GOP on health care: `Will this improve your life?’
The Republican Party posed this question in its weekly video and radio address, no doubt hoping it will resonate much like Ronald Reagan’s effective question to voters in the 1980 presidential campaign, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
For Catholics, this question on health care ought to be the wrong one, given our faith’s emphasis on the common good. This is made very clear in Daniel Callahan’s excellent article in the Oct. 9 issue of Commonweal, “America’s Blind Spot: Health Care & the Common Good.”
As Callahan writes, “Except for Catholics and a few others … the common good as a moral value has little purchase in American life.” Later in the article, he writes that “Advocates of reform must now cope with the growing fear among the 80 percent of Americans who have adequate health insurance that they may have to lose some benefits, or pay more form them, in order to extend coverage to the 20 percent who lack insurance. More than fear is operating here.” And still more: “The striking feature of conservative health-care thinking is its radical individualism. The idea of a common good is entirely absent.”
The question “Will this improve your life?” takes clever advantage of Americans’ lack of concern for the common good. It’s a phrase that could well echo through the health care debate. Should the health care debate be framed in this way? It calls for a response from Catholic leaders and opinion-makers.
Individualism vs. The Common Good.
Says it all.
Fearmongering and naysaying.
From the Capitol Hill minority.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Says me.
Hogwash. There are people who recognize the common good and feel that government-run health care has deleterious effects on it.
Tell that to the folks who thank God for their VA, Medicare, or other govt coverage.
I would, but many of them are out there fighting against the president’s plan.
Why ought I to sacrifice the known an concrete good of my present health care for my family in exchange for a nebulous and ever-changing set of protocols imposed by a government whose members will not themselves be required to live by those protocols, and for a purpose (the “common good”) whose definition is controlled by people I don’t even like, respect, or trust?
First the left claims that Americans don’t care about the common good, then the left calls foul when their patriotism is questioned. Go figure.
“…but many of them are out there fighting against the president’s plan.”
As I said earlier: fearmongering and naysaying.
Adeodatus,
It is fascinating that the group most opposed to “government-run health care” (which, of course, it isn’t really) is the over-65 crowd who want the government to keep its hands off of their Medicare!
David Nickol,
I don’t find that fascinating in the least. First, let’s be honest and acknowledge that most of those people are forced into the Medicare program, as I will be when I am of age. My wages are being garnished for that purpose, as is everyone else’s. Second, they are protesting against the government plan because it will result in cuts to their own health care plans. That doesn’t fascinate me. That seems logical, actually.
Before I retired, my wages were being “garnished” to pay for police and fire protection, among other services provided by government for the common good.
My retirement income is still “garnished” to pay for the armed forces, FBI and other law enforcement agencies, national park and forest operations, disease control & prevention, etc. — all for the common good.
And, to add insult to injury, I’m “forced” to pay for these things!
Now you’re getting the hang of it, Joseph! And before another service is added to the list, we can debate its merits.
“…but many of them are out there fighting against the president’s plan.”
Not me. I get gov health insurance because I’m legally blind and I’m very grateful for it. When I worked I paid taxes and was happy enough to do so for the common good.
Nonsense.
First, individual liberty and responsibility are ALSO Catholic values. The common good is one of many values. Ideally, we should strive for the common good in ways that also respect these and other values as well.
Second, if as is presupposed by this argument, this is a zero sum game, then shifting around benefits does nothing more than take the benefits from one group of people and give them to another. Ask yourself, how well do state solutions ever do this? Will we have acheived the common good if we go from a system where 80% are satisfied and 10% have no coverage to one where 100% are covered and 80% are dissatisfied? Asking whether you and your family will be better off is not a bad idea. If most people won’t, maybe it’s not a good idea and maybe it’s not for the common good.
Finally, it is pretty clear from the president and his supporter’s rhetoric that the reason that we have an uninsured problem is because of the way that people who are insured are covered. In other words, they suffer because you benefit from a broken system. Is that even true? Those opposing this plan aren’t saying there is no problem, they are saying that rather than overhauling an entire system, why don’t we focus on helping the 20% who are not satisfied into a system that 80% approve of?
