H -°, L 6° | Tomorrow: 
H 18°, L 6°
Health care reform. That’s what this article is about. If you feel you possess too much of a bias on this issue then I implore you, please read no further. If you feel it is intellectually possible for you to maintain an open mind for the next minute or so while you read this piece, then please consider what is below.
As our nation stands at the verge of enacting arguably the most extensive piece of legislation of all time, it is important to take into account just how comprehensive this bill is. This matter of epic proportions demands thorough consideration by all of us, and not just a mere analysis of ideological implications followed by an impulsive, uninformed decision.
Health care reform stopped being exclusively an economic and political topic a while ago. Whether it happened by accident or not, much of the recent debate involving this bill has revolved around morality and social justice. Instead of purely basing critiques of the bill on specific motives for improving our health care system, broad generalizations are being made regarding what would be “fair” for everyone.
This is not to downplay the concept of morality in any way. But when debating the pros and cons of legislation, discussing morality is dangerous in the sense that emotions start to overshadow evidence-based reasoning. If emotions were the cornerstone of politics, policy-making would exist as a vicious circle where the ambiguity of “fairness” would quell any possibility of productive debate.
Yet the appeal to public sentiment is a reality for the case of this health care bill. A few weeks ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi allowed pro-life Democrats to tighten restrictions on coverage of abortions under the plan in order to gain more support. Defining where you stand regarding abortion is a process completely based on personal perceptions of right and wrong.
In an address to a joint session of Congress Sept. 9, President Obama put health care reform in perspective as the legacy of the recently deceased senator Ted Kennedy. Kennedy had characterized this reform as the “unfinished business of our society.” Obama reflected on this statement by commenting that such an attitude epitomizes the “character of our country.” While it is true Kennedy was an advocate for such reform, Obama’s act of taking his quotes out of context was nothing more than a method of playing on the emotions of the audience.
Reform has also been presented as a way to combat the “evils” of the profit-hungry health care and health insurance companies. Even though capitalism has been the bedrock of our nation since its founding by establishing a well-oiled economic machine that supports the majority of American jobs, government officials portray it as a corrupt sector of society that taints America’s reputation. How ironic.
In furthering the debate, officials also cite spotty statistics about “the poor” or “the unfortunate” who apparently cannot find a way to afford health insurance.� Generalizations about discrimination against non-white ethnicities are repeatedly brought up so as to ingrain in the mind of the audience that the America of today is no different than that of before the 1950s. Framing the support of the bill in this way is an attempt to make the opposition look like racists and bigots who have no compassion for others.
As political advocates try to psychologically prime the audience, the exact statements comprised in the bill get lost in translation. An interpretation of what is specifically in the bill is called for instead of a broad generalization about what the bill addresses.
In addition, emotionally charged issues should be peripheral aspects when discussing the enacting of the bill. Once supporters stop smooth talking their way through this reform, then the public will be able to actually make an informed decision regarding this topic. If supporters brought rationale to the discussion, it would truly make for a “fair” debate.
�
Aaron Linskens ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in English and journalism.
IP hash: f151ec33
“This is not to downplay the concept of morality in any way. But when debating the pros and cons of legislation, discussing morality is dangerous in the sense that emotions start to overshadow evidence-based reasoning.”
Is it possible that everyone just accepts a certain morality based on emotions instead of using reason, and that this is the problem?
How will you use evidence-based reasoning to decide legislation if you haven’t rationally decided what is right and wrong (morality) in regard to government action? If the bill calls for forcing individuals to purchase insurance, is this good or bad? It all depends on what you consider moral.
Maybe it is morality that we need to be discussing rather than blindly following our emotions.
IP hash: 7d38cfed
Ha… this must be from a “Young Americans for Liberty” member
IP hash: d08223fb
Couldn’t be bothered to smile for your mugshot, Aaron?
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
“the profit-hungry health care and health insurance companies”
Yeah, I just can’t wait to see how well a unionized bureaucracy does providing health care. I have a fear that fighting the insurance company to get a claim paid or something covered will seem a walk in the park compared with doing the same facing a government bureaucrat with no incentive to provide any service beyond what will prevent them from being fired - and everybody knows how hard it is to fire an incompetent government bureaucrat.
I don’t think costs will go down either, government is famous for waste and inefficiency.
PS. Since the government will force the insurance companies to sell “insurance” to people who have a pre-existing need for expensive care can it still be called insurance? Would it still be auto “insurance” if you could wait until AFTER the car was in an accident to buy it?
IP hash: f151ec33
Yes. And people act like there is some free-market of insurance now. There is NOT! Insurance is heavily controlled by government today, which is why it’s as difficult as it is get insurance.
