It seems that health-care reform is the hot topic these days. I was able to spend some time addressing this topic with my father and he was able to share his thoughts me. Much of it, i’m in line with, as I was brought up with a similar understanding. I thought that I’d share his thoughts:
First, let me frame the position from which I view the “healthcare debate.” As you know, I believe our Founding Fathers identified the fundamental rights of US Citzens to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and established the Federal Government with the limited role of protecting these three rights. I believe the current political divide in our country is the result of citizens either misinterpreting these rights or the role of government in ensuring them.
Regarding “life”, the founders adhered to the Christian belief that “thou shalt not kill.” They empowered the Federal Government to finance and manage a military to protect US citizens from outside attack. They empowered the State Governments to finance and manage local Law Enforcement to protect US citizens from internal attack and empowered the Federal Government to coordinate and facilitate between State Law Enforcement when the threat to citizens’ lives crossed State boundries. Thus, I believe the Military, CIA, Coast Guard, National Guard, Border Patrol, and FBI are legitimate manifestations of this Federal mandate. The Industrial Age brought many new products and services to US citizens, some of which could inadvertantly threaten or take a citizen’s life (eg workplace machines, autos, medicines, foods, etc.) Representatives of the citizens who were serving in the Federal Government decided that in order to protect the citizen’s right to life, they needed to regulate these products and services of the industrial age, manifesting in the creation of various regulatory agencies such as the FDA, EPA, OSHA, NHSTA, etc.) Provided that these new agencies of the Federal Government confine themselves to strictly protecting Life from foreign (non-US companies) or interstate (non-local businesses) attack, then perhaps this expansion of the Federal Government is legitimate. Any agenda beyond this (eg promoting trade for US companies, making life more comfortable, etc.) is, in my opinion, counter to the principles upon which this country was founded.
Regarding “liberty”, the founders adhered to the concept of “live and let live”, provided one didn’t impinge upon another citizen’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I cannot reconcile this with the fact that certain humans were enslaved in our country at its founding. The logical argument at the time was that unlike other humans, theses slaves were animals of lower station and thus not afforded the right of liberty inalienable to man. Clearly, this was a specious argument and slavery was not only a heinous crime against humanity but also an action that violated our founding principles. The founders were primarily reacting to the European system of monarchies, under which the King and/or his vassels could deprive any citizen of the realm of his freedom for any reason. The founders wanted to ensure that in the US, the powerful could not deprive the weak of their ability to move about unmolested, free to pursue their ambitions as their God given talents allowed. While the founders envisioned that every man should enjoy the same freedom of movement, or liberty, they didn’t envision that every man would travel the same road in life nor that they were entitled to.
Regarding the “pursuit of happiness”, the founders reacted against the religious intolerance of Europe and the Middle East that had given rise to brutal periods such as the Crusades, Dark Ages, Spanish Inquisition, etc. They invoked the “Separation of Church and State” to ensure that the Federal Government established to protect “Life” and “Liberty”, would not interfere with each citizen’s ability to whatever “Pursuit of Happiness” they desired. Further, the founders reacted against the tyranny of taxation by any authority (in this case the King), who took taxes by threat against a citizen’s life (in this case imprisonment), in pursuit of its/his own ambitions (in this case the war against France to colonize the world and control its wealth of natural resources.) Thus, they founded the country upon the emerging English Property Law, which ensured that a Government or citizen could not seize the Property of another citizen. These two fundamental principles formed the bulwark of each citizen’s right to his own “pursuit of happiness.” The founders did not pass judgement on what spirtiual pursuits or property acquisitions should make a man happy nor how he should make tradeoffs within his life to attain happiness. Any attempt by the Federal Government to use its regulatory authority to force any citizen to pursue any product or service in order to achieve what the Federal Government deems should produce happiness would be in direct contravention to our founding fathers’ desire that all men should be free to pursue their own happiness. Any attempt by the Federal Government to steal the property of a citizen under the threat of imprisonment (eg taxes) in order to spend it providing for other citizens what it deems should make them happy (eg social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, child support, education, etc) not only violates the “pursuit of happiness” of those citizens having their property stolen but also imposes the government’s version of happiness on the other citizens without their having to exercise their “pursuit” of happiness. Thus, I believe that the NEA, SSA, Medicare Dept, Medicaid Dept, Welfare Dept, and indeed all Social Imperative Organizations, are illegitimate extensions of the Federal Government. The funding of them through taxes consists of an illegal taking of property in violation of both “Liberty” and the “Pursuit of Happiness”.
