One of the big talking point articles of the past week comes from Roger Ebert, who soberly argues a moral perspective on health care reform at his personal blog. The piece is also of value for the many comments it has inspired, some from contributors to/readers of this site. An excerpt:
"Rousseau lived at a time when the notion of the Noble Savage was also being much praised. In this view, man was born free and uncorrupted, and was good by nature until interfered with by civilization. In very broad terms, I believe libertarians defend themselves as noble savages, living unencumbered by the impositions of others. The question becomes, to what degree are we willing to trade personal liberty for the good of the general community? If I don't want universal health care, am I fully prepared to grow sick and die as a consequence? Or will I undergo a sickbed conversion?"
"Link for the Day": Each day the House editors post a link to an item that we hope will spark discussion. We encourage our readers to submit candidates for consideration to keithuhlich@gmail.com and to converse in the comments section.
Posts
3 comments:
There really isn't a trade off between "personal liberty" and the "good of the general community". An individual's freedom quite literally depends on the integrity of the community to which he or she belongs. If the community suffers because basic needs like health care are not met, then inevitably everybody in that community will suffer from the resulting social pathologies and the constraints on freedom which follow as a consequence. There's no personal liberty without solidarity. Only in America do people identify this obvious truth with a pejorative notion of "socialism".
I hesitate to get into the fray on this one, but as a former card carrying member of the Libertarian party, I couldn’t help myself. God bless him, Ebert did nothing but preach to the choir on this one.
I am naive enough to think that universal care is obviously good. I don't say how it should be implemented or regulated.
This isn’t Ebert’s fault and I credit him for admitting it. I don't think ANYONE has figured that out either (me included). I accept that our current system--where poor patients use ER rooms as their method of primary care--has effectively established a horridly run "public option." So, obviously something has to be done. But, that "universal care" is "obviously good" is a HUGE assumption one has to grant to accept the rest of his premise.
The demographic shifts toward an older population, along with the economic downturn, certainly has me scared shitless. The previous administration, so mired in it's "war on terror," has done little to address this trend as it relates to healthcare (and many other aspects of our social infrastructure). Instead, they acted like the owner of a car who ignores an oil leak in the vain hopes that it will somehow correct itself. However, continuing the metaphor, the current administration’s approach seems like that same owner hurriedly rebuilding the car engine from scratch in the dark before his wife gets home and sees what he's doing.
I think it's a fair to question how much healthcare reform will cost and how it will be paid for. Forgive me if I don't accept that the new system will pay for itself in savings. President Obama's offhand comment in The New York Times regarding his healthcare plan did little to reassure me (bold added):
...he said a government-run public option should not kill private insurers, but rather force them to be more competitive, even going so far as to compare the competition between them to FedEx, UPS and the Postal Service. “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine,” Mr. Obama joked. “It’s the post office that’s always having problems.”
However, I REALLY part company with Ebert when he states:
But there is a more compelling argument. We owe it to ourselves. It is the right thing to do. It will promote the general welfare. It will assist in our pursuit of life and happiness. The arguments against it come disguised in ideology designed to conceal their common motivation: Selfishness.
Again, he begs the question. But more irksome to me is to be labeled "selfish" because I haven't whole-heartedly swallowed the "public option" argument (I’m assuming he includes me in that categorization). Thus, I’m forced to viscerally discount the entire piece in the same way I turn off Glenn Beck once he starts citing Obama's "socialist" connections.
I'm too tired to get into this one tonight. Maybe tomorrow. But had to write in and say that I loved Matt's description of team Obama as the husband trying to fix the car before the wife gets home. I haven't even thought of if the metaphor works; it's just funny. Thanks for that.
Post a Comment