The Language of Love

I must admit I've failed to understand why the americans are so hot under the collar over this issue. After all, we've had a national health system since WW2 (even if it is creaking with top heavy bureaucracy and an ever-increasing commercial element) and we do okay. From what you're writing, it seems that any sort of socialist mindset or decision-making is a foreign concept - quite literally. Fascinating. To me it seems then that America is the Land of the Free (especially if you can pay for it)

 

Dare I say it - Is american politics evolving beyond it's founding pronciples? We've had a hearing-impaired democracy for some time now and although the modern 'can't hear you, sorry' attitude is contemporary, the old boys networks have always had a large part to play in British politics, often with decisions taken behind closed doors. Britain operates on a system of 'We're talking about doing X and Y when we get into power, so vote for us'. Until this health issue arose, it seems as if the Americans operated on a system 'We're going to do X and Y so don't vote for anyone else'.

 

In a sense I have to laugh. For decades the British have moaned about US influence on our society, now it appears we're influencing the USA and they haven't noticed!

LOL It wouldn't be the first time that the UK has influenced the US politically!

 

There are major concerns that many Americans are raising, as I see it:

1) The socialist element: yes, there are still many, although not the majority of the opponents, who are fearful of anything that might be socialist in nature. These people also tend to want to scale back welfare, although I don't think they complain about social security.

2) The economic element: the fact that we're still coming out of a recession, using public debt to do it, makes people nervous. I understand this rationale, although I don't hold it. The thought is: we're already in debt up to our children's eyeballs, now it's going to be to our grandchildren's eyeballs.

3) The coverage issue: social conservatives don't want certain elements, procedures or peoples covered. No abortions paid for. No illegal immigrants covered. Etc etc. These tend to be the blind people that I talked about earlier, as they simply don't read and inform themselves, often.

 

As for the nature of politics in this country...I don't know. I'm a naturally cynical person, and come from a cynical family; we were raised to inform ourselves, because that's the only way to make a decision...and know that what a politician says isn't what they're going to do, necessarily. However, there are so many sheep who wish to be hearded, that they believe that their politician is truly working for them. And it works.

I can tell you why I am personally hot under the collar on this issue.

 

It's because I don't believe that the federal government has the legal authority to mandate that its citizens buy a particular good or service. It's against the constitutional framework that supports the idea of individual independence and opportunity and against the rights of each individual and State. Of course, it will be argued that the constitution has the authority to regulate interstate commerce and that the courts have set precedents in the particular cases, but none of these cases have forced a citizen to purchase a good or service, especially if that good or service is provided entirely within a single state.

 

We have, however (and unfortunately), taxed individual citizen providers in order to pay for individual recipients who do not provide tax revenue (ie Social Security and MediCARE/CAID). As we already provide such entitlements against the concept of the original national framework, I certainly do not want to provide a single additional dollar to provide for health care coverage for any individual or group other than my family (including extended family, as I believe that is the responsibility of the individual, not the community). Charity should be voluntary and encouraged by reducing tax payer funded entitlements.

 

Ok, so what if we disagree. Fine, let's go ahead and presume for a moment that the plan itself is actually constitutional and within the best interests of the citizenry, and I'm just a loony Libertarian... what then?

 

Whether we support or protest such a plan, we cannot even begin to truly understand how much this new entitlement will cost as we simply don't know any of the details of the plan. Any published estimates, pro or con, are based on assumptions that we simply can't be sure of. Even if I did personally support the concept of allowing this federal government mandate, I could not possibly support legislation that is a complete unknown. We don't know what was actually passed... the benefits, costs, rules, regulations, procedures, etc. Nothing. Add in the complication that will result from the monstrosity that is federal bureaucracy and it's completely absent efficiency... I shudder to think what will happen to our currently outstanding health care (costs notwithstanding). Will the demand for health care increase with free access? Will the supply be reduced to further complicate the demand? Will their be rationing of expensive, experimental or advanced procedures? Will doctors, researchers and pharmaceutical have the motivation to develop new medical technology with a limited profit motive?

 

Our system sure isn't perfect, and it is indeed quite expensive, but at relatively any moment I can currently go to a doctor of any variety and have just about any procedure or service provided whether it be voluntary or life threatening emergency. I am beyond suspicious that the same level of service will be available once this new plan takes hold.

Will the demand for health care increase with free access?

The British experience suggests that it will. And of course that means the political need to maintain levels of care will become something of a bugbear.

 

One of the biggest problems with our current health provisions is the 'lottery' aspect of it. Where you live dictates which services and treatments are available.

Sadly, I don't believe anymore in the perfect rationality of the majority of human beings and, as a result, in democracy or free market. People do not vote or support decisions based on a thorough analysis of pros and cons but on instinctive reactions sparked by the smile of a politician, the opinions of peers, mass media manipulation, prejudice, etc.

So, for me the political process is nothing else then a massive manipulation with the winner gaining legitimacy and not a rational debate on a certain topic.

Looking at the US health care debate the most shocking aspect for me was how difficult was for a solution to be reached. The Democrats have a legislative majority (for now) and the presidency but it took them 2 years to get here and it's still not over. The comparison with Poland before partition when any noble could veto anything has merits. In a fast moving world the decision process should be quicker. Things like filibusters and the right of any senator to veto some decisions are also very undemocratic.

Wow, very pessimistic, Kosmo. I hope you're wrong, and I hope that we can continue to exist as a democracy, but no question we are so, so far away from where we could be. I have no idea how to get people to stop being so sheep-like, and it's worrisome.