Health Care -- We Have the Wrong Mindset

When one discusses the prospect of universal health care, inevitably some conservative will utter the "s" word ("Socialist!").

But I wonder, why isn't American's utilization of government-owned/operated fire stations and police forces socialist?

Consider the reasons why the U.S. uses public police stations and fire stations:

1. It's a valuable service to the public from which we all benefit.

2. One's ability to obtain these essential services should not depend upon wealth

3. The private sector can not adequately provide such services

4. Because citizens do not have a choice as to when police and firefighting services will be needed, the private sector would price such services as high as possible to take advantage of the compulsion.

Notice how each of these reasons applies to the prospect of universal healthcare insurance:

1. It would be a valuable service to the public. Nothing is more important than the health of a nation's citizens. If the citizenry is unhealthy, productivity will drop, and the bills will be pushed off upon the healthy. Further, because there are so many uninsured citizens, the annual premium for a family is increased by approximately $1100. If there were universal health care, the public would benefit a great deal

2. One's ability to obtain health services should not depend upon wealth. The old saying goes, "Well, at least you have your health." The idea behind this phrase is that nothing is more important than one's health. Yet, under our privatized health insurance system, "health" is a commodity for insurers to buy and sale. It is therefore marginalized, which is immoral.

3. The private sector can not adequately provide health insurance. Prices are so high that only the middle- and upper-class can afford insurance. Further, those that need insurance the absolute most -- those with debilitating and life-threatening illnesses -- can not obtain the insurance because of their preexisting conditions. Moreover, insurers spend significant amounts of money in legal and other fees attempting to avoid coverage. It is an unjust and inefficient system, because it is privatized. The private sector is not covering Americans adequately.

4. Because citizens do not have a choice as to when they need a doctor, insurers have priced coverage as high as is permitted by the law and . Hence, the leading cause of bankruptcy is medial bills.

Thus, the reasons for our public police and firefighting services are identical to the reasons for a public health insurance system. In light of that fact, why is it that public police and firefighting services is consistent with democracy, yet universal healthcare (according to conservatives) is not?

Progressive v. Conservative

Merriam-Webster defines "progress" as "a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal)."

I feel that this definition perfectly highlights the basic decision one must make when aligning with a political ideology -- if one is to be a "progressive," then one will be principally motivated by a desire for changes that push society positively forward. Alternatively, if one is to be a conservative, one is disinterested in pushing forward, presumably because the conservative believes that the past or present is ideal.

But how can the past or present be ideal? Shouldn't we hope for, and work toward, improvement?

This argument is quite simplistic, and on its surface appears to be a strawman. But, at its core, I think this argument has some merit.

(This post, of course, discounts moderates)

Federalism Is a Pretext

In this opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Kollar-Kotelly invalidated on procedural grounds the Bush administration's last minute effort to lift a ban on concealed, loaded handguns in national parks. Bush officials justified the late push to lift the ban -- a rush-job that clearly violated NEPA -- in the following manner: a desire to "give greater effect to principles of Federalism." Source.

This "federalism" argument is used so often by conservatives that it takes on an air of pretext. Their answer to abortion: let the states decide. Their answer to race-relations: let the states decide. Now, their answer to gun control: federalism. With each of these issues, the success of federalism would bypass progressive federal laws in many states, thereby enacting a conservative preference. Yet, when it comes to other issues, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, conservatives prefer to handle things at the federal level, where they can sustain a conservative result. This hypocritical treatment reveals that the "federalism" argument is a pretext.

Chief Justice John Marshall argued that robust states rights would allot the passions of concentrated populations too much power, thereby harming thoughtful legislative deliberation and civil liberties. The federal government, on the other hand, is subject to the people as a whole -- people from more backgrounds than an individual state can provide -- and is therefore less likely to be rushed into arbitrary legislation. Whereas an expansive federal government weakens the absolute authority that majorities hold over minorities in many states.

Conservatives recognize these truths and wish to exploit them, thereby implementing their agenda. When you hear the phrase "principles of federalism," it is a pretext for the conservative agenda.