"I'm following Reagan's tradition of expanding Medicaid," will work for other GOP governors who can stop letting poor people die anytime now
— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) January 27, 2015
Say conservatives have their way with Obamacare, and the Supreme Court deals it a death blow or a Republican president repeals it in 2017. Some people who got health insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act may lose it. In which case, liberals like to say, some of Obamacare’s beneficiaries may die…. If these are the stakes, many liberals argue, then ending Obamacare is immoral. Except, it’s not.
Finally, an opinion piece in which a Conservative Republican admits that their agenda is of more value to them than human life. Michael R. Strain, a resident scholar at the arch-Conservative American Enterprise Institute wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post making the argument that health care should fall under the “allocation of scarce resources” argument.
I find it interesting that someone representing the same ideology that decried the alleged “death panels” component of the Affordable Care Act is now OK with the idea of creating the very same thing in the name of “allocating scarce resources.” I suppose it’s easy to do when the lives in question are abstract concepts, in that they belong to people you neither know, love, nor care about. The problem with that argument, of course, is that people are NOT abstract concepts; their lives matter, none worth more than any other other and all worthy of preservation.
Of course, when you live in a world that considers military spending appropriate and essential but government-sponsored health care to be socialism, you’ve just demonstrated your true colors. Strain is comfortable making what might seem a compelling argument for accepting a higher mortality rate in the name of a program that fits within the narrow confines of Conservative ideology. The problem, though, is that people are not expendable, and accepting a higher mortality rate when we spend untold billions on our military is nothing if not unconscionable. One could take this argument as elevating our military over the health care needs of the American people…and one would be on the right track.
In a world of scarce resources, a slightly higher mortality rate is an acceptable price to pay for certain goals — including more cash for other programs, such as those that help the poor; less government coercion and more individual liberty; more health-care choice for consumers, allowing them to find plans that better fit their needs; more money for taxpayers to spend themselves; and less federal health-care spending. This opinion is not immoral. Such choices are inevitable. They are made all the time.
Again, Strain is treating human life as if it was an abstract concept and not something to be valued and preserved above all else- for what is the primary purpose of government but to assist those it governs and protect those operating under diminished circumstances? It’s not to dominate the world. It’s not to bomb a village in Afghanistan from a cozy office at an Air Force base in Nevada. If government doesn’t take protecting the interests and life of those it governs as its prime directive, then what claim does that government have to humanity?
The American government spends an obscene amount of money on our ability to project military power anywhere in the world. It’s no longer about protecting the Homeland; it’s about world domination and ensuring that American businesses continue to have markets for their goods and services. I would argue that our priorities are sorely in need of review; a country that values the ability to export death and destruction over the lives and well-being of its citizens is a country that’s lost its way.
A better discussion, both then and today, is about appropriate social goals and the resources required to meet them. Among the many needed reforms to our health-care system, one should be that we move closer to universal insurance coverage — on this point, the president is correct. But what should universal coverage look like? It requires a nuanced answer.
No, a “nuanced answer” is merely Conservative-speak for how we can get away with spending and doing as little as possible. If we can’t accept that government’s primary responsibility should be the health and well-being of those is governs, then what you have is an entity which sees its primary purpose as protecting the interests of wealthiest and most powerful among us.
There’s no “nuance” required to understand that accepting the idea that we have more than enough money for our military but only “scarce resources” when it comes to providing health care to Americans is unconscionable. I certainly understand that there is and must be a cost-vs.-benefit analysis at some point when it comes to health care, and in that sense there aren’t unlimited resources. That said, people and their health aren’t things that can be boiled down to dispassionate abstract concepts. Not when we throw billions upon billions of dollars at our military.
For some reason, there never seems to be a shortage of money for a new fighter jet or weapons system…but devoting tax dollars to health care is socialism?? “Scarce resources” only seems to be a consideration when health care (or social programs) is the subject. I can think of no greater illustration of the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of modern Conservatism.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
