[Editor's Note: Thanks to Baxter CG for his guest post yesterday. It was quality, as always. End Editor's Note]
Everyone wants something for nothing.
Yesterday, California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, unveiled his health care plan to cover all those in his state. It would require that all adults have health insurance. The cost for covering the currently uninsured will be spread out among individuals, employers, doctors, hospitals, and the state.
This proposal will be fighting an uphill battle. Doctors and hospitals will oppose it (they are asked to pay 2% and 4% respectively into a state "pot" for health care). Businesses, both large and small will oppose it. Conservatives (though a rare breed on the Left Coast) will oppose the government mandate/entitlement/largess.
All that makes sense, since people don't want to pay for something that someone else gets. Doctors and hospitals, the ones providing the service, are being asked to pay for part of it. Can you imagine the government requiring the supermarket to pay for part of your groceries? Or the Movie theater to pay for part of your ticket? Or the mechanic to pay for part of your transmission? That's essentially what this is. I know that we are dealing with a very emotional subject. Even so, it is, at the end of the day, a business for the doctor and the hospital.
Putting all that aside, I was shocked and dismayed to read this line from one news story about this: "Unions balked at the requirements for individuals, calling them a tax on the middle class." Wow.
This should be the ultimate proof that people will always find something to complain about. Again, it makes sense for businesses, doctors, or hospitals to be upset about this. They are paying for something they don't receive. But for unions to complain that people have to pay at all is preposterous.
Everyone wants something for nothing.
As a society, we can't be takers. We must pay our fair share. It makes no difference whether it is food or clothing or health care--all are necessary for survival. To expect someone else to have to provide us these basic needs at absolutely no cost...well, I have no harsh enough words for this idea.
Please hear me clearly: I am not bashing the Governor's plan, though if given a vote I would not support it. What I am bashing is the idea that someone else must pay for every dime of our basic needs. Is affordable health insurance a goal we should strive for? Absolutely. Is expecting someone else to pay for all our basic needs something we should make our goal? Absolutely not.
I know not whether this plan will pass, but I know this: if it does there will be those who want even more. The takers take, and never stop taking. Let us be earners and pay our part and be thankful for what we have.
Political analysis from a (hopefully) intelligent conservative perspective.
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(42)
-
▼
January
(21)
- We Just Don't Get It
- Stormy Seas
- The Empire
- Unintended Consequences
- When Caring Hurts
- Surprises Still
- Hillary pt. 2 (Liabilities)
- Hillary pt. 1 (Assets)
- Who Knows Best?
- Silencing the Critics
- Yes, They Can
- The Big Difference
- The Good Reverend
- More Like Them
- Fair Criticism
- All In.
- Something for Nothing
- Oprah
- Death by Emotion
- Which Year 3?
- Odd Years
-
▼
January
(21)
5 comments:
I think it might turn out to be a pretty good plan. The big problem with having 6.5 million uninsured people, other than the humanitarian concerns, is that it costs the state and the medical industry a lot of money. Uninsured people go to the emergency room where they can't be turned away, then they have no way to pay the massive bills. So, the hospitals and doctors are out that money and they've wasted time treating people that could have been dealt with much more efficiently in another part of the hospital. Not to mention the fact that if they had insurance they could have had preventative measures and overall better health, which saves money all around.
According to the article I read, this is supposed to save the state $10 billion a year.
Yes, doctors and hospitals will have to contribute, but in addition to the savings I just mentioned, they will get $10 billion in increased reimbursements. Sounds more like Something for Something to me.
I agree with you basic point. People should provide for themselves if they can. But that's not really what this plan is about, as far as I can tell.
I wasn't sure if I could, but I made it through that whole comment without one appeal to pathos. Proud of me?
Mucho proud, Danny. It's good to hear from you. As I said in the post, I didn't want to bash the program per se. I glad to see that we can reach agreement that self-sufficiency is a good thing, which was--and remains--my basic point.
Perhaps I got a bit too focused on the program itself. Making sure that all Americans can afford health insurance is a great thing. Where I draw the line is people standing there expecting to get something for nothing. The quote I mentioned was particularly troubling to me because it came from Union leaders--leaders of people who obviously have jobs and can pay for at least a portion of their own care. Instead, they expect (or in this case demand) something for nothing.
That is unrelated to the plan itself.
Your comments about it are well-taken. Thank you for being well though-out and well-reasoned.
As far as the plan itself is concerned, this seems to address only a portion of the very serious problems facing our healthcare system.
First, we have the obvious baby boomer problem, which is the same crisis facing our society in several other areas. They are getting old and will require more care, thus putting more strain on the system.
Second, (and I think this is a big one) consumers have become disconnected from the cost of their care. The insurance companies and the government--through Medicare and Medicaid--have made the system so impersonal and so formulaic that the free market can't truly operate there. What this means is that the real cost of care is hidden from the consumer. Prices are inflated because people don't really pay them--the insurance company or the government does.
Third--and this is the part of the problem the California plan addresses--is the uninsured problem. People come to the ER, get care, and can't or don't pay. Everyone else is left to foot the bill.
This is a very good and healthy discussion to have. You seem to be going about it the right way. The problem that I so often focus on is that anyone who opposses this plan is labeled a "poor-hater" or "insensitive" or "greedy" or the like. Thank you for not falling into that, Danny. I look forward to hearing from you again, even if we do not see eye to eye.
Having said all that, I can now say that I don't think economics is the best reason to make sure everyone has adequate health care. Would somebody please think of the children!? We can debate the relative merits of a secular nation like ours having socialized this and that, but I'm sure you agree that Jesus was way into the Something for Nothing thing. I think he may have even wanted us to be into it, too. Maybe those ideas don't apply to entire nations and maybe they do, but one thing is for sure. If the people on the left are the ones who are speaking out the most for the poor and oppressed and for peace, then the religious right (note the intentional use of lowercase) will have lost some high ground.
danny,
I agree with your analysis that Jesus was way into the Something for Nothing thing. I also agree that He wants us to be into it, too. That is why in my personal life I give to the poor, sponsor a child in poverty, hand out blankets to the homeless, etc. Where you and I part ways, as far as I can tell, is on two levels. First, I don't believe that Jesus' teaching--or the morality taught in scripture--supports the idea that we should take from people who do not want to help the poor because we want to, or even because it would be the right thing for them to do. (In certain circumstances I'm willing to violate this general principle--see below). This is obviously a philosophical difference between right and left. Though I don't know for sure, I think we may have to agree to disagree on that point. Secondly, though I want to help the poor, I don't think the government is best equipped to do so. To the contrary, I believe that in many instances government "help" actually makes things worse. I will not get on my soap box and rant about all the ways that government has failed its people. The bottom line is that I believe the government involvement is one of the most ineffective ways to solve problems.
On another level, I believe Jesus was way into helping people who could not help themselves. That is where we come to your "won't someone think about the children?" comment. I strongly support making sure all kids have health insurance by any means necessary. Kids are incapable of helping themselves. If their parents can't/won't/don't get them health coverage, charities, churches, individuals, and, yes, the government, should step in and make sure they are taken care of. There is a difference, however, between those who can't help themselves and those who won't even try to do so/demand that others do so. It is at that point that government becomes a long-term barrier to a better life, rather than an assisstance to one.
Oh yeah, and I forgot: if you haven't read it you might want to check out my letter to the religious right.
Post a Comment