A Day In The Journey

And now, for the second half of our show! It's a doozy!
*quick montage of public works pictures, interstate highways, the Transcontinental Railroad, elementary schools, universities, venture capitalists, and pharmaceutical labs....voiceover by Dennis Haysbert reminds us that we've covered areas wherein government involvement is positive and even necessary for facilitating simplicity of trade, bolstering private investment, and facilitating consistency of coverage/quality...and now reasons 4 and 5 in favor of government involvement in the private sector--*

4) Protecting consumers from faulty products
An area of deep importance to every American is the area of food and drug purity. The dawn of industrialism coupled with increased transportation options meant a great variety of new and helpful products such as packaged foods, canned goods, and medicines. Unfortunately, there was little to no regulation on these products at the local or federal levels. This resulted in adulterated food products, both foods that were diluted or polluted in order for manufacturers to get more money for less product and foods that were adulterated with toxic chemicals or heavy metals. (Notice that this penchant for adulterated foods and drugs occurred during the heydey of unrestrained capitalism. Market forces are not capable of controlling everything.) Of course, in any trade or buying scenario, the principle of caveat emptor, but reason suggests it is supremely unethical for a government to turn a blind eye to intentional food or drug adulteration. Even those skeptical of FG involvement in general understand that ensuring consumer protection from dangerous products is a social good. Particularly in the case of faulty food and drugs, it becomes important to have a strong set of consistent standards along with the means and wherewithal to enforce said standards. State governments do not have the resources, ability, or jurisdiction to accomplish this in a meaningful way. Roosevelt recognized this and passed the Pure Food and Drug Act in response. This became the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the need for which has only grown as the market for processed foods, pharmaceuticals, and imported food and drugs has grown. A secondary example in this area is the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The role of the USDA is limited to agriculture, but it still provides consistent and resource-ready protection from faulty products. This protection, while not directly outlined in the Constitution, is a positive and necessary part of ethical and welfare-promoting government.

Continue reading "the realm of Asclepios: part 2b" »

Posted by Renee at 10:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In our last episode: our fair authoress discussed the nature of health as or as not an inalienable right and then wrangled through the idea that even if something is not an inalienable right, it may still be something society as a whole is better off insuring as many people as possible. *cue snazzy intro music to this episode*

Having thoroughly discussed (to the tune of two lengthy bog posts) my first premise, I am now moving on to the second: it is not the designated role of government to run health care.

The argument that the federal government should not involved in any way, shape, or form in the health care market/system is often predicated on the point that providing for or over-seeing health care and health coverage is not one of the 18 Constitutionally designated roles of Congress--which get applied broadly to "federal government." (The fact that this stance ignores the very broad--purposefully so, I would submit--applications of "making all laws..." notwithstanding.) I would agree that health care is not a specifically designated role of Congress or the federal government as a whole (the FG). Like the premise that health care is not an inalienable right, this premise could be hotly debated. Also like the previous premise, whether it is true or not is no reason that Congress or the FG cannot or should not get involved in an area of commerce or industry. There are five main reasons I wish to address in which government (state and federal) involvement is a positive, and largely necessary thing:
1) to facilitate simplicity of trade
2) to bolster private investment in risky/capital heavy endeavors
3) to facilitate consistency of coverage or quality
4) to protect consumers from faulty products
5) to protect consumers from unscrupulous behavior

Continue reading "the realm of Asclepios: part 2a" »

Posted by Renee at 09:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...continued from previous entry...

While the ability to receive health care may not be considered an inalienable right, I submit that it is greatly beneficial to our nation as a whole to insure that every citizen has access to health care. Furthermore, I deem it beneficial to insure that said access is affordable. I have noticed a break down of the debate around this point. I emphasize that access should be affordable for good reason. When it is noted that every American should have access to health care, the discussion becomes disingenuous. Those critical or skeptical of HCR that reply that every American does indeed have access to health care. This is true. Any and every American can find a clinic in their area or a hospital emergency room. A hospital emergency room is required to provide care regardless of ability to pay. Every American does have access to health care. But this response is disingenuous because that is not really the point being raised. True access to health care requires affordability. This is why I emphasized at the beginning the difference between health care and health coverage. When proponents of HCR contend that every American should have affordable access to health care, they are really contending that every American should have affordable health coverage. " Why should they?" you might ask. "If they can't afford insurance, who says they should have affordable access health care? Why is it better?" It is better for several reasons:

Continue reading "the realm of Asclepios: part 1b" »

Posted by Renee at 08:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm going to begin with a small disambiguation.
In these posts, I will refer to receiving medical care and treatment (eg: a doctor's visit) as health care. I will refer to means of paying for care (eg: insurance plans, Medicaid, etc.) as health coverage. The equivocation of these terms, to me, has contributed to both ignorance and willful misleading in this discussion.

As I mentioned in my last post, I began with three basic premises about health care that I believed necessitated a certain stance on the issue. Through my journey, I discovered that while my premises weren't necessarily false, I had made them more narrow than necessary. I had determined the end to which I thought they pointed without examining whether that application was indeed the only application.

I was going to attempt to deal with my first two premises at the same time, since they are applicationally related, but the post was long. Really long. Therefore, this post will simply deal with the idea that that receiving health care is not an inalienable right. This premise was my reason for determining that it was needless, and possibly dangerous, to force our current system of paying for/providing health coverage in order to insure that every citizen has health coverage or even health care. Now, many of my readers may agree with this premise, some may disagree. Whether or not you subscribe to this premise, my point is this: it is really a reason to walk away from the proposed models of health care reform (HCR), or even going so far as having a government-run, single-payer system. I will admit that I'm not convinced of the superiority of a single-payer system at this time, but I will note that holding to this premise does not make the a single-payer system illegitimate. At this point, you might be wondering how I justify this position. Well, here goes my explanation:

Continue reading "the realm of Asclepios: part 1a" »

Posted by Renee at 08:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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.

Posted by Renee at 08:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)