Reframing the debate.

[alexandraerin]

Here's the question we should be asking all public figures who are against a public option or other form of national health insurance:

"[Senator/Congressman/Pundit], how long have you believed that France is better than America?"

It's fairly easy to point to the failings in the Canadian health care system... a system, incidentally, that neither President Obama nor the Democrats in the legislature are looking to as an example... but France, which has a system closely resembling the much-denigrated "public option", has the top-rated healthcare system in the world.

France can manage to provide quality health care to their entire population and we can't? And it would be too expensive for us to match the feat, when they do it while spending less money per person than we do?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

I'm sure the reason that the supporters of the public option have been pointing to France is... well... as I've said before, liberals have a real problem with sitting back and allowing their opponents to frame debates. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" worked fine for Teddy Roosevelt, but it wouldn't have worked so well for his cousin Frank, who had to speak loudly and often just to make himself heard. If we pointed to France and said "We want our country to be more like that.", the right would jump on it in an instant... I mean, we're talking about people whose response to half of the things our president does is to say "arugula" like they've made some great and telling point about policy.

But with France using the public option and not just making it work but making it work so well that they have the best medical care in the world, consider the implication being made any time somebody says that the public option wouldn't work in America or that it would result in worse care for most people:

America is less capable than France.

In my previous post on the subject, I framed things in terms of goodness vs. greatness. Well, let's talk about greatness. As I said, we put a man on the moon. Is there any reason we couldn't take the number one spot away from France if we wanted to?

A lot of our political representatives and media figures seem to think so. Let's put them on the spot and ask them why that is.

Comments

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

In fairness to bisquick, I think you're confusing some of his points with some of mine. I'm the one who said "France can do it, why can't we?"... I think he's only repeating that because it was in my original post, though as I've said, this isn't meant to be a serious point of argumentation so much as a way of retaking some rhetorical ground.

I'm glad you brought up the situation in Mass, though, because it's a good example of some of the things that could go wrong. Baucus's "compromise" bill has penalties for lack of coverage but no real provisions that would allow for universal coverage. That kind of thing would be disastrous.

[blue-x.livejournal.com]

Sorry - the beginning paragraph (I don't think you really are "opposition" here. I imagine you agree with the fundamental facts...) was meant to be to bisquick, and the rest was to the comments-debate in general, including your remarks. I should've clarified that shift.

>> I'm glad you brought up the situation in Mass, though, because it's a good example of some of the things that could go wrong. Baucus's "compromise" bill has penalties for lack of coverage but no real provisions that would allow for universal coverage. That kind of thing would be disastrous.

It's why I get so nervous when people react to the debate over health care as if the options are only "yes, everyone has health care" and "no, we're going to be evil and deny people health care."

I have friends who are uninsured, and it's terrifying, as you know. I've been in the hospital with a friend whose health insurance dropped his very-necessary 700-dollar-a-month medication, so he ended up hallucinating in the emergency room. I've seen my sister slapped with 15,000 of medical bills when she went to an emergency room... in Canada, and her health insurance tried to get out of paying. My brother is currently uninsured, and doesn't have a clue that if he needed serious medical care, my family could end up losing the house and a whole lot more because of course we would chose his health over anything else.

And these are all MA residents.

I'm a MA resident. I make too much money for MA health, so I pay 350 dollars a month out-of-pocket for my health insurance, because after the 20,000 a year to taxes and the cost of living I can afford that?

So... it makes me nervous, when people make the argument a simple Good and Evil dichotomy, instead of recognizing how complicated it is.

[blue-x.livejournal.com]

All that said, you're an intelligent and passionate individual and I respect your opinions and as a patriotic American citizen must support everyone exercising their voices on important matters, but I too enjoy the spanking stories more than political argument ;)

I wonder how we would "fix" our health care if we had divine healing abilities? Could you imagine if our Congress had to debate "separation of church and medicine" instead of just "separation of church and state"?

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

Okay, that makes quite a bit more sense. The shift you intended isn't apparent by itself, but when read with it in mind your thoughts are easier to follow.

I see a large middle ground full of people in the debate that I'm absolutely not out to demonize, but at the other end of that field there are people whom I think demonizing would be redundant. They're already out to make it a Good vs. Evil dichotomy where any attempt to get universal healthcare is proof that godless libruls hate America and want to destroy it. Their rhetoric might resonate with some folks in the middle, but unlike the folks in the middle, they're not being motivated by a desire to see that we solve the crisis in the best fashion possible.

