I’ve been wracking my brains over the past few weeks, desperately trying to understand the arguments of the opposition to national health care. After all, no sound debate can exist without a thorough understanding of the platform of one’s competitors. I’ve hashed out the question among friends, both from America and from out of the country, I’ve researched the reasoning from various news sources stretching across the political gamut, yet I still find myself unable to delineate any clear argument for the other team. Beneath a haze of scare tactics and unsubstantiated fluff that slipped through my cerebral fingers, I found I was left with nothing but the word “NO” scratched in harsh lines across an otherwise blank surface.
So I thought I’d hitch a ride on H. G. Wells’ contraption and take things back in time a little. Perhaps the answer, so difficult to spot from where I’m standing, becomes glaringly obvious when one looks at the foundation of American government.
Those famous words of Jefferson’s, scribbled across the Declaration of Independence, provide the cornerstone that comes to mind: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Rights: that word looks familiar. After all, it is an infringement of the rights of American citizens that the opponents to national health care seem first and foremost so concerned about. Yet exactly what “rights” would universal health coverage infringe upon? Is it the right of a human being to die painfully and without fear of a doctor’s interference? Is it the right of an American to suffer more and experience less protection than other citizens of the world?
It seems that at the moment, those citizens who cannot afford health care are losing their rights to both Life and the pursuit of Happiness. They must stand by the wayside and watch as others receive the basic necessities that they can no longer pay for. They must live without dignity and without even the passing acknowledgement that they too are members of the much wider human race. They must live in fear of attack by the foreign invaders known as disease and mishap.
Can anyone else see Uncle Sam recruiting from up there without a net?
That leaves us with Liberty. The opposition claims that a national system would deny Americans the ‘right to refuse health care.’ But this argument is in itself absurd. If we are so concerned with propounding liberty over safety, then what is the next step? Will Congress pass a new bill disbanding the military, for fear that national forces infringe on a citizen’s right to refuse defense? There are certain safety nets that must be spread beneath a country’s citizens as they dance across the high-wire of life. Once our right to one such safety-net is called into question, it leaves many other American securities open to attack.
When I was a child, I would often attempt to argue myself out of being grounded as a punishment for wrongdoing. My mother’s response was always, inevitably, “It’s not a right; it’s a privilege.” And the difference between these two words is the fulcrum in this argument. The rights of the many are in fact being denied to preserve the privileges of a few. If only America had a mythic mother to step in when we needed her and get our priorities straight.
Prometheus Baked 
Hey! Glad to see a new post!
OK, on to the comment. While I fully agree with both you and the Administration that health care reform (nay, universal health care) is a proper responsibility of government, I feel that under the shouting there are at least two more reasoned arguments behind the opposition: one, an extension of what you talked about – that is, “rights,” and two, an extension of what you mentioned, the foundation of our government (except I’m going to talk about skepticism of authority).
As for “rights,” I think there might be more people who attribute their opposition to the current health care reform bills to concerns about taxes than most other issues. I preface with the term “rights” here because we have the liberty to act (mostly) as we please (well, as long as it is in a legal fashion), and we (as Americans in the abstract, political philosophical sense) have our Constitution to protect us from government intervention. Interestingly, our rights as Americans take capabilities away from our government as much as they grant ability to us. For instance, we have the right not to have soldiers quartered in our houses, we have the right for free exercise of our faiths (that is, the government cannot force it upon us), we have the right to not be searched without cause and we have our rights to our property (because, of course, Life, Liberty and the purfuit of Happinefs was originally – from Locke (Lost??) Two Treatises on Government – “life, liberty, … possessions”). So, as a portion of the opposition goes, just as we will not stand idle if our phones are tapped because our conversations are our property, our property is likewise our money and we should not be taxed for something with which we don’t wholly agree. And the disagreement – as I understand it – is that health *insurance* reform is what is promised, which may be expensive given the scope of the current system, and they believe that such an effort might end up harming the quality of health *care*. There is a lot of “might,” “possibly,” and “may” in this argument (and I can make a Conservative economic argument for why it is better to go universal in coverage than not), but I feel that it is firmly and reasonable based in “right”.
