Friday, October 30, 2009

By Jacob M. Jordan

There was an episode of The Office in which Steve Carell, who plays the boss, did not want the burden of selecting a new healthcare plan for his employees.  In order to avoid the task, he decided to delegate it to the control-freak (and non-manager) Dwight, who immediately responded: 

“OK, first let’s go over some parameters.  How many people can I fire?”

What an apt metaphor for America (to be completely frank, I forgot that the dialogue had anything to do with healthcare).  Our government is different from Dwight in that it has assigned itself the task of “fixing” the healthcare system.  The government’s superiors—us—never delegated the task of taking the healthcare institution apart, brick by brick.  At best, there are some specific things Americans would like to see addressed.  Most people would prefer Obama, Reid, and Pelosi not dismantle healthcare as we know it.  However, our government is like Dwight in that it really only cares about the furtherance of its own power as being the paramount issue—not reforming healthcare. 

Similar to many platforms with the left, it is difficult to discuss or argue any type of philosophical basis for ObamaCare.  Depending on who the politician is that is endorsing reform, the terms of argument perpetually shift.  Is the problem actually over the ability to receive health services?  Sometimes the subject of the argument seems to pertain to the general need to “control rising healthcare costs.”  Perhaps the issue is over one’s capacity to pay for such health services?  Or does the matter concern one’s ability to pay for an insurance plan that will itself be responsible for the health service cost?  Maybe this whole thing has nothing to do with treatment, insurance, or costs?  Maybe the biggest element in this complex issue is the desire to “Win one for Teddy.”  These various issues in the healthcare debate are all distinct from one another (and there are more variations than those, depending on which day of the week it is).  The lack of coherence coming from the left on this is not actually a bad thing for them.  By never situating the issue too firmly in one place, they make it difficult to attack its philosophical weaknesses. 

Consider that out of all those variations on the “healthcare issue”—one stands out in sharp relief from the rest: the ability to receive, but not pay for, health services.  It is important to recognize that this issue deals with morality in a way that the others do not.  Essentially, the question is whether or not those who have taken an oath to prevent death and alleviate suffering are following through on their part.  Is America in such a condition that those walking into ERs for heart attacks, massive head trauma, and severed limbs are being told to leave?  Obviously the U.S. is an over-achiever in this matter, regularly providing ER services to the uninsured and non-taxpaying illegals (often for matters which are not even emergencies).  As a matter of fact, hospital visits in which providers perform the treatment, yet receive no reimbursement are cited as a major component of the cost problem.  Yet the left continues to couch their arguments in a life-or-death tone—even though it is well-known that the denial of stabilizing treatment is not a problem.  This is not to say that someone will not be left with bills that greatly exceed their budget.  The financial duress a person is under following their stabilizing treatment is a completely different story.  Remember, the primary agents involved in giving stabilizing treatment are the doctors and nurses—not insurance companies or employers.  In a circumstance in which stabilizing treatment is immediately required, medical personnel will not halt the provision treatment.  They will not even stop to ask about the insurance of a patient.

With this being the case, the irrational reform-or-die-tomorrow context of discussion should immediately be dropped from the national discourse.  It promotes a lack of critical examination and will lead to the rash implementation of irreversible and crippling regulation.  Do not the president and congress have an awareness of this?  Of course they do.  However, your opportunity to thoughtfully critique their bill is not their goal; the primary objective for them, like Dwight, is the “perk” of the job—more control.  

These subtle shifts of terminology (using “climate change” instead of “global warming”) are very critical for conservatives to recognize.  The left is essentially performing a type of balancing act: coordinate and hold the issue together just enough to pass legislation, but not enough to provide a solid target that can attacked.  In essence, what the democrats have done is to make a “ghost” out of ObamaCare.  It is visible—and very scary—but you cannot really pin it down or hit it.  1,990 pages of legislative language?  In both their elusive speech and the indecipherable legislation, congress and the president have created an issue which conservatives generically attack as “more government control.”  There is, however,a philosophical fallacy to what the left wants.  Americans need to start arguing this issue—with each other—from a position of reason, rather than using language that can quickly become stereotyped.  In-your-face, emotionally-driven argument has its place (such as town halls when your local Blue Dog is visiting), but conservatives need to start addressing the philosophical foundation (or lack thereof) in their writings and discussions with their liberal friends.

America has been given a jigsaw puzzle of a bill.  We have put a few of the pieces together, and we can make some educated guesses about what the bill is about.  Unfortunately, the left is hard at work to make sure no one gets beyond that point.  The big picture will follow in the years ahead.  Of course, by then, there will be no hope for repeal.  The Democrats will have established two new constituencies out of this new system: legalized aliens and the bureaucracies that will be required to manage the bloated system.  Mr. GOP Candidate will not be discussing stripping back a bankrupt system; he would be talking about taking away jobs.  Conservatives need to start dissecting the philosophical carcass of this issue and others before they are forced to think creatively about ways to fire government workers at the Federal Office of Medical Coverage.

Instead of watching as Sean Hannity preaches to the choir, conservatives need to start breaking apart the philosophy of liberalism intelligently.  While the town halls are a hopeful sign, Americans need to become more accustomed to looking at the philosophical underpinnings of our politicians on every issue.  Most importantly, Americans need to change the rules of debate by engaging each other in terms of philosophical principle—not vagaries and screaming “why don’t you believe in freedom?”  Not everyone is William F. Buckley, but we need to expose the unthinking anti-logic of liberalism in our daily lives.  Does my neighbor believe health insurance is a “right,” or just the provision of care?  Why do you believe that my money should be confiscated to provide that “right”?  How far should the protection of that “right” extend?  If you really believe healthcare is a right, can I sue the state for millions of dollars if I get a paper-cut in class and I am not immediately provided with a band-aid?  After all, the proverbial “right” to healthcare is being denied.  Should that “right” be protected (at my expense) even as the proud public-option member stands outside and smokes, IV sticking out of his arm?

Consider the magnitude of the shift.  First, congress wants to spend over one trillion dollars to establish new structures within society and life that demolish choice and the independence of the individual.  In other words, while the president and congress talk about wanting to effectively reduce costs and provide more Americans with insurance, treatment, etc., they insist on first gaining the control—which tells me what this is actually about.