I’m starting to come up with some half-baked ideas for my inevitable Presidential campaign. My most recent idea involves how I would incorporate my belief in the country’s need to implement certain safety net programs as quickly as possible – specifically, universal health care, free access to a four-year college or university, and a guaranteed basic income – without necessarily alienating one side or the other with my platform.
I think I’ve finally figured out how to do it – I would initially offer these programs on a trial basis to all veterans and their families. I don't think gathering the support for this would be too difficult. I assume the left would be willing to accept this compromise in order to finally see these programs get off the ground while the right would struggle to take up an opposition stance when such a position could easily be portrayed as anti-veteran (and anti-American, and maybe even anti-freedom).
However, there is a hidden element to my platform (that has nothing to do with right or left) that makes me confident these reforms will eventually be implemented at a nationwide level regardless of whether I run on the manipulative platform I outlined above: these reforms are already here. Disagree, reader? Well, allow me to provide my rebuttal strictly using my own experiences.
First, when I was unemployed for over two years, I was enrolled in MassHealth, the state’s version of universal health care. Now, it wasn’t ever clear to me how the plan worked and I’m certain I didn’t have access to all the same care I used to have under my former company’s luxury policy. But in terms of the basics, I had a card that gave me full access to the state’s approved healthcare resources with almost no out of pocket cost (beyond the portion of my own tax bill that funded the program). The way I see it, universal healthcare is already here (provided you meet certain conditions set by Medicaid, I suppose, or turn 65).
Second, when I was a senior in high school, I applied to a number of different schools. One school was UMass and its endearing feature was that it was essentially free. The key word there is obviously ‘essentially’ but for the most part going to a state university as a resident of the state meant the cost of a four-year degree was, if not nil, then at least affordable. The way I see it, free access to a four-year college or university is almost here, provided the high school graduate subordinates all other factors to the cost.
Finally, during that aforementioned period of unemployment, I found that my benefits almost entirely covered my expenses for nearly my entire first year. Although my benefits eventually expired, I learned in my second year that since my only earnings did not meet a certain minimum my tax liability was exactly zero. This was the first instance I was ever aware of where the great truism that life’s certainties are death and taxes did not apply. The way I see it, a form of universal basic income is already here - you just need to earn so little money that Uncle Sam skips over your name on the list he prints out every January.
Now, I recognize my argument isn’t perfect. In fact, it isn’t even good, not even close. I’m sure many readers disagreed with one, two, or even all three of my examples. But if these programs are boiled down to basic premise of their existence, I think it’s hard to suggest that this country isn’t already providing free healthcare, affordable education, or income redistribution to a certain number of people who meet carefully defined requirements.
I guess the problem I’m circling here is that the issue isn’t implementation – it’s scope. Our free healthcare program is crucial for the many who rely on it but it leaves out an unacceptable number of people who should qualify. The state universities, though not free, are generally affordable but the financial strain it can create for students is still significant (especially when certain four-year degrees are not always enough to land a job). As for my favorite futuristic policy, 'the universal income', the current mechanism of 0% tax rates only applies to those whose incomes are so low that their tax-free incomes are still thousands of dollars below the poverty line. We might be taking the right steps forward as a country but I think we are still at the point where we are equating ‘lifting people up’ with ‘not pushing them down’. It’s a start, but I feel like we remain very much at the beginning of a long and arduous journey to helping everyone who needs it. In short, there remains a ton of work to do.
I think one thing that can help move the work forward is to start talking about these policies in the context of scope rather than implementation. For many, starting something new takes up so much time and energy that the prospect itself is daunting. However, putting in a little extra effort into an existing process is often seen as far more feasible. Policymakers who are interested in bringing these programs forward should worry less about the big fish like disbanding major insurers, punishing private colleges that discriminate during admissions, or suggesting we send everyone a big check every month for doing nothing. Instead, they should worry more about taking small, achievable steps that help those who need it the most by expanding the scope of Medicaid, reallocating state education money away from helmet football and toward academic scholarships, and refusing to tax anyone who lives below the poverty line. Although we are all easily seduced by The Big Ideas that move society forward in one giant leap, the reality is that most societies move forward when everyone takes a small step forward in unison toward a common goal.
