When we boil down the health care debate we come back to the point again and again that it was never about health care. It was about health care insurance. I suspect that the health care debate was never this difficult in Europe or Canada, but then again I wasn't there. I suspect it wasn't as difficult because they didn't have as many people dedicated to the principle that greed was good. I couldn't imagine Gordon Gecko with a Swedish accent and I don't think they would want to either. If we follow the debate we find that we haven't quite agreed on the answer to that question Gecko posed in Wall Street. Is greed always good?
If we follow that simple logic from Adam Smith we would have to say yes. Profit motive pushes us to be more efficient. Profit motive pushes us to be more innovative. Profit motive pushes us to be better than the guy down the street. When government gets involved with things it often does get messy. You don't have to look very hard to find gaps in social security and Medicare. You don't have to look very hard to find abuses of the same. Yet, for all of government's inefficiencies it is easy to look past the fundamental difference between private and public enterprise: one is in it for themselves while one is in it for the public good.
Make no mistake, most of the time I want the private enterprise. When someone is in it for themselves they often give me what I want in the process. In order to get what they want they have to give me what I want. We negotiate on a fair price and the rest is as they say history. On the flip side, when I get a public good I sometimes don't get everything that I want because the public must be able to distribute the good to as many people as possible. Suddenly, I revert back to when I was four years old and I was just learning how to share.
What I think conservatives were never really able to own up to was how to argue for private enterprise when the sheer motivation of profit is morally repugnant. When lives and basic well being hang in the balance, it is morally repugnant to negotiate with profit as a motivation. I think all of us realize that government regulation of health care is no panacea. The French called it triage when they were in battle. Considering the sheer volume of battles the French have lost through the centuries, they should have a pretty good handle on this. Sometimes, I may be in great pain, but my pain must be subservient to someone else's pain. Even in that case, that is still preferable to my pain being subservient to someone else's profit. As Andrew Shepherd said in An American President, "I used to think he just didn't get it. Now, I understand. He gets it. He just can't sell it." Make no mistake folks, the Republicans get this. They know it isn't about abortions. It's against federal laws to subsidize abortions by choice. They know it isn't about death panels. They know it isn't about the government getting between you and your doctor. They know all of these things. They fought it this way (and will continue to do so) because they know they can't sell you on the fact that health insurance companies should continue to profit. They know they can't look real Americans in the eye and convince enough people that it isn't morally repugnant to profit off of Americans' health.
Funny how they always talked about health care reform being Obama's Waterloo. They are making it into their own. They are talking about repealing health care as being priority number one. Nearly half of the states are suing Congress. This is their Waterloo folks. If they lose this battle and worse, if they lost it on its merits then they would have to admit that there are some things that private enterprise is not supposed to do. There are some areas where it is repugnant for private business to profit off of. On the flip side, there are some public goods that the government should regulate. If they admit that then they are giving up on the Smithian dream. You know that dream. It's the dream where everything is run privately and government takes a back seat. Unlike Dr. King's dream, this dream is a nightmare for most rational Americans.
Hey offshore, how about a Chevy Vega with aluminum engine? It's at least a good looking sh**heap. And I will refrain from any Palin comparative references, tempted as I may. ;-)
Hi AlienHunter,
I can certainly concede that President Obama demonstrates a shining example of the behavior that should be displayed by our elected office holders. I may not agree with everything he has done (I liked having a clove cigarette from time to time, dammit), but it’s pretty clear that his heart is in the right place and that he knows he’s there to serve us. He is, however, still relatively new to the game. That probably worked more in our favor than anything else. It’s just that, for me, it’s going to take a bit more time and more people like him (in attitude) for me to trust the unit as a whole.
On another note, there has been some really good discussion in this piece. Shaved, that is some really good food for thought. Carguy, if you happen to see a ’78 Ford Pinto or similar at the show, drop me a line. My daughter will be going to driver’s ed. soon and I want to make sure she gets the all American experience of having a real sh** heap for a first car.
well, I passed the test... :O)
coward.....
consider anthropology...the hallmark of civilization and humanity has always been when burials are found of those that would have been a burden to the tribal unit. The lame, the deformed...those that would have been unable to hunt and been a drain on the resources of the tribe. It shows when humanity went from a bunch of half-apes grunting at eachother in the jungle to a society of humans where the worth of a life wasn't measured by it's ability to contribute to the whole.
Absent esoteric examples of the extreme(like if one could go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby and such), i would have to say that on balance, every life is worthwhile...since I'm not qualified to judge who isn't.(and weren't the conservatives supposed to be pro-life? what the H?) If every life is worthwhile, then it IS just for society to have to shoulder the burden of those less able to pay for their own health care...since without it they would die or become an even GREATER burden. That's not saying that doctors and pharmaceutical companies don't deserve recompense for their labor, only that it should never result in harm to a person simply because they cannot afford to pay.
yes, I think we should, as long as it doesn't create a commensurate burden for those helping carry the load. World population is heading for a major dip mid-century. How can ANY system predicated on perpetual growth weather that challenge. All this hubbub is a temporary signpost to the...twilight zone. It's all gotta change and of course it will.
that was a gut'n
Hey Offshore,
I've argued this before...I'll trust my heretofore stupid, lazy, unreliable government anytime over a highly motivated sociopath!