If only we would allow insurance companies to pursue profit freely, we might see some actual reduction in costs like we do in other areas where free-markets are allowed to function.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
Understanding your heath insurance and deciding what to get can be difficult - understanding government health law is much worse. But OTOH, we will have no choices to make once the government takes over the health care system.
I just wish that the laws that Congress passes would apply to Congress Critters and government employees!
The Bureaucrat in the Exam Room
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/11/forget-medical-treatments-forget-even.html
The ideas for savings to the health care system are endless! We know already, of course, about the great new idea of not looking so closely at those breasts. What we don’t know won’t cause us anxiety, and if cancer should come, the later we discover it the better, because there is nothing like death to stop us from running to the doctor for every little thing.
And talk about expensive! Premature births and Caesarean sections? Wouldn’t it be so much nicer for everyone if women would man up and give the old vagina a go? And if the baby dies? Think of how many trips to the pediatrician will be avoided. Why spend so much on preemies anyway? Surely, the new guidelines on extra-tiny humans will yield nice savings.
IP hash: caa2666a
Wow. I didn’t realize until reading these comments that the rest of the developed world is falling apart because of their nationalized health care.
I mean, I know the people in those places emphatically support the nationalized health care structures (although they criticize the systems occasionally because they aren’t funded well enough), but I wasn’t aware of how all those people are, in fact, dying at the hands of bureaucratic death panels. I don’t have a problem with death panels so long as they accumulate profit (Capitalism is the foundation of Christianity, after all!), but this non-profit bureaucratic version, which I now understand has destroyed every nation but ‘Merica, is too scary to imagine!
I guess the rest of the developed world just doesn’t know what’s good for it. Their health care costs and national debt must be enormous!
In all serious, this article is a bunch of bullshit, just like everything Linskens writes. Please, Aaron, cut this obnoxious “Now, I’m not biased or anything, I’m just telling it like it is. If you disagree with me, you must be an irrational, mean person. Also, Sarah Palin sure is smart.” non-sense. It’s ridiculous and you look like an arrogant tool for believing that shit.
Also, please stop talking about things you don’t take the time to understand.
IP hash: f151ec33
You might consider dropping the sarcastic, cynical attitude and start taking ideas seriously.
1) That people support nationalized health care is not an argument for its propriety.
2) It is true that people die at the hands of bureaucrats because of rationing. Look at what’s going on in Europe right now.
3) There’s no such thing as a “death panel” under capitalism. Under capitalism each individual decides what to spend on his health care, not a bureaucratic panel. This is an essential, life or death distinction.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
RE: Point 1
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That�s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publiccontent/politics/currentevents/healthcare/september2009/healthcare_reform
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
I just wonder where Canada will send the health care cases that THEY CAN’T HANDLE which they used to send to the USA?
I won’t bother the cite all the horror stories from the UK - BING them up for yourself.
I would like to see the Congress Critters and government employees on the same health care system that they are going to foist off on the proles.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
One of the early ‘public option’ proposals was to allow anyone in America to get on the congressional health care plan actually.
P.S. this article is shit, when you’re discussing moral issues you discuss them in moral tones. The fact that properly implemented UHC would save money is a plus rather than the point of healthcare reform.
IP hash: f151ec33
Save money for whom? Once government takes your money from you by force and dictates what kind of health insurance you can buy and companies can sell, who can say with a straight face that this will “save money?”
Once you take my freedom, cost is irrelevant.
IP hash: 6ac7847b
Move to Somalia, all the freedom you could want (although there’s a little too much of that ‘diversity’ you’re so afraid of)
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
You might try to keep up with current events.
Dozens of patients died needlessly as a result of filthy conditions in an NHS hospital, a shocking report said last night.
Appalling nursing care in Basildon University Hospital contributed to a mortality rate that was more than a third higher than the national average.
At least 70 people may have died who should have been saved.
It is the latest example of patients paying the ultimate price for Labour’s failure to stamp out Third World conditions in the NHS - despite trebling taxpayer funding over the past decade.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231197/70-deaths-Basildon-University-Hospital—Patients-neglected-nurses-filthy-blood-spattered-casualty-unit-says-report.html
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
Wow. There must be a lot you don�t realize about nationalized health care.
One of Labour’s great triumphs with the National Health Service is that people now go into hospital to die rather than to be cured. It seems to render the whole debate about assisted suicide utterly pointless. Who needs a Dignitas clinic when you can check into a hospital in Basildon and be relatively certain to be taken out in a box?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/6672409/Want-to-fix-the-NHS-Go-private.html
IP hash: d0ca982a
PROF. JACOBSON: 10,000 Unnecessary Cancer Deaths (In Britain). �Since Britain�s population is less than one-fifth that of the U.S., the equivalent number of unnecessary deaths in the U.S. would exceed 50,000. The U.S. has cancer survival rates which exceed even the better European countries, so that number may be higher. Keep that in mind the next time you hear Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and others throw around fictitious numbers about how many people die in the U.S. from lack of insurance.�
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/89237/
IP hash: c54de1fa
I’ll bet big money that there will be no rationing for Congress. Probably none for federal employees either.
