It’s time we faced the issue of health care coverage without the slant of ideology or partisan politics. Obamacare was flawed, but it was further crippled by Congress changing and not implementing some of its provisions, including those which provided funding for the program. Insurance companies professed interest, but several of the largest refused to participate in the marketplace of many states, citing fears they would be putting their better-paying customers in the position of paying for those less well-off and this was too big a risk to take. The hoped-for competition didn’t take place and premiums rose.
We have to face facts. Many rural areas and some inner city areas lack the economic base to provide quality health care to all of their residents. Some people perceive the economic gap as unfair, and believe a different arrangement would solve the problem. When that arrangement has been to receive financial help from the more affluent, often urban areas, or centralized government, it has added to the resentment. Buying policies across state lines, as has been proposed, only puts the burden on those states with a more affluent population. Tax credits will most likely be inadequate, and health savings plans cannot provide enough of a safety net in the event of chronic illness. The free market won’t solve the issue, either, since there isn’t a large enough market in many rural areas, insurance companies have little incentive to provide coverage. None of these address the basic problem of inequality.
Rather than repairing Obamacare or putting together a cobbled-together health care program, which will probably greatly resemble Obamacare, or fall far short of solving the problem, we need to take a fresh look at the problem. In my view, the best way to provide health care to everyone is to have a form of health care program similar to Medicare, with various options, into which everyone pays and everyone receives quality coverage. This would overcome the issues of income redistribution and inequality, and the anger and division which they create. Whether this program is operated by the federal and state governments or by a consortium of private and public health care providers, or allow people to choose between these models, would make for an interesting debate.
November 10, 2016
We’ve elected a man who has made racist and sexist statements, and has also shown fascistic attitudes toward people who disagree with him or hold different views of individual rights, common decency, and the world at large. You may think my words here are alarmist, but the actions of human beings in relation to one another over centuries past shows a range of what can happen, and that includes the best and the worst. We need to stay vigilant at this time in order to protect our freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom to assemble peacefully in order to petition the government.
Do not let yourself be silenced. At this time it would be a good idea to form networks of people with the same concerns, keeping it local, and of those online you feel confident you can trust, in the eventuality one, or more, of you is harassed by people in your town, or online, or by local, state or federal law enforcement. Don’t think for a moment that fascism can’t happen in America. Many people in Germany believed the same thing about their country. They went about their everyday lives, after Hitler came into power, as if nothing had changed. The reality came to some too late.
Oh, some of the readers of this post are thinking, she is a socialist, or insensitive to our needs and dismissive of our point of view. The opposite is true. There were legitimate grievances that led people to vote as they did. I’ve written about some of those issues in a previous post on my literary blog. I believe socialism is a form of government that stifles creativity and individual as well as minority rights and opportunities. It’s a paradigm that wouldn’t work well in a society as diverse as ours. But now we’ve gone too far to the right, and vigilance and resistance is required to ensure that equality and liberty are preserved.
I don’t know if I’m related genetically to Abraham Clark, but I am related philosophically. He believed in the middle class and equal opportunities. His concerns were that the wealthy and privileged would form a ruling class. This concern was shared by Americans in the last election, when they repudiated the Clintons – who rose from the working class and middle class but have been part of the ruling elite for the last 30 years. I’m afraid we’ve simply put a new face on this. And Donald Trump has shown us clearly that he is an authoritarian who can’t take criticism. He may well respond to dissent with a heavy hand.
Above all, we need to respect one another, and remember those values we hold as inalienable.
The American Revolution continues today, peacefully, toward the goals and ideals that fueled the Declaration of Independence. This is an ongoing endeavor, in our day-to-day lives and over generations.
Independence 2 supports the movement toward social, political and economic freedom and equality. Inspired by Abraham Clark, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, this site explores the American vision of a just and free society.
