Does the currently discussed healthcare reform mean we'd be turned into a "nanny state" with radically diminished natural (even Darwinian) incentives for our citizens to persevere and innovate? Or would a nationwide safety net of, say, a public option that keeps the private insurers honest and operates without profit motive along the lines of Medicare leave such entrepreneurial impulses unharmed -- or, some might argue, enhanced thanks to portability?
Some Nettertainment readers might disagree with me, but I do think this is a legitimate debate, worth exploring even if my own inclination is on the side of real reform. Ditto for debating how we afford the coverage, how pricing might be controlled, how the system could be fair but still allow those who can afford it to add to their coverage.
However, the conservative, Republican, libertarian, LaRouchie, wingnut, reactionary -- whatever you want to call it -- smokescreen of lies about the potential program are the types of sideshow distractions that obscure honest debate on merits. Death panels, abortion funding, public option for illegal immigrants are all fear tactics, none of which have a shred of reality within any of the legislation being discussed.
It's about time that President Obama strikes back forcefully and directly at the lies of reform opponents in this week's address:
Can the honest debate begin?
6 comments:
A Darwinian approach to health care - that the "fittest" amongst us earn their medical coverage - is a misguided approach. For in our society, how do we define the "fittest?" Those who earn more are somehow more fit than those who do not? Is monetary success the equivalent of being a better human? Is the CEO of a bank more fit than an elementary schoolteacher? Ayn Rand may have thought so, but I think not.
Not everyone can achieve great monetary success (despite the offerings of the Disney Channel, we can't all be pop stars, either). Nor do all of us desire incomes greater than the GNP of small countries. Likewise, not everyone can earn an "A" in Advanced Calculus.
But one of the wonderful things about American society (at least in theory) is that many of us can achieve great success (as we define it) because we have (in theory) the opportunity to pursue those things we can succeed in. A passion for compassion might lead one into a career as a doctor or a caregiver. A desire for truth might drive one into journalism. A love of food and you might be happily flipping burgers at a diner. Big money - no. But happiness; perhaps.
Being "fit" or "successful" in our society can be defined in many ways - unfortunately, due to our capitalistic leanings, it's often measured solely by dollars. And too often, the playing field favors those who have monetary success. But being a "fit" human - respectful, kind and involved - is a harder thing to determine, but something that each of us has the potential to achieve. And in order for our species to survive, it's something we must improve on.
Slick, I enjoyed the read. However I interpret the Darwinian approach a bit differently. I think the traits that can be found in the more successful individuals is some combination of intelligence and ambition. The CEO may not be more intelligent then the school teacher, but might have more personal ambition. There is some combination of ambition, intelligence and luck that equates success, and successful people seem to have more than others of those three variables.
I also want to point out that when you said:
But being a "fit" human - respectful, kind and involved - is a harder thing to determine, but something that each of us has the potential to achieve. And in order for our species to survive, it's something we must improve on.
I don't think any of those traits are necessary to survival. It's one of those nice to have not need to have. The world and the species can get by without sunshine, rainbows and lollipops. But the world would be a nicer place to live if everyone was more respectful, kind and involved. There is no doubt about that. :)
The governments job isn't to ensure people's happiness. It's there to ensure that you have the ability to pursue happiness.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I think the real debate should actually be, is Health Care an absolute inalienable (God Given) right? I understand Health Care is more of a necessity to the general population in order to prevent pandemics and the outbreak of infectious diseases. (Swine Flu) But at what point, is health care a luxury? We are given the right to breathe and walk pretty much freely. I think we misinterpret rights a lot and assume something that's a requirement that it's basically a right.
I haven't seen the movie and don't know too much about the story of "The Pursuit of Happyness", but from what I've seen in the previews is the drive to make oneself better for you and your offspring. I ask you what is more American than that? Get up, stand up, work and strive harder to improve yourself. Complacency is the enemy.
By the way Netter, I hope you don't lump me in that group of:
"the conservative, Republican, libertarian, LaRouchie, wingnut, reactionary."
Who am I kidding that's absolutely where you place me. :p
Aw, Master Fu, I haven't heard you talk about death panels. The debate you and Slick are having in here is one worth having, and doesn't seem focused on "death panels."
But, if you like, you can always pick which one of those in the list you'd like to be considered in yourself...or come up with something else altogether. :)
Well the truth is, with the Death Panels, Doctor Assisted Suicide might be cheaper then treating really bad rashes. :)
The focus from the opposition should merely be how are we going to pay for it? Which we can't. Drop the military, absolutely cut it, and guess what... we'd still be under water.
What happened? When can we shift blame to this administration? When are they going to accept responsibility for this absolutely ludicrous spending?
I guess we can shift the blame when we have a chance to see if what they are trying to do - dig us out of a hole caused by the previous administration's blunders - works or doesn't.
As for a world without sunshine, rainbows and lollipops - what a sad, miserable place it would be. Maybe I'll just keep my rose-colored glasses on...
Post a Comment