And then there are people in the middle ground whose entirely innocent reasoning is... well, just on my posts we've got one person effectively going "Being healthy works out well for me, have you considered trying that?" and we've got someone else going "I sock away money in my HSA every paycheck and I've got no problems, why wouldn't it work for everyone to be on a plan like that?"

Entirely innocent, but so missing on what the actual problems are...

Yeah, it is complicated, but I get nervous when we treat it as anything but a black and white issue because if we do this things by halves it'll be worse than not doing it at all. If we institute "incentives" (i.e., penalties for not having coverage) without also getting universal coverage (such as via a true public option that everyone's eligible for) then we're making a bad situation worse. If we institute "portability" without increased federal protection for those with pre-existing conditions then those of us who didn't win the genetic lottery are more screwed because all we'll all end up playing by the rules of the lowest common denominator states.

All these "compromises" being touted make me very nervous because they will all allow politicians to act like they're doing something and they will all ultimately reinforce the status quo and make it that much harder for real reform to pass.

Yes, universal access would require a lot of changes, but that's the way it goes. Britain didn't have National Health and then they did. France didn't have public health financing and then they did. The fact that we're a bigger nation brings with it some obstacles but it also brings some strengths. The idea of putting the France thing to opponents as a question is a tongue-in-cheek point one, but I hold that the underlying thought is valid: why couldn't America do this?

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

And I'll also seriously question you on the idea that the "other side" doesn't believe healthcare isn't a right.

They don't. They say so.

With slogans like, "If you have the right to my services then I must be a slave." and with arguments about positive rights vs. negative rights. This is why I choose to frame the argument in terms of what we want to be as a nation rather than rights. The people I'm arguing against are never going to agree that it's a right because in their mind a right means something the government can't interfere with (negative right), not something you're entitled to from others (positive right).

I couldn't say if they're the majority of the opposition, but they're a real presence in the debate. The "not a right" argument doesn't tend to get put forward in the public square very often because they understand that positive rights vs. negative rights is beyond the scope of most people's thinking on the matter and they're aware that saying "You don't have a right to healthcare" sounds more assholish than "You have a right to healthcare".

But even if they're not advancing it in public, that's what's underpinning a lot of the resistance to reform.

Edit to clarify: I'm not lumping you or Bisquick in with these folks or saying "If you don't agree with me then you don't believe healthcare is a right"... I'm clarifying who "the opposition" really is here. It's really not a matter of everyone believing that healthcare is a right and disagreeing over the best way of safeguarding it.

[bisquick-deh.livejournal.com]

Wow, this is a lot to keep up with! I envy your life of working at home and having more time (or at least more control over that time) Honest statement, no joke scarcasam or otherwise negative connotation.

I try to stay away from the "health care is a right" arguement too, because it is unproductive. I think there's valid arguements that it is a right and valid arguements that it is not. No one is blocking people from getting quality care. Care can be had. Lack of money or insurance can make it severely limited, or more difficult to obtain, but in the end no one is throwing out the c-block on your health care. Health care and insured are not the same things.

I notice that whenever I delve into liberal territory (this forum and others) the assumptions made of the right that are taken as fact are the views of a small portion of the right that most right leaning people are saying "yeah that's not cool either." I find that true here too. Perhaps it is that we only hear the ones screaming the loudest, but I don't aspire to a lot of the assumptions you make of the right's views. I also discount a lot of the left's extreeme views that get bandied about on my side.
I'm registered republican so I get the expected mass of junk mail/email almost daily. I can't hardly read the shit because all they do is throw accusations at the other side. What little democrat stuff I've seen of a similar venue is much the same. Honestly, the best place to find out what's really going on is talking to others...seeing where they stand, and challenging or being challenged by their views.

I really wish the politicians would forget about their precious party lines and think about America first. This health care thing is a big deal, effecting a lot of people, a huge portion of the economy, and any number of trickling down repercussions. I don't agree with the current plan in its entirety, but it scares me that politicians are unwilling to have honest debate and give it the time it deserves to come up with the best plan for everyone.

And now, I'm late for work. *sigh* :/

[matt_doyle]

No one is blocking people from getting quality care.

The lack of affordable quality care at my income level is blocking me from quality care. Now, it's true that no one specific is blocking me, but trust me, I'm pretty effectively blocked. Pre-existing condition: I'm poor.