We are free so that we may love and do what is good. Because of this, I find assertions and arguments that healthcare reform measures will diminish our freedom and should therefore be opposed to be less than convincing. We uphold the value of a free society not because freedom is an end in itself – it isn’t – but because a free society affords us the best opportunity to achieve the common good. And even in a society with the greatest possible freedom, restrictions on freedom would still exist and be necessary for the common good.
The idea that our public servants would require us to participate in a health insurance plan seems especially outrageous to some people, but even this idea, while I’m uncertain as to its prudence, doesn’t cause me much concern. We, through the institution of our government and other social structures, require each other and ourselves to do certain things in order for society to function effectively and justly. Generally speaking, we have to pay taxes, find and maintain employment, converse on telephones, use some means of transportation, get an education, shop at grocery stores, and fill out paperwork. Society demands a lot from us, and these demands place limits on our freedom, but, if our power to do the good is not diminished, we are not really less free because of these limits.
History has shown us that free societies can become enslaved to dictators, tyrannical systems, and more subtle evils such perverse appetites. I don’t dismiss the possibility that our country could cease to be a free society: recent grave offenses against our freedom and the common good are not hard to spot, but I don’t buy the argument or share the fear that giving our government a greater role in our healthcare system necessarily takes us a step away from a free society. (VN)
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Not Panicking
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 profound comments:
The common good can be perverted for nefarious purposes such as how Hitler coerced so many people into believing that his work was for the common good. In reality, we now know that Hitler was in fact not working for the common good. But, people can be misguided. And, I believe the Democrats are misuided on this issue. (not saying their like Hitler but just an example)
Plus, not everyone is forced to buy car insurance.
The forcing of people to buy health insurance is unconsitutional. Forcing people to pay for health insurance, or else pay a fine or even possibly go to jail is against our liberty and freedom.
Plus, in this health bill, anyone who signs up for the public option will have to wait for six months for their health insurance to kick in.
Plus, This bill will raise taxes and costs for the consumer.
Kyle,
While governments do require certain things from their constituents, not all the things they require result in good. One might assume (perhaps wrongly), given your post, that a re-institution of the military draft would be acceptable.
Perhaps it is only my perception, but I do not see society and government as strictly synonymous: The list you gave of society's requirements is arguable, especially if you take into account non-mainstream communities such as the Amish and certain communes. Government allows for these communities, even if some in mainstream society frown on them.
It is also important to not that the Federal government is only one level of U.S. government, and may not always be the appropriate one for certain provisions of services or enforcement of norms.
Fair points and granted, DMinor. Like you, I would distinguish between society and government and the levels of government, and yes, not everyone is bound by the same social requirements. The Amish, whom you mention, provide a good example. On the other hand, the Amish have their own social rules and must live their freedom within the limits of modern American society. Our social structures are not really made for their way of life.
I would say that a forced military draft, in addition to diminishing freedom, also diminishes people from doing what they see as good. I would oppose it on a number of grounds.
Teresa,
Even the best of things can be put to ill use; that possibility alone is no basis for avoiding things altogether.
The constitutionality of the current healthcare bills depends on one’s interpretation of the Constitution. An interpretation that stresses the 10th Amendment would probably frown upon them. Of course, the Constitution could be amended to explicitly grant the federal government the authority to run a healthcare system.
Kyle,
I thought that you were all for adhering to the constitution. So, why should we mess with a good thing? I don't think tinkering with the constitution to further a particular agenda is a good philosphy, especially when it may only be for short-term gain. And, even so, according to history, it is more probable than not to cause an increased amount of pain in the long-term.
Well, the Constitution isn’t Holy Writ, but we ought to adhere to it, conditionally in any case. As the Constitution spells out the powers of government, it is, generally speaking, important that we follow it else we cease to be a society governed by the law and become a society government by the will of men. However, we have no infallible interpreter of the Constitution, and so we must live with a plurality of competing interpretations as to what powers the document permits and what powers it forbids.
Assuming what it done is morally licit, I say mess with a good thing when something better can come from the mess. Prudence is a much needed virtue here, of course.
Since you are all for changing the constitution for the "common good", I believe that while Bush was President that congress should have changed the constitution accordingly, so that we could prevent terrorism more effectively. This would be for the common good, since it would be to prevent terrorism, or terrorist attacks.
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution states that its purposes are the following:
...to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty...