…and actually taxes is a good segue into the other argument. We all remember “taxation without representation is tyranny,” and this other argument finds firm footing in the philosophy behind that phrase. As Americans, and this is probably one of my favorite things about being one, we are highly skeptical of authority in *all* forms (whether “the Man,” “the police,” “our parents,” “King George,” etc.). However, we also defer to authority quite a bit, but always in moderation. In any case, this feeling is why we hear so many in the Republican party keep using the phrase “government takeover” even if there is and was and most likely will never be a case to be made that health care reform will be an actual, de facto, or de jure takeover of the sector by the government. Heck, even the public option or a full single-payer system will still require extra-governmental bureaucrats, doctors, and other administrators. Bottom line is that some of our fellow citizens currently don’t get enough information about how little our government in general and the Administration in particular does *not* want to get its hands too deep in the (now boiling) waters of health care. But they are naturally wary of the control that they may lose (either over tax revenue, their current insurance, whatever) and are therefore wary of permitting their government to move forward. In fact, the Iraq War was a similar thing – that is, there were and are many of us who did not want to cede control of our brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, etc. to the government for a policy of which we did not approve.
Anyway, this post may be getting a bit long-winded, so I’ll leave at that and hope to discuss it more (I do actually like playing Devil’s advocate).
Hope to read more in the future!
Unfortunately, I was already familiar with the arguments that you’ve outlined: and while at first they do appear to be founded in reason, I think they fall apart under more careful consideration. These are just more of the “scare tactics” to which I was referring. Such as, making the claim that rights are being infringed, while at the same time not bothering to back that claim up with appropriate facts and figures. A simple comparison of the health coverage as it currently stands in America, vs. universal health care plans in countries like Japan or France, demonstrates that Americans are, right now, spending more money for less care. I do not wish to argue against the opposition to health insurance reform simply for the fact that they oppose it. If they have a valid argument, then more power to them and huzzah for a good debate. Rather, I am arguing against the illogical claims of said opposition. After all, remaining afraid that health insurance reform will be more expensive when comparative analysis argues against this very claim is like remaining afraid to go into the woods for fear of running into Big Foot.
And of course, there’s the classic “don’t let the man get you down” argument (a phrase that in everyday life, despite constant Conservative usage of terms like “big government,” actually seems to be defended and fought for far more often by ‘crazy liberals’ than by conservatives). It’s easy to throw around words like “socialism” and “government takeover.” We all know that appealing to deep-seated fears is the best way to win people over to your side, even if there are no actual facts to back up your claims. Being skeptical of authority is one thing, utilizing this fear of authority as an excuse to keep from taking responsibility for the less fortunate members of your society is absolutely despicable.
A careful perusal of the history of the American Revolution, particularly the care put into the writing of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, demonstrates that the Founding Fathers worked very hard to ensure that America would NEVER have a system of nobility. Unfortunately, what they failed to see was that forbidding titles alone would not prevent the formation of a modern aristocracy with all the perks and privileges of their medieval counterparts. I’m afraid America can no longer really consider itself a Republic. It has indeed evolved into a capitalist government (no more, really, than an updated term for what amounts to feudalism). The gap between classes is growing ever wider at an alarming rate. Just compare the salary of a celebrity or a CEO to someone at minimum wage. So many writers have warned us of this trend (yes, including Karl Marx, who despite his bad rep in America, did actually have quite a few intelligent things to say) also including George Orwell and (my personal favorite) Thomas Pynchon. Capitalism, when allowed to get beyond control, is just as dangerous, if not more so, as a government allowed to go beyond bounds.
I know it seems like I ran off topic there, but my basic argument is that the idea of “big government” is just a handy term for the over-privileged to use in order to keep from losing their positions of power. They are not fighting against the man. Rather, they are fighting against the dissolution of a system that allows a small percentage of the population to build up excessive amounts of capital, while leaving the majority of American citizens to just be able to ‘make ends meet’. In the end, I feel that the opponents of health reform might as well come out and say what they really mean: “Let them eat cake.”
Yes, I know, maybe I sound like a socialist. I’ve always leaned towards the more radical side of the fence. But every avid reader of science fiction knows that Utopian literature often reads an awful lot like socialism. So be it. America as it is now vs. Utopia? I’d take the Utopia any day.
In the end, though, I think you’re absolutely right when you said the basic problem lies in ‘fellow citizens not getting enough information.’
I think, in order to provide my non-clients with the best defense a faux-advocate (see Orson Wells’ version of “The Trial” for an excellent example 🙂 ) can give, I should clarify a few of my points. (Now, being serious) One, I don’t mean to include the “leaders” of the opposition to health care in my assessment of the sum-total opposition’s motives and passions. What I mean by this is that there exists a subset of our country that is exactly like you and me in that this subset is made of regular citizens without political jobs and without tremendous wealth – and yet they choose to oppose health care reform. So, we have to understand why one would align that way even if they are not protected the vested interests of power (political or monetary). Or why the argument of “big government” has been used to galvanize others. Therefore I try to point out that we all share a true and valid skepticism of authority that provides that opening for the “leaders” of the opposition to use (or abuse) as an edge on those supporting reform.
Two, I feel that the same logic applies for the issue of property rights protection under the law. It is an easy wedge issue based very firmly and credibly in the political philosophy and culture of our Nation. So again, I aimed to explain why such an argument, which to be honest could be made by opposition “leaders” and followers alike, has been so effective at galvanizing.
Now I’ll get to some of your points, which I think we should discuss. As we agree, everyone has not been able to access the best comprehensive and, most importantly, objective assessments of health care reform and health care initiatives in this country and in other countries (or internal provinces or states, which I have to point out because TN, MA, and IN all have had interesting failures and successes with statewide health reform). However I think that an argument can be made that notes the difference between cost of reform and cost of post-formation. What I mean here is that fiscal conservatives (perhaps a small, but nonetheless important part of the opposition) may agree that health care AND insurance coverage will be cheaper once the new, reformed system is in place, but they worry that in the process of reform – i.e. switching the system over to a new one – we may create large deficits and long term debt. The major worry then is would this debt be large enough that the country would always be paying it off (because we can only assume that our government would be paying for other services as well, such as energy, education, defense, and transportation) OR would the deficits per Federal Budget be significant enough so that our Treasury Bonds and other forms of government credit (such as the dollar) heavily depreciate in value. For instance, the National Health Service in the UK instituted (I believe at its creation) a requirement for their budgets to always be balanced so that the deficit issue never arises. However, from the Thatcher (Conservative) Government to the Blair (Labour) Government some of these restrictions have been altered pertaining to medicine purchases, which can fluctuate in cost due to the global market. So, the worry of health revenue deficits can exist, but good management can change that – during and post-reform. My point is that the worry is justified at least to some degree with facts, figures and history.
The final point I can think of (and this discussion is really making me think outside my usual comfort zone, which is great) is a subscriber to the opposition could note how we reform health care as a point of contention. The argument goes like this: we know that the best system would include the most customers and cover all conditions; therefore, the reform must include requirements to cover all conditions by the service that provides coverage and that this new system, when assessed as a whole, provides coverage to the population universally. Since this pseudo-conclusion is so abstract, I would bet that the opposition, again both “leaders” and followers (for whatever motives and passions), would say that they disagree with present reform because they think it can be done differently. Now, I know that we have both heard that argument before (and I completely grant that no one of the opposition has provided an adequate and comprehensive counter-offer), but I am going to try to give the best one I can. France versus The Netherlands. France – as well as Japan and Germany – is a great example of a working, publicly-funded health system. Over 75% of the funds are public, and the remaining percentage comes from other levies, namely the social security-like system there. Given the demographics of France, this works, as most of the population concentrates in urban regions (namely the north-northeast) and transportation (i.e. access to hospitals and clinics) is effective. This is national-scale (i.e. universal consumption of service) because local governments work with the national level to build and maintain hospitals and clinics and national laws require complete coverage. Total per capita, controlling for currency exchange, is $3819.00 (see WHO “Core Health Indicators” for France).
