9/4/09
Healthcare
Isn't the debate really just 'is universal access the primary goal or not?' Is access to basic healthcare a right or not? there are perfectly reasonable arguments on both sides but what is the point of debating other more distal or technical questions until we answer -- by a vote -- the fundamental question?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I can hear the sighs from Connecticut from here, as you see that Don obviously was the first to reply. I will try to be productive and not just antagonistic.
Wouldn't you need a Constitutional Amendment to make health care a "right?" I always thought a right was something that the government can't take away. Do we have any other "rights" that require someone else to do something for us?
I think it is a shame that the Democrats won't even discuss tort reform or deregulation of nationwide insurance coverage as part of a package to woo Republicans and blue dogs. I think it is a bigger shame that W and company did not do the same for 8 years.
Regardless, I think we likely will get a bill that will anger both you and me -- which probably means the country will be better off.
Don -- I think a Constitutional amendment is a great idea. Other rights that require someone else to do something for us? I would argue that the second amendment grants the right to be defended by a standing army. If a well-regulated militia is necessary for the survival of the state, then some will be defending others (for pay).
I guess somewhere in my fantasy land, I was hoping Obama would've kept universal access as a stand-alone debate. EMR, tort reform and other low-hanging fruit will happen. He's not gonna get the public option b/c he was too afraid to swing for the fences.
Will, I think the Constitution allows the people to form a militia (if they want one). The Second Amendment is poorly written, but at best it states that the federal government will not infringe upon a state's right to form a militia. Like most of our rights, I believe this one has eroded tremendously over the years. Regardless, it hardly requires anyone to form a militia. I don't think you can give someone else a right that subjugates someone else to perform an act or service.
Tort reform is not low hanging fruit. No way do the Dems slap some of their favorite lobbyists and financiers with that. Insurance deregulation across state lines would reduce healthcare costs tremendously, but it won't happen with a Dem Congress.
Obama is retreating, because he DID swing for the fences.
I think Obama and much of the left has misread the mood of the country the past few years. I think Obama was able to win 52% of the vote, because many people wanted a break with Bush - not necessarily a nose dive into a nanny state.
Throw in the fact that we spent billions on bailouts and stimulus that has not had the effect predicted by Obama, and people are legitimately angry and concerned about his take on health care. The outrage at the town halls is every bit as genuine as the outrage the leftists had against the Iraq War. It's also much more real than the truly astrotrufed response that Obama's campaign staff (Organizing for Aemrica) is running now.
I don't think proclaiming he would fight to the "death" for universal health care would have stymied that anger, and I don't think it would ease the tensions of moderate Democrats up for re-election.
In the end, sometimes people just don't agree with your ultimate goal. It's not because they're dumb, or the tools of industry, or whatever the left wants to say about anyone who deigns to disagree. It's because they disagree. So, take half a loaf now and come back for the full loaf later.
That's how socialism creeps anyway.
You bring up a good point ... the timing of universal healthcare after all the stimulus spending is/was a tough sell. I think universal healthcare could've been the stimulus package itself -- huge public health infrastructure outlay ... but after 20 years, a decrease in %GDP on healthcare without sacrificing the high-tech, low yield medicine that we all cling to so tightly. I have the graphs to prove it (in my head).
One thing we're not mentioning here is that regardless of what one thinks about the moral dimension of 48 million uninsured, these people still get free health care in emergency/tertiary care settings and it's damn expensive, inefficient and coming out of all of our pockets.
Well, the left rarely wants to mention te fact that uninsured does not mean they receive no care. That being said, I do agree with you that we are paying for them already -- so that is why I am willing to consider paying for them through a better system or an equally inefficient system that will at least stop you guys from whining all the damn time. And you said I was heartless......
I also like your idea of spending money on healthcare instead of the porkulus. In fact, my preferred method would be to have one huge rail program for the entire country, so we at least have something to show for all of the debt we are racking up right now.
Or not have any stimulus at all....
Regardless, I bet you'd be surprised at how much common ground you and I have on this topic. As someone who still has spent the majority of his life uninsured and took care of two dying parents supported by Medicaid and the VA, I think I am uniquely qualified to see the problems with all systems.
But I would rather just extend Medicare to the poor than create another monstrous program that could wreck the advantages of market forces in the quality of our health care.
Post a Comment