SLANTblog: A solution to healthcare reform
By Shaun Kenney | Monday, December 13th, 2010 | PolicyEvery once in awhile, you run into an argument on the left side of the Virginia blogosphere that makes you pause and go “huh — good point” before moving on.
Such is this recent post from Terry Rea on why universal health care is not such a bad thing:
Not long ago there was a scandal in America over poisonous toys that had been imported from China. It was found that some of the materials weren’t safe, health-wise, for children to handle. The toys were pulled off retailers’ shelves.
Those toys never made it into France. Like some other civilized countries, the French regulators never let the toys across the border, in the first place.
France had rigorous standards and inspections that kept those bad toys out of the curious hands and mouths of French kids. They didn’t have to recall the dangerous products, because in France the standards were higher and the regulations were already in place. People were put before profits.
Why?
It’s actually simple — France picks up the tab on everybody’s hospital bills.
Ergo, the French government, because it so believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or liberty, equality, and fraternity — pick your poison) that it is willing to put itself entirely on the side of ensuring her people are the best protected and most provided for in the West.
Obviously, in the wake of Cuccinelli’s victory on the individual mandate, it has been stressed repeatedly that Virginians can — of their own accord — enact some sort of Romneycare-style universal coverage.
Terry continues:
One might argue that healthcare in today’s world is as basic a right as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But to me, the concept should rest on something less abstract and totally practical.
Here’s my take in a nutshell: America’s greatest natural resource is its citizenry — it’s workforce. The federal government should protect that resource above all others in every way it can that’s feasible.
Reared in a literate, freedom-loving society, America’s sons and daughters work every day to build a good life. In their pursuit of happiness they establish families and build communities. Just as we have recognized that other vital natural resources need to be protected from amoral fast-buck artists, why would we not choose to also protect our families’ wage-earners in the most effective way we can?
Otherwise, what’s the point of protecting the water we drink, or the animals with which we share the planet?
So… does Terry have a point?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
23 Responses to "SLANTblog: A solution to healthcare reform"
Shaun,
Please note that Terry referred to people as “natural resources.”
I thought we put all that behind us with the Civil War.
People are people who are free to make their won decisions, not “natural resources” to be protected and controlled.
Oh, and if France cares so much for their people, why were over 14,000 of them left to die during the heat wave of 2003?
I think the larger point he is making is that by government assuming the responsibility of providing health care, the interests of the gov’t are now focused on ensuring people are taken care of first.
“Natural resources” may be poorly chosen. An a priori orientation towards the common good — perhaps that’s better?
France – land of a VAT sales tax, a huge income tax plus a “wealth tax”, an amazingly high corporate tax and an unemployment rate that’s been over 7.5% for the last 35-plus years.
The French government better pay for health care – no one else can afford to.
I think the choice of Natural Resource was appropriate given the paternalistic nature of Rea’s comments. How is it the governments responsibility to “protect me in any way it can”? It must see me as a resource not a responsible citizen to do that. I would argue that it was not France’s vested interest in protecting its citizens from poisoned toys due to its investment in health care as it was, the draconian import barriers France and the rest of the European Union have erected. That is another symptom of European paternalism. This “protect” at all costs creates unintended consequences,such as the situation mentioned by Mr. McGuire. Government eliminated competition in health care, then guaranteed vacation time, so that a heat wave caused the deaths of vast numbers of their natural resources because younger natural resources were on vacation.
Rea’s premise is flawed. The only resource the government is supposed to protect is that of individual liberty. If it did that effectively, there would be less need to protect us from us. Who decides whether the amoral fast buck artist in business is worse that the bureaucrat in Washington? Freedom loving people, love freedom, not paternalism. Count me among them.
Shaun,
You wrote, “by government assuming the responsibility of providing health care, the interests of the gov’t are now focused on ensuring people are taken care of first.”
Tell that to the nearly 15,000 who died during the ’03 heat wave.
I’m sorry, but after that summer, no one can tell me the French government is interested in taking care of the people. No. One.
i’m not sure that 100% of our citizenry are great natural resources.
oh, I’m not saying that I should be the decider, but I do argue that crack whores are not natural resources. for instance.
Actually, the point of that article is the idea that the government decides who lives and dies based on their economic utility (cost) to the government. Not terribly different from the Dark Ages when the leader decided whether you lived and died depending on your benefit to him. Hello Death Panels. Ezekiel Emanuel Obama’s health care adviser must be an adviser to the European leftists or vice versa. If you’re an optimist we’re headed for Brave New World. A pessimist, 1984. or maybe that’s the progression.
The problem with universal anything….. no one wants to cut spending on all the other free ride programs.
Your choices: free housing, free health care, free college education, free food, free essential utilities, free therapy/treatment for the disabled, free fitness and wellness centers, free libraries, free museums, free parks…
Now choose one, and decide how to tell the nation that funding for the other services will now be curtailed and the individual will assume those responsibilities in exchange for the free
(your choice here).
If you want one major life sustaining “product” completely free to the consumer… via tax reallocation, fine. That would be acceptable and probably feasible and would relive at least one tremendous burden off the citizens of this county.
But….. all the special interest groups/advocates all want their little cut for their favorite little niche projects. Funds cannot be dedicated to one massive endeavor because too much money is going who knows where and none of it seems to ever change the plight of the poor. Where are all the stories on all the poor that ACORN helped to change their lives???? How about MOVEON.ORG….how many mortgages salvaged and forgiven out of their coffers???? Bill Gates, does his foundation have mortgage crises programs to help the unemployed who may loose their homes because they lost their jobs, not because they were reckless???? Warren Buffet surely has numerous homeless shelters he funds, right? All these organizations either receive government funds or huge government tax breaks….all of this tax code playing could be funding universal health care, or universal housing, or universal …….. instead they are funding universal corruption.
