entering the realm of Asclepios: Intro.
Well, I suppose I'm going to be stirring the pot a bit after all. A friend (who has a thought provoking blog of her own here) mentioned that she was curious about my thoughts on health care reform, in particular the options currently in the media spotlight. So here goes. Of course, there must be the requisite disclaimers seeing that this is a rather more testy subject than it should be (really--I mean words like "death panels," "socialist," "weak," "Nazi," "Hitler," "end of America," "not good enough so we're all going to die miserably without care," "heartless," and "treacherous" are being used. It's a little overboard on both sides of the spectrum, and more vocally so, sadly to me, on the self-identified conservative side.) Therefore, I would like to mitigate an eruption of any kind not knowing who will read this.
1) I am merely pointing out the position to which I have come and how I have come there. Please do not assume or infer that I am stating everyone should hold to this opinion. I absolutely understand why those who oppose these approaches to health care reform (HCR) do oppose them. I just happen to disagree at this point for the reasons I will enumerate in subsequent posts.
2) It is perfectly acceptable to post comments of disagreement. I do expect decorum to be utilized which entails not using ad hominem attacks (which debate no point and merely result in devolution of argument and defeating discussion) while endeavoring to avoid merely parroting talking points rather than explaining the reason behind or application of the points.
3) I couldn't care less about anyones political labels of affiliations in any discussion. I care merely for the ideas they communicate. Thus, any use of "Well, that's because you're a _________________," or "Well, I'm a _________________, so I believe X." I don't care. The only relevant part to the discussion at this or any hand is the exchange of ideas not identification.
I hope I've covered everything. haha. If not, I retain the right to add to the list in the future.
Now. On to the topic at hand. I suppose the simplest way to explain my journey is to walk it again, but truncated. Trust me, you don't want to belabor your way through my hours of confused thought hashing. I began my journey with three main beliefs regarding health care: 1) receiving health care is not an inalienable right, 2) it is not the designated role of government to run health care, and 3) this country would be not only ill-affected itself while also ill-affecting others were we to find ourselves in the midst of a limiting and narrowly run system. I finished my journey still basically holding to those beliefs. You may find that surprising. The difference in my stance did not necessitate a change of those positions, you'll find. Nevertheless, I will address the second one with several examples to show that believing it is not the designated role of the government to do something is not the same as believing they should not do it.
When I began to ponder the bill, I was convinced that my three premises necessitated a stance against the bill. I had many concerns about the effects of the bill on individuals, health care providers, the economy, taxes, quality of care, and availability of care. I discovered fairly soon that in order to get counters to these concerns, I was going to need to branch out beyond my usual circle of information sources. To be honest, my usual circle of information sources weren't really disseminating or discussing information. I have sadly discovered that a great deal of vocal conservative reaction to these bills is, "This is socialism," "It's a big, fat tax!" and "Look at Medicare! Do we want government running health care?" Granted, there is some of that type from the other side: "If you're against health care reform, you're sentencing millions to death!" and "Insurance companies just want to rape and pillage for the bucks! Government cares enough to want people to live!" You get the idea. (I'll probably right a post about the incredible devolution of political debate in this country in the last few years, but it has to wait. I get too snarky about it currently.) At any rate, I branched out. I read a lot of statistics about health care and health coverage systems world-wide. I read a lot about national deficits, how they affect economies, and how much is too much. I read a lot about what the bills proposed, what they required, what they would change, and what they would cost. And I graded papers and did homework whilst all these things roiled around in my brain. I was really struggling to figure out what the bills were really about as well as how to align it with my political and ethical ideals.
Up to this point in the process I had one, and only one, sounding board: a British friend that I acquired over the summer. This had advantages and disadvantages: while he could ask the interesting questions, listen to my frustrated questions, and offer his perspective on the NHS (and a transient experience with ours via short personal experience and the anecdotes of meeting people as he traveled the US), he couldn't really offer the comparative analysis for which I was looking. Granted, what I really wanted (and would still like) is a side-by-side, comprehensive comparison of multiple aspect of our system, the Canadian system, the British NHS, and the anticipated results of these bills. I know, I know: my desires are extensive, which is why I have yet to realize them. haha. The greatest advantage here was having someone with which to discuss my thoughts. Unfortunately, too many of the people I know are either unable to discuss the issue for various reasons (no knowledge, confrontation-avoidance) or unwilling to engage outside of their ideological comfort zone. Ultimately, an even greater help was that he was able to steer me to those who could answer or at least address the main questions I was having.
Thus, I began working through my questions and concerns. To make it all short, what I intend to do is address my stance and its development through my three premises. I will also (probably when I address the role of government in the health care debate) address this rampant use of the word "socialism" in regards to any government move to subsidize coverage premiums or offer a so-called "public option." At any rate, this could be quite interesting or profoundly boring. Consider this point the "Intro." Get set for the coming parts.
