Flawed Arguments and Stubborn Facts

My last post addressed some of the things we can do to improve health care without government involvement. I got a few comments, but wanted to address a couple in particular. These comments brought up issues that are worthy of response.

One of the comments is as follows: "I would like to direct your attention to the writers first stated premise - there is no trust in the government with one sixth of our economy. My question is, how did it become one sixth of the economy? With every step of a 'free' enterprise system being everything but free, freedom is placed upon the back of those who are a dwindling base of contributors to support the greediness of astronomical proportions and the government is the recipient of easy target fingerpointing. If we insist on blaming government for a sick system, we are trying to fix the wrong problems."

My initial reply was the following: "There are many causes of the problems in medical care which I have also written about on my blog. Doctors are lousy business-men, insurance companies and employers cause problems of their own. Pharmaceutical companies and medical suppliers are making huge profits. But the single largest problem is the government sticking their big nose in everything. Ignoring that fact and involving them further will compound the problem exponentially. The government cannot fix our problems. We can. We need to stop shifting the blame and asking the government to fix the things we can fix on our own.

As to how it became one sixth of the economy--it's because we provide health care for the world. Nearly every advance in medical technology, new drugs, new treatments comes out of the US. People from all over the world come here for medical training and treatment. And we as a people are accustomed to being able to go to the doctor any time we want to. It's one sixth because we're a prosperous nation and medical care is accessible."

I didn't have enough space to adequately respond to the gentleman's comment above, but tried to briefly. First of all, based on his comment, I'm led to believe he did not read the post. The whole purpose of the post was about what we can do as individuals. And to discount everything I said simply because he felt I was "finger-pointing" at the government, is counter-productive.

John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." One example of such a fact is the requirement that all hospitals must treat everyone, with or without insurance. You may argue the usefulness, the need or the success of this law as one part of the issue. But the separate fact of the issue is that it has increased the cost of health care for everyone in the US. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The fact of increased cost cannot be ignored.

The fact that states require insurance companies to cover an increasing number of mandates has raised the cost of health care for every employer and participant in a health plan. Again, you can debate whether it is right or wrong, but the facts are indisputable. In order to have a productive and honest discussion about health care reform, we must address the facts. There will also be a need to discuss the emotion and morality of the issues involved in health care. But we will come up with a wholly faulty solution if we fail to address the facts too. Some of the facts we must address are: What will it cost? Who will pay for it? What will be the consequences of the legislation, intended and unintended? Is the government capable of managing health care in light of its track record with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the VA, etc.? How will the public option affect private insurance? Will rationing result? These are stubborn facts that must not be ignored.

A second issue that was raised came about at the end of my response above, "It's one sixth (of our economy) because we're a prosperous nation and medical care is accessible." One reader, responded: "Accessible yes. Affordable no." This argument, is quite simply, frustrating to me. First of all, I disagree. Secondly, "affordability" is a relative issue. Health care is a business and like any business in this country it is responsive to supply and demand. Because we have a greater supply of quality health care, the demand increases, therefore the supply is increased to meet the demand. The problem is, that health care is expensive, especially the kind we're accustomed to. We're not talking about apples here, we're talking about expensive procedures like MRI's, CT scans, x-rays, and ultrasounds. The equipment for these procedures is incredibly expensive and as those in the health care world try to meet the demand they have to add expensive pieces of equipment. Do you think they get it for free? Our demands are one of the reasons that health care is so expensive.

Furthermore, any American could go to South America or the heart of Africa and get the best health care money could buy...there--it would be very affordable. I don't suppose they get a lot of MRI's there, but it would be affordable. I would like to drive a Cadillac Escalade, but I can't justify the expense and therefore it's not affordable. Does that mean someone's trampling on my right to drive an Escalade? We as Americans kindof lose our minds when it comes to health care. We get caught up in the emotion (understandably) and forget the stubborn facts. Fact #1: Health care is expensive. Fact #2: It's your responsibility. Fact #3: Life is hard. We think we should be able to get Cadillac health care on a Volkswagen budget. It doesn't work that way. And if we start paying "Volkswagen rates" for our health care, then we will get "affordable" prices and care that would rival anything you can get in any given third world country. Those of us who are responsible adults, budget for a home, car, food, utilities, etc. Why don't we budget for health care? Life is full of surprises both pleasant and unpleasant. Stuff happens and then we have to pay to fix it. When my fridge breaks, I have to pay to get another one, whether it's in the budget or not, or go without. If I had no health insurance and a sick child, I would do whatever I had to do to get the Cadillac health care and I would figure out how to pay for it. If I had to spend the rest of my life paying $20 a month to pay off the bill, I would. But I would pay for it. That's called personal responsibility.

The final comment was thought-provoking but I felt flawed in many ways. "A few questions: First, questions on personal responsibility: How can those with mental illness or extreme pressures of physical illness be expected to have personal responsibility (ie. the majority of those receiving treatments)? What % of the people that are "lifers" really would be able to succeed in a "personal responsibility" system? How many would fall through the cracks? Who is responsible for the well-being of the citizens of the USA? MANY nations take themselves out of the well being of their citizens and leave it up to them, is this a good model to follow? Is the question really about whether or not health care is a "right" or is it a basic need? Should the needs of society be made free to all American citizens? If health care shouldn't be a government issue then why is education? Why is there public education? Would our country benefit from following the models of other countries that have healthy citizens? Is there such a model out there?"

