In the midst of all of the fallout over Obama's healthcare reform package I've been somewhat confused over the incredible backlash. Admittedly, I do not and have never lived in America and I also don't know all of the details, but as far as it seems to me this is a good move. Something like another 300 million people who were previously unable to will now gain healthcare. While I'm not sure about all of the arguments, from where I stand they appear to boil down to these 300 million people not being worth the same as everyone else. I may be mistaken, but the Declaration of Independence which America is built upon says point blank that all men are created equal. As far as I can figure out, this argument is backing down on that.
Where I have been most confused about this particular development is the backlash in Christian circles. When you look at the Early Christian church, they looked after one another. Example, Acts 4: 34-35 "There were no needy persons among then. From time to time those who owned lands or fields sold then, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need' The early church was built upon the same principle that is being generally hated among America - a country where 79% call themselves Christian and 58% say that religion plays an important role in their lives.
Additionally, there are an estimated 45,000 deaths every year that were linked to not having health insurance. 45,000, some quick maths lets me know that this is a number roughly 1 and a 1/2 times the population of my home town. So every 2 years, my home town is completely replaced 3 times. Now for a country that prides itself on being in the forefront of medical technology that is moderately un-good.
Some more numbers then. The US already spends a higher percentage of GDP and more money per capita on health care and yet, the world health organisation still places the US health system 37th in the world. The infant mortality rate is behind all of western Europe (which all has public or socialised health care). The Life expectancy is also a year shorter than the European figure. Additionally over the last 20 odd years, the US has fallen from 11th to 42nd on the list of life expectancy.
Final number then. The US is the only developed country that doesn't have universal health care.
The only almost legitimate argument that I can think of is the argument that says that this is a foot in the door for a socialist take over of the US. I don't know why, but the US seems to see itself as the last bastion against the evils of 'non-capitalism'. To achieve this end, anything that is remotely publicly funded must be hated, abandoned and destroyed. (A bit of a disclaimer, this is just the way that I read it, I could well be very wrong). The problem with this is two fold. Firstly, this is not the way it works. Australia (which does have universal health care) is as much capitalist as the US. Secondly, there are greater evils than socialism.
Just a note, the next post will be an April Fools thing - enjoy it.
Where I have been most confused about this particular development is the backlash in Christian circles. When you look at the Early Christian church, they looked after one another. Example, Acts 4: 34-35 "There were no needy persons among then. From time to time those who owned lands or fields sold then, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need' The early church was built upon the same principle that is being generally hated among America - a country where 79% call themselves Christian and 58% say that religion plays an important role in their lives.
Additionally, there are an estimated 45,000 deaths every year that were linked to not having health insurance. 45,000, some quick maths lets me know that this is a number roughly 1 and a 1/2 times the population of my home town. So every 2 years, my home town is completely replaced 3 times. Now for a country that prides itself on being in the forefront of medical technology that is moderately un-good.
Some more numbers then. The US already spends a higher percentage of GDP and more money per capita on health care and yet, the world health organisation still places the US health system 37th in the world. The infant mortality rate is behind all of western Europe (which all has public or socialised health care). The Life expectancy is also a year shorter than the European figure. Additionally over the last 20 odd years, the US has fallen from 11th to 42nd on the list of life expectancy.
Final number then. The US is the only developed country that doesn't have universal health care.
The only almost legitimate argument that I can think of is the argument that says that this is a foot in the door for a socialist take over of the US. I don't know why, but the US seems to see itself as the last bastion against the evils of 'non-capitalism'. To achieve this end, anything that is remotely publicly funded must be hated, abandoned and destroyed. (A bit of a disclaimer, this is just the way that I read it, I could well be very wrong). The problem with this is two fold. Firstly, this is not the way it works. Australia (which does have universal health care) is as much capitalist as the US. Secondly, there are greater evils than socialism.
Just a note, the next post will be an April Fools thing - enjoy it.
I would need to do some research on it, but you brought up some great points, particularly the one about the early Christian church.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading a book called "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis. He's talking about how in America, the right wing claims to own God, and the left wing completely ignores religion. Wallis is saying that instead, Christianity should be independent of either political party, and then be able to speak out when either party fails to uphold morality, the poor, the sick etc. Good book.
One argument I've heard is that Obamacare funds abortions, and Obamacare is funded by taxes, so you are funding abortions even if you believe they are murder.
If America's healthcare system is so bad, how much better would it get if you put everybody on it? Obviously we want everybody we can on healthcare, but it would need to be good healthcare...
I look forwards to the April's fools post!
Josh
I'll answer the second question first. If it isn't all that good how can it be better by simply getting more access to it? It can't. However, what will happen by getting more access to it is there will be more access to it. This in itself is an improvement. My logic for this goes somewhat like this.
ReplyDelete1) Some of a good thing is better than none of the same good thing.
2) Healthcare is a good thing
3) Therefore, some healthcare is better than no healthcare.
The other side of it is that things like healthcare don't improve of their own accord. They improve through trial and practise. You need more practise to make quicker improvements.
In answer to the objection about abortions, this is one that seems to gain a lot of press. As soon as you mention abortions, you get lines drawn. The hardline Pro-lifers and the hardline Pro-Choicers. Firstly it should be noted that I am pro-life. However, in this case it is a moot point. The specific abortions that are covered (as far as I can tell) are only those that are essential. So you can't just say that you want an abortion and get one. It has to be in a case where either you or the baby will probably die as a result of the birth. It has to be a recommendation based on the probability of a 'failed' birth from a gynaecologist and it is still your choice.