American conservatives tend to speak disdainfully about a
citizenry that allows its government to provide more and more services for
them, but this is hardly an either-or proposition among countries. There are plenty of Americans who would like
that, including many productive citizens.
They think the loss of “character” is overblown, and worth the tradeoffs
in any event. The argument is sometimes made that providing health care might
even spur entrepreneurism, as folks might more willingly leave stagnant jobs if
they thought their backs were covered. Even among the advocates who are simple
leeches, it’s not like we haven’t always had such in our population. No vision of the Good Old Days should be
allowed which maintains that we used to all be responsible, self-made men. That never existed.
Plus, there are plenty of Germans or Australians or whatever
who would be entirely happy under a more free-market, self-responsible system,
and wish their own countries would do more of it.
4 comments:
This is true as a description of the conservative mythos.
It is also true as a description of people who do not want a Death Panel...er, End-of-Life-Care Guidelines issued by a Board of Health Funding...to make health decisions for them.
"The argument is sometimes made that providing health care might even spur entrepreneurism, as folks might more willingly leave stagnant jobs if they thought their backs were covered."
By this argument, we should offer free room and board to everyone, so they'd all go out there and invent better mousetraps freed of anxiety.
Any argument for socializing the cost of medical care has to go beyond noting that some things are necessities of life, and that providing for them is expensive, time-consuming, and wearing on the spirit. Why make medicine free and not food? Because people know they have to eat every day, and we rarely encounter anyone so improvident as to fail to make arrangements in advance to meet this predictable need. But we often run into people who will not make provisions against emergencies and then are gobsmacked when they encounter an expensive one. Our charitable impulses then prevent our averting our eyes. At the same time, we resent the cost of our charitable impulses and continually try to find a way to dump the cost back on the objects of our charity -- or (worse) to control their lives enough to prevent their falling into need again. "Stop making me be so nice to you!"
If the argument is that we should separate health insurance from employment, perhaps the best way to do that is to transition the tax exemption for spending on health insurance from businesses to individuals.
Or, at minimum, revoke the exemption for businesses.
It's not a pie-in-the-sky method, and it is a change that most lobbyists employed by businesses will oppose.
But don't the liberals of the world want to Stick it to the Man, and give the little guy more power than the Big Guy?
Or am I confusing their rhetoric for their actual goals?
It would be a lot easier to convince me that food and shelter are basic universal rights than it would to convince me that health insurance or health care is.
Or, as Texan99 calls 'em: necessities of life.
Also by that argument, homeowner's and rental insurance should be provided too...
Post a Comment