Photo by Getty Images
It was a historic day in this country just a couple of short weeks ago, when on June 28th, the Supreme Court voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, thereby paving the way to expand health coverage for millions of previously uninsured Americans.
For a moment, let’s put aside the fact that in nearly every other developed nation, this argument is practically nonexistent. That is because nearly every other developed nation understands that not only is universal coverage a basic civil right, but also that governments are morally and civically obligated to ensure the health and well-being of all their citizens.
But here in the United States, in the absence of near-universal health care, whatever coverage a person receives (if any) is almost solely dependent on that person’s socioeconomic class.
We are then left to examine all of the leftover rhetoric that has dominated popular discourse since the court’s decision. And what we find is both baffling and disheartening.
Increased moral and racial panic: The demographics of this country are rapidly changing as the population of the Latino community grows. Many Latinos in this country are mired in systemic poverty and, hence, stand to gain considerably from expanded healthcare coverage – much to the chagrin of many who insist that expanded coverage “rewards these lazy folk.”
Such moral panic should not come as a surprise. Recall that the domestic programs of the New Deal were once seen as bastions of American greatness – that is, until these programs were expanded in the 1960s under the Great Society, when (coupled with the Civil Rights Act of 1964) Latinos and African Americans were granted greater access. Suddenly, within a matter of a decade, these programs became reframed in popular discourse as “entitlement programs” that supposedly “lazy” blacks and Latinos took advantage of.
The “no one works harder than me” argument: We have heard it used many times by those who are fond of disparaging the poor and less fortunate. These folks firmly believe that they are amongst the elite few who work hard and earn their benefits, and that expanded coverage will reward everyone else who is simply lazy and makes bad decisions. Their own egocentrism will not allow them to perceive the world beyond such dichotomies, nor allow them to understand that those who are less fortunate carry burdens that are almost unimaginable to those who are privileged with good health.
Government employees who are against “big-government healthcare”: The sheer idiocy of this camp of individuals is mind-boggling. Keep in mind that this camp includes every single congressperson who is against such coverage, given that all of them – every single one of them – is automatically eligible to receive quality health insurance paid for by their scary big-government employer. Their political rhetoric can almost be excused as mere pandering. But when the line of reasoning comes from police officers, firefighters, postal workers, military personnel, etc., I cannot fathom the amount of cognitive dissonance that results.
My point is fairly simple. When you strip away all of the rhetoric from the past two weeks, you are left with one mantra coming from these folks: “My healthcare is non-negotiable, but your healthcare is expendable.” If this sounds ridiculous to many of you, that is because it should.
History will remember these attempts at finding a civic and moral justification for selfishness as asinine and insidious.
About Nick Baez
Well said!
i am not a national piggybank for Obama
Nic is a collectivist. Which leads him, and others like him, to believe that if government doesn’t perform a service it will not get done. Ignore the morally deficient and arrogant attitude that far and away bureaucratics can do better. Look at the history of government run anything. They’re ALL bankrupt. If the government was a person and came at you for a job, would you hire him based on his resume?
Thanks for making the insurance company even richer, and mandating everyone to buy health insurance is not the answer.
After reading this article it seems that regardless of what valid points I can make against the Affordable Health Care Act it will be labeled as a “futile attempt to justify selfishness” however I will try to use reason so that you can see beyond labels.
All arguments for this act assume that government does anything for OUR best interests. You have to understand that both corporations and government have been complicit in shaping our country into what we have today. They are both just as guilty. Neither has an obligation to morality nor a soul. To expect any corporation or government to “take care of people” is not only ludicrous but immoral because in the end you are just a 9 digit number.
First of all this “tax” does not provide someone with insurance so it does nothing but help the government take money from you and still leave you uninsured. So how exactly does this help the average middle class person? I have seen many good people suffering to have shelter and food because of temporary economic distress. Unfortunately paying for medical insurance becomes secondary when needing to make sure food and shelter are available.
With regards to this health care bill you must realize that there are only two outcomes to the consequences of this act. This benefits the insurance companies in the short run because it forces everyone to purchase insurance, thus helping their profits. The other is that as health insurance becomes more expensive that we will all be on a gov’t Medicaid type plan, which means get ready to wait for benefits due to government bureaucracy and government telling you how to live since they are now responsible for your health. The next step will be government mandates on how much sugar, caffeine, alcohol, cigarettes, etc. you can have per day all in an effort to save taxpayer dollars. Is this what you really want?
The inevitability of this is that the cost of private insurance will be too high and most will end up with government insurance. You have to realize that government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from someone else…government produces nothing. If you take a look at our political process corporations and government have for a long time colluded to create laws such as this one to protect the company’s profits who’s lobbyists helped draft the bill and allow the government to gain more power over our lives.
Currently with managed care, the insurance premiums will increase since you use it for every visit. The interesting thing here is why do we need a middle man (insurance companies) involved in our heath care at all? Why is an insurance company dictating to you what your medical procedure should be? Since we now use health insurance to process every medical need (small and big) you now see no more are there physician/patient relationships because of insurance. Shouldn’t your doctor and you be able to make the best choice on your health care? Gov’t insurance would be no better mainly because they have no reason to be efficient, they will just tax you more. This “game” we are in has been fixed by many of the meetings our Washington officials have met with special interests in keeping us under control and consuming.
