Why the Republicans are Simply Wrong on Healthcare
// March 21st, 2010 // Philosophy & Politics
There are occasions when I hear such a ridiculous argument advanced that I feel compelled to speak up about it. Don’t get me wrong–both liberals and conservatives have their ideologues who simply push forth sophist litanies which do nothing to advance debate, but are specifically designed to obscure and misinform.
One such occasion was this evening, when Representative Paul Ryan, R-WIS, strode up to the podium on the floor the House, and proceeded to regurgitate a talking point by the Republican party and their apparatchiks in the Tea Party (note that not all of the Tea Party has been subverted by the GOP, just most of it–I am also amused by the formation of the anti-Tea Party, the Coffee Party). That point? Well, of course the watered down healthcare reform bill was evil, as it was an affront to the values of our founding fathers by virtue of it’s socialist nature: by providing government involvement in healthcare, you, in effect, threaten the free market ideals by which this nation was built.
Of course, that’s hogwash. To understand how ludicrous this assertion is, just sit back and think about what that line of thought asserts: that any involvement of the government into a market threatens those markets by taking over them–and we all know that the government is incompetent to run anything. Really? First of all, even our own markets aren’t free of the government…government oversight is a recognized necessity in order to enforce the ground rules (witness what happened with Enron when the government failed to do so, or even more sadly, the banking fiasco that lead to our current recession). The fact is, government plays a critical and necessary role in regulating systems and structures necessary to the daily functioning of our society. Imagine if government were NOT involved in our judicial system? What is the alternative? Have courts run by corporations? I think not.
Speaking of which, there’s one rather significant example of how the government can and does run something very competently–and it’s something the Republicans would be wise to consider: our nation’s defense. The military, my dear hyperbolic-fear-inducing friends, is the very definition of a government run agency. And, oh my, we are even TAXED to support this institution. Gods forbid. The US Military must foreshadow the imminent fall of this nation–and it’s ideals. Except, of course, that’s ludicrous. Is Washington arrogant in having the world’s pre-eminent military? Does Washington know better when it comes to the military? Well, it seems so. Back in the days of state militias, we did not have the world’s leading military, did we? In fact, ask anyone in the Pentagon if going back to a state militia force structure would be preferable to what we have today and you’d be greeted with disbelief (not to mention it would be in violation of the US Constitution).
The irony of it all? Well, our military hospitals are widely considered to be some of the best in the world. Walter Reed is the hospital of the President of the United States, afterall. In fact, after a disgraceful period in which VA Hospitals were considered subpar, they have experienced a remarkable turn around and are now regarded as some of the top hospitals in the nation. And guess what, my anti-Healthcare reform friends? They are government run.
All of this is not news to those who oppose this bill. In fact, they are acutely aware of it (as they are the same folks who typically support the Military-Defense industry). So, knowing this, one can only conclude that they are simply being, at the most generous, disingenuous, or more likely, purposefully misleading. Their greatest fear? That this bill will go into effect, and that Americans might realize that the bill is actually good for them and not good for the insurance and healthcare corporations which profit off the pain and sufferings of our fellow countrymen.
3 Responses to “Why the Republicans are Simply Wrong on Healthcare”
Leave a Reply
- David said: Glad I found your site - i just had the 4th Dr. te...
- spence said: But Kevin, ...
- spence said: @Kevin ...
- Kevin said: Hey Spence, it's great to hear you're getting clos...
- Kevin said: MUAHAHA! I found your blog! By the way, I really l...
MUAHAHA! I found your blog! By the way, I really like the theme.
On your points:
* The mainstream Republicans/Conservatives are of course completely hypocritical. They had just passed the Medicare Prescription Drug law during Bush II which was one of the biggest growths of government medicine. These people are “conservative” in the worst sense: they want to conserve their power. They have no intellectual foundation.
* The attacks are more ridiculous since government was already about half of medical expenditures before the new healthcare plan, yet these Conservatives wouldn’t dare think about repealing those laws. Yet they are screaming about a slight addition to the existing machine. Its pure manipulation of a large percentage of the population that does have some inkling of an intellectual foundation.
