The real debate on health care is one of economics. Will the invisible hand of the free market system, if left unregulated, eventually make health care affordable for all? Or should the government step in and redistribute a portion of the wealth of its citizens so that all may have health care right now and for the foreseeable future? It's a fundamental economic quandary, and one that is not likely to ever be clearly resolved.
Undoubtedly, our nation was founded on the principles of the free market. It's written into the constitution. It was also one of the primary motivations to achieve independence from the Crown. And it's what has made our country great. It is the source of our wealth; it is the source of our power. It is why generations of immigrants left their homelands, still do, and will for generations to come. They all want a piece of that gold-paved streets action. Without free market capitalism, America as we know it would not exist.
But the Founding Fathers lived in an era when health care as we know it did not exist, and human rights, as we understand them now, did not exist. That a person could walk into a hospital and be immunized against communicable diseases such as polio and influenza was not something they could have taken into consideration. Medical health care itself was not seen in the same light it is now. Back then, people were just as likely to depend on prayer to God for healing as they were on the neighborhood physician making his rounds. Add to that the archaic vision of human rights written into the constitution and accepted almost universally in the society of the time, and one can see that the founding fathers' vision of the virtues of a free market are less relevant than one might think.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doug Hunter
Nice article, you've covered some good ground here and have alot of pieces in place.
That's one of the difficulties being on the right. We have the invisible hand while the other side has the hand out right in front of your face waving money around.
It is interesting to note something in your article. You recognize and appreciate that previous generations used free markets to build the wealth necessary to create and indeed did a lion's share of the development of the very healthcare we're looking to share. Now imagine what we might have lost if they had decided to take the easy road and switch to nice egalitarian socialism back then. It likely would have been easier for them to redistribute and consume their resources as well rather than invest and compound them into the future.
The danger we face is that by enlarging government and moving towards socialism we risk further wealth development and growth (that future generations would be very appreciative of). What if the funds diverted to pay for 'free' healthcare end up coming from research and ends up delaying a breakthrough cure for cancer for 5-10 years? All that money we spent to save and make comfortable a few today will be vastly more than offset by the millions that will die worldwide in those lag years. Same goes for alternative energy and many innovation I can't even imagine (they call it the invisible hand for a reason).
That's not to say universal healthcare shouldn't be a priority or made reality, just giving you insight into some issues that should be addressed. We did create this wealth for a reason, if not to improve people's lives then for what?
We could have universal healthcare without growing government or moving towards socialism. How about training doctors and nurses instead of soldiers and marines for starts. Instead of overseas bases we should have domestic hospitals. I'd like to see us keep some free market elements in order to ensure innovation and infrastructure remain strong, but there's no reason we can't reprioritize and make your vision a reality. We just need to make sure we don't kill the goose while enjoying the golden omelets.
2 - Clavos
Doug, as one of the Politics editors, I invite you to write an article or two (or more) for us.
What say you?
3 - Dr Dreadful
Seconded.
4 - Mark
Thirded
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug -
If you can refrain from making inflammatory accusations (like "he thinks freedom and liberty is a disease"), I'll be happy to see you post an article, too...
...because I strongly agree that our bloated military budget could be used for much more productive purposes.
You included in your comment a question asking what if money spent for UHC might prevent developments elsewhere such as cures or alternative energy. I would reply that "what if" is not the same thing as "what is".
And "what is", is the fact that we're 35th on the list of countries by life expectancy (two of which are third-world countries (Jordan and Bosnia)), and NONE of those evil, evil socialist countries who comprise the top twenty-six on the list spend more than 60% per capita of what we already do.
And the top twenty-six are all modern industrialized democracies.
Doug, these facts are "what is" - what you feel is 'socialized' medicine is PROVEN to be better for the population as a whole - not just for the ones who can afford it, but for ALL the population. Not only that, but it is significantly CHEAPER than the joke of a system we presently have.
No system is perfect, but that 'socialized medicine' is proven to give better results for a cheaper price. Is it really so unpatriotic to support it, when it helps people to live longer, healthier lives...and uses less of your tax dollars?