I have noticed that every bill of this nature always is sold with these great intentions but in the end it causes more problems because you can’t expect government to be the solution…they will always fail. Government has done this with all industries they touch. Let’s consider the housing bubble, education and finance. As much as we like to consider that Medicare is well run it is unsustainable just as is social security. Remember government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from someone else and eventually the slice of the pie will get smaller for everyone until there is a point that there is practically nothing left. This is mathematically inevitable…you only have one pie and once you spread the pieces around you will have to make small pieces for everyone practically leaving everyone “hungry for more” since the piece they received was too small.
Lastly I don’t want any corporation or government to tell me how I need to spend my money, even for something like health care. That is my choice as it should be for everyone. It should be a choice. Isn’t that what freedom is all about? Being able to make our OWN choices? Just because I am against this bill it does not automatically make me selfish because I know our gov’t track record and believe in freedom of choice. How can anyone who is pro-choice all of a sudden be against anyone who opposes a gov’t mandate which is force. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion, having our government use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous laziness. You be the change. We are the change that is needed. The latino community means us, not our gov’t.
In the end….all this because we accept to live in a system where money has more value than people. I implore you to find out about your government and the Federal Reserve. Funny thing is this bill does nothing to really contain costs because you still have something the Federal Reserve loves to call inflation. This mystical force created by the Federal Reserve will always make you pay more for goods and services with each passing year. How much was a car when you were born compared to now? How much was a gallon of gas 20 years ago? How much was the average education? Food? Rent? From what I see all these goods and services haven’t really changed mush to warrant the increase in prices. Sadly many people do not realize that this monetary system will systematically lower the value of the money you have every year until all wealth is transfer from us the people. We live in tyranny run by government and corporatism. We have unconstitutional wars still continued by the current president, massive bailouts to corporations and paid off politicians in both political parties. Both parties want war to secure more resources, plain and simple regardless of party (the democrats hide it better). We cannot expect to have the government provide a solution when they are part of the problem.
Deloitte Center for Health Solutions conducted a survey of 501 practicing physicians.
Here is what they said of the unintended consequences of Obamacare:
Increase demand for medical care.
Fewer Doctors because of lower pay.
Regulations will burden the doctors that do work.
Care will be restricted.
Fewer hospitals.
Waiting times at ERs will grow.
Increasingly harder to get appointments.
Nurse practitioners and para-medical providers will be taking over a lot of your health.
Best and brightest will avoid medical profession.
Older doctors more likely to retire than deal with regulations.
41% of doctors will stop taking medicare patients altogether.
This matches other studies. For example, Fairfield County Medical Association, said that they estimated 41% of doctors would stop taking new medicare patients.
ObamaCare, if it is enacted in all of its grotesque manifestations, will guarantee higher health care costs (direct and indirect), reduce incentives for physicians to practice medicine, reduce the supply of health care services, and increase the demand for that dwindling supply. None of it makes financial sense, either, as it is not driven by market incentives (profits) but by political expediency and social policy. The best thing that can be said about ObamaCare, if implemented, is that it won’t last long. Using the politically correct term, ObamaCare won’t be “sustainable.” In the meantime, don’t get sick. (source)
First of all, I thank those of you who took the time to read the article. I will briefly say that I blocked Kev Sa a long time ago. He is fond of accusing the staff of Being Latino of being “collectivists” and Maxists, but he fails to mention that he has been employed by the military. So his entire livelihood, benefits, and paychecks have come from the very “big scary govt” he is so fond of criticizing. As for Jerry: I was optimistic about your statement, until it became apparent that it was just another regurgitation of talking points that seemed copied-and-pasted from a Ron Paul/Rand Paul website. I’m sure you have used a road, gone to a public school, used a hospital, used emergency services, taken educational credits, etc. Yet, you had no problem doing so. But still, in your egocentric mind, there is absolutely no redeeming quality to any form of “government.” In your egocentric mind, not only did you get where you are “on your own free will,” but you firmly believe that you have never benefitted from ANYTHING that came from “government.” And herein lies the crux of my argument in the article. You see, when you peel away at the rhetoric and talking points, one thing is certain from those who are fond of lamenting big scary gov’t: you are really not interested in “small government” at all. What you are really interested in is “government a-la-carte.” In other words, government is just fine as long as it directly serves your own personal interests. Once government starts to serve the needs of others who are not you, then all of a sudden that government is “collectivist, socialist, big, scary, taking our resources, telling us how to live…” etc. And this is the very point I attempt to make in this article. If more people were really against the Affordable Care Act for logical reasons, they would be instead demanding a single-payer system…a sort of “Universal Medicare” system that is employed by other developed nations. But that is not the dominant discourse. Instead, we see these attempts to justify this mystical “rugged individualism,” “every man for himself” mantra.
@mario. Obamacare is not ment to be sustainable. It is a stop-gap until about 2015 when the penalties in the law become so high that there will have to be single payer system.
There are many people who work very hard without health insurance. Everyone should be able to benefit from health insurance as long as they’re willing and able to work.