In Orwell's 1984 the animals begin to mouth a phrase "four legs good, two legs bad." Orwell was parodying the attention to political correctness of the day in places like Nazi Germany and Russia. In one period in China the leaders published a set of phrases of Chairman Mao meant to be memorized and shown in public places. Ditto for the little green book in Libya. In each instance the phrase or the book is meant to be read, memorized and repeated. The real idea is to try to establish a moral high ground and then to quell legitimate debate and discussion.
Yesterday on Facebook a lot of people began to publish the following phrase "No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day." When I saw it appear I was reminded of the little red book. Of course we don't want people to die because they cannot afford health care but does that really have anything to do with the current debate about health care? In any system of care, there will be rationing. And indeed, in the worst examples the decisions will either be made by a government bureaucrat or an insurance one.
Luckily at least some of our population is not attracted to the little red book syndrome. Soon after the first phrase appeared two others did first was this one "No one should dye if they are too old to retain their natural hair color. No one should go broke because they get gray hairs and hair coloring is really expensive. If you agree, please hug the nearest grey-haired or bald person and say, "I am sorry for your loss."
Then someone brought up P.J. O'Rourke who said - "You think health care is expensive now? Just wait til it's free."
What bothers me most about the first phrase is the moral certitude of it. Public policy is about choices and tradeoffs and any policy will involve both. What we should be seeking is not 100% but improvement from the current system. But a lot of the discussion in this debate, especially by those who support the public option, fails to recognize that verity.
Posts
5 comments:
I received the request to change my facebook status yesterday from moveon.org and had a couple of feelings about it, none of them communist.
1) Part of the hope that energized the world about Obama's campaign was the consistency and articulate clarity of message as well as the swell of patriotism and teamwork his supporters felt. For the first time in my adult life, I felt like government was something I could participate in and that I could make a difference on a grassroots level that would trickle up.
2) Facebook is about personal expression, so I'll decide what I post as my status, thank you.
3) Annoyance when I saw the PJ O'Rourke comment posted because that simplifies the argument in the other direction - I have the same frustration with both comments.
It's true that a free system will be expensive, but our current system is unsustainable financially as well. Medicaid is going to run out of money by I believe 2017 and then all you freaking babyboomers are going to be stuck needing medical care and we certainly better plan for an affordable solution. What frustrates me about the conservative argument is that putting your head in the sand about our broken system that needs fixing. Healthcare is expensive. It will be expensive to fix it, it will be expensive to create a free option, and it is currently expensive for both people who have access to it and those who don't.
Defense is expensive too, but there are certain budget items that are basic protections, not luxuries.
I will post something about the comment - "putting your head in the sand about our broken system that needs fixing" - I don't think that is what conservatives are doing. They are analyzing the issues differently and coming to different conclusions.
The quote,"four legs good, two legs bad.", was from Animal Farm also by Orwell. Not from 1984.
The quote,"four legs good, two legs bad.", was from Animal Farm also by Orwell. Not from 1984.
Indeed, thank ANON.
Post a Comment