Might a conservative argument exist in favor of a single-payer health insurance system? Yes, it’s a stretch, but our system is clearly failing many businesses and individuals, and taking such a sweeping reform off the table leaves us merely tweaking around the edges. The result is an ever more costly and complex problem that will only worsen as our population ages. A single-payer system might be the greatest boondoggle in the storied history of government boondoggle-ry, but the issue is too critical to too many not to consider every option.
So why might conservatives support a single payer system? For one, health costs are crippling our global competitiveness. Domestic automakers spend more on health insurance than they do for steel. Disputes over coverage have led to costly strikes and work stoppages in numerous industries. And finally, the cost of caring for the uninsured is built into healthcare prices, which are passed on to business in the form of higher premiums.
The problem is even worse for small business, the conservatives’ darling of economic growth. With limited ability to pool risk – and insurance companies cherry-picking low risk firms away from groups when small businesses do unite to form larger risk pools – a single unhealthy employee or family member can drive premiums up by tens of thousands of dollars (My premiums once increased $24,000/year thanks to the condition of one employee’s spouse). Furthermore, the fear of going without health insurance is one of the risks that prevent people from pursuing businesses of their own, driving yet another stake through America’s entrepreneurial heart.
One reason conservatives rightfully endorse free markets is that they are extremely adept at wringing out bureaucracy and inefficiency. But our current system does neither. Instead, it adds redundant sales and underwriting overhead, confusing billing practices that increase administrative costs for doctors and hospitals, and absorbs a not insignificant portion of our healthcare dollars in profits and executive salaries. Not that those are bad things, but when healthcare dollars are at a premium, we should be looking to maximize our bang for the buck – an elementary conservative tenet.
Philosophically, even limited government advocates such as yours truly would agree that some needs are so vital that a degree of government inefficiency is tolerable in exchange for universal availability. Highways, schools and mail service come to mind. Granted, none of these are perfect, but if left to free enterprise, we’d surely see large gaps in service, much like we see today with health insurance.
Finally, no one is safe from the expense of unforeseen medical bills. A 2005 Harvard University study showed that half of all bankruptcies were due to medical bills, though three of four filers had health insurance. We’re all at risk.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue, but a human one. I’d be the first to argue that healthcare is not a right, but I’m far less prepared to argue it’s not a responsibility – one that we owe to ourselves and each other. Let’s not dismiss any solution.
6/27/2008
Burning Flags and Flying Bullets
Did anyone else notice the irony in the reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that struck down Washington, D.C.’s 32-year-old gun ban? George W. Bush, John McCain and Orrin Hatch, among others, lauded the Court’s decision as a landmark victory for a basic American right. Nothing surprising in that. But these same people have spent nearly twenty years decrying and seeking to overturn another landmark decision upholding a basic American right – the right to free speech.
The court’s gun ruling came nearly nineteen years to the day after it ruled that flag-desecration was protected speech under the First Amendment. That earlier ruling did not evoke the howls of joy we’ve seen these past few days. Instead, it led to numerous attempts to legally and legislatively bypass a decision some saw as a trampling of our sensibilities. (In another irony, the court seems to like to announce these decisions just prior to the 4th of July, where we can reflect on our newly-affirmed liberty by flying flags and sending untold tons of flaming gunpowder screaming into the sky, but I digress).
What I’d like to know is why the fear of burning flags, but not flying bullets? Clearly, the statistics since the court’s 1989 flag ruling paint a pretty stark picture. U.S. gun-related deaths: 567,020 (CDC numbers through 2005). Flag burning-related deaths: 0. To put those numbers into perspective, that’s about 138 private citizens killed for every U.S. soldier killed thus far in Iraq. In fact, it’s almost 150,000 more than we lost in all of WWII. Whatever one's view on guns, it's hard to argue that they don't pose a more immediate threat to one's personal safety than a burning flag.
I’d like to think the dichotomy of opinion arises from an understanding that the power of ideas, however repulsive, is greater than the power of brute force and therefore, more in need of suppression. Unfortunately, I think it’s just the opposite. The argument in favor of permitting undesirable speech requires an intellectually nuanced consideration that the argument in favor of guns does not. It’s a lot easier to understand the power of a gun.
That lack of nuance can manifest itself in self-destructive ways. It’s been said that when your only tool is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. Likewise, when your only weapon is a gun, every adversary becomes a target. We see it on the streets of our cities and in the halls of power. Instead of turning to violence only as a last resort, we seek the preemptive strike. Kids are shot down because they make the mistake of riding their bike into the wrong neighborhood. Bombs are launched in order to “get them before they get us” – even when we’re not quite sure they’re really trying to get us.
I’ve always subscribed to the adage that the pen is mightier than the sword, which is why the pen has always been my weapon of choice. Unfortunately, it appears the sword is not only easier to use, but easier to protect.
The court’s gun ruling came nearly nineteen years to the day after it ruled that flag-desecration was protected speech under the First Amendment. That earlier ruling did not evoke the howls of joy we’ve seen these past few days. Instead, it led to numerous attempts to legally and legislatively bypass a decision some saw as a trampling of our sensibilities. (In another irony, the court seems to like to announce these decisions just prior to the 4th of July, where we can reflect on our newly-affirmed liberty by flying flags and sending untold tons of flaming gunpowder screaming into the sky, but I digress).