Obama is a an example to all bureaucrats that their function is to 'serve' the people NOT give them dirty looks when in need of services. Government efficiency is an attitude. Historically, what may have been lacking is a shining role model of the PROPER attitude.
Wombat wrote: ...if something is necessary for life, and someone cannot afford it, is it fair to make the rest of society shoulder the burden?
...is every life worthwhile?
----------------
Gee whiz......you are opening up a BIG can of worms here. Youth in Asia.
That's ONE argument I stay away from. Watch how I do it...
Big Carshow in Galveston this Saturday. Pier 21 11-3. FREE. Lots of 40-70's American Classic cars. See ya there.
yeah...that's a really nice phrase. Moral law in my estimation is the supreme law of the land. To reduce it to its barest meaning is to say that God is the giver of the law. God...isn't that the reputed source of Republican motivation? How they can they believe they are 'subservient' to God while devoting their entire lives to themselves is psychic blindness carried to its limits.
Wombat,
Excellent question and one we will never see argued maturely in the halls of Congress. My personal answer is that no not every life is worthwhile, but I'm not about to get into the game of deciding which. I think that is best decided by God, Allah, karma, fate, nature, Krishna, or whatever other cosmic force you might believe in.
Personally, I don't think governments or corporations should be in the business of deciding that. I side with Jefferson on this issue (all people being created equal) even if the schools in our state aren't allowed to mention him.
Very good post, Scott...very good.
Even some of my closest friends will not admit to themselves that the bottom line of their motivation is selfish. Really and truly!
Hey Scott,
Just to make a quick point regarding the economic argument in the U.S. as opposed to Europe here's food for thought and debate.
I've seen it argued that the issue of slavery as an integral part of the 18th & 19th century has made the issues of social welfare unique in the American landscape?
I think you pretty well covered it 100%.
..
..
No Armageddon this morning. Of course, it's early still.
..
..
Didn't see any death panels on the way into work. Saw four suspicious looking women. Had "Dick Cheney" snears on their faces. But, they were in a Mercedes SUV and I figured that government death panels probably wouldn't ride around in a Mercedes.
the deeper part of the argument is this...if something is necessary for life, and someone cannot afford it, is it fair to make the rest of society shoulder the burden? Republicans and Tea Partiers touched on this at times, but then generally went into incoherent rants about illegal aliens and anchor babies.
In reality, it's the fundamental moral question surrounding this issue...and for me it begs the question is every life worthwhile?
I hear what you are saying. I've said this before but not in that particular article, I think the difference in health care and the example you proposed is that fossil fuels have substitute goods. That is implied in the plural nature of the term fossil fuels. What is the substitute good for health care? The repugnance of profit in the health care game stems from the fact that it is a life necessity in addition to being without a substitute good. That is unsustainable morally because I have no power as a consumer in something I cannot live without (quite literally). In most other exchanges I can either choose a substitue good or I can choose to do without.
However, your argument is logical as an opposing one. The problem is that they never made it. It would have been a much more mature and compelling argument. Instead we were treated to cynical wedge issues.
I’m with you for the most part, Scott. The one thing I have to disagree with, though, is the immorality of healthcare for profit. If it is the case that profiting from healthcare is immoral because healthcare is essential for life, then it also must be the case that profiting from the sale of food, fossil fuels that provide necessary heat, and even housing that provides shelter from the elements are all immoral acts because all of these things are essential for life as well.
George Strait heard tell that the road to hell was paved with good intentions and I am inclined to agree with that. While your idea that healthcare for profit is immoral may or may not be correct, it is almost certainly correct that forcing that interpretation of morality on a population, at least to that degree, is also immoral. Americans value liberty probably more so than any other life principal. Why else would the teabaggers use the threat of losing liberty as their biggest scare tactic? Even though the intentions of totally outlawing healthcare for profit, thereby removing options from people, may be good, I can see a very dark road ahead of that.
I see what happened Sunday night as a real victory for America. It has introduced a bit more fairness, of all things, into the (yes it’s still free) market. I know I went to bed feeling a little more peaceful knowing that the guy who works his fingers to the bone to provide for his family, but is not quite poor enough to qualify for certain programs, will get some help in getting good healthcare. The reason that a mandatory universal system didn’t happen is the same reason the repubs couldn’t kill this legislation. The politicians just can’t convince enough Americans that they would be better off letting the government make their decisions about healthcare for them.
"Sometimes, I may be in great pain, but my pain must be subservient to someone else's pain. Even in that case, that is still preferable to my pain being subservient to someone else's profit."
Thank you Scott. You can't state it any more clearly than that!