“Socialized Medicine”
Why do Socialists (including the Left) hate this phrase so much?
More specifically, why do they accuse anyone who uses it of spouting “empty rhetoric?” As if the words don’t have any meaning beyond their political history?
The phrase was coined by the AMA back in the ‘30s when it opposed Medicare. The AMA was a very strong opponent of Medicare, and (rightly) associated the program with Socialism. Socialism was, itself, deeply reviled at the time, sometimes for less than legitimate reasons (see, e.g., those godless commies).
For some reason, modern Leftists (who are really Socialists, all) fly into a spitting fury if you call them Socialists or refer to “socialized” anything. Why? If the shoe fits. . .
Just because the term “socialized medicine” originated from and was used in a particular political context doesn’t mean that the words don’t have meaning. They aren’t empty rhetoric. When I say “socialized medicine,” I don’t mean some Soviet plot to taint our precious bodily fluids. I mean “a medical sector that has been socialized.” Why is this so hard for some to understand?
“Why do Socialists ... hate this phrase so much?”
Perhaps because, in part, they think they have “moved on” from socialism, which to many means government ownership of the means of production.
I prefer the term “statist” because it is generic and because, in discussions with honest people, it elicits the question, “What do you mean?”
Judging from personal, local observation, I would say most statists today are “parentalists.” They see the state as being the parent of society.
Good parents, they say, must enforce discipline (for the good of the family as a whole as well as all its individual members), but still “engage” the entire family in the process. (Visualize a family conference at the kitchen table.) Hence voting (on measures proposed by the parents, generally). Hence “public/private partnerships.” Hence getting “public input” before finalizing new, oppressive legislation.
“Socialism” is outmoded, they say, following the model set out by John Rawls in his Theory of Justice, a blueprint for many egalitarians for several decades, a blueprint which explicitly acknowledges Kant’s contribution. In this vision, the state builds an arena supervises individuals freely mixing within the walls of the arena.
We must set the conditions of society, they say, but not actually have the government own everything. Hence greater controls on “private” enterprises such as medical clinics and insurance companies while still touting “freedom of choice” for patients.
Another reason I prefer “statist” rather than “socialist” is rhetorical. “Socialism” is a term often used by conservatives–who offer no principled opposition to aggression by government. I disassociate myself from cons by speaking of statism and capitalism, not socialism (unless I mean a specific form of statism) and free enterprise.
The left runs from socialism and socialized medicine for the same reason they run from liberal: the words are not popular with voters.
I remember during the Carter Presidency someone in the administration got in trouble for saying the word recession, as if avoiding the word had some magic power to avoid an economic slump.