* Enron happened with government regulators watching. Sarbanes Oxley was passed, adding a huge cost to business and was one factor in driving companies off shore. No doubt, accounting fraud will happen again (some would argue it has with the latest financial crisis). The Fed “regulated” the industry during our latest collapse. In congressional testimony, The Fed acknowledges a failure in regulation (for example, consumer protection). Further, some argue (e.g. John Taylor of the Taylor rule) that low interest rates caused the crisis. Bernie Madoff occurred with an independent investigator literally giving the SEC dossiers about Madoffs crime for years. I’m just pointing out that “regulation” is a very amorphous, politically charged term, and the real core issue is: what caused the crisis? If it was The Fed, then why aren’t we regulating that? To keep it secre… cough, i mean independent.
* A “free market” in courts largely existed a couple hundred years ago leading to our “Common Law” system, which was later codified in laws by Congress, and some would argue, massively distorted. See http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/AnarchyDraft.pdf
* A “free market” in defense and the military could be less violent and more efficient. See http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
* The military hospitals are high quality but very high cost.
* The healthcare bill is the best for the corporations who now get legally obliged customers. Corporatism at its finest.
If we relentlessly probe to the root of the problems, I think it does come down to ideology. Medicine, education, etc. are the places with spiraling costs (what it all comes down to) and this is where government is involved the most. Coincidence? However, this theoretical debate is shrouded with the “pragmatism” of not questioning these huge government systems we’ve built up in the last 60 years. Note that before then people were not dying on the streets. People helped each other. That’s the optimism of “spontaneous order” or anarcho-capitalism. Non-profit hospitals, church hospitals, doctors working for free, etc.
But Kevin,
@Kevin
But, Kevin, by your reasoning, the healthcare systems of Europe should be wildly less efficient than the US healthcare system as govt. involvement is even more extreme there. Yet, as it stands, the next closest cost per patient, in Switzerland, is less than half the cost of the US system. Now, you could argue that the US Healthcare system is by no means a free market system, I would safely suggest it is significantly more so than the European (or Japanese) model. So, if that’s the case, how are those systems so much more efficient than the more free market US system?
I do not buy that Free Markets are the answer to everything. Quite simply, they are not. Even Adam Smith suggests in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, there exists the necessity to view economics from a variety of perspectives–including moral ones. What is interesting is the certainty that true free market systems lack all morality (and by this I mean moral in terms of theories of social justice). They are, in the end, always *always* guided by precepts of maximization of return for the shareholder/investor. Period. Such systems can not, and do not, have any moral consideration of “what is just”. Instead, it is simply concerned with “what is most profitable”. Note that in saying this, I do not consider the US economic system as following a true free market model–the role of government regulation has been put in place because of a recognition of the innate immorality of such systems (it’s why the SEC exists, it’s why the laws preventing monopolies existed in reaction to the Robber Barons–a direct result, I might add, of the unbridled capitalism of the 1800s…which while it saw unprecedented wealth generated, generated such wealth at an unprecedented cost in terms of income disparity, child labor abuses, institutionalized indentured servitude. There is a reason why the rise of the labor unions occurred at this time–it was a direct reaction to the excessive damage that unbridled/unregulated free markets incurred unto the society which, afterall, supported it…and it was because of these injustices that the people backed governmental regulation in an attempt to insert a degree of morality–and a degree of accountability, be injected into the economic system). Too many people forget this fact, and instead suggest that free markets are the answer to everything. They clearly are not. And they are not, in addition, capable, or ever concerned, with morality with regards to social justice. That’s not, afterall, the purpose by which it exists.
That said, Mr. Kev–thanks for the links. Very interesting reading, and though I can see some of their points, the underlying thesis that rejects all government intervention as being more troublesome/costly than beneficial/efficient, is something that I, again, can not agree with. There are some things, frankly, that we do NOT want a free market system to “run”. That we’d not want any system lacking any moral compass to control. Ultimately, the worst abuses of man occur when man is given a free field of play…perhaps it’s just that you’re more optimistic than I regarding what people would do given the opportunity for there not to exist a government. But we have seen what happens in the absence of government (New Orleans after Katrina–and that was the removal of government for a very short period, or Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc. etc.) can lead to. The list is replete and sad of what human beings will do to each other when government does not exist. That’s not a world I’d like to see.
Glad I found your site – i just had the 4th Dr. tell me I may have a problem with my L3/L4 – after having hip surgery to resolve my pain. Your commentary on Healthcare is exactly why I am no longer a republican – if a man like myself who makes over 200k a year can be befuddled and horrified by the bills I’ve faced (and still have Aetna) how can that be a good solution. We needed Healthcare reform – but it was Universal HealthCare.