Where I Stand on the Health Care Debate and Why

Who This Post Is For and Why I Feel the Need to Write This

I am not writing this post to convert anyone. I do not suffer such delusions.

I am writing it for those who oppose universal health care but cannot clearly articulate the moral and philosophical reasons why. I am writing it for those who support universal health care, but demonize those who do not, clearly having no solid understanding of the debate. I write this to shift the debate from mockery, finger-pointing, and nonsense towards intelligent discourse.

I am bothered that people who are in support of universal health care tell me I’m immoral or unthinking because I do not believe in forcing others to pay for my health care. They tell me I'm not pragmatic, which is laughable. A true pragmatist would avoid the spurious populist dogma currently associated with the word, and adopt a rational and methodical (i.e. pragmatic) review of the issue at hand.

It is my sincere hope that anyone who reads this and wishes to comment will refrain from name-calling, non-sequiturs, or other nonsensical commentary, and address things I've said.

While this discussion does not address what are admittedly many flaws in the current system, I feel it is important that the argument against universal health care be clearly understood and stated rationally. I feel that only from this point can we have a conversation about real solutions to providing better care for those suffering and in need of help.

A Real Life Example of the Shortfalls of Government-Provided Care

I do not understand what those who support universal health care believe the outcome of such a system will be. I wonder if they have looked beyond promises from politicians to the realities of such systems. I think if they have studied this topic, they would find aside from the troubling moral issues of using force to effect change, this change will be ineffective to achieve the goals sought once implemented.

I can only conclude many supporters have unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved, and will be disappointed with the results. Contrary to talking point given by politicians, everyone will not have care, equal access to care, or the highest quality care. There will be unavoidable rationing. A quick review of any government program should be evidence enough of this fact.

As I mentioned in a recent post, I've already experienced rationing of care and services under my now government-run health insurance through GM. For example, now my insurance only covers dental x-rays every other year. My dentist said this will be inadequate to prevent problems, and will most likely lead to increased costs for fillings/root canals if I do not pay for annual x-rays out of pocket.

Predictably some of you will be respond, "Well GM deserves worse care for their mistakes." This is not what we are discussing. We are discussing government-provided care. I am pointing out that I have government-provided care, and my care became immediately worse than the private care I recently had access to. So, for those under the illusion government care will somehow be better or equal to private options, this is a clear illustration that even in a small population such as non-union GM employees and their spouses, care is considerably rationed, much touted preventative care is not emphasized, and will likely lead to worse care and increased costs unless individuals pay more out of pocket for "premium care" like annual dental x-rays.

I could go on with my experiences with a family member on Medicaid, but to be honest the stories are too horrifying to share. I shouldn't have to go there.

The Moral Case Against Universal Health Care

I believe we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. I think anyone who does not feel this way is selfish, but I also believe in giving people freedom to choose how they want to live their lives. If someone does not feel compelled to help me in my time of need, I would not feel any sense of justice in forcing them via taxation to do so. This is precisely where I, and those who support universal health care differ.

To be clear, it is not an argument over "should we help others." Of course we should. I don't believe I would find much disagreement there. It is an argument over the means whereby we should help others. It is a question of "should we use force to make other people help others." I strongly believe any support system should be voluntary, whereas other people feel it is better to use force to make people accept a particular moral code.

In reality, universal health care is not about helping one’s fellow man. There is no one stopping us from helping each other. There is no law that says, “You may not give of your time and/or money to help your ailing friend, family member, or neighbor.”

Unfortunately there is no way around the fact that when one supports universal health care, or any other kind of legislation that forces people to bend to a will that is not their own, it is de facto imposition of their personal moral code onto others, in the methodology they see fit. In this case, it is utilizing government monopoly of coercive force. There is no other possible interpretation.

For those who are confused about my repeated use of the word force, they only need to imagine what happens when someone does not pay their taxes, or a portion of their taxes. Warnings, fines, seizure of property and eventual jailing would be the result. Participation in government-run programs is not voluntary. If it were, this entire post would be irrelevant. In fact, if the universal health care scheme were voluntary, I'd be for it! I believe in freedom to choose.

It's Not the Government's Job

For those who claim "it's the government's job to take care of people," because of the general welfare clause, I believe this is a lazy way to think; an easy way to shift responsibility away from oneself, and shift blame to nameless Scrooges who are not doing their part and must have their wealth taxed away for someone else's benefit. Furthermore, the danger in this is that we could broaden the definition until a government representative bathes us in the morning, and spoon feeds us our meals using this ever-expanding definition of general welfare.

It’s not the government’s job to take care of us or our neighbors. It’s your job. It’s my job.

I also believe is it our job to refrain from using force to effect change, but use peaceful means. This is entirely my opinion, I am aware many people prefer a system of force since it is admittedly a quicker and easier methodology, but wholly immoral. Again, legislating mandatory participation in a universal health care scheme is equal to using force. I would far rather implement voluntary systems, lead by example, and be joined in the efforts to help others. I do not have the audacity to believe anyone else should be forced to do my will, but I would hope they would see the benefits.



Want More? , , ,

1 Comments:

  1. First off, thank you for a very well written and clear post. While I disagree with your point of view, I appreciate it none the less. That being said, there are plenty of things here that I don't see / agree with the logic of.

    1. Using force to effect change: Most social change movements in the US, while perhaps begun with peaceful grass-roots initiatives, were eventually taken on and legislated by the government. The abolishment of slavery and later Jim Crow laws, women's suffrage, and integration into schools are a few examples of where until the government forced the change, it simply would not happen.

    2. The responsibility of the people: While I concur that you and I should be the ones helping our fellow man and woman, that simply isn't the case. At least not where I live. Our society is ingrained with a 'not my problem' mentality. Also, while I can't speak for you, I know that I don't have the means in which to help my neighbor with something like chemotherapy or any other serious medical condition.

    3. Imposition of a moral code: Any law that governs some sort of morality is doing just that. An argument could be made that current marriage laws that restrict homosexual's right to marriage is imposing a conservative viewpoint, while at the same time allowing homosexuals to marry would be imposing a progressive viewpoint. Two sides of the same coin. Pick your topic: prayer in schools, gun laws, capital punishment, military spending / actions, etc. They all fall on some side of a moral argument. So it is impossible to avoid that.

    4. Your recent experience with government subsidized care: I certainly can't argue with your particular experience. However, I can argue that it isn't indicative one way or the other. I myself also have government funded health care by the state of Florida, due to my wife's employment as a prosecutor. The plan is almost identical to my previous private plan. In fact, its a bit better, as my prescription costs are a little lower. As as for Medicare, I've also dealt with it quite a few times. But so has my father, who is a Chaplin at a local senior assisted living home. He deals with many folks who are on Medicare, and they receive the same exact treatment there as those who are paying on their own.

    At the end of the day, we already subsidize a large number of our population. I don't see why we say it's a good idea for these folks, but bad for everyone else.
    ReplyDelete

I'm curious to see what you are thinking...

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)