I believe that ensuring access for all citizens, regardless of their ability to pay, to live-saving and life-enhancing health care fits nicely into the category "promote the general welfare." I believe that a national health care system is every bit as constitutionally sound as providing for the common defense. Is not defense against disease as important to the individual citizen as is defense against foreign or domestic enemies? Is it not, in fact, very likely to actually be much more important in the life of almost all citizens? Much of medical science is funded by tax dollars. Why, therefore, should there not be equal, and guaranteed, access to the fruits of that science for all citizens?
I don't see the problem here. If a national health service, in which the government actually employed the health care providers were being proposed, the argument against it might be stronger. But that is not the case. The only difference here would be in who is writing the checks to pay for the services.
Government agencies are answerable to the people through their elected representatives. Insurance corporation bureaucrats are answerable only to their boards of directors and their shareholders. And what those entities are demanding of them is not good health care, but good profits. You do the math.
Teresa,
I am not "all" for changing the Constitution for the common good. As I said in my previous comment, such change must be done prudently. Not every good would necessarily warrant the amendment process. I'd certainly question the prudence of enhancing our government's war powers by amending the Constitution, though I suppose that way would at least be less of an evil than simply ignoring the Constitution.
Rodak,
Public health would seem to fall under the general welfare, and the case you make is the argument I've most often seen made for the constitutionality of a federally funded healthcare system.
The executive branch has routinely usurped the congressional power to declare war by simply going to war without a formal declaration, thus subverting both the letter and the spirit of constitutional law in that area. Amazing, isn't it, how upset conservatives don't get over that historical trend?
Rodak,
You got that wrong. You might remember a certain vote taking place? Congress voted and authorized President Bush to send our troops into Iraq. But, when the going got tough, the Democrats couldn't handle the heat, and undermined the war effort every chance they could get.
Kyle,
It is not evil to protect and defend our nation which President Bush took seriously, unlike President Obama since he has filtered money to Hamas among other things. It is evil to defend the terrorists.
Teresa--
Think Vietnam...
With the current situation, perhaps you're right...I think that there is still no formal declaration of war. But congress kind of made a military appropriation and looked the other way (w/r/t its constitutional responsibility) concerning how it would be used. I guess one could say that in this case only the spirit, not the letter of the constitution was left by the wayside.
It can be evil to defend one's country if the actions done in defense are themselves morally wrong.
In my book, the type of defense used was morally acceptable to prevent numerous lives from death. I believe that choosing to let people die all on the basis of morality is an evil in itself.
Rodan and Teresa,
The modern trend away from congressionally declared war began with the Korean "police action" in 1950-51. I don't believe we've had a declared war since. And yes, I find that constitutionally troubling.
Kyle: A national health service might be a good thing if health care were an infinite commodity and not a scarce resource. While the U.S. federal government is responsible to the sovereign people of the United States, it is often not as responsive or as innovative as an organization reacting to profit. In terms of altruism, while one might think that the U.S. government, with no profit motive, might have the advantage; the government's bureaucracy may act based on some lower motive.
I am always wary of changing too many rules. If I change them to my advantage when my party is in power, they can be used to my party's detriment when they are out of power.
What of the perfectly innocent people who died as a result of the means of "defense" chosen?
"Is not defense against disease as important to the individual citizen as is defense against foreign or domestic enemies?"
Is not providing basic necessities (food and lodging) to every individual citizen "[promot]ing the general welfare"?
Thus, by that same compelling logic, every citizen should be granted a home as well as their share of daily bread!
My, the lengths to which some entitlement crusaders would go just to promote the grand socialist project of the social welfare state!
Geez...
Rodak,
Our military is all volunteer now. They took an oath to serve their President and their country. This is what they were/are doing. They are victims, but as a result of terrorists killing them. Bush did not pull the trigger. Bush and many others believe that bringing Democracy to Iraq would also help prevent further terrorism. So, Bush was looking out for the good of the people to prevent another 9/11 type of attack from happening.
Voces,
I agree. America should not become a nanny state.
In 2003, House Resolution 114 was passed. This authorized the use of military forces in Iraq. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101102a.htm
We are entitled – have the right to – food, clothing, shelter, and so forth, but having that right doesn’t mean we don’t have the responsibility of responding to our own rights and entitlements. It is precisely because I have a right to life and all that right entails that I am obligated to work to meet my own life needs (and the needs of others).
Government is one way of responding to those needs, and I see a role for government, albeit limited, in providing food, shelter, etc. I also think government has a role in providing for our healthcare needs. What role it should have exactly is the current question. I tend towards a national single-payer system, myself, but I’m open to other means of striving to provide universal healthcare.
Where in the Constitution is the U.S. government given the authority to bring democracy to other nations?
"I am always wary of changing too many rules. If I change them to my advantage when my party is in power, they can be used to my party's detriment when they are out of power."
