« Solidarity in the Rest of the World | Sabo Pike's Blog | Living with Mirrors - Not About Health Reform »
Practical or Moral: What's the Best Argument for Health Reform
Should health reform be sold as a moral issue or a practical one. It seems to me focusing on self-interest is useful in a nation with so much rhetoric rejecting any responsibility for caring for others, with such a focus on individual responsibility.
In the book, The Healing of American, T.R. Reid contrasts the Clinton failure to reform our health care system with the success of Switzerland and Taiwan in fixing theirs in 1994. In those countries the moral issue was given major emphasis, whereas in the U.S. the focus was on the economic issues. But, would the moral issue work in the U.S., where health care as a human right doesn't seem to have much resonance.
The so-called experts we have worked with urge us to draw the parallels with our other public system - highways, police, etc., and focus on how we are all tied together and the need for equality of treatment.
In the book, The Healing of American, T.R. Reid contrasts the Clinton failure to reform our health care system with the success of Switzerland and Taiwan in fixing theirs in 1994. In those countries the moral issue was given major emphasis, whereas in the U.S. the focus was on the economic issues. But, would the moral issue work in the U.S., where health care as a human right doesn't seem to have much resonance.
The so-called experts we have worked with urge us to draw the parallels with our other public system - highways, police, etc., and focus on how we are all tied together and the need for equality of treatment.
Advertisement
I don't don't think we have to make a choice here. The moral choice is the practical choice and the practical choice is the moral choice. IF we let the opposition separate these from each other we lose twice. We'll hear "gee, that would be good, but it isn't practical," on the one hand, and "well I'd support it, but it includes an attack on free enterprise and that's not moral" on the other.
So let's gin up BOTH arguments. A social conscience is practical--without it the community crumbles and rots away.
September 3, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really see the issue. You have the pragmatic elements to the package - cost controls making it cheaper for companies, individuals, and the taxpayer, and regulation improving the quality of insurance. And you have the moral elements - subsidies and expansion of Medicaid.
If the people don't feel the weight of the moral argument, then cut back on subsidies, and hence obviously the mandate has to go, because it's unfair to force people to buy insurance they can't afford. Reasonable compromises could be found here if this were the issue.
But ultimately that isn't relevant to the underlying political dynamics. Opponents of the plan - and I mean the politicians - predominantly don't like the cost-controls, because it hurts insurers and providers, i.e. their financial backers. So they hollow out the cost-controls and then claim the package is too expensive. So they want to cut back on subsidies while keeping a mandate. And voilà we have a piece of crap bill that no one really feels like defending...
September 3, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink