- It will lead America toward socialism - the federal government will be controlling just one more aspect of your life--your healthcare!
- There are not enough doctors -- 30 million new people cant fit into the existing system without causing shortages of doctors for everybody
- Rationed healthcare! You wont be able to get the services you want or need!
- It will economically cost too much - the economy cannot handle it - our childrens' children will be paying this debt
- Its passage via "reconciliation" is a sinister movement
- Americans overwhelmingly do not wan it
The 1964 article I read was written by Republican Congressman John H. Rousselot. He cited conservative think tanks and policy groups who shared his view that the federal legislation at hand was a communist conspiracy to implant socialism in America. Conservatives across the nation agreed. What was the legislation? Civil rights. One conservative policy center said the legislation was 10% civil rights and 90% socialist efforts to empower the federal government. They really argued that civil rights legislation was bad because it empowered the federal government to control the lives of individuals--where they could eat, sleep, swim, etc. Funny how the old specter of the socialist boogy-man is still a staple of the Republican opposition to anything the democrats want to do. In the case of health care reform, Republicans have argued that the reform will force everyone to use government controlled health care. That just simply is not true. In fact, the bill counts on private insurance because it is funded, in part, by taxing some of those. You see, if all the healthy people jump into an insurance plan and leave the unhealthy behind, the unhealthy will probably go for government health insurance (rather than pay ultra high rates for private as they currently must). To help fund thier access, the government will tax private companies and in that way give everyone--healthy or sick--freedom of choice and access to medical care. The current system only gives freedom of choice to the healthy. So you see, the continuance of private enterprise is an essential part of this plan. This is not socialism. It is an ethical issue though, and Republicans have a proven track record of opposing ethical legislation on trumped up charges that it is a socialist conspiracy.
2. Not enough doctors:
In 1944 Congress passed Public Law 78-346, which included the now famous GI Bill. It allotted tons of cash to WWII veterans to buy houses and go to school. Over the next 20 years over 5 million Americans used the bill. Was anybody concerned that there would not be enough homes? Was anybody concerned that there would not be enough professors to teach them all? Would there be professor shortages and would classroom size swell out of control? No. Why? Because they believed that the market would balance. If you have more demand, more people will build homes or become professors. Why would it be any different with doctors? It wont. In fact, in America we have made education so common place that many pursue more education just because it is available. That is the case for university professors. We now have way too many educated people and not enough jobs for them.
3. Rationed health care:
Okay, so there is an ounce or two of credibility to this one. Yes, if you chose a government health care program then the government bureaucrats running it get to determine what is an acceptable cost and treatment for all sorts of ailments. However, it is exactly the same now when your privately owned health insurance company. No matter who runs it, the guys at the top determine what you can or cannot get. And if you really want more options, you are still free to buy an expensive "Cadillac" plan from a private company. They are not going anywhere. The current legislation does nothing to restrict their ability to market and sell services. In fact, the legislation is depending on them sticking around.
4. Too expensive:
Obama has dressed up the new bill as a cost saving measure and that just is not true (republicans are not the only ones misrepresenting things). However, it is not a massively expensive bill either. It is funded by taxing private insurance companies, medical equipment providers, and re-allocating funds already set aside for medicare. Ultimately, this is not that expensive. The bail out was expensive, and I agree we need to start cutting back costs, but this medical reform is not going to increase the deficit much at all because it has plans built in to fund it. It is a fraction of our military budget, which by the way, is almost exactly 10 times larger than any other country in the world and much more than the rest of the world combined! Just google words like military, budget, and world to see for yourself.
5. Reconciliation is unethical
Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure to reconcile bills passed by the Senate and by the House so that they match up. It has been used many times in the past, most often by the Republicans. It was used to pass much of the Republican "Contract with America" during the 1990s. It was fine and great when it worked for the Republicans, but now that the Democrats want to use it the Republicans label it sinister-the "nuclear" solution. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? I think so.
6. Americans overwhelmingly rejected it:
Americans are not overwhelming opposed to the legislation. That is a myth. The polls range from 44% opposed to 59% opposed, but most of the credible polls say it is between 50% and 54% opposed. So, half (or slightly more than half) of American oppose the bill. And how many Americans typically vote for Republican candidates in an election? Oh, somewhere around 45-50%. So basically, what we have here is most people who usually like Republicans and don't like Democrats feel as they always do, and a few moderates have joined them. That is not overwhelming opposition. Besides, it is always easier to poison public opinion on an issue than it is to build it, especially when you have the disinformation campaign that I've addressed above. So if you want to claim overwhelming opposition you better post some better stats to prove it. That does not stop Fox News from claiming there is overwhelming resistance.
