On Health Care For All Americans

One of the reasons I've largely avoided writing about the heath care debate on A New Philosophy is that, really, it's not so much a "debate" as a screaming match between a group of illogical ignoramuses ("Public healthcare will kill your baby!") and a group of incredulous but apathetic supporters ("You're pulling this crap out of your ass, but I refuse to combat these absurd allegations because they make no sense.")

But this story on Yahoo today made me think twice about my silence, because it really illustrates why the health care debate is moot: people who have already reached conclusions will refuse to admit new evidence that may induce them to change their minds.

Steve Hoffman of the University of Buffalo did a study wherein he talked to fifty Republicans, all of whom believed that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. (Newsflash: there wasn't one.) As the participants engaged in the study, they were slowly given more and more evidence that their beliefs were false. However, only one of the participants ever changed his/her mind; the other forty-nine participants began to utilize what Hoffman refers to as "motivated reasoning": "Motivated reasoning is essentially starting with a conclusion you hope to reach and then selectively evaluating evidence in order to reach that conclusion," Hoffman said.

This is what has happened in the health care debate. Conservatives— who are still angry that President Obama won the election and who hold fear of governmental intervention into the economic sphere as one of their foundational beliefs— cannot reconcile themselves to a bill that is supported by President Obama and requires governmental intervention in the health care system. Therefore, in order to preserve these emotional viewpoints, they begin to see danger in every line of the bill. "Seniors can receive counseling if they wish to write up a living will" becomes "Seniors will be executed at death panels!" "Let's give preventative care to Americans so that they won't get to the point where they need expensive procedures" becomes "Health care will be rationed and heart transplants will be unavailable!"

Here's what I know: the government already runs health care plans— Medicare, Medicaid, and the armed services' health care— and they seem to work just fine. When I was in Florida, every single old person I met (and I must have met hundreds) was absolutely in love with Medicare— Democrats and Republicans alike. And even Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, agreed (somewhat accidentally, I'll admit) that the armed services have the best health care possible. (More alarming, however, was his assertion that ordinary Americans don't deserve the same care.) The government also runs lots of things that we like: the police forces, for example, and the mail.

Guys, it doesn't make any sense to argue against government-run health care, because YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. This is a democracy, people. We elect these folks. In a government-run health care system, health insurance is answerable to YOU, the voter, and if you have a problem with the way things are being run, you can write a letter to your Congressman, and you can protest with other people who also have a problem with it, and if enough people hate the way things are working, something can be done. Private interests, however, are only answerable to stock holders; if I have a problem with my Medical Mutual insurance (and believe me, I do, considering that somehow the $200/month that I pay doesn't entitle me to be covered when I go to the doctor to get a birth control prescription), I can feel free to write a letter, but no one's going to care, considering that I have no shares in the company and therefore can claim no influence over its decisions.

I've never really understood the fear over government-run programs. It's not like we have a king or a dictator or someone who can simply do whatever he/she wants without any repercussions or consequences. In a democracy, YOU control the government. Remember what happened last year? We decided that we wanted the Republicans to run things back in the late 90s and early 2000s, and then, when they did a crappy job, we took them out and tried something new. That wasn't a random act of politics— it was a DECISION that we made AS A COUNTRY. If you didn't vote for President Obama, I can understand how you could feel alienated (oh, believe me, I felt that way in 2000, and in 2004), but when you take a look at the election results, you realize that there was a CHOICE. As much as I hated it then, I had to admit that the American people CHOSE Bush, at least in 2004. We The People spoke, even if the voice was a hysterical and irrational one. And last year, the teacher asked everyone in the class to raise their hands if they wanted Obama to be president, and the majority of the kids in the class raised their hands.

What's ironic about this whole debate is that those who are against government-run health insurance are actually USING THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD. Through town halls and letters and petitions and phone calls, they are changing the debate, except what they're saying is: "We would be powerless to change a government-run health can system." Um, really? You can easily use the political system to protest the inception of government health care, but you can't possibly imagine using that same system to improve that health care? How does that even make sense?