What I’d like to know is why the fear of burning flags, but not flying bullets? Clearly, the statistics since the court’s 1989 flag ruling paint a pretty stark picture. U.S. gun-related deaths: 567,020 (CDC numbers through 2005). Flag burning-related deaths: 0. To put those numbers into perspective, that’s about 138 private citizens killed for every U.S. soldier killed thus far in Iraq. In fact, it’s almost 150,000 more than we lost in all of WWII. Whatever one's view on guns, it's hard to argue that they don't pose a more immediate threat to one's personal safety than a burning flag.
I’d like to think the dichotomy of opinion arises from an understanding that the power of ideas, however repulsive, is greater than the power of brute force and therefore, more in need of suppression. Unfortunately, I think it’s just the opposite. The argument in favor of permitting undesirable speech requires an intellectually nuanced consideration that the argument in favor of guns does not. It’s a lot easier to understand the power of a gun.
That lack of nuance can manifest itself in self-destructive ways. It’s been said that when your only tool is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. Likewise, when your only weapon is a gun, every adversary becomes a target. We see it on the streets of our cities and in the halls of power. Instead of turning to violence only as a last resort, we seek the preemptive strike. Kids are shot down because they make the mistake of riding their bike into the wrong neighborhood. Bombs are launched in order to “get them before they get us” – even when we’re not quite sure they’re really trying to get us.
I’ve always subscribed to the adage that the pen is mightier than the sword, which is why the pen has always been my weapon of choice. Unfortunately, it appears the sword is not only easier to use, but easier to protect.
6/15/2008
When Yes Means No
Whatever happened to common sense? Michael McKinney, a former teacher at Arlington Heights Academy outside of Cincinnati, recently pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition for having a sexual relationship with a student last year. Under the plea agreement, he faces up to twelve months in jail and will be required to register as a sex offender for the next fifteen years. Under normal circumstances, I’d say he deserves all he gets. But these aren’t normal circumstances, and to be quite honest, I’m not sure where to begin.
First and foremost, this was not a case of having an affair with a fifteen, sixteen or even seventeen year-old student. The woman was eighteen, old enough to enlist in the armed forces and serve in Iraq if she so chose. But apparently not old enough to choose to be intimate with a fellow adult. Furthermore, she no longer attended the school, having begun classes at Cincinnati State University after accumulating enough credits to graduate from high school. She was only classified as a student because the rest of her class had not yet graduated and therefore, her name remained on the school enrollment – unbeknownst to both parties. Nor had she ever been a student in one of McKinney’s classes. Finally, the woman claimed the affair was consensual and had no desire to see McKinney prosecuted.
So what we have is a young man (McKinney was twenty-five at the time) having a relationship with an adult college student. Had the woman attended any high school other than Arlington Heights, there would be no crime. But because she once attended the same school where McKinney taught, he now faces the future as a convicted felon and sex offender.
Now, the first question that comes to mind is what purpose the sex offender registry is meant to serve. As the father of a pre-teen girl, I have every incentive to make sure my daughter is safe from the creeps who prey on women against their wishes and children under any circumstance. But when the list becomes populated with people such as McKinney it risks becoming as pointless and disregarded as the warnings that tell us our coffee is hot.
The second question is what this case says about our perception of women. Are we not saying that an adult woman is incapable of making an informed decision regarding the relationships she may have? It seems reminiscent of the kept woman culture of days gone by, where women were thought weak and in need of protection from their own impulses.
Katie Pridemore, the assistant prosecutor pursuing the case, argued that we must keep an eye on anyone who preys on those in a subordinate position. That is a broad and dangerous definition, especially in light of this case. Perhaps what we really need is protection from overzealous prosecutors who prey on headline-grabbing cases, with no regard for the lives they damage in the process.
First and foremost, this was not a case of having an affair with a fifteen, sixteen or even seventeen year-old student. The woman was eighteen, old enough to enlist in the armed forces and serve in Iraq if she so chose. But apparently not old enough to choose to be intimate with a fellow adult. Furthermore, she no longer attended the school, having begun classes at Cincinnati State University after accumulating enough credits to graduate from high school. She was only classified as a student because the rest of her class had not yet graduated and therefore, her name remained on the school enrollment – unbeknownst to both parties. Nor had she ever been a student in one of McKinney’s classes. Finally, the woman claimed the affair was consensual and had no desire to see McKinney prosecuted.
So what we have is a young man (McKinney was twenty-five at the time) having a relationship with an adult college student. Had the woman attended any high school other than Arlington Heights, there would be no crime. But because she once attended the same school where McKinney taught, he now faces the future as a convicted felon and sex offender.
Now, the first question that comes to mind is what purpose the sex offender registry is meant to serve. As the father of a pre-teen girl, I have every incentive to make sure my daughter is safe from the creeps who prey on women against their wishes and children under any circumstance. But when the list becomes populated with people such as McKinney it risks becoming as pointless and disregarded as the warnings that tell us our coffee is hot.
The second question is what this case says about our perception of women. Are we not saying that an adult woman is incapable of making an informed decision regarding the relationships she may have? It seems reminiscent of the kept woman culture of days gone by, where women were thought weak and in need of protection from their own impulses.
Katie Pridemore, the assistant prosecutor pursuing the case, argued that we must keep an eye on anyone who preys on those in a subordinate position. That is a broad and dangerous definition, especially in light of this case. Perhaps what we really need is protection from overzealous prosecutors who prey on headline-grabbing cases, with no regard for the lives they damage in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)