Agreed, DMinor.
Its all a matter of interpretation. Since, Democracy in Iraq was promoted on the basis of our defense, it is following the constitution.
Rodak and Kyle,
First, health care in other countries is inferior in quality to that of the U.S. The reason is that we haven't gone to a single-payer or government-run form of health care.
Secondly, People come here from other countries because of our superior health care.
Thirdly, Public-run health care is funded by higher taxes. This bill that just passed the House has mega-high taxes on everyone. Not just the rich. It has taxes on health equipment.
Fourth, a poll showed that forty percent of physicians would either quit or retire early if the Democratic version of health care was passed. If even half of those polled follow through with that, then there would definitely be rationing of health care.
So, if you want the quality of our health care to plummet, support the bill!
“Its all a matter of interpretation. Since, Democracy in Iraq was promoted on the basis of our defense, it is following the constitution.”
Ah, so you subscribe to an interpretive approach to the Constitution which goes beyond the intention of its authors and takes into account present situations and circumstances. For you the Constitution is a “living document;” its meaning isn’t fixed, but can change with the time and the will of our public servants. The word “defense” can validly be made to include instituting political systems in foreign lands in its meaning. Some might call you a liberal for holding such an interpretive philosophy, Teresa. ;-)
“First, health care in other countries is inferior in quality to that of the U.S.”
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, it’s not what advocates of universal healthcare are debating. We seek to expand the quantity of healthcare. The trick is to find the right balance between quality and quantity. So while we might have superior quality healthcare, we are gravely failing in our social obligation to provide for people’s healthcare needs. We have a moral obligation to remedy that.
“… Public-run health care is funded by higher taxes. This bill that just passed the House has mega-high taxes on everyone. Not just the rich. It has taxes on health equipment.”
Higher taxes aren’t necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes we have to raise taxes to achieve social and economic justice.
“Fourth, a poll showed that forty percent of physicians would either quit or retire early if the Democratic version of health care was passed. If even half of those polled follow through with that, then there would definitely be rationing of health care.”
I’m skeptical of that, but the fact is that healthcare isn’t unlimited. There will be rationing in any system. There is rationing now. The key is to ration as justly as possible.
“So, if you want the quality of our health care to plummet, support the bill!”
I’d prefer a single-payer system, and what is under consideration is nothing of the sort. It’s much too tied to interests other than and even antagonistic towards providing universal healthcare. I’m hopeful that it will be an improvement, but I’m in no way certain.
I am proud to be a common sense conservative that believes in values and principles. I am proud that I am NOT a liberal, and not a member of the party of death-abortion and euthanasia. I promote freedom-loving principles. I wouldn't be a liberal if you paid me a gazillion dollars. Their beliefs are so immoral.
The Preamble of the constitution, in a number of ways clearly states that it is for defense. It is in both our general welfare, and in as sofar for providing common defense that we must head of terrorism at the pass, instead of waiting for the terrorists to hit the U.S. again. For the general welfare of the citizens and our for our defense, we are promoting freedom overseas and killing terrorists overseas to ensure our safety here in the United States. So, my interpretation does adhere to the constitution.
The constitution is a living document for you, since you believe that it can be changed for the common good, instead of strictly adhering to the exact document that the Founders wrote. You are following the way of liberals, who like to change and pervert the constitution to promote their leftist political agenda.
Do you really think that the government is best suited to dole out our health care? All of the government social programs in the United States are close to bankruptcy and thus shows utter incompetence on the part of the government. So, how do you expect the govt. to get health care right? This health care bill doesn't even address the quantity issue. This bill will only worsen the quality. And, if you think that there is rationing now, it will be much worse if we have a single-payer system, or any of the Democrats bills is passed.
Higher taxes in this economic climate will kill this economy. Small businesses are the backbone of this country, and so many of them can't afford either to provide health care for all of their employees(including part-time employees), or to pay the fine. This bill will crumble the economy.
Everyone has the option of going to the ER now. People may not have that option if this bill is passed.
Economic and Social Justice is a very bad thing if its going to crumble the economy.
I will just say if this bill is passed and signed, this is going to be the beginning if an uprising just like that of Martin Luther King Jr. Socialized medicine has been proven NOT to work. I guess we might have to live the nightmare, so people can actually see the reality of how bad government-run, or single-payer system health care is.
Teresa--
The government will not be "doling out health care." The government will only be writing the checks, instead of an insurance corporation writing the checks. The insurance corporation now has the power to decide for what procedure those checks will be written and who is eligible for coverage and who is not. Under a single-payer system, everyone would be covered, and a government agency, not an insurance agency, headed by bureaucrats approved and paid by YOUR elected representatives would make the decisions now being made by profit-seeking corporatists.
