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.

5) Protecting consumers from unscrupulous behavior
The final area for which I will use argue to argue that FG involvement can be and is beneficial even though not directly designated for it is consumer protection from unscrupulous behavior. While the previous point does overlap, I am going to center largely on fraud in this argument. In the first hundred years of the nation, travel was largely limited. It took time to get from place to place, and fast getaways were largely not feasible. With the development of rail travel, this situation began to change. Up until this time, local law enforcement was looked to for providing consumer fraud protection. By the turn of the century, it was becoming more and more obvious that this was an untenable situation. As a result, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was established. While we tend to think of the FBI as solving things like cross-state-line kidnappings and serial killer mysteries, the FBI also investigates cyber fraud, government and election fraud, and corporate fraud. As the nation and its business has become more and more connected, a federal organization that has investigative powers has become more and more necessary. Without a strong, consistent, federal involvement, many hustlers would be able to escape prosecution.

Now, having gone through these 5 areas that are not specific, designated roles of the FG and argued that FG involvement is supremely beneficial to American citizens, let me apply the whole kit and caboodle to HCR. It's just what you've been waiting for, I know.

1. Simplicity of Trade
Currently, health coverage is a strange, capitalist wonderland. Don't get me wrong, capitalism isn't a bad thing. When the market for something that should be as ubiquitous as health care becomes a strange, capitalist wonderland, there might need to be some fundamental changes. I use "wonderland" in the hopes of bringing to mind images of Lewis Carroll and his narrative of Alice's unruly adventures. In the realm of health coverage, every state sets its own regulations for who can sell and what can be sold. I am not advocating that get rid of this formula willy-nilly. Neither is the President (WH). Neither do either of the other majority bills (House (HR) bill [also here] and Senate (S) [also here]. The Congressional minority (GOP) have proposed allowing insurers to sell across state lines. I'll get to the pros and cons of that momentarily. This roller coaster of regulations becomes problematic in that there is no standard, foundational set of minimum regulations. Thus both the insured and the insurers have to revamp and retool in each state. Furthermore, each insurer has different combinations of benefits, types of coverage for different premiums, and uses equivocating terminology. This is not the idea situation for a comparison shopper, to say the least. And comparison shopping for health coverage is certainly more vital, with the outcome more essential, than any other shopping we might do. By allowing FG oversight, we are allowing for the creation of a set of minimum coverage standards (that leaves everything else up to the states, notably) and providing an exchange that clarifies comparison shopping for the health coverage consumer.

*As to allowing insurance sales across state lines: as I have thought about this, it seems that the only way this will not turn into a mirror of the credit card "find the state of least regulation and pelt everyone from there" situation is to still have a federally established set of minimum standards and regulations. Thus, you still end up with...federal regulations. Otherwise, allowing interstate health coverage sales is simply an almost total deregulation of the insurance industry that ends up stripping states of their power to set regulations within their borders. This might even have the result of forcing states to refuse to allow health care outlets to accept plans they deem unfit, leading to more state regulations and monies invested in enforcing them. Not really a win for states or consumers.

2. Bolstering private investment
I have previously mentioned that pharmaceutical R&D if often supplemented by FG monies. In the scenario of HCR, this would certainly continue. Another aspect of this bolstering of private investment comes with the mandate attached to the bill. In order to facilitate the removal of denials/exceptions based on pre-existing conditions as well as the ability to drop enrollees, the WH bill, the HR bill, and the S bill call for mandate coverage purchase (with a fine in the form of a tax should one choose not to purchase coverage). This much maligned mandate is actually a bolster to enable insurance companies to function as they're meant to (and, unfortunately don't always). All insurance depends on a risk pool: the bigger the risk pool, the more easily companies will recoup their payouts. Furthermore, the group of Americans who have the highest rate of uninsured (18-34 year olds are by and large going to be far less likely to file claims than the demographics currently most insured. By adding the vast majority of this young demographic into the risk pool, companies will have more liquidity, suffer less risk, and be better able to cover the expenses of the ill (a consideration to be taken seriously as the Baby Boomers have entered the demographic that uses their health coverage the most. Having a larger risk pool is better for coverage providers and more advantageous for those who need coverage payouts.

