Krugman has a column in today’s times arguing that the political costs of further healthcare reform are not worth it. www.nytimes.com/...®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0 To Mr. Krugman, I have a question. What would you predict would happen if the government of Serbia enacted a public health plan that provided care for provinces without a large Croat population but denied healthcare to working class individuals in areas with a substantial Croat minority? Given the history of Serbia, how long could such a program be in place until before working class Serbs in provinces with Croat population sdecide that ethnic cleansing — no longer having a large Croat population — is the best way to obtain healthcare?
Conservatives often speak of the dangerous naivete of progressives when it comes to matters of race. Lack of access to public health is how African-Americans are killed in the South. It has been this way, possibly, as far back as slave owners noticing that putting slaves to old, or young, to work on a restricted diet brought about the deaths of unprofitable individuals. As early as 1900, white supremacists in the South argued that by denying African-Americans access to clean drinking water, the African-American population might die off. In the South, lack of access to public health is how society justifies killing off unwanted individuals without accepting moral culpability.
Strange as it may seem, after I’ve said the above, many Southerners are good and decent people, who learned that in the end the racists always win and those who try to stand up to them will be hurt the most. The truth is that few if any deep Southern states will expand medicare if it means providing healthcare to African-Americans. You could argue that the fact that this is true represents the moral failings of voters in selecting their state legislators. Possibly, but in many cases the Democratic Party has ceased to effectively exist in the South. Voters lack a better option. Widespread opposition exists to the ACA because of what it implies.
Yes the ACA polls poorly. I would argue that many voters in area where it does so remember that — during the Civil Rights movement — leaders in the South used control of distribution of federal food aid (the precursor to Food Stamps) to punish communities that support the movement. Indeed, in some sections of Mississippi and Alabama starvation among African-American communities denied access to federally provided food due to their political belief bordered on genocide. With a track record like this, is it any wonder than many Americans are almost hysterically afraid of a system where the states control access to a federal program aimed at providing healthcare.
The fact is that the ACA exists. Like it or not, under current law each state gets to decide how much implementation will take place. Eventually, working class whites in the South must come to terms with the fact that they are being denied healthcare because their leaders do not to expand coverage to minorities. The most obvious answer would seem to be to drive those minorities out. One of the leading Republican Presidential candidates has put forth a plan to begin this process. Any form of realistic opposition to such proposals must start with a plan to expand healthcare to all without involvement of the states.