Fox News and the conservative media outlets just keep claiming the above arguments are true, even though they are not. Why? They figure if they repeat it enough times you'll believe it is true. You see, they are a political entity first and a news reporting entity second. They selectively report on things that they think will strengthen thier cause, and they overlook things that do not. I can give you several examples of this policy.
- Remember when they ran repeated stories on Obama's birthplace potentially disqualifying him from the presidency? It wasn't true, but they brought it up over an over again anyway. They also used this to argue (before the election) that he could not even pass the top security test, which has no relevance at all except to cast some sort of illusion that he is a security risk (when they knew full well that his birthplace did not make him a risk). They look for any way to discredit him.
- How about when Fox News repeated his full name constantly--Barack Hussein Obama. Who knows George W. Bush's middle name? Clinton's? Bush Sr.'s? Reagan's? Not many people. But we're fighting terrorists from the Middle East so if you oppose Obama it is a good time to make sure everybody knows his middle name.
- Fox ran stories about Obama's supposed relationship with Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground terrorist. Of course, he has no real relation --they attended the same conference once--but by portraying them as buddies Fox hoped to convince Americans that he was sympathetic to him and weak on terrorism at a time when the nation is fighting terrorism.
- More recently Fox ran stories about Chicago having corrupt politics, and insinuated that Obama and his administration must also be corrupt because they come from Illinois. Do they have any evidence that anybody in the administration has ever done anything questionable? No, but who needs that? In the modern media world you just need accusations to ruin somebody, they hope.
5 comments:
Thanks for that article Matt, it was really interesting. Your number 3 is what bothers me the most about the healthcare plan, the other points I don't think are true. I do believe that people like my dad who has too many doctors to count will have problems if this comes into effect. It will be harder for him to just go in whenever he needs it because there will be more people fighting to get in. And he has had doctors tell them that if that happens, they will retire because they will not make as much money with an influx of people coming in from government-run programs. Granted, doctors could still take a paycut and be just fine, but sadly a lot of them are in it for the money.
Last year I was a stout opposer of this plan, but after we graduated and had no health insurance and no way to get it through an employer, we were stuck. We were uninsured for two months and during that time I had some health problems I needed to get taken care of. And I had NO options and nowhere to go. I finally just went into a clinic but they had to order tests at a hospital. I was there for maybe forty-five minutes and got a bill for $2,000. that's not right and completely unethical. So I do agree that something needs to be done and i am moving more towards a government-run option.
Anyways, hope you guys are doing well, we can't wait to see you in a month or so. If you need anything taken that we would have here, let us know, we will have plenty of room
Your arguments for points numbered 1 and 5 are fallacious. Simply pointing out the GOP's hypocrisy does nothing to resist their argument.
I totally agree that the political machine does not funcion by explaining itself to the masses, but the types of fearmongering and scare tactics used by the opposition to this reform are everywhere, in every politically active organization on earth. It is this way because fear is an easy way to make people open to suggestion. These fear campaigns appeal to the lowest commong denominator. It's the same reason wolves like to stampede herds of prey animals, they're easier to control when they're frightened.
The argument that there are not enough doctors holds more water than you've implied here. How long does it take to become a doctor? After four years of undergraduate work, four years of medical school, and one to four additional years of internship and specialty education, you're looking at a significant portion of a person's working years. Taking that into consideration, and the fact that most doctors begin their careers with debt ranging from a quarter to half a million dollars in student loans, one begins to wonder why they put themselves through it. I'm sure there are a handful with pure altruism in their hearts, but I think they're the minority. The majority are looking at the field as a way to make a very good living.
There is no crime in being "in it for the money." That's the reason I go to work. But if my income were threatened by impending legislation, I might be shopping around for a new career, too. Forbes magazine, arguably a right-winged bird itself, reported in May of 2008 (before the 2000 page health care bill was even written) an anticipated shortage of between 90 and 200 thousand doctors by 2023. They site the aging population (ie - increase in patient/doctor ratios) as their number one reason for the assertion, but they also point out that the net income for physicians has been steadily declining, adjusting for inflation, since the 1960s. I don't claim to be an expert on the leglislation itself, but I do know that if it plans to tax providers of private insurance and medical implementation to pay for itself, then the taxpayers and clientelle of these service providers will bear the ultimate brunt. Either that, or the doctors will continue to see a decline in their individual buying power, which, in the final analysis, is inevitable.
