The Assignment!

(ED NOTE: I'm not sure why this jumped to today's note when I added an up-date. The original piece is over a decade old - The Affordable Care Act was under discussion in 2009 and signed into law March of 2010....so this discussion, and what I wrote below, is quite dated.)

It started at Facebook. The discussion was over the (then) newly proposed Obama-Care plan (though we could be discussing ANY hot-button topic). The original post:

Class - Today's POLITICAL LESSON: With all the fighting going on about health-care and such, today you must argue CONVINCINGLY for the OTHER side. If you can't do that, then you not only don't understand any other option but the one you support, but cannot see & address the problems with the plan you support. Sooo...who is up for the challenge?

Ignoring the discussion that ensued (for the moment, anyway), here is my entries (I argue both sides):
=====

ASSERTION: The US needs not only general reform of the health-care industry, but serious governmental oversight AND a public option so that ALL Americans are covered.

1) Rights: The issue of whether or not health-care is a right, at least on a practical level, is a point settled long ago. It is illegal in this country for emergency rooms to refuse treatment on the grounds of one's ability to pay. This demonstrates, at the most fundamental level, that most Americans (including those opposed to Obama's plan) feel that health-care is at the very least a quasi-right.

2) Range of coverage: Extending from point #1 and the term "quasi-right", no one is even remotely suggesting that a pubic option or "health-care as a right" extends to cosmetic surgeries, lazik surgery, and other purely elective non-urgent treatments. While "functional" electives should be covered (re-constructive surgery, cataract surgery, etc.), no one is positing that breast augmentation or rhinoplasty be paid for with tax dollars. "Right" doesn't mean "hand-out" for every whim or fancy.

3) Public option: Let's cut to the chase - the biggest 2 issues with those opposing Obama health-care package are the public option and the insurance mandate. One at a time....The public option is not a governmental take-over of the health-care industry. What is it? It's the acknowledgment that we are a civilized society, period. No rational argument can be put forth that it is somehow "good" or "moral" for so few to sit in pampered luxury while so many starve and die in the streets. It is exactly because of this that we implement social "safety nets" like fiscal aid to the poor (free & reduced cost housing, food stamps, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, & so many more). But not only that, we provide assistance to level the paying field, and provide that assistance (read "opportunity") to rich & poor alike (public schools, for example, or public roads & trash collection & hospitals/clinics). No one would soberly claim that only the rich should have their garbage collected or have access to travel or be able to read.

Similarly, it is the duty of any civilized society to provide to all it's citizens - regardless of income, gender, race, etc. - the the most basic requirements of living. Otherwise, we only claim to be civilized, but we are actually only a concrete & prettied jungle functioning at the most base "survival of the fittest" level.

4) Insurance mandate: You are required to have auto insurance to drive a car, boat insurance to drive a boat, and more. The fact that the US pays for those who DON'T pay their medical bills demonstrates that we already subsidize (though in an indirect & thus more costly way) those who lack insurance, and those who are in-insured or under-insured cost the tax-payers billions of dollars a year. An insurance mandate simply streamlines (& thus saves money) the situation and makes those who CAN afford it pay their fair share. Those who cannot afford it have immediate access to the public option.

Summary: Though money shouldn't be a primary concern when dealing with moral issues, the fact is that an insurance mandate and a public option is the best way not only to serve a requisite for an ethical society, but to be as financially responsible as those who oppose the new health-care package proposed. Clearly, Obama's solution is MORE fiscally responsible than what we currently have.

In summation, the free market had it's chance. In fairness, it did quite well for a while. But as the market often does, greed got the upper hand. Corporations aren't run by elected officials and are thus not beholden to the public at large. Therefore, it is time to make our elected officials reform the health-care market and put the health of ALL Americans back in the spot-light and the profit-motive in the back-seat where it belongs.

---COUNTER---

ASSERTION: The US needs not only general reform of the health-care industry, but that reform needs to come by abolishing all governmental oversight so that a truly Free Market ensures ALL Americans can be covered.

1) Rights: The issue of whether or not health-care is a right is a point settled long ago. Without deep-diving on the concepts of positive vs negative rights/liberties (the philosophical framework for what became our system of government distinguishes between rights that require others to act on our behalf [food, shelter, transportation, etc] and rights that do not [speech, religion, freedom of assembly, etc]), the US Constitution recognizes only negative rights, and providing exceptions (public education, welfare, social security) does not make positive rights the rule. Thus, heath-care is not a "right" in the manner in which we are accustomed to using the term.

2) Range of coverage: A free market approach will allow each individual to determine the range of coverage on their own AND allow doctors & medical services organizations to decide how they wish to deliver services, creating multiple competing systems that allow for maximum flexibility & choice for every person.

3) Public option: It is generally a point of agreement (regardless of political position) that everyone should have access to health-care. The disagreement is on how best to deliver those services.

A truly Free Market is always more efficient than a governmental bureaucracy because government always chooses a one-size-fits-all approach, whereas the market allows limitless competing systems that act as "test tubes" for better and better systems for delivering services. This has been demonstrated countless times. Thus, if there is to be any "public option", it needs to be one of many competing systems that people can choose to dismiss in favor of another system.

4) Insurance mandate: The analogy of licencing & insurance for driving a car is a non-starter, as insurance is only required to drive a car on public roads (you do not, in fact, need to be licensed OR insured to drive on private property).

But that aside, the compulsion to purchase ANY good is a new & dangerous precedent, and, bluntly, does nothing to actually solve the core problems that drive insurance & health-care costs up. It simply shifts who & how we pay the bill....meaning Americans will still be paying ridiculously high costs.

Summary: Though money shouldn't be a primary concern when dealing with moral issues, the fact is that an insurance mandate and a public option is the worst possible way not only to serve a requisite for an ethical society, but to be as financially responsible as those who embrace the new health-care package proposed. Clearly, Obama's solution is even LESS fiscally responsible than what we currently have.

In summation, the government had it's chance. In fairness, it might have had a chance. But as the government often does, greed got the upper hand. Ultimately, corporations & elected officials always collude and the public at large are always served as an afterthought to individual greed. Therefore, it is time to make our elected officials remove themselves from the health-care market and put the health of ALL Americans back in the spot-light and corruption in the dustbin where it belongs.
=====

How did I do?