Recently, while glancing through news headlines in attempts to educate myself of current world affairs, I stumbled on a news article which caught my interest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090412/ap_on_he_me/uninsured;_ylt=AvQwGRA3ii14by270b35bAes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJicWs5cjJmBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNDEyL3VuaW5zdXJlZARjcG9zAzgEcG9zAzE0BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2FtZXJpY2FzdW5pbg--
In a nutshell, the article raised an interesting fact: uninsured Americans comprise one of the largest (if not the largest known) demographic group in the US. An approximated 50 million Americans do not have health coverage.
Clearly, with political support of 50 million+, much can be done in addressing concerns of the group. However, as most know by now, the issue has not picked up momentum. And the reason was clear: the constituency is politically apathetic.
One may further question why this is the case. Why do uninsured Americans not vote, at least with respect to their issue? Among some reasons given were the following:
1)Lack of time. Many uninsured Americans comprise of demographics that simply try to “make ends meet”
2)Continual recycling. The average uninsured American remains uninsured for 4 months. Therefore, commitment to the concerns of the demographic group may not develop in time for many uninsured individuals in the length of time which the average member is uninsured.
What follows from a weak to non-existent political constituency is a lack of legislative support. Surely, if a legislator will not gain any political patronage, recognition, or reward for trying to help a group, then why would he or she even try to support that group at all? One answer: because it's the morally correct thing to do. However, reality has it that any elected political position is subject to Darwinian laws. Any elected official would simply be frustrating his or her ends and means by supporting something which will not necessarily help his or her candidacy.
Let us now try and analyze these facts at our disposal. Consider uninsured Americans an entity to itself, call them UA. Most or all ethicists will agree that any entity is responsible for its own actions, whether or not they commit themselves to acting a certain way. I would be the one held responsible for choosing whether to study for an exam I have next week, just as I would be held responsible for choosing not to prepare. An account of moral responsibility stretches beyond individual people. An organization would be held responsible for throwing an event, or not throwing the same event.
Similarly, UA would be held morally responsible (given that they have the choice offered by the kind courtesy of our democratic system) as to whether or not to vote to support a healthcare bill. Evidence has it that they choose not to. Therefore, we can validly conclude that, for one reason or another, UA finds it more beneficial to not support a healthcare bill than to support one – in accordance with rationality.
Now here is my postulate (which I'm sure will naturally spark some controversy): does this not suggest that our current private healthcare system suffices to the needs of the public?
I'm most certainly catching the bait by responding this way, but nevertheless, it is clear that this demographic, for one reason or another, cannot unite in its mission.
ReplyDeleteHowever, just because the UA doesn't vote does not mean that our healthcare system suffices to the needs of its public.
I don't know if I would agree that UA doesn't have serious political support. Senator Ted Kennedy is considered to be the leader in bettering health care in this country and, along with countless other elected officials, have, over the past years, done a great deal to dramatically increase the funding to health care.
ReplyDeleteI will say that I think a private model for health care is the only way it is going to work. In the end we all know that private business does almost anything better then the government and cheaper too. I think that the federal government should adopt Massachusetts universal health care plan, as presented by Senator Kennedy and Former Governor Mitt Romney, and require that all business provide health care for all their employees. For in between times, the government provides COBRA and other temporary solutions for health care coverage.
If you want to talk about fixing our health care system you should talk about ending the tyrannical rule the American Medical Association has over medical schools and get more doctors out their, resulting in lower costs.
You bring up an interesting point and I like the logical way you have laid out the issue. However, I don't think that the apathy of the UA means that our current system is necessarily the best system for all. Perhaps the UA are the risk-takers of the country- the ones who believe they will never get hurt or need health care, or at least for the 4 months they are out of work. Health care reform is one of the most complicated issues our country is facing today because of the endless amounts of parties and groups that have a stake in the matter. It is also a tricky combination of ethics and business or economics. I mean if we are technically following what is best for the economy and a free market, the only medical services provided should be the ones that the receiver can pay the market price for, right? Once we bring the concern of ethics and what is right and not right into play it is a whole different ball game.