As a sidenote, it is unethical for the program to fund itself by taxing the very entities with which it is intended to compete. I'm a capitalist. I believe competition is very good for the market. President Obama, in campaigning for this bill, said repeatedly that he was not talking about single-payer health care, but rather a government-sponsored option to compete with private insurance providers. Now, let's see if I can explain what makes me uncomfortable about that. The "public option" is designed to compete with private providers to make insurance more accessible to all, right? But it funds its start-up and its operating costs on money taken from its competitors. Tax evasion is a crime in this country, and businesses that are caught evading taxes are punished, so the entities already in the market can either fund their rival, or be subject to the penalty of law. That sounds a little bit like extortion to me. It's not quite the Khmer Rouge, but still, it smacks of coercion, and it makes me nervous.
Dear Pablo,
I appreciate your comments. You bring up fair and reasonable points. Thank you.
I also agree that there is no crime in doing something for money. This is also why I work. My concern is simply that we should not mistakenly think that health care companies exist to provide for us. They do not. Therefore, they are more likely to sacrifice coverage or quality of you and I if it will make them more money. That said, we need to keep an eye on them to be sure they are behaving ethically. I feel the same way about the new online universities who should also be monitored to ensure that quality of education is not sacrificed in the interest of enrolling students and making money. What good are degrees if they graduates know nothing? What good is health coverage if nothing is covered? It is nice to have the government run institutions (which have lots of problems unique to them) as an alternative to private enterprise. They can check each other in different ways and make sure that the masses are best served because that lofty goal--servicing the masses--is often a consequence but not necessarily a required element of capitalism.
By the way, who are you? Family, friend, or unrelated web surfer?
Well said, Matt. I usually keep my mouth shut because I don't put together my arguments as nicely as you do. I usually get frustrated and annoyed and can't get the words together. So it's nice to read my thoughts clearly combined here on your blog.
As an employee of a for-profit, primarily online university, I share many of your concerns. I also submit that the university I work for services a segment of society that generally do not have access to traditional education. But since the company I work for demonstrated that online education is cheap to run and very profitable, every state school in the country has online degree options, so people who choose to attend the university I work for are doing it for the convenience of not have to call more than one school. That being said, I am convinced that the student body I work with will see a notable increase in their ability to work and move in society as a result of the program. Not because the program is good, but because the position they come from is so bad. That's a broad statement, and clearly not true in every case, but it holds a lot more often than not.
Your comments about oversight are interesting. Again, I think Adam Smith was right. I think healthy markets are inherently self-regulating. They can be lied to and manipulated, but so can voters, and so can politicians. I am not convinced that additional bureaucracy will save the health care system in this country. Having written that, I think we can agree that regulation is a necessary evil.
But this legislation goes considerably beyond additional oversight. This legislation will make it against the law to be without health insurance in this country. Those that don't have it will be fined. Any company employing more than 5 people will be required to provide coverage or they will be fined. What does this mean in practical terms? It means that people who have opted out of paying for health care coverage no longer have that option. It means that everyone will be forced to spend more money.
Additionally, this legislation makes it unlawful to deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition. Therefore insurance companies (and I use the term insurance loosely--you can't call it insurance unless you're buying it before the fact to insure yourself against a loss, which is no longer the case) will be required to pay the bills for a clientelle they would previously have refused to cover. They will not be able or willing to swallow the cost, and premiums will rise to make up the difference. Everyone will be forced to spend more money.
As the cost of providing insurance rises, a government option, funded by federal revenue (eg taxes) and money extorted at the threat of legal action from its own competitors, will be able to operate at a lower cost to the insured. The market being what it is, the cost to supply the market being artificially inflated by this legislation, buyers will naturally gravitate toward the option that allows them to avoid punishment with the lowest impact to their own personal bottom line. I know you will think I am being a right-winged alarmist, but this "government option" is a clear and unapologetic step toward the single payer system. When our health care runs like Canada's or (heaven forbid) France's or Italy's, hospitals will run like the DMV. A person who needs a perscription or some stitches will probably be all right. A person who needs a knee replacement will wait until next Fall to get it, but it will probably come through. But a person who needs a new liver will very likely die.
Post a Comment