How come when someone else wants to feel safer, I need to give up life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? …and sometime dignity with TSA’s sexual assault procedures.
…and our liberal friends always word it as, “who is not for protecting the American workforce’s health?” I do, that’s why I don’t want the government involved. Look at the marvelous job they’ve done with the education system.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, USHealthcareIT. USHealthcareIT said: SLANTblog: A solution to healthcare reform : Bearing Drift …: One might argue that healthcare in today's world… http://bit.ly/hLIrTa [...]
That’s supposed to be a “good point”?
It’s no different then the logic behind why a slave owner takes good care of his slaves.
The recent Healthcare Law is a blatently obvious affront to personal and economic liberty that must be repealed immediately.
Please. Resources was the right term!
In the instance with France, they viewed the people as potential liabilities. That meaning they have to pay if they don’t protect the cattle from evil China.
Think how Human Resources at your employment thinks about you. And think about those words “human resources” when you question the wording.
That was not “liberty” or “common good” that was protecting the bottom line. So, the bottom line saved some people. Unfortunately, they don’t want unnecessary expenditures on anything that is experimental or extends life in a less than cost efficient manner. Don’t they ration mammograms in the UK now?
We need a solution to our health care system, but govt controlled care ain’t it.
I dunno… A lot of free marketer’s think of people as a “commodity”, yet they have a problem thinking of them as “natural resources”? Not saying I agree with F.T. but, really, what’s the difference?
@Trevor,
It is also the logic used by all entrepreneurs which is the backbone of this country. To be for individual rights and to voice it is not a sin.
Let’s add the U.S. Postal Service to those successful government programs.
Jason,
Isn’t the difference rather obvious? Marketers may annoy you occasionally and they like you are free to think whatever they want, but they can’t fine or jail you.
“I think the larger point he is making is that by government assuming the responsibility of providing health care, the interests of the gov’t are now focused on ensuring people are taken care of first.”
I think the issue that is being ignored here is that we (i.e., the US government) already assume the responsibility for providing healthcare. If they did not, I would respect the arguments of some that they should be free to make the choice of whether to cover themselves or not. If the choice was REALLY one of “no coverage/money = no healthcare” and that person faced sure death based on his own choice then SURE I am all for it.
But that is NOT what we have in the US. The government steps in and bails you out of your poor decision (i.e., with MY property). Since we have the responsibility of the French government already, then maybe we SHOULD have the regulations in place to manage that responsibility properly. And MAYBE, just maybe, we should put my right to property on an equal playing field with your right to opt for healthcare insurance.
If the government ran our health system, then we would find ourselves paying high rates for little real care. Oh wait, that’s what we get right now with our corporate-government run system.
Wasn’t the creation of government medicare/medicaid/tricare/USDHH/FDA/etc ad nauseum supposed to result in lower health costs and better health? When are we going to catch a clue that empowering government and and corporate interests over those of the individual leads to disaster for the individual?
If we wanted better care we can have regulations to prevent abuses, but they only mean anything if we are willing to imprison people for white collar criminal abuse. And we can have cheaper medical care, but that requires allowing a freer market for nurses and medical technicians to be able to access, as well as tort and insurance industry reform.
Well James, the complaints about our system did not come from those eligible for the programs you mentioned; it came from those who don’t have those coverages. It came from those cancelled for pre-existing conditions, it came from those who reached their caps, it came from graduates who could not be covered until they got a job, it came from those without coverage from their employer. It also came from business owners tired of double digit increases every year even with decreased coverages for their employees.
Garrett Epps on Hudson’s ruling — http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/12/whats-at-stake-in-the-gops-challenge-to-health-care-reform/68022/
IF you read about RomneyCare/MassCare, you’ll see that it doesn’t really cover everyone, and places a tremendous burden on those who pay taxes. There are a lot of lessons to be learned form Massachusetts’ mistakes. That’s as it should be; let each state try what works for its citizens, don’t impose a one-size-fits-all (and still doesn’t insure all in any case) plan. As more is revealed about the PPACA (“obamacare”), it’s shown to have more loopholes, special interest carve-outs, and language that in essence states, “We’re making it up as we go along”.
Don’t kid yourself about social programs in Europe. I lived in Germany for 13 years, it has the same sort of taxpayer-funded programs as France. Those who pay the taxes there aren’t any happier about supporting those who benefit and pay no taxes. With the world-wide recession, Germany bit the bullet and started cutting entitlements while the current US administration is trying to expand them.
Yes, I think Garrett Epps has it exactly right. This law is not only constitutional, it is necessary for our nation. The right wing seems willing to fall on its sword to make some irrational point about what they think the framers intended. Frankly, politically, I hope they keep us their opposition in the face of the reaction they will receive when they try to do away with these reforms.
Mike, I would first rather have an attempt at a free market solution to the corporate control of our healthcare industry.
If I could not get my way I would then accept a socialist plan that would make health insurance a non-profit industry.
The worst is what we are doing now: Corporate subsidized healthcare with the government pushing small business out and the middle-class financially on the hook for indeterminate amounts of money. The new healthcare law will result in a transfer of wealth from the diminished middle class to the corporations.
I would rather have had a free market solution as well, but that was not to be. With the republicans willing to trash the very plans they had once championed in order to deliver a loss to the President, he and Congress did the best they could. I would not characterize the result as you have, but I agree it is not a perfect plan. But it accomplishes much, and could do much more if the republicans would stop referring to cost containment measures as death panels and rationing and join the effort to enact significant cost controls, especially in regard to chronic illness and rational protocols for end of life issues.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.