What’s really going on here is that the left knows its designs will require political rationing of care, but it doesn’t want the public to figure this out until ObamaCare passes. Then it will begin the campaign to instruct the rest of us that we must follow the guidance of Princeton professors about what medical care we can receive. Americans will simply have to accept that the price of government-run health care in the name of redistributive justice is that patients and their doctors must bow to the superior wisdom of HHS task forces.
Just don’t admit it until after the White House signing ceremony.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574552320222125990.html
IP hash: f13f4493
“You vill have Government Rationed Healths Care… Undt you vill pay for it or you vill be zent to zee cooler! Ve KNOW vhat ist gut for you!” Our Dear Leader
“Give me Liberty or give me Death!” Patrick Henry
“Ve can arrange zat….” Our Dear Leader
“A Government Big Enough to Give You Everything You Want, is Strong Enough to Take Everything You Have.” Thomas Jefferson
“Zend zee Acorn Security Squads over to zee zis Tommy Jeff. Tell zem to give him zee Joe zee Plumber treatment!” Our Dear Leader
IP hash: 311c6c1b
“A Government Big Enough to Give You Everything You Want, is Strong Enough to Take Everything You Have.”
Actually, Gerald Ford said that. Not that I’d expect you to have much regard for facts, though.
IP hash: 42571c6e
Interesting….. This quote has been attributed (and disputed) to several different people, not the least Thomas Jefferson.
That is beside the point however, as your sophist argument intended.
The parody above outlines the stupidity of an abusive federal government exceeding its constitutional authority to such a degree that it will force citizens to buy a government “health care product” that they do not want and will imprison them if they will not buy it. It smacks of jack booted thuggery and facist enforcment.
The proposed health care legislation will fine and imprison citizens that refuse to buy the government health care “product”. That is a fact. Read the proposed legislation. And then show us what high regard you have for the facist facts, rather than displaying your feeble, specious argumentum.
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
I like some of the things Tom DID say:
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Looks like Ford said it, but it is true:
The following statement, or variations thereof, is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson:
“A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have….”
We have never found such a statement in Jefferson’s writings. As far as we know, this statement actually originates with Gerald R. Ford, who said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,” in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[1]
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Governmentbigenoughtosupply_you
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
IP hash: c54de1fa
The moral is perfectly clear. Self-interest cannot be expunged. Where there is private property and its possession and acquisition are protected and treated with respect, self-interest and jealousy can be deployed against laziness and the desire for that which is not one’s own, and there tends to be plenty as a consequence.
But where one takes from those who join talent with industry to provide for those lacking either or both, where the fruits of one man’s labor are appropriated to benefit another who is less productive, self-interest reinforces laziness, jealousy engenders covetousness, and these combine in a bitter stew to produce both conflict and dearth.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025025.php
But maybe it will be all different in the Age of Obama?
IP hash: c54de1fa
I don’t believe that Democrats in Congress actually disagree with the majority of voters who expect a government takeover of medicine to result in worse health care at a higher cost. Rather, the Democrats believe that degraded health care is an acceptable price to pay for what they are really after—government domination over the life of every citizen. Whether the American people understand how profound is the Democrats’ assault on their liberties, and will be willing to do what it takes to throw the greedy rascals out of power, remains to be seen.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/025033.php
IP hash: 4e3d7eba
Medicare is already $37 trillion in the hole. Yet the Democrats proudly cite Medicare when they demand support for the health care overhaul. If a business pulled the accounting tricks the politicians get away with, the owners would be in prison.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/26/we-pay-them-to-lie-to-us
That’s 37 TRILLION!!!
Maybe they should cut the fraud and waste even BEFORE passing yet more spending.
IP hash: f151ec33
Yes. And worse than that, their solution to the government already hijacking 50 percent of the health care market is to INCREASE it to 100 percent!
Their solution is to destroy any possibility of a private market and then ration care to bring costs down. They are already doing this with Medicare and Medicaid.
Think about the logic of this: Some people can’t afford certain health care services, so let’s take their money and let bureaucrats decide what services will be available and to whom (a.k.a., single payer).
Problem solved: That heart transplant your couldn’t afford, it’s no longer available for a person your age. And even if you could have afforded it in the past, under a catastrophic insurance plan, that plan is no longer an “approved” plan.
Presto, no more affordability issues.
Socialism: The equal sharing of poverty.