Returning to Healthcare, I view it from the perspective of these three fundamental rights of US citizens. Regarding “Life”, a citizen’s right is a negative right rather than a positive right. He has the right that no other citizen or entity can take his life. He does not have the right to life, only God can determine that right. Thus, if one man is dying of infection and another man owns the antibiotic that can save the dying man, the dying man has no right to this “product” and the man who owns the “product” has the right to hold it unmolested. Thus, I do not believe that any of the providers of healthcare (doctors, nurses, clinics, hospitals, pharmacies, pharmaceutical companies, etc.) can be compelled by the Federal Government to give up their products or services to any other citizen under the argument that the citizen has the right to “life.” However, I do believe that the right of Freedom does entitle a citizen to be free to make the same trade-offs that any citizen might make in the “pursuit of happiness.” If a citizen wants to sell all his property to buy products and services that he believes will improve his health, then he should be legally able to do this, regardless of what the Federal Government thinks. Likewise, if he wants to sell all his property to buy products and services that he thinks will make him happy but others think will make him sick (eg tobacco, alcohol, drugs, unprotected or deviant sex, extreme sports, etc.), then he should be legally able to do this.
Examining the specifics of the “Healthcare Reform” bill, I see much that I do not like.
1. How can the Federal Government compel a citizen to buy any product or service? If they can force a citizen to buy healthcare insurance, they can force us to buy anything they think might be good for us.
2. How can the Federal Government tax a citizen in order to provide another citizen with a product or service? If they can raise taxes for healthcare, they can take citizen’s property for anything they deem to be in the interest of the majority.
3. The Federal Government has no idea what this new legislation will cost. They already have two social entitlements (Social Security and Medicare) that are bankrupt and yet they want to create a third? We arrest investment managers when they create similar Ponzi Schemes, yet the Federal Government would have us believe it is fine when they do this?
4. The bill does nothing to reform health-care. If they cared about the health of the US citizens, they would use their regulatory power to stop the agri-industry from producing the products that are killing US citizens. The single most effective way to improve the health of the average American is by changing their diet. Eliminating processed foods and returning to locally grown, nutrient dense foods.
5. This bill is really about “Insurance Reform”, and even that moniker is misleading. The bill does nothing to reduce the citizen behavior that creates ill health. The bill does nothing to reduce the litigator behavior that increases the cost of health-care intervention. The bill does nothing to provide medical care providers (doctors, hospitals, and pharma) with incentives to create positive health outcomes rather than to maximize the use of expensive intervention products and procedures. The bill’s supposed insurance reform (eliminate pre-existing condition discrimination) reminds me of the Federal Government’s interference with the Flood Insurance industry, which has given rise to millionaires building McMansions on the coastline with impunity while hard working Americans living in sensible homes in sensible locations subsidize the rates. Real Insurance Reform would have been the establishment of Catastrophic Loss policies, where a citizen could buy a stop-loss policy (say $20,000 deductible), which would insure them against a catastrophic illness or condition costing them more than $20,000, and thereby preserving their ability to remain solvent even if they were unlucky.
6. Instead of “Insurance Reform” this is really about the Federal Government expanding into the role of Healthcare Payer/Provider. Thus, the Federal Government is experimenting with Socialism in an 18% segment of our economy. If every other government activity (even legitimate ones such as the Military) is any indicator, Health-care will now become even more inefficient and costly that currently. If Healthcare turns out like every other Federal Government run social service (including health-care at VA hospitals) health-care quality and efficacy will suffer dramatically.
7. Unintended Consequences. Every major Federal Government program (stealing taxes from citizens and spending on pet projects of megalomaniac political hacks) has not only blown through its projected budgets, cuasing huge deficits, but has also produced unintended ill consequences, many more horrific than the original problem the politicians set out to address. Welfare has produced a permanent underclass in the US suffering from violent crime, ill health, and reduced life expectancy. In short, every Federal Government program outside of the original purview our Founding Father’s intended, has resulted in the taking of citizens lives, coercing them into a form of economic and spiritual slavery, and made them unhappy. The Health-care Takeover will be no exception.