3. Facilitating consistency of coverage/quality
As in other areas, having minimum set of standards at the federal level is greatly beneficial to society. Requiring all insurance providers to conform to a single set of minimum standards means that no matter which company is providing coverage, the consumer is assured a certain set of coverage and quality standards across the board. This lessens the ability of unscrupulous insurers to game the system by offering sub-standard coverage at ultra-low to those who only discover the coverage and quality gaps when they need coverage the most. Having nationwide minimums means that health care providers are always assured of payment for a given set of circumstances. This reduces the risk for enrollees that claims for treatment they have received will be refused and ensures doctors that basic care costs will always be covered regardless of the insurer with whom they are dealing. A nationwide minimum set of coverage standards sets a consistent foundation of coverage and quality for every insurance purchaser.

4. Protecting consumers from faulty products
The previous point briefly touched on how minimum standards prevent unscrupulous insurers from bilking consumers when their health care is in the balance. When insurance fraud prosecution is limited to each state, fraudulent insurers have the opportunity to move on to another state and perpetrate the same fraud there. Federal oversight makes fraud prosecution simpler and more expansive even when states continue to hold regulating powers. The presence of federal minimum standards places federal resources at the disposability of state needs. The greatest tool offered by the HCR bills is that of the coverage plan exchange. In order to participate in the exchange, insurers must meet minimum standards of coverage as well as provide clearly comparable information on benefits and providers. (For a PDF outline of the plan, including the Exchange, see the address at the bottom of the post. This provides the consumer with clear comparisons and the confidence of all plans being vetted for proper coverage. In other words, faulty insurance products will be significantly avoided through both the inclusion of federal oversight and the creating of insurance exchanges (whether one nationwide exchange or federally-overseen state exchanges).

5. Protecting consumers from unscrupulous behavior
As in the above area, both federal oversight and transparent insurance exchanges will be able to cut down on unscrupulous behavior both by insurers and providers. Of course, these HCR bills don't go as far as they could in eliminating unnecessary charges and fraudulent claims, the simple act of creating more accountability moves farther down that path. Helping the system to move toward less unnecessary testing and away from such a great amount of per-procedure payments will add to progressively eliminating unscrupulous behavior on the part of a percentage of providers (note: I realize that many doctors who do a plethora of procedures don't do so because they are unscrupulous, but the end result is unintentional system-gaming. It is good to move away from a system that encourages this. For an interesting article on how too many procedures is worse for us all not better, read this. It's a little long, but worth it.) Federal involvement also helps states to pursue unscrupulous insurers and the small minority of intentionally unscrupulous health care providers with greater ease (similarly to how it has done so in other areas of fraud, etc.).

All right. I seem to have gotten rather lengthy on this point as well. I hope you can see that merely because something is not a specifically designated area for government involvement (S or FG) does not mean that involvement is not positive and beneficial, even necessary. Further, I feel the need to point out that an application of governmental involvement not being specifically mentioned in the Constitution is no reason to label it "un-Constitutional." A thing is un-Consitutional because it contradicts or breaks the Articles or Amendments of the Constitution, not because it suggest a new application of government roles, in this case, regulating commerce as necessary to improve the system of health coverage in the areas I've outlined above. Each area has historically been deemed a proper one for FG involvement, and each area is a part of the commerce of health care.

Whew. That's certainly quite enough for one post. In our next episode: Are we creating a too narrowly run system with HCR, even....*gasp*...resorting to socialism??? Hm. Perhaps my tone there is a spoiler for my position. haha. Until next time.

PS
Excellent article in the NYT about why something must be done.
Even with a requisite skepticism of the Times, it's quite thought-provoking.
Brief comparo of the three proffered bills
The PDF of the President's plan can be found here: www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf (I couldn't link it the way I wanted, likely because it's the automatic download address. Apologies.

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

1) Facilitating simplicity of trade
The strongest example in favor of this area on involvement is utilities. Now, a large portion of utilities (power, water, etc.) is provided by private companies. These companies, however, contract, not with individual landowners or companies but with governments. This practice has a long history dating almost back to the first electricity infrastructure. Electricity is not the only area of public works that early and consistently garnered federal oversight, regulation, or subsidy. There is a reason why this works so well: it facilitates simple trade. Consider the scenario if individual homeowners bought contracts for their electricity or sewage or water (in the cases where septic tanks and wells are not practical or possible, of course.). The confusion, the tangle of infrastructure would be crippling in most residential areas and impracticable in business and urban areas. The fact is that government purchased and regulated contracts make the public works trade not only simple but, in many areas, feasible.