You never address any of this.
BTW, this statement, "First, health care in other countries is inferior in quality to that of the U.S." is NOT true when we are speaking of other advanced, Western countries. Two minutes spent researching veracity of my statement online will show that clearly.
What IS true is that the U.S. has world-class research facilities and medical technology. What the U.S. does NOT have is anything near the best HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM. Emphasis on "delivery."
In fact, we have no system at all. What we have is a haphazard, regionally disproportionate, local taxbase-dependent, non-system that is intrinsically unfair to the poor, the rural, and the lower middle-class--the working poor. Access to services varies radically in this country, based on where you will and how much income you have.
You, might, as a Christian, considered the fact that Jesus healed both the rich and the poor. Should we, as a society, not do the same?
That should say "where you live" not "where you will".
Teresa,
You can call yourself a common sense conservative till doomsday, but the fact is your interpretive approach to the Constitution mirrors that of those you call liberals. You say the power to institute democracy is contained in the power of defense, much as “liberal” justices say that the right to abortion is contained in the right to privacy. You go above and beyond the plain meaning of the text. You can do that; it’s one common way of interpreting the Constitution, but it places you outside and opposed to traditionally conservative readings.
Furthermore, you seem to say that amending the Constitution beyond “the exact document that the founders wrote” is the way of liberals. So you give credit, then, to liberals for the Bill of Rights and the abolition of slavery and the right of those other than white men to vote?
Kyle,
I guess I'm a liberal. I'll be spreading all my liberal positions all over.
Thanks, Kyle for outing me. I guess I am a pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military, anti-tax, anti-big government, right-wing LIBERAL.
Teresa--
I think that the point Kyle was making is that if soi-disant conservative "strict constructionists" interpret the Constitution so as to support their contemporary ideological position on, for instance, national health insurance, then they not being strict constructionists in practice, since they are using the Constitution in the same way that liberals have used it to legalize abortion. He is pointing out an inconsistency in your thinking, not recharacterizing your ideological stance.
Rodak,
No. No. Kyle's correct. He equated my interpretation of the constitution to me being a liberal. So,I'm copping to being a liberal. I will be spreading my right-wing liberalsim all over the blogosphere.
Kyle,
So, as I understand it, you are saying ANY interpretation of the constitution is liberalism? So, I guess, reading the constitution to actually interpret the meaning of it is out of the question?
I took the constitutions own words to promote the defense agenda. Its original words of The Preamble. I DID NOT add any words to its original form as liberals have done in order to pervert the constitution to legalize abortion.
BTW- I changed my response. That's why a comment is deleted.
I DID NOT add any words to its original form as liberals have done in order to pervert the constitution to legalize abortion.
Teresa--
Yes, I think that you did. You enlarged the concept of "national defense" to include establishing foreign democracies by force, on the supposition (I suspect) that "democracies don't attack democracies" and that, therefore, democratizing Iraq would be in the interest of U.S. "national defense." Assuming that I'm characterizing your position basically fairly, I must say that this mode of thinking about "national defense" is every bit a big a stretch, as are the grounds upon which abortion was legalized. Defense basically means "step on my lawn and I'll black your eye for you." Iraq was in no way capable of stepping on our national lawn.
I didn't reduce you to a liberal, Teresa. I pointed out that your manner of interpreting the Constitution treats the founding document as a "living document," a manner of interpretation that conservatives generally associate with liberalism. Brandishing your conservative credentials doesn't change the fact that in this particular instance your position is what you would call a liberal one.
There are a variety of interpretations of the Constitution competing in our public sphere. Some, such as the "originalist" and the "strict constructionist" approaches, are generally associated with conservatism. Others, such as the "living document" approach, your approach, are generally associated with liberalism.
"Where in the Constitution is the U.S. government given the authority to bring democracy to other nations?"
Where in the Constitution is the U.S. government given the authority to do likewise beyond the borders of the original 13 colonies?
Thus, it would appear to be the case that Manifest Destiny, which doctrine promoted expansion of the United States to go beyond its original territories, would appear to be just as criminal.
voces,
Native American populations would likely agree with you.
The appearance of criminality would depend on where one stands.
My interpretation does not add words to the constitution. It interprets the constitution to include DEFENSE as it mentions for the common defense. This includes DEFENSE AGAINST TERRORISM before it breaches our shores again.
Kyle,
What conservative credentials? I am a liberal.
"Ah, so you subscribe to an interpretive approach to the Constitution which goes beyond the intention of its authors and takes into account present situations and circumstances."