Emancipation from the “yoke of British oppression,” although a cause for rejoicing, therefore represented to Abraham Clark only a stage in the securing of independence. “Let us not stop here,” he wrote, “or . . . we may awake in fetters, more grievous than the yoke we have shaken off.” 1 The state was in danger of falling into the “power of the merciless.” He summoned the “inhabitants of New Jersey” to face up to their new “crisis.” “Beware,” he addressed them, “lest although we have knocked off the shackles of British tyranny we should suffer ourselves to be duped into as bad a situation by artful interested designing men.” 1
The concept of tyranny had wider dimensions for Clark than for most of his contemporaries. Political oppression . . . could be countered by a judicious balancing of governmental power. Clark espoused the notion of constitutional safeguards for republican government, but he held that tyranny could also rise from economic power. His zeal for rescuing the indebted farmers stemmed from this belief. Impoverishment, he feared, would destroy the independence of the citizenry. . . . 1
“His social-political point of view, through life, resembled that of a seventeenth century English ‘Leveller.’” 2 He worried that “individual citizens would lose political freedom to wealthier ones who controlled their economic destiny.” 1
He believed that people cannot be free unless they are economically independent, and he saw participation in government as essential to ensuring that freedom.
1. Abraham Clark and The Quest for Equality in the Revolutionary Era 1774-1794, , by Ruth Bogin, Fairleigh-Dickinson University, 1982
2. Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. 1-2, Brearly-Cushing, Charles Scribner’s Sons, NY, 1929
How can we be free if we live all our lives in debt? These are among the ideas of an American founder on the issue of Economic Equality.
Abraham Clark was one of those among our founders who viewed the Constitution as an “instrument of self-realization, not the guarantor of privilege.” 1
In fact, he “emerged as a champion of individual liberties, an enemy to every form of privilege. . . . Persons, not property, had priority in his ideological outlook. The purpose of government was to provide for human well-being, and in his view active participation in government by the people themselves constituted the essential barrier against tyranny. ” 2
“Clark was impassioned in the cause of liberty throughout the Revolutionary era. The hallmark of his thought was a democratic commitment that informed not only his political attitudes but his whole value system. At variance with the prevalent Whig outlook, Clark inverted the common appraisal of the social hierarchy. Usefulness and republican virtue reposed, in his vision, among the husbandmen and artisans rather than among the professionals and men of money. Instead of ascribing honor and decency to creditors and vilifying debtors, Clark saw creditors as living idly on the labor of industrious debtors who were caught in their grip.” 3
“The oppression Clark had in mind was economic. He was explicit about the areas in which the power of government should be. . . . The crucial task Clark posed for the legislature was to design policies that would avoid ‘that inequality of property which is detrimental in a republican government.’ ” 2
He believed that the wealthy will always attempt to “divide and conquer” those without money, and he “feared that impoverishment, in destroying the independence of individual citizens, would jeopardize the basis for republican government. A society of ‘lords and tenants’ would put some members in the power of others. . . . The survival of liberty therefore required, in Clark’s view, that government protect the economically oppressed.” 2
- The First Republicans: Political Philosophy & Public Policy in the Party of Jefferson & Madison, Stuart Gerry Brown, Greenwood Publishing Co., 1954
- Abraham Clark & The Quest for Equality in the Revolutionary Era, Ruth Bogin, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982
- New Jersey’s True Policy: The Radical Republican Vision of Abraham Clark, Ruth Bogin, William and Mary Quarterly, 1978
America’s egalitarian tradition is, in fact, a way of life for many Americans. Good and decent people operate quietly, without interest in praise or reward, and their belief in fairness is a way of life handed down without fanfare. Many Americans champion individual liberty, and social responsibility. They are rich, poor, middle class, members of varied political persuasions, races and religions.
This quiet dignity infuses the history of our country, as much as the disastrous and destructive actions that receive so much attention.
Abraham Clark represented this in his passion for fairness and his sense that equality was an achievable goal.