One unintended consequence is that this has emboldened the extremists in this country (on both the right and left.) Further, it has caused the common working man to lose heart and hope. He has lost his job or is in daily fear that he will. His taxes keep rising. Even if Federal Taxes have not yet risen, Federal Mandates forced upon the States in King George like manner while the States are suffering economic collapse similar to colonial states of yore, are resulting in the States raising property, sales, and other taxes.
There are only three reasons why a person would celebrate this Bill.
1. The person is ignorant and actually believes you can get something for nothing.
2. The person is a Democrat and, with their backs to the wall, decided that they had to pass something, anything, lest they be viewed as totally inept and expendable.
3. The person is an amoral pragmatist and reasons that since Socialism is inevitable as humans seek the lowest common denominator in their lives, it is best to have the government take over healthcare quickly so that they can go about figuring out how to survive in this brave new world.
As you can see, I am distressed by the current state of our country. I believe we are headed for another cathartic event, similar to the American Revolution, to reinstate our citizens’ rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Hopefully, this time we’ll get it right, although I am not optimistic. -J.M.Whiteside
Jae, I liked this a lot. Your dad touched on a lot of the core, fundamental issues that this bill does NOT address… fundamental that Democrats (and Republicans) completely failed to bring up. And he’s spot on when he says ignorance leads to the belief that you can get something for nothing.
I have to admit, I like this more than Kane’s piece on healthcare
oooooohhh… lol
Yes, i agree this is good, although I refuse to throw Eric under the bus. Although, your father and I have tangled before I do respect the way he thinks about issues. I like the overarching theme about how we have a distorted view on the role of the Federal Government especially from the perspective of the founding fathers. I really do think this is a proxy debate about economic equality.
I agree with your father’s pessimism as well, we are not in pretty shape right now and even though these points seem perfectly clear, I think our human nature inevitably leads us to think a free lunch exists somewhere, especially in government.
One minor point I would make is about point 4 “using the regulatory power” of government to stop agri-businesses. While, I am not so pessimistic about the extent of the problem between agriculture and business (kill is too strong a word for me here), I agree that most of our agro-gov entanglement is pretty terrible. Nonetheless, I won’t put words into your father’s mouth but am wondering what his solution is for introducing more local based foods and such. He made excellent points about the extent of government as a regulatory body (protecting life), I am not sure its proper to say this reach should than jump into the agricultural fray.
Again, perhaps he isn’t making that argument, but I want to know how he reconciles his political philosophy with how he thinks the agricultural industry should be shaped. I, for one, believe we need to reduce all subsidies, handouts and what not, but nonetheless, I still think market forces will inevitably leave some things (artificial fertilizers, chemicals, processed foods) because of their convenience and cheapness.
Kane, the following are my father’s responses that he wanted me to pass along to you addressing your questions:
A few of life’s laws, which soft Americans have forgotten in our land of plenty, our lazy habits, and our insatiable greed:
1. There is no free lunch. You get nothing for nothing.
2. There is no perpetual motion machine. Outputs = Inputs only when there is no friction. Outputs cannot be greater than Inputs. Conservation of energy.
3. Americans formed this country to escape opressive government interference and to be free to live an individualistic life, accepting the responsibilities for ones own welfare, and looking only to government for protection against attack.
Now, the masses in this country are attempting to form a “New America”, where:
1. Individuals are no longer responsible for anything but rather look to their government for everything.
2. The government’s mission is no longer to protect people from attack but to prey on the productive individuals and give to the sloths under the guise of promoting “economic equality.”
3. Lunch is indeed free and only idiots work for their lunch and rely upon themselves. But eventually, everyone will become a free loader and then we’ll run out of working stiffs to tax.
So I am not advocating larger government. Quite the contrary, I think we should implement a mandatory 10% reduction every year for the next 10 years, until government represents less than 5% of the toal economic activity of the nation.