(and btw - if you reply about how horrible it is, I point you again to the BIG picture, the overall success (at a lower cost) of socialized medicine).
6 - Ruvy
I think you should write an article of your own here, too - if for no other reason than to give me someone fresh to critcize.
But allow me please to present my points to you briefly. I agree with a great deal that Glenn says here. In fact, with almost all of it. I investigated moving to Canada because it had socialized medicine; I investigated moving to Australia, because it had socialized medicine. When we moved to Israel, I was awful grateful that it had socialized medicine.
Not to mention that I'm a syndicalist socialist myself.
Having said all that, I do not think that the United States should adopt a system of socialized medicine. You guys cannot afford it anymore. It is that painfully simple. You've shot your wad into the Euphrates and the Tigris and after that into AIG and GM and a slew of banks too big to fail. There is no more wad left to shoot.
You need to re-foot your whole country on different bases before you will have the productive capacity to pay for a universal health care system of any kind.
And to think - I used to live in the richest nation the earth had ever seen.
7 - Ted
Doug,
I think you make a good point about killing the goose that lays the golden omelets. Capitalism is our source of wealth and power, and without it we wouldn't be able to afford UHC. There is a danger than nationalization can go too far. But we don't have to nationalize industry to uphold basic human rights.
My support comes down to two things. 1) We can still be a free market economy with universal health care, which means we'll still be able to create more resources, even while spending the current ones; and 2) I don't think we can, in good conscience, deny people access to top health technology just because they don't have the money to pay for it. If I was sick I'm pretty certain that I would feel entitled to proper long term care. I'm trying to think about it from the perspective of the ill.
And anyway, it's going to happen sooner or later. Might as well be now.
8 - roger nowosielski
Actually, Doug, your comment on the article was interesting and provoking. Even though I might disagree with you on a point or two (having to do with your hypothetical: you can't presuppose certain events, like the early advent of "socialism," before they're ready to happen, because they all follow a more or less natural course), it's a very interesting proposition and definitely worth considering.
9 - Clavos
Doug, these facts are "what is" - what you feel is 'socialized' medicine is PROVEN to be better for the population as a whole - not just for the ones who can afford it, but for ALL the population.
Not "proven," no.
10 - Doug Hunter
That's an excellent link Clavos. It sums up alot of the same things I've found in my research and makes the points much better than I ever could. There are so many good writers in here and on the web in general, I just don't think I have the skills for it. I'll work on making my comments more coherent first, but if an issue comes up that no one else is addressing... maybe.
11 - Arch Conservative
There's no doubt that both sides play politics but I take issue with you saying the GOP's only motivation is to make Obama look bad. Is it so hard to believe that some people would rather be dead than have the government dictating their lives?
And what about Obama's motivation. I know we're not allowed to call him a socialist even though he's spent more money in six months than any other administration in history and pretty much everything he's done or tried to do since taking office has had the desired effect of the government exerting more and more control over the lives of the American people....
But here's a little hypothetical........Say we knew for a fact that Obama was indeed a radical leftist hell bent setting up a socialist or even communist shop.....what would be the most effective path to that goal....by admitting it and going full bore? or by pretending to be something else, getting elected and then using you're power to take more pallettable, practically irreversable baby steps in that direction?
12 - Dr Dreadful
I know we're not allowed to call him a socialist even though he's spent more money in six months than any other administration in history
Explain to me where in the socialist manifesto it says, 'Thou shalt spend as much money as possible'...
13 - Arch Conservative
I didn't know there was a socialist manifesto but as I pointed out the effect of that spending is to allow the fed govt more control over people's lives by controlling goods and services and control of goods and services by the state is a major tenet of socialism
14 - Ted
Arch, to insinuate that Obama might be "a radical leftist hell bent setting up a socialist or even communist shop," is a cartoonish characterization of a real person, almost as silly as calling W. a Nazi, or painting Obama's face up like The Joker. It's unrealistic and counterproductive, unless you're on the fringes and agitating for some extreme 'third way.' It's merely propaganda.