2) Bolstering private investment in risky or capital heavy endeavors
There are many quite precedent-setting or socially beneficial endeavors that post significant risk or require significant capital investment to begin/complete. In these areas, government involvement can make or break the project. Various industries depend on federal grant monies to fund research and development, particularly into areas where there is a high risk of non-return on investment or into new, untested avenues. As a firm capitalist, please understand I support all private endeavors into development, into invention, into creation; as a pragmatist, I know that private investors cannot always enter new and risk-filled areas without bolstering. A major piece of the westward development and industrialization of America, the Trans-continental Railroad, was established with both FG land grants and subsidies. Governments, both state and federal, have more ability to raise and guarantee capital than most private investors. This makes their involvement in large-scale or risky endeavors positive, and often necessary.

3)Facilitating consistency of coverage and/or quality
There are three main examples that support the idea of government involvement in order to facilitate coverage and quality consistency. The first is one we have visited already: public works. Not only does government involvement simplify trade and implementation of public works, it insures that a minimum standard is adhered to by providers. Providers who fail to comply must fix the problems or they are replaced by another provider. A second example is that of interstate highways. (The interstate system is also an example of area 2, a capital heavy investment, btw.) In order to feasibly develop the most advantageous coverage and guarantee a minimum standard of safety, federal regulation and investment was necessary. This investment has been both long-term (the main impetus behind this came from a 90/10 split fed/state). Without the FG, there would likely be no interstate highway system in this country due to the extremely high overhead and big-picture planning necessary.

Before I move on to point 4 and 5, I'd like to take a moment and re-integrate education into the discussion. In my last posts I discussed the benefits of education as parallel to the benefits of widely affordable health coverage and care. I also pointed out that numerous of the founders and early colonial leaders saw the benefits of a universally accessible education, to the point that publicly funded education was discussed and proposed. Now, I'm sure the point will be raised that both ideologically and constitutionally, education was deemed at the time to be a state-by-state matter. I would agree that in application it was, and is today largely a state-by-state, or even district-by-district matter. The intervention of the federal government in education has been largely two-fold: providing necessary funds to districts and state that are in need of financial assistance, and providing minimum education standards to which state curricula and programs must accede. Of course, logically neither the Founders nor the Constitution could be expected to specifically address the role of the federal government in our current education system: when both were around, the nation was rather small and loosely bound due to the nature of communication at the time. I feel it is quite reasonable, however to infer from the expressed attitudes of the Founders toward education in general, and the necessity of a general education for the preservation of the republic, that they would understand the practical necessity of federal oversight and supplemental funding. It's just realistic. Like other areas, as this country has grown, the necessity of federal oversight and involvement has grown. In oder to simplify trade, bolster funding, and maintain a minimum consistency of coverage and quality, education must have some level of government involvement. I submit that the area of health care and coverage is at the point where a comprehensive involvement of the FG has become both positive and necessary.

And despite my endeavor to keep the discussion of this premise to a single post, this one looks long. Therefore, I will pause here and continue this episode after the break. haha.

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:

