Health Care Debate

There are a lot of problems with our system of health insurance. There are also many complexities. But, at bottom, the health insurance problem in the United States can be reduced to three very simple propositions.

1. Millions of people in this country are too poor, or too sick, or too old, to afford health insurance at the rate that insurance companies would charge them for a policy on the free market.

2. We would all be better off, in numerous ways that I won't list - others have listed the benefits ad nauseam - if everyone had a health insurance plan that provided ample coverage, at a price they could afford.

3. The only way to accomplish this is to convince or force those of us who are rich enough and/or healthy enough to afford health insurance for ourselves and our families, to pay the premiums of those who can't afford them.

No. 3, in a nutshell, is what Democratic politicians are trying to pull off. They are asking, or seeking to compel, young, healthy and wealthy people (including the insurance companies themselves), to chip in more than they currently do - either through additional taxes to finance subsidies for poor families, or through mandates that force young people to purchase insurance coverage that they are less likely to need, and thus to want, or through regulation that forces insurance companies to insure individuals at rates not reflecting their true risk, or through all of these measures in combination - in order to pay the premiums of those of us who are too poor, or too sick, or too old to afford them.

Other things are happening in the Health Care bill. But that is its essence. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke.

There are lots of interesting questions regarding this effort. But, from the perspective of a political philosopher, the most interesting question is whether this is a legitimate exercise of the government's coercive power?

I'll comment on that question later, but I'd love to hear what others think.

Joe H.

Islands of Madness - Update

A psychologist friend of mine once told me about a syndrome that they refer to as "Islands of Madness." This moniker refers to individuals who can reason and assess evidence perfectly well about almost all issues and topics, but who are completely unable to do so about particular topics.

Here is a great (but terrifying) example of this phenomenon. One fear is of mine is that the increasing ability of people to self-select their fact sources is going to exponentially magnify this problem.

If you think this is no big deal, remember Timothy McVeigh. And don't think for one second that this phenomenon is limited to the political right - left-wing utopias killed over 100 million people in the 20th century.

Joe H.

Update: This piece by Andrew Sullivan provides another take on the political insanity of Christians with regards to Sarah Palin and Barack Obama - I found it to be a convincing explanation.

Down With The People?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "down with the people," but this article by Jacob Weisburg accurately identifies one of the core problems of American democracy - us!

The real danger is not that we are too stupid to govern ourselves (although we may be too ignorant). The real danger is that we are becoming collectively delusionial.

Joe H.

Compartmentalism

I too am amazed at the ability of the authoritarian mind to compartmentalize. But This is way over the top. . This level of mental jui jitsu has got to soak up enormous psychological energy.

Then again, millions of people believe Sarah Palin is presidential material.

Joe H.

Eminently Sensible

This line of argument regarding the unintended consequences of portraying terrorists as "warriors" seems eminently sensible to me. Am I just hopelessly opposed to everything, to every expressed view, that modern conservative leaders offer - or are they really as misguided as they seem?

To be honest, I don't think they are misguided. I think they are nihilists who will say (and possibly do) almost anything to regain power.

Want to convince me otherwise - explain how Paul Waldman's argument is wrong.

Joe H.

Mind Numbingly Stupid?

Conservative economist and author Bruce Bartlett summed up the results of this recent DailyKos/Research 2000 poll as follows

"I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid."

The results of this poll are somewhat alarming, but they have little to do with stupidity. They, instead, have everything to do with blind loyality to a team, or an ideology, or both! They are also the product of an intentionally cultivated fanatical willingness to believe (or at least entertain - notice the extremely high percentage of "don't knows") any claim that supports "the cause."

"Intentionally cultivated fanatical willingness to believe any claim that supports the cause." That sounds like American Evangelical Christianity to me.

Joe H

A Humourous and Self Depricating Reductio ad Absurdum.

"At the Republican caucus, they held up -- they said, we've got a plan; it's going to provide everybody coverage at no cost. And I said, well, if that were true, why wouldn't I take it? My wife Michelle thinks I'm stubborn sometimes, but I'm not that stubborn. Okay, let me think. I could have everybody get health care coverage that's high quality. And it's free, which I'll bet is really popular. But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to go through the pain of really working through this hard process in Congress, getting yelled at and called a socialist, because I just -- that's how I roll. I'm a glutton for punishment." (Laughter.)

Barack Obama, yesterday.

So that's how you highlight an absurdity - you perform a humorous and self deprecating reductio ad absurdum.

Sort of like "where are those weapons of mass destruction, anyway? I thought I put them under the desk? Oh well, I'll find them later."

Wait a minute, that president wasn't offering a reductio ad absurdum . He was instead the living absurdum result of the proposition that "our political process is fabulous." Moreover, that president wasn't mocking a false assertion and its deceitful proponents. He was dismissing legitimate criticism of himself and his decision to inflate the available intelligence so as to convince the country to support an ill conceived war.

My Bad. Never mind.

Anyway, let's try doing a simple reductio boys and girls - no need for self deprecation at this point in our training. Let's just respond in reduction to Focus on the Family and the Family Research Center, both of whom insist that "being gay is a lifestyle choice."

Joe