Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Hey, Opinions Aren't Universal Either...

Funny, right?  I mean, sure – it’s exaggerated to hell and back, but it rang just a little true in its ridiculousness, huh?  But in the end, it’s irrelevant, just another slab of opinions that make up the very identity of what it means to be American.  We all have such opinions, and the right to exercise them is the sole reason that there is a debate over health care and its future in this country.  For if we did not have the ability and right to air our own thoughts, there would be universal health care or there would not be – no debate either way, just what the Washington decided – no opinions means no dissenting opinions.

As I said before, the airing of the opinions is not only at the heart of the health care debate, but of America.  And in the end, each individual opinion is irrelevant – it is what it is, with no true power to sway the debate one way or the other.

With that in mind, and even with the knowledge that in the end it’s irrelevant – here is my opinion on the health debate.  It’s a simple opinion, based on (potentially false) the belief that I have stripped away many of the ideas that splinter through the opinions of others.

My opinion is that universal health care is not only the right thing for this nation, but the responsible one on behalf of our government.

How did I come to that opinion?  Easy enough – I asked myself whether or not, in the beautiful country of America, home of the free and the equal and the dreamers, should the luxury of health be afforded to its citizens.

Oh be sure, health care is not a right.  It is a luxury, as are roads, education, and security, things that are never outed as being luxuries, but imagine the outcry should any of those cease to be offered.  And there is part of a simple argument for universal health care – the notion that “rights” are not necessarily anything but the those held within a person or on a field of morality.  Neither of those things are in the design of functioning government unit, though they are so ingrained now that we believe they are.  Rather, a government is a body that presides over laws, rules, regulations; none of which are rights.

So disconnect the term “right” with “health care” or “roadways” or “education” – none of those things are inalienable rights when held in terms of government.  Morality?  Maybe.  But government makes no claims are morality, nor should it.  And once rights are removed from the government equation, evaluate universal health care.

But we can’t.  In America, rights are the government.  Or, equivalently, rights are what the government decrees as rights.  Why doesn’t this shock the American public?  Because we have indoctrinated in us the idea that America is larger than all other things.  “Rights in other countries are the same as rights in America…we’re better than that.”  And so let’s be better than that with health care!  Let’s make health care the right that it isn’t.  Let’s make it the luxury that truly demonstrates why America is the greatest country in the world.

Moving to the next argument against health care – economics (how the hell are we going to pay for it?)  To this, I say, forget about the money.  We as citizens are 100% fine with our outrageous military spending – spending that is frivolous at best, as money is wasted every single day fighting a meaningless war in Iraq and patrolling the borders.  But it’s our safety people say, as if that budget stopped September 11 from occurring.  Fact is, unless we cut our spending to that of Chile (which I am in no way advocating), the people of this nation will be as safe as possible.  No amount of military spending would repel an initial attack on America if those attackers were truly intent on hitting this nation.

So cut the budget!  Not only can we fund the entire health care plan but slicing the military budget in half, but we could lower overall taxes, pave our roads, and have enough left over to still be the largest military spender by far. Don’t believe me?  Look at some of the facts:

  • US military spending accounts for 48 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total military spending
  • US military spending is more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined
  • US military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
  • US military spending is almost 55 times the spending on the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) whose spending amounts to around $13 billion, maximum. (Tabulated data does not include four of the six, as the data only lists nations that have spent over 1 billion in the year, so their budget is assumed to be $1 billion each)
  • US spending is more than the combined spending of the next 45 countries.
  • The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world’s total.
  • The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together account for about $205 billion or 29% of the US military budget.
[source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending] I am going to rest my version of that case and move onto the next point of contention: the private sector effect. What will capitalism become if the government offers a public option?  How will they compete?  First and foremost, I’m not sold on the idea that competition is the only good thing for public.  Yes, capitalism usually leads to lower costs and better services, but not always.  After all, look at the financial system, run rampart and through and through corrupt.  Or the current insurance industry.  It’s so outrageous that it actually detrimentally affects doctors and patients. But excusing capitalism and its possible shortcomings – isn’t the government the perfect competition?  Think of it as a slightly bigger Wal-Mart.  And while Wal-Mart isn’t the greatest thing around for culture, no one argues about its capitalist nature.  But then the problem comes up that at some level, the government could acutally incur no true costs (thanks to taxes), driving all competition out of business and then not be pushed to offer excellent service.  Valid point.  To combat this, my mind would focus on only one thing – the power of the population.  When did everyone forget that in America, we have a voice!  We can rebel, we can step back and knock down on politicians if we so choose.  So if we are taxed to death in order to provide funding for a fledgelings public option, step up America and do what your forefathers did.  Nobody said that just because things are one way at the present, they should stay that way.  In fact, Americans are built on the foundation that a statement such as that is inherently false. And the final argument against universal health care my mind fostered was the belief that care would suffer, that people would be lined up around a block to see a practitioner or that the level of care itself would be poor.  These fears are pure media propaganda, propaganda that isn’t even promulgated most effectively.  For if this was true, how come the British people or the Canadians or the French speaking out in either their own countries or in this one?  If it were true, every news station would have a Brit on talking about the failures of the health care system.  But can you name the last time this happened?  I cannot.  Rather, we see Americans on the news telling their own terror tales of health care issues and denied procedures.  Remember, the United State of America – the land of opportunity – is the only industrialized nation not to offer health care: If the care in those other countries is so poor, why do we have shorter life expectancy’s? All these arguments for and against universal health care are still irrelevant.  There is only one relevant factor in the discussion: is America willing to forgo the fundamental values it was built open – that it is a land built on being different, being better than the rest of the world – in order to save some money or save some face in an argument?  I hope not. After all, the arguments are opinions.  And we know what those are just like… [note: this article has not been edited]

No comments:

Post a Comment