Specifically addressing some of your questions:
1. Regarding economic equality: This is an “unnatural act.” The strong survive and the weak perish in any natural system. Why should human beings be any different than any other life form? There are three terms that come to mind when I hear people espouse economic equality— communism, socialism, and fascism. All are ugly.
2. Regarding Human Nature & Free Lunch: Human Nature is in fact fairly brutal. We protect our clan from outside attack and we punish or expel members within the clan who are not pulling their weight or are disrupting the order. The current trend towards people desiring a free lunch is because our clans have lost their leaders and life has become too easy. But this too will end when the resources start to run out and the clans start to fight for a diminishing pie.
3. Regarding Government in Agriculture: The US Federal Government doesn’t need to “jump into the agricultural fray”. The USDA is already the largest US agency. The government is already in the business of agriculture. I’m arguing that it should get out. The only legitimate role is to protect citizens against a power that is trying to kill us. I would argue that while the US agri-industry may not be overtly trying to “kill” its customers, it is certainly true that by eating its products, the US population has become less healthy. I believe in the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Money is power, so the best solution to reducing corruption is to reduce the money. Cut the taxes, cut the spending, eliminate government jobs (an oxymoron if there ever was one), and perhaps we’ll start solving some of our business-government corruption. We ate local food before the advent of agri-business and its consolidation into global agribusiness. So, my hope is that once government stops interfering with the market and aiding and abeting agri-industry, consumers will drive the return to a local-based food system. We don’t need the government to promote local food, just stop subsidizing frankenfood. A good start is the investigation of Monsanto on antitrust grounds, as they control over 80% of the corn and soybean seed markets worldwide. Next, the 4 companies that control over 85% of the world beef supply.
Artificial fertilizers are poisoning the planet and killing its life forms, flora and fauna. They should be regulated like any other toxic chemical to protect the rights of the individual to live in a clean environment, free from attack. Fertilizer is not cheap if you look at its systems economics. We externalize the enormous costs of degrading the environment. It is like saying that cocaine is a great solution because you feel so good while you are on it.
Processed food is not cheap if we consider the poor health it creates and the demand for remedial healthcare that it spawns. If people who ate potato chips had to pay more for healthcare than people who ate healthy foods (an efficiently priced marketplace), the true systems cost of processed foods would be revealed and we’d see that they are not so cheap afterall. But that flies in the face of the politically correct concept of ‘economic equality” that has oozed into our society. We should all be able to eat as many potato chips as we like and then rely upon the government to pay for coronary bypass surgery, gastrointestinal bypass surgery, and perhaps some psychological counseling to deal with obesity. Further, the government should provide potato chip eaters with special parking spaces close to the door of the supermarket and motorized scooters (pulling big wagons to hold larger quantities of potato chips) so the can consume freely fromthe processed food buffet. Finally, the government should pay the potato chip eaters to consume more chips so the food processors can contibute more to the political campaigns. Actually, this last item is unnecessary, as we already have it. It is called “food” stamps.
Pingback: Healthcare reform per John Whiteside « Conspicuous Cynic
Sorry this week is crazy so don’t have too much to write yet but here:
http://www.reddit.com/tb/bk6lp
I came across a story that did touch upon an argument I wanted to make (looking at a feasibility rather than an ethical or legal viewpoint). If people with preexisting conditions aren’t allowed to be denied coverage, then premiums for insurance skyrocket. Then because premiums become higher, younger healthier people would drop out, making insurance premiums higher cost. Because of this, the healthier people in the pool would drop out, making insurance higher in cost. Etc etc until the pre-existing condition people pay full price on their expected expenditures.
Thats a really good reason to have an individual mandate. Without it, health insurance premiums would greatly increase and you (assuming you have insurance from work) would have to pay a lot more. Disallowing denial of coverage would make it so less people have health insurnace, and insurnace would be more expensive, countering everything that the bill is set out to do. Rather or not a country should be able to implement a mandate or rather or not insurance companies should be disallowed to deny coverage, on the other hand, is another issue.
I’m also not too happy with this “reform.”