However it can be done another way. The Netherlands uses about 12 or so major insurance companies that are required by the government to cover everyone for everything and are subsidized in order to offset the liability incurred by insuring (quote-unquote) at-risk patients. I hate using the term, because they are people who need the coverage and care, but that is how insurance works. Anyway, citizens have a choice among the 12 companies and the government ensures their care and coverage and I think care and satisfaction is statistically similar to the U.S.A. Total per capita, controlling for currency exchange, is $3560.00 (see WHO “Core Health Indicators” for The Netherlands).
Now, all I have shown here is that two different systems – as far as their structure – can produce similar results. In fact, if the opposition wants a more market-based system (which I am partial to ONLY because the National Science Foundation is no consistent guarantee of medical research funding – i.e. imagine if we had a more government-based funding approach and research had to be approved for funding by a Republican-held Congress and/or Presidency) they could point to the fact that The Netherlands pays less per capita and has a more market-oriented system, but then the simple counter to that is that Japan pays even less (though Japan cuts cost through excellent transportation and fairly quick administration).
Anyway, I figured I would point some of these things out because this is a great, and very important, discussion/debate to have and the more we think outside our own boundaries, the better we understand – as you said in your original post – that “no sound debate exists without a thorough understanding” of the opposition.
Cheers.
lol Don’t worry, I know what a devil’s advocate is (after all, I went through thirteen years of Catholic school, so I even know the term’s origins in the canonization process). I just have had quite a long experience of confronting people who are far too easily offended by more radical viewpoints (no matter which end of the political spectrum they fall on), so I figured I’d be fair and warn you beforehand!
Anyway, I think it’s about time I came clean…My original post was intended to be taken in a (mostly) sarcastic tone. I had already spent hours upon hours researching the arguments on both sides of the health care debate (including the arguments of both leaders and followers). My true intention was to poke (gentle) fun at the ‘trickle-down effect’ that plagues EVERY political party (Washington was right when he warned us of the dangers of the party system). It just has always seemed to me that for the most part Americans get a bit too lazy to think for themselves. Instead, they just assign themselves to a particular party that seems to them to be (mostly) right, and then proceed to let the party leaders find the right arguments to use in support of their positions. Afterward, the “followers” then take up those arguments themselves and back them up with everything they’ve got without bothering to delve whole-heartedly into the issue themselves.
What pisses me off the most about the health care debate is that, regardless of fiscal concerns, something must be done to ensure affordable health care for every American. After all, government is supposed to be in place to protect the people, and when 45,000 Americans a year die for lack of health insurance, it’s no longer doing its job effectively. Of course, there’s always the Ebenezer-argument: “If they would rather die…they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Obviously, national deficit concerns are important, but they are not an excuse to let the issue slide away in America while the rest of the world shows us how it’s done. Otherwise, I’m afraid we’re going to have to stand aside and watch as America implodes upon itself and makes way for the forward-thinking countries of the world.
Whatever happened to the somewhat naive but beautifully simplistic philosophy that once put America in the forefront: ‘anything you can do, I can do better?’ The country of “I can” has become the country of “I won’t, because I’m afraid.”
Well, again, you have shown a powerful and always convincing passion for progress – and reinforced it with elegant words. (and yes, your initial sarcasm wasn’t lost!) As I’m sure you do (though I understand your concern), I firmly believe that in this country we can still fight for what’s ultimately right and conscionable and will not – as a nation – give up on progress. The vote is about to happen; but even with a victory in the Senate, there remains much to be done to ensure health care security becomes a lasting reality.
Yes, I do agree with you. I still think that, if we really want to, we can effect significant change in this country and the wider world. It just takes a few people to set a spark and get the fire going.
I just have to play “bitter writer shaking her fist at society” every now and then. As the scorpion once said to the frog, “It’s in my nature.”