training test might be required for the license. And anyone convicted of domestic abuse might be prohibited from becoming a parent.
But this is America where most adults are free to have sex with any willing partner. I would like to see the Federal Government get more pro-active in encouraging voluntary population limits. As I wrote in the diary "Abortion, Tea Party, Compassion, and Sex" (Daily Kos diaries, 8/9/14, 1:23 P.M.), some people don't have strong sex drives which is fine. But those with strong libidos are not evil either. The theme of the above-mentioned diary is that it is OK to satisfy one's sexual needs without increasing the chances of unplanned pregnancy and/or transmission of an STD, as long as no individual rights are violated. This is not something being taught in churches nor in schools. Teaching it could help to curb population growth, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STD transmission.
A government campaign for voluntary population limitations could attempt to encourage people who want moire than two children, to save enough money to ensure that they can take care of the additional children before conception. It will cost $245,340 to rear a child born in 2013 from birth up to age 18 according to www.usatoday.com/story/...raising-child-cost...4236535. The alternative is say nothing and hope that the family will not need financial support from government.
Government could also stop rewarding people financially for having more than two children. The same with government programs that give more financial assistance to families with more children. These benefits to those with more than two children could be phased out over 18 years.
There will be those who think that encouraging the limitations on family size based on affordability is racist. I don't think I have heard of anyone claiming that limiting home ownership to those who can afford to purchase and maintain a home is racist. So why would encouraging people to limit the number of children to that which they can support, be racist? Because numbers of non-whites are increasing faster than whites?
If it were the other way around and the white population was increasing faster than the non-white population, my suggestion would remain unchanged and still it would be called racist because more whites have enough money to support additional children without depending on the government.
Economic disparity in this country favors more whites than non-whites. But there are poor white people. It can be said that even if a white man is as poor as a black man, the white man is still better off because the white man has “White Priviledge”. I do not disagree with that. But the IRH solution would improve the living conditions and human rights of poor non-whites as well as poor whites.
What if there were only whites in America? There would still be growing economic disparity. Poorer white people would be discriminated against by richer whites. We would still have a health care crisis. There would still be hate groups opposed to white homosexuals, transsexuals, and the super rich. There would still be abusive behavior in all sectors of society; it would be all white on white abuse. An all-white America would have the same problems and the IRH Solution would still be helpful in solving those problems.
There are some who think all humans should one day have the opportunity to live in a massive mansion in the sky and that we should keep having more and more children until that one person is born who can figure out how to construct such a monstrosity. I don’t think future generations will appreciate being left with a legacy of deprived rights and resources due to an ever expanding human population.
Then there’s the immigration issue. Even if we Americans could manage to limit our own population growth, massive numbers of immigrants could threaten the workability of the IRH Solution. Perhaps the immigrant quota could be determined by the number of Americans dying or leaving the country compared to the number of newborns, that is, babies born to American citizens and to legal and/or illegal and/or undocumented immigrants.
The Opposition
I have analyzed the problem of paying for the Individual Right to Health Solution, a program that could help ensure all Americans the opportunities to enjoy a healthful lifestyle and access to a quality Common Good. One other significant obstacle to the implementation of the IRH Solution would be the absence of the political will to make it happen. Who will oppose it and why?
1. The Tea Party won't like the IRH because they believe the Federal Government has no constitutional power to defend individual rights and because the IRH is not pro-laissez faire.
2. Some church leaders and the Religious Right will resist the IRH because of the suggestion that birth control would be helpful in preserving individual rights and access to a quality Common Good for future generations. Many Church leaders care more about people’s souls than they care about keeping peoples' bodies healthy. Someone needs to be concerned about people's physical health and well-being. That role could be filled by society and government.
3. Government employees, those who prefer to remain complacent and indifferent, will dislike the Solution because it would favor their taking some initiative to cut waste and save revenue while still performing responsibly.
4. Conservative politicians won't support the IRH because its goal is not to help Big Business which the conservatives depend on for generous political campaign contributions.
5. Big Business won't like the IRH because this Solution advocates a separation between government and private enterprise that would deprive big business of billions of dollars in government subsidies (entitlements). Also Big Business does not favor protections for consumers of their products and services, workers, and the environment. These protections are expenses without which profits would be higher, at least in the short run..
6. The conventional food industry will object because they don't want to grant consumers the right to know what's in their food.
7. Some Native American tribal leaders won't care for the IRH because they don't want anything to threaten their power.
8. Slum landlords will not favor it because the IRH Solution would decrease the demand for sub-quality housing.
9. Educators may resent intervention by government. The IRH favors governments having the power to intervene if and when it is determined that educational programs have not prepared high school students for post-graduate life.
10. The wealthy won't like the IRH because its implementation would accompany an increase in their taxes.
11. IF there are poor lazy citizens who would prefer to accept hand-outs rather than earning a healthful living wage they would object to the HRI because it would allow the government not to reward those who are able but not willing to work.
12. Reckless people who engage in health endangering behaviors will not support the Solution because it suggests that it would be fair to the rest of us if we did not have to pay more in health insurance premiums because of behavior of reckless people.
13. White Supremacists will oppose the IRH because they don't believe people of all races are created equal but do believe non-whites deserve less than members of the white race.
14. Materialists won't like it because the IRH Solution asserts that individual rights are more important than the values of Materialism (see www.savingrepublic.blogspot.com, Section D Materialism).
15. Ordinary racists will not approve the IRH Solution because its success would challenge their belief that the lower classes are disadvantaged because they are lazy and don't care to be industrious.
16. Abusers will be threatened by the IRH solution. My definition of abuse is to treat badly, insult, use coarse language, injure, deceive, violate individual rights. In the process of another writing project, I have collected a great deal of research that suggests that our country is full of abusers at all socio-economic levels and in all sectors of society. Abusers need victims, those they perceive as weaker, poorer, inferior, etc. The IRH Solution would give the weaker the opportunity to get stronger; the poorer, richer; the inferior, less inferior. It would make it harder for abusers to find victims. Abusers would hate the IRH Solution.
***
This is the sixth part in a series of diaries concerned with why Ayn Rand and the Tea Party will fail America. One thing the Tea Party and I agree upon is that our country is not living up to its potential. By potential I don't mean more money for the 1%. I don't mean an unemployment rate of 3%. I don't mean more millionaires. I do mean liberty and justice for all the people. Freedom from abuse for everyone. No one forced to live in poverty or sub-quality housing or homelessness. There is enough to prevent anyone from being deprived of the necessities for a healthful lifestyle and access to a quality Common Good. Why are we allowing the 16 categories of people listed above to get in the way of America's realizing its potential?
There is one other objection to the IRH Solution I have not mentioned. There will probably be people who fear this Solution because it might result in a bigger, more powerful central government. I will address this issue in my next diary.