*First: right now, the health care system and the US government already shoulder the cost of the uninsured who resort to using the ER as their doctor. While it may be argued that this cost is not crippling to the system, it's still there. In fact, one of the reasons hospital care and ER bills are so high is coverage of uninsured/uncovered ER visits (as well as insured people who are just lazy and use the ER, sidelining valuable resources, but that's a different post entirely.). You may not like it, but you're already paying for the health care of the uninsured in the most inefficient way possible: reactionary care.
*Second: with wealth comes responsibility. The book of Proverbs is filled with the idea that rulers and the wealthy have a responsibility to provide for the well being of the poor/less fortunate. This is a part of biblical justice that particularly applies to this nation. Let's face it: America is a wealthy nation. And the more that I have considered it, the more that I have come to feel that as a wealthy republic, we should seek to use said wealth justly. And if a responsible use of individual wealth is to help the poor and downtrodden, should a citizen-government do the same? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that everyone should get free Botox, but providing a system of health coverage that enables every citizen access to preventative and basic health care? Yes, I have come to feel that is an application of using our wealth in a just and responsible way. ***
*Third: which is a stronger, happier, more productive citizenry: a healthy one that faces no financial worries for basic care; or one with a significant segment worried about illness, bills for illness, or staying in a bad job merely for health coverage? In this day and age, health care is ubiquitous. Promoting some form of affordable coverage for basic health care is not like promoting the idea that every citizen should be able to attend Harvard. It is like insuring that every citizen has access to basic education. Preventative and basic care enable the citizens of this country to function at their best. Being able to afford preventative and basic care enable the citizens of this country to do so without fear, worry, or undue financial burden. Consider this: of the over 850,000 bankruptcies in 2007, 62% were due to health care bills. Granted, any number of those individuals/families may have had their credit mazed out before medical bills became the straw of camel-back destruction, but is it acceptable that health care bills should in any way influence, contribute to, or exacerbate the path to bankruptcy? Again, if someone is bankrupting themselves because they want to look like their favorite celebrity, that's got to be on their own shoulders, but that's not typically what we're talking about here. It is societally beneficial to remove latent worry about affording health care.

Like education, health care may not be considered an inalienable right. It is, however, beneficial to society. Particularly where preventative and basic care are concerned, utilizing our collective wealth to provide affordable coverage to the less fortunate raises the collective health standards of the nation. The mere fact that a thing is not an inalienable right should not preclude our willingness to provide it if it is deemed beneficial to our nation as a whole. I will elaborate on this a little more in my next post when I address the issue of designated responsibilities of government.

***Nota bene: some references to the treatment of the poor in Proverbs.
judging fairly brings an established throne
(and on in Deuteronomy)Isrealites commanded to bless the poor
showing favor to the needy honors God
(oh and one in Job) Job lists neglecting the poor as things offensive to God
don't mock or neglect the the poor.
Wisdom reaches out to the poor
This is just a selection of numerous passages that encourage provision for the poor. And that doesn't even count the words of Jesus regarding the poor.

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

It is good to delineate between things that are inalienable rights and things that are not. This is the basis for making determinations regarding human rights violations. We consider it a human rights violation to imprison someone for disagreeing. We don't consider it a human right violation if a child cannot afford schooling. This is because we view liberty and its exercise to be inalienable while we do not view receiving an education to be so. While it is worthwhile to make distinctions between inalienable rights and benefits/priviledges/whatever you wish to call the other things, we should not allow our list of inalienable rights to limit our perspective when it comes to providing benefits to all citizens. Take education, for example. (By the way, I will be using education as my example several times, largely because it is an acceptable, entrenched, publicly provided service.)

It has long been recognized that it is of particular interest in this country to ensure a general education for all citizens. It is particular because of the fact that America's government is directly enacted, governed, and guided by the votes of her citizens. An uneducated populace is a disaster for a republic such as ours. Even the Founders recognized the importance of education. Thomas Jefferson was a staunch advocate of Thomas Jefferson public proposals for education in Pennsylvania that would tend greatly toward providing public education for said state's citizens. Even George Washington seemed to feel that education was a non-negotiable for maintaining a strong republic capable of rebuffing tyranny. His Farewell Address touches on the importance of education. (You'll find that five paragraphs from the bottom.) In all, the early Americans and the Founders were quite convinced of the necessity of education to the preservation of our republic, even going to far as to propose different methods of providing said education to all citizens. It is clear (and further examination by my readers would make it even more so), that general education is a desirable thing to insure and provide.

Whew. This is getting long. The point to be made above is this: while something like education may not be considered an inalienable right, it is widely (and early on) acknowledged that an education populace is far more beneficial, and even necessary, than an uneducated one. Thus, it is beneficial, and even right, for the government to provide for a general education. This general education does not supplant, undermine, or eliminate privately offered alternatives; but instead, supplements and challenges it. Merely because something is not an inalienable right does not mean that it is not a good and excellent thing to insure to all citizens, even to the point of the government providing the structure and funding for such a thing. I spent a great part of this post outlining this fact using education. Let me spend a small part (part 1b, in fact) applying it to health care and health coverage.

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)