The premise of her questions are that the only two choices are either personal responsibility or the government (forgive me if I have misunderstood you). Certainly they are not. Personal responsibility is the ideal and is where we should all be destined. Obviously there are those among our citizenry who are incapable of that level of responsibility. We already make provision for them through Medicare/Medicaid. But there are also charitable organizations all over the country that do great works, we as individuals help each other out, Churchs help their members, neighbors help neighbors, communities rally around the needy and hospitals and doctors donate millions of dollars each year in care to the indigent and needy. Is it a perfect system? Of course not. But we don't blow up our house and start over just because we have a leaky faucet. Tearing this health care system down, starting over and putting the government in charge, is the equivalent. That assumes the government can then re-create a new, improved and flawless house in its place. That's a big leap of faith--not based on any stubborn facts, like their history.

"How can those with mental illness or extreme pressures of physical illness be expected to have personal responsibility (ie. the majority of those receiving treatments)?" The majority of people have insurance and jobs and they pay for it like they pay for the rest of their bills. That's how I expect them to have personal responsibility. We don't have to blow up the system to take car of the exception. We finds ways to treat the exception and keep the rule.

"What % of the people that are 'lifers' really would be able to succeed in a 'personal responsibility' system?" How will we know if we never give them the chance? You don't teach a child responsibility by sheltering them from the consequences of life. You also remove all incentive to improve your life situation by giving endless handouts. "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for life." America is still the land of opportunity--if you don't like your life, then you can go to work and change it.

"Who is responsible for the well being of the citizens of the USA? MANY nations take themselves out of the well being of their citizens and leave it up to them, is this a good model to follow?" I am responsible for my own well-being. We are responsible for the well-being of our family. The government is responsible to get the heck out of the way. Is it a good model? Yes, we created it. It's called freedom. You are free to succeed or fail and the attending consequences. It's the only way to learn and progress.

"Is the question really about whether or not health care is a 'right' or is it a basic need? Should the needs of society be made free to all American citizens? If health care shouldn't be a government issue then why is education? Why is there public education?" First of all, if you're asking these questions then your public education has failed you miserably. Using public education is a very poor example. Many would argue that the government should not be in the business of education because they are botching it all over the country. We spend more per capita, with less to show for it than just about any country on earth. If that is an example of the government taking care of a right, it does nothing to generate my confidence in their abilities. But I digress. No-one has a right to an education. We as a society have decided that it is of sufficient importance that we will provide it for all our citizenry (heck, we even provide it for non-citizens), that does not make it a right. Check the Bill of Rights: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html. The last right reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So, yes, you have the right to go and get your own health care. The Constitution was established to "promote the general welfare" (not provide it) and "and secure the blessings of liberty". Those are your rights, along with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Declaration of Independence). You have the right to live, to be free and to chase happiness. There is no guarantee you will catch it, but you have the right to pursue it. Those are the rights, including those listed in the Bill of Rights that you are guaranteed in the founding documents of our nation.

To try and define health care as a right is simply...wrong. When we, as a nation, get in the business of becoming the nanny to all of our citizens we are destined for abject failure. All incentive to work hard, succeed and achieve will be destroyed and then who will pay for all the programs? There is not one single historical example of success where the government provides everything. Whether you label it socialism, communism, Naziism or the public option, it is all the same and history has shown it to fail in every case. The very wise Thomas Jefferson, author of the Constitution, said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." It matters not which party reigns, the more power we cede to the government, the less freedom we have. That is one of those stubborn facts that people choose to ignore all too often. You have the right to go and seek health care; you do not have the right to have the government pay for it. In fact, lets nix this talk of the the government ever paying for anything, because they don't generate a dime of income, they can only take it from one citizen and give it to another. You do not have the right to have your fellow-citizens and taxpayers (i.e. government) pay for your health care. Nor is it your right to have your fellow-citizens buy your food, house, car or anything else you think you have a right to. Go to work and get it. That's the American way. That's the responsible way.

"Would our country benefit from following the models of other countries that have healthy citizens? Is there such a model out

there?" This implies that we have unhealthy citizens. I don't think that's accurate in the first place. Healthy compared to what and using what statistics? And when we aren't healthy, in many cases it's our own dumb fault. We overeat, we aren't active enough, we eat the wrong things. Are we to legislate that? In a movie called "The Island", Ewan McGregor's character got to have his urine tested every morning by a computer which determined what he was allowed to eat for breakfast. We must think beyond the "now" and look at the "next". You can't legislate "healthy" unless you're prepared to lose all your freedom. No thanks. Furthermore, I defy you to find one historical example of a continually increasing government leading to anything but the decreasing prosperity and freedom of any nation.

Let me conclude by saying this: The fabric of our nation is made stronger each time we serve and help each other. Americans are generous people, that is a big part of who we are. But by turning that charitable nature over to the anonymous government, we will be poorer for it. We will care less for our neighbors or for those in our community because of the assumption the government will take care it. You cannot legislate charity. On the flip-side, when you have a citizenry that is entitled, they become ungrateful and lazy. I have never appreciated anything as much, nor savored an achievement as deeply as when I have had to work hard to get it. Without the opportunity to work, to achieve, to serve and to be served when we need it, we as a nation will become completely selfish, isolated, unproductive and weak. To quote Ronald Reagan, "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."