I think Paul has a point when he points to questions like, “Will this plan benefit YOU?” I sets up a tension between people who have health care insurance with those who don’t have insurance. The unspoken implication is that those who need health care want to steal part of yours.
As someone without health insurance, I certainly don’t want to diddle with Mark’s or Sean’s plans. I’m willing to pay my way. But six months of exhausting shoping and dealing with brokers and agents has been like going to buy a car and being offered only Crown Victorias loaded with options.
Where’s my Ford Focus plan???
The sad fact that conservatives acknowledge too infrequently is that without insurance I WILL affect Mark’s and Sean’s insurance if I have none. If I get cancer, heart disease or my asthma turns into full-blown COPD in the next 10 years before I qualify for Medicare, I would have to seek ER care for a severe, acute illness and be unable to pay the cost of the treatment. Which will drive my friends’ premiums up.
If I default on payment for ER care, I could lose my home, which would lower property values for my neighbors. And I would be much more likely to die from my illness if it’s treated at a later stage in an ER (but whether that’s really a down side, I leave to others to judge).
Nothing but fearmongering rhetoric– it’s not as if the people they’re trying to reach are even capable of soundly reasoning about their self-interest anyways. cf. “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” by Thomas Frank.
MEP–
Please read Jean’s post just above yoirs and tell us whether you thing it is just fear-mongering. Then consider that there are in fact millions of families like hers.
“Now you’re getting the hang of it, Joseph!”
No, Adeodatus, we disagree!
“My wages are being garnished for that purpose, as is everyone else’s. ”
It’s not just your wages actually. These programs are not equity financed so obviously to the extent people have savings, that is being garnished in real dollars, and the quality of life of future wage earners is being garnished as well. The later is really more accurately being exported but garnishment is a nice way to think about it as well.
There is no dought – especially for Catholics – that the common good is important and we should strive toward it, but what of the principle of subsidiarity?
Regarding healthcare reform, do we Americans really think the national government, the federal government, is the best way to achieve the commond good? Is a federal healthcare system best for our country?
In our national discussion about helathcare reform, have we paid enough attention to the principle of subsidiarity?
Oops – I meant “doubt”
“In our national discussion about healthcare reform, have we paid enough attention to the principle of subsidiarity?”
It would appear we have since states have not risen to the challenge but for the initiative of the federal government: medicaid, for example, and veterans’ healthcare (which very early on was not adequately assumed by the states).
We would not be having all the brouhaha over universal coverage but for the unwillingness and/or inability of the states to assure access to adequate healthcare for their residents without it.
To what extent are we as a people willing to incur some expense to help people without adequate healthcare? (I use the word ‘expense’ in its broadest sense.) To what extent are we willing to stop on a dangerous road to help someone we do not know? (I use the phrase ‘dangerous road’ in a metaphorical way.)
I do not see the gospel message in the pronouncements of the Republican leadership. To date, they have been fearmongers and naysayers. They have offered nothing of substance, nothing that even remotely suggests viable alternatives. Obstructionists they are!
“They have offered nothing of substance, nothing that even remotely suggests viable alternatives.”
Wasn’t H.R. 2520 introduced by a Republican? You are probably much more familiar with Congress’s legislative calendar than I but my recollection is that it was introduced by Paul Ryan of WI’s 1st district. And I thought I saw on the calendar the other day H.R. 3438 introduced by Darrell Issa out in CA’s 39th. I didn’t check, but that is my recollection.
I think rhetorically asking the question “Will this improve your life?” is fair insofar as it might prompt one to ask herself or himself if proposed healthcare reform will in fact make one’s life better. It’s fair as an appeal to reason. On the other hand, if it was in fact intended to exploit a lack of concern for the common good then it was duplicitous. As a statement, it’s far better than issuing emotionally charged euphemisms like “death panels” or “pulling the plug on grandma” to stimulate debate on healthcare. See, for example, http://wp.me/pFLQa-E.