As do you. You have admitted to wanting to change the constitution for political purposes to advance health care. And, since Democrats have admitted that they are for a single-payer system and are using this health care bill as a gateway to that same health care system, in which you are in favor of, you are going beyond the true intentions of our Founders. For you the Constitution is a "living document" that is acceptable to change for political gain. Our Founders did not intend this country to be a nanny state, as you wish.
This includes DEFENSE AGAINST TERRORISM before it breaches our shores again.
Was the incident at Ft. Hood a "terrorist" incident?
And how is it that anyone can know in any pure sense the "true intentions" of the Founders? We take tools like histories, other documents and writings, the legal traditions and so on and we interpret the text. Time, and even the text itself, places a distance between author and reader, separating us in an immediate (i.e. non-mediated) sense from the intentions of the Founders. This does not imply that we can make the text say whatever we wish, change it at will, or can have no insights into the Founders intentions, hence the tools of interpretation to which I refer. In other words, there is a difference between interpretation and what Eco might call unlimited semiotic drift.
But the issue is that when debating the constitutionality of any given issue, we are not divining intentions so much as we are seeking to determine if a concrete particular issue is compatible with the ideals expressed by the Founders' words to which we all have some sense of, even if we disagree on what they apply to.
Yes, the preamble refers to defense. The same preamble speaks of establishing justice as it does promoting the general welfare among other things. These are transcendent principles, not specific actions. The debates in this country are about whether specific actions really do conform to these ideals. All actions that say they are defense aren't constitutional because they use the word defense. A particular action in the name of defense might fail with regard to esablishing justice. The current health care reform isn't necessarily promoting the general welfare just because it would purport to do so. Those things must be determined by making the best judgment we can by, not merely quoting the constition, but in light of the history of constitutional law and interpretation. In other words, it takes work, thought and discourse, not the sloganizing that "political discourse" in this country has sadly been reduced to.
Rodak,
Yes. The Ft. Hood incident was a terrorist incident. This occurred because of political correctness in this country. Heck, the MSM is playing this off as it was due to PTSD. Its NOT. He had NEVER served overseas. If we had taken care of both Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than after 9/11, we might not have to deal with the magnitude of Islamic terrorists that have penetrated into America today. But, then that was the Clinton era.... He could have had Bin Laden on a silver platter but Clinton refused Sudan's offer. But, then against this government may not be interested in taking care of the Muslim Jihadist problem because....
I meant to say again instead of against in my last sentence.
"Was the incident at Ft. Hood a "terrorist" incident?"
If you don't consider Fr. Hood a 'terrorist' incident, then you have a rather flawed concept of terrorism.
Indeed, even The Wall Street Journal aptly described it along the same lines:
"The Fort Hood massacre makes clear, again, that Islamic terror is unavoidably a domestic U.S. problem as well. There is a strain in American thinking that deludes itself in believing that somehow this force will occupy itself mainly with blowing up marketplaces in faraway Pakistan or Afghanistan. On Thursday, their problem was our problem."
Voces,
I believe that we must take care of the Islamic terrorist problem both in the United States and overseas(Afhanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq).
Kyle,
Well, maybe I am using the Constitution as a "living document." But, if that is so, it is to promote conservative values,and no conservative should have a problem with that.
Aptly and concisely put, Alien Shore. We can and should have a plurality of interpretations of the Constitution, but that doesn't mean all interpretations are good. Would that we had more thought, work, and discourse and much less sloganeering.
If you don't consider Fr. Hood a 'terrorist' incident, then you have a rather flawed concept of terrorism.
Is every politically/religiously-prompted murder, then, a "terrorist" act? To me, a terrorist act is defined as an act meant to "terrify" an entire population, so as to deplete the will of that population to oppose the threat posed by the group committing the terror. I don't think that Ft. Hood was that, at all. Ft. Hood was a murder/suicide (although the perp--unexpectedly--survived), committed by a lone, angry man, for reasons of his own. Those reasons may have been inspired by his religious beliefs, or by his politics, or by his ethnicity; but I don't believe that they were inspired by a conscious desire to terrify the entire people of the United States. This act was a violent protest; it was not a "terrorist" act.
Ft. Hood was a murder/suicide (although the perp--unexpectedly--survived), committed by a lone, angry man, for reasons of his own
All the while screaming "Allahu Akbar!"
To paraphrase Obi-Wan, "These aren't the Jihadists your looking for."
"Ft. Hood was a murder/suicide (although the perp--unexpectedly--survived), committed by a lone, angry man, for reasons of his own..."
Just PC speak for what is in all actuality the Islamic Terror.
Post a Comment