ReplyDeleteYou make several assumptions that I don't think are supported nor warranted. This assumed group you called the UA, simply doesn't exist. Yes, there is a large group of uninsured Americans; no, they do not see themselves as one voting block. I find your conclusion rash and more than a little classist/elitest. Those without insurance have larger things to think about: food, shelter-i.e. the basics. Perhaps worries over tax increases or any other number of factors would influence their voting trends. Additionally, without sufficient evidence, any reasonable person would not take for granted the unsupported ideas and conclusions you present. Try being poor, and tell me if the first thing you consider is health insurance. I assure you that trying to simply get ahead would be your first concern.
ReplyDeleteLet me present the argument formally, so that way all those who want to object, can do so reasonably. Once again, remember a formalized argument can be, for the most part, an approximation of facts as it is an oversimplification of a sort that allows you to pick out premises individually to question.
ReplyDeleteFormalized Argument
Premise 1: Any issue may be deemed insufficient by the public to their needs only if overwhelming political support to enact the contrary is initiated.
Premise 2: At time t1 (say Y2009), there has been no overwhelming support to overturn current healthcare practices at a national level.
Conclusion: Therefore, at time t1, the healthcare issue may be deemed sufficient by the public to their needs.
The formalized argument above is a dual-transitive/contraposition and is deemed inferentially valid (meaning the conclusion validly follows from the 2 premises). Therefore refuting on grounds of invalidity will be a wasteful process.
As far as questioning each premise individually, that is something that must be done on a case by case basis, and where my opponents will find their efforts most fruitful.
Miliate: no assumptions were made. An assumption, by definition is a suppressed premise, and I believe I laid everything out clearly. Furthermore, the existence of UA makes them, by default, a demographic group. If you mean to say that UA has no united support for its network, you may have failed to notice the trend I cited above, namely the average UA's 4 months of uninsurance. This can be attributed strictly to frictional unemployment or career restructuring which is not necessarily a result of poverty. Please do read the entire passage carefully and critically before making comments on points already addressed.
Annie: 'Perhaps the UA are the risk-takers of the country'
This is true, but nevertheless it was their choice to not get insurance, and not vote on universal coverage of any sort. This apathy or ignorance does not constitute an excuse for change (or a lack thereof) in our healthcare system. Additionally, I NEVER mentioned that this is the BEST healthcare system, as you attributed to my writing. I simply said it must be sufficient in the eyes of the public up until this point.
Newborn: You'd be questioning my 2nd premise, which comes into factual contradiction with the article I pulled up. You may or may not be correct in your assessment that such and such legislators are working to advance our healthcare system. However, as can be seen so far, not much has been officially enacted. Therefore, up until 2009, both my 2nd premise and conclusion still hold true.
As for a private model, that is out of the scope of my argument. I appreciate your willingness to add additional flavor to the issue, however.
Silva: 'just because the UA doesn't vote does not mean that our healthcare system suffices to the needs of its public.' I take this as questioning the soundness of both premises 1 and 2. But why don't you answer this question: if something bothered you urgently enough, would you not make it a point to make a difference about it given that you have a choice (especially something as urgent as your health and well-being)?
If you do not make it a point to make a difference (given that you have a choice), then you are implicitly accepting those circumstances you were handed as adequate - in accordance with rationality.
Similarly, any appeals to irrationality, as I mentioned above in my addressing Annie's argument will do little against the arguments, as all adult Americans over the age of 18 are deemed citizens responsible for their own actions.
Now what I additionally think almost all of you failed to notice is that I am arguing retrospectively, meaning I argued that up until this point (2009) this has been the case. However, it is 100% consistent with my underlying principle that a mass movement to reform healthcare will deem our current system inadequate from the eyes of the public. But so long as nothing is done about the issue, these actions of apathy and ignorance can and WILL imply that people are content with their given situation.