I agree with you however about your concerns regarding direct government intrusion into our lives. The more I think about it the more frightening it becomes. For example, I'm a smoker. Will the government have a right to force me to quit if they're footing my bill? What about my eating habits, et al? The government can make and enforce laws, unlike private insurers (at least not directly), and so if health insurance is required then what else can they require of us? Even if it's not mandatory, they will still be compelled to pass sweeping legislation to save money. Food for thought.
What got me thinking along these lines was this article.
15 - Dave Nalle
It's off to smoker reeducation camp for you, Ted. Arbeit Macht Smoke-Frei
16 - Arch Conservative
You're right Ted....a radical could never gain power in our's or any other nation. Forget about it. It's never happened and never will.
17 - Doctor No?
I'm sure government health care will be an overwhelming success: fully and reliably funded, conscientiously managed, meticulously upgraded and retooled, powered by the greatest technological advances the taxpayer can provide, not at all taken advantage of by organized fraudulent element or cronyism, bereft of constant attack via the judicial system. It will be the greatest system ever devised. Yes, health care reform will be an overwhelming success.
And if health care reform is an utter awful failure that throws our country into an almost unrecoverable clusterfudge of doubt and remorse?
VOTE REPUBLICAN
P.S. Death panels...
18 - Dr Dreadful
And if health care reform is an utter awful failure that throws our country into an almost unrecoverable clusterfudge of doubt and remorse?
Which is of course the goal of the...
VOTE REPUBLICAN
Ah, yes...
19 - Clavos
Arbeit Macht Smoke-Frei
Very funny, Dave!
Props.
20 - Clavos
There are so many good writers in here and on the web in general, I just don't think I have the skills for it. I'll work on making my comments more coherent...
Your comments are all I've seen of your writing, Doug. They are why I made the suggestion.
21 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
You know, if you step back from looking at a few trees, you might find there's a whole forest.
Your link refers to high-end medical care...and when it comes to high-end medical care, we DO have the best in the world (for those who can afford it or have access to it - nearly 50 million Americans don't).
Problem is, America's health care system does NOT provide for nearly a sixth of the population...and that's why we're 35th on the list of countries listed by life expectancy - according to the Bush administration CIA World Factbook (so don't tell me the numbers are skewed).
22 - Glenn Contrarian
For all -
What could America do with an extra 904 billion dollars? Would it help our budget? Would it help education? Would it help our businesses?
That's how much America would save EVERY YEAR if we had the SAME kind of health care that Canada/Australia/Britain/France/Spain have...with which their populations live longer and healthier lives for less than 60% of what we're already spending per capita.
2.26 trillion dollars times .4 = 904 billion dollars.
But I forget - to have a system that keeps the general population healthier, longer lives at a savings of 904 billion dollars per year over what we already have, well, THAT's just not patriotic, is it?
23 - Clavos
Problem is, America's health care system does NOT provide for nearly a sixth of the population...and that's why we're 35th on the list of countries listed by life expectancy - according to the Bush administration CIA World Factbook (so don't tell me the numbers are skewed). (emphasis added)
The Bush administration fucked up everything they touched and you expect me to believe their numbers???
In any case, even if they were Jesus Christ's numbers, it's not that they are skewed, it's that they are not complete (obesity and bad living habits omitted, among other significant data) and it's that the conclusions you and others draw from them is out of whack, as my many comments and links have shown repeatedly.
24 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
And I KNEW that would be YOUR reply. As I sat there typing it in, I told myself, "Clavos will simply just deny the numbers." Just like when you refused to believe the statistics published showing that about half of Republicans supported the 'birthers'...you didn't like who did the survey, and so you ASSUMED they were wrong (never mind the fact that one of the most respected statisticians in the country backed them up).
And Dave agreed with you.
That's the conservative way, I guess - ignore the evidence! When the numbers don't say what you want them to say, ignore them!
25 - Arch Conservative
I thought that was the liberal way. Oh wait the liberal way isn't to ignore the numbers..........it's to invent new numbers.........sorta like every left wing whackadoo and his mother citing the biased NYT poll and then claiming 70% of Americans support the public option.