Healthcare reform, as it is, will be very expensive. There is no way it is possible to increase coverage, improve care, and lower costs. And i feel what the government fails to mention is that while they will save you money on medical insurance fees, that money is only being shifted to taxes. I doubt you would really be saving money on that. i’d actually bet that costs will rise significantly, just looking at the nationalized healthcare systems around the world and in Mass (which as i recall, most of the bill is based off of).
Plus, there’s currently a shortage of nurses and primary care doctors… and pretty much overnight, theres going to be an additional 30million people these doctors are supposed to care for? The reform didn’t do anything in terms of medical student loans (one of the main reasons med students go into specialties instead of primary care) and didn’t do anything for medical malpractice reform (which causes many drs to prescribe unnecessary tests to protect themselves).
And while there is no such thing as a free lunch, providing free or cheap access to healthcare will make people assume as much, which changes their consumption of the service. If its free or cheap, it will be utilized more. If you look at the UK for example, lonely people go to the doctors to… talk. just because they can (and take away time from truly sick people).
That requires us then to use a more efficient gatekeeper model to prevent unneeded healthcare consumption to provide better care and lower costs. And that will piss off a lot of people.
In terms of food, i agree that processed foods are probably causing a lot of unwanted health effects (like early puberty in girls). But i don’t think regulating agriculture industry will do much. There needs to be better access to healthier food and cheaper healthier food, both of which are pretty complicated issues to fix, even with government intervention. I mean, just take a look at how many supermarkets with fresh food are there within walking distance in baltimore and how many fast food joints there are. we’d need to improve transportation like bus services. and for some of the lower income people, buying a $1 hamburger from micky d’s is probably cheaper than buying fresh fruits and veggies too.
That being said, these are all from an economic stand point i suppose. If you look at things on a moral lens, does the benefits in providing care to many other people outweigh the costs? i’m not sure yet…
i think its a step in the right direction, but there are so many issues with the current bill; i REALLY don’t like it. unfortunately, with all the political polarization and bickering between the dems and repubs, i doubt there will really be much change we can believe in for healthcare anytime soon
dang, i wrote a lot. i might as well start my own blog
Hahaha. sorry for the length!
Apparently I’m an ignorant socialist
Also, the argument has been raised stating the government doesn’t promote primary care in this bill. It does promote primary care in the bill with higher Medicaid primary care reimbursements. I acknowledge that much more needs to be done.
There are many other things in this bill, including comparative-effectiveness studies. Someone commented that the bill does nothing to deter underlying factors for health problems – the food-labeling displayed directly on menus is in the bill. I can already see how many calories I’m ingesting when eating at Panera. True, more could be done, but there isn’t nothing being done, and there may be other parts of the bill that address this.
Rather or not the government is obliged to impede in services outside of law enforcement,etc – I have no moral or ethical argument to that right now. A utilitarian point of view could argue universal health care, but utilitarianism can also argue slavery. Evidence based logic, however, states that life expectancy is much greater in countries with universal care. America spends more money on health care than does any other country, and yet has little to show for it. Furthermore, life expectancy decreases as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This trend is getting worse and worse. Again – logical rather than moral argument, and here I believe that morals should take precedence, but logic can help argue morals.
The government, however, may be obligated to remove barriers to freedoms. It passes laws that prevent people from having the right to live taken away from them It abolishes slavery to give each man the right to liberty (interfering with people’s normal ability to enslave each other). It allows people to pursue happiness. The government does not have the duty to, say, give people a house, it can not force a doctor to treat a person about to die. It should, however, work to release barriers that prevent people from being able to see the doctor, or being able to work to afford a house.
So far, I believe I have at least made a weak argument for taxation. The government has the power to better allow people access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through taxes, and through laws. For example… it not prohibits those with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage. This is the government interfering with the natural market economy, but without this, many have little possibility of pursuing the right to life. If the government doesn’t spend money on schooling, private schooling would prohibit many access from pursuing happiness. The born-poor would have no possibility of ever being able to make a living. Now, certain sacrifices must be taken in order to keep the access to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness in balance, and hence many of the workings of the government that many Republicans disagree on.
Theres a lot to be addressed here, and I’m going to be working on a blog as well, so I’ll put my thoughts there once I have a little more time:)
Thanks for your reply, Joe! Lookin forward to seeing your blog!