Over this past month or so, we've heard from a lot of people (many of them crazy-eyed folks akin to the "Obama is a Muslim" woman from the McCain campaign), and very few of them have been willing to say what they'd like to see in a bill, instead of just what they're afraid of seeing. So here's what I'd like to see:

-Universal government-run health care. Yeah, that's right— your ability to afford medical care should not rest on whether or not you are A) rich, B) employed, or C) old. Everyone should get to go to the doctor if they're sick. Everyone. And really, I don't give a shit if that means you have to pay higher taxes for some poor person to go to the doctor, because guess what? That's called community. Anyone can wave a flag or sing a patriotic song, but loving your country means loving its people, and sharing with them when necessary. If you don't like that, then I refer you to poverty activist and lifelong lover of the underprivileged Jesus of Nazareth, or alternatively, to your mother, who (I assume) taught you that sharing is caring.

-No more "pre-existing conditions" crap, and no more of this "that procedure isn't necessary even though it could change your entire life for the better" stuff. If a person has diabetes when they join the insurance plan, then the insurance plan still has to cover the treatment. If you have a benign tumor that has taken over the entire right side of your face and removing it would restore your vision and your quality of life, then that tumor gets removed, and the procedure is covered. Period.

-Coverage for ALL women's health procedures— gynecological checkups, pap smears, mammograms, birth control, and, yes, abortions. If you don't approve of abortion, then you should be able to check a box on your tax forms that says you don't want your money allocated for those purposes. (Although I'm not very sympathetic; I don't believe in war, but I don't get to opt out of providing tax dollars for all the wars we seem to be constantly fighting.) Otherwise, let the rest of us rational folks help women who simply can't afford to burden themselves (and the taxpayers) with an unwanted child.

-Preventative care to help avoid expensive health problems. Which is cheaper: a triple bypass, or a few sessions with a personal trainer and dietician who can help you figure out how to eat right and work physical movement into your daily life? Is it easier to operate on a cancer patient in the advanced stages of the disease, or to screen for the cancer regularly and make sure it can be caught early on? Which is easier to provide: a lifetime of treatment for an obese child, or a talk with his/her parents over what kinds of foods he/she should be eating? I've see parents filling their infants' bottles with Coke, for goodness sakes— and these are parents who genuinely want what's best for their children, but who just don't realize that pumping them with sugar and calories 24/7 is going to make them sick. As much as I like to assume pessimistic things about the world, my experience has taught me that, for the most part, people have good intentions, and they want to make their families and their communities and their world healthier and happier. If you give them the information they need— and, more importantly, if you provide strategies for people to implement and utilize this information in their daily lives— you can go a long way towards preventing complicated treatments for serious illnesses down the line. Prevention doesn't always keep disease from occurring, but it can help lower the incidence of some diseases, and can help spot the development of others before it's too late.

Yep, it might be pretty expensive, but I have this nagging feeling that, perhaps, it's not a lack of money overall that's our problem— it's a mismanagement of it. I'm pretty sure we could take a good hard look at our federal spending and figure out where we could make some cuts (*cough cough* DEFENSE! *cough cough*) so that this important piece of legislation could pass.

(As a side note: I am so totally loving the tax-on-soda idea. TOTALLY. We often buy a lot of Coke to feed Adam's soda addition, and a tax on Coke would simultaneously help to fund health care AND help Adam and I cut back on the amount of expensive and unhealthy soda we drink, thereby making us healthy and saving us some money. Let's go for a tax on all junk foods— maybe we could even allocate a little of it towards a federal program to help poor families purchase fresh veggies instead of processed foods or red meats!)

Conclusion: After a few months of pondering and analyzing the information and watching lots of different news channels (although Fox News was tough to get through) and reading lots of different publications, A New Philosophy officially and wholeheartedly endorses a single-payer, government-run healthcare system that covers all Americans, regardless of their income or their employment status. And while it pretty much goes without saying, this blog also endorses the leadership of the Democratic Party on this front, and encourages Republican lawmakers to listen hard and consider the interests of their constituents above the interests of insurance company executives or campaign donors or their own political careers. (Blue Dog Dems would do well to listen up, too.)

This is not a time to save face, or to play it safe, or to maintain the status quo. Now is the time for heroes. Now is the time for bold leadership. Now is the time for change.

Now is the time for a true morning in America.

And now, watch this cute little video.