Regardless of your "feelings" on health care reform, I think we can all agree logically that our system as it stands right now is not as efficient or effective as it could potentially be, and could use reform in one way or another. The question now is this: is the reform in the health care bill better than no reform whatsoever? Is it a step in the right direction, or is it a step in the wrong direction? And before you answer, please: think of a logical reason behind your answer. Bonus points if you verify information used in making your decision with various outlets.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Hot button topic: Health Care Reform
As the title of this post indicates, health care reform is a "Hot button" issue--one which people feel passionately about, one way or the other. And that's just fine. One of the great things about this country is that we can disagree and still be friends (or at least, that's how it should work in theory!). But in order for that approach to work, both sides need to have studied the topics before-hand, and be prepared to debate things rationally and logically. In order for debate to truly work, both sides need to be open to experiencing "greater light and truth". And in order for that to happen, we need to accept that perhaps--just perhaps--our current views might not necessarily reflect the truth of objective reality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Hahaha! That was really funny. Thanks for sharing it Jer.
Thanks, Brandi. I've just noticed that whenever anyone tries to talk to me about hot button topics (such as this one), people are almost always spouting what they've been told by someone else without verifying it personally. It's almost as though they want so badly to be right that they won't allow themselves, even for a minute, to stop and listen to all of the evidence--because they don't even want to think about the possibility of being wrong.
Yeah, I agree. But also I know that a lot of times just because someone can't articulate the "why" doesn't mean that they don't have the reason for themselves. There's a heirarchy and being able to adequately explain yourself to someone else (especially someone challenging or attacking your belief) is at the very top. I know that's a difficult skill for me on even very simple things, like why I chose to wear this shirt today. :)
That's just fine for simple decisions that affect a limited number of people in insignificant ways (such as the reason one might choose a particular outfit on a particular day). But as the decision grows in importance (both by the magnitude of consequences as well as the quantity of individuals affected), it becomes increasingly more important to be able to articulate the rational & logical motivation behind that decision.
And if you're in a position where someone is challenging your beliefs, it is only that much more important to be able to articulate the basis behind those beliefs, since the very fact that your beliefs are being challenged probably suggests that your beliefs are impacting that challenger in some way, and therefore those beliefs have a right to be challenged.
As I mentioned--I don't profess to have all the answers to anything. And for that reason, I am eager and willing to hear different points of view. I just expect those different points of views to be rational, logical, and verifiable.
That said, thanks for participating in a discussion, Brandi :) I really think that we tend to lose sight of the importance of rational discussions in our culture, so it's nice when we have the chance to throw ideas around and catch implications of those ideas that we might never have recognized, simply because of our limited experiences and paradigms. If you have more thoughts, feel free to share them.
As I discuss politics with people I appreciate more the people who can articulate the principles behind their ideas and opinions, rather than quoting a source. For me, this healthcare thing is centered around one single and solitary issue for me - agency. When the government tries to dictate my choices I'm peeved. Especially where this one hits so close to home, I don't believe the government should ever dictate how much someone can charge for their services, which is just what this bill does to health care providers (hits close to home for us right now).
Thanks for your thoughts, Toni. It's nice to hear what others think--No one is an island.
I completely agree with you that Agency is important. Agency and Freedom are regarded by most (including me) as part of a small handful of major ideals that makes life itself worth living.
The question at hand is: does the new health care bill restrict the agency and freedoms we currently possess, or does it expand them? As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), the major thing in the bill that appears to restrict agency is that it makes buying insurance mandatory. But appearances can be deceiving, because by requiring all persons to have insurance, we are bringing down the cost of insurance for everyone, as the occasional accident that goes to the emergency room without insurance currently only serves to jack up health care prices for everyone else. I don't profess to be an expert (obviously), but it seems to me that even if there are other issues with the bill, it is a step in the right direction, relieving issues such as lack of health care coverage for preexisting conditions & reducing the national debt, as well as expanding coverage to the roughly 36 million Americans who currently simply don't have access. In my opinion, based on the limited research I have done, I personally believe that the bill expands the freedom and agency of more people, and in more ways than it limits (but again--please correct me if I'm wrong :)
And though some might question the importance of citing sources, in my experience it is the best way to know if someone has truly done the research themselves, or if they are simply taking someone else's word for it, and thereby propagating an urban legend. So take it for what you will, I just threw in a couple of sites below-nothing super academic--just food for thought, that's all.
(an overview of the bill by cbs, with links to more articles in case others might be interested in searching some more http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html )
(an article on the quantity of uninsured in America http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/18/barack-obama/number-those-without-health-insurance-about-46-mil/ )
The health care bill will not reduce the cost of health care in the US. We are going to remove life time benefit caps. That removes the ceiling on what insurance companies will need to pay if there are problems. Insurance companies are in the business of managing risk - without the ability to limit the risk they are assuming they will either need to not accept the risk - ie refuse coverage or increase rates. The same problem exists for manditory acceptance of children and making parents hold coverage on their kids until age 26. it will make the costs increase. I am not saying that the ceiling is a good or bad thing, but saying that the overall costs will go down is rediculous.
The bill increases the threashold for medical deductions from 7.5% to 10% which is funny because only really sick or old people can deduct over 7.5% anyway so in that way we are imposing an extra tax on the sick and old which doesn't seem right to me.
If someone wants to explore the problem in greater detail they should take an economics class or just google the tragedy of the commons. This explains why the common use of things that are paid for by society as a whole are overused/abused.
In my opinion some better options that could be used to make health care more affordable. QHDP and Health savings accounts, perscription reform - you need a perscription for contacts. If we made it so you could just go to the pharmacy and pick up a perscription of antibiotics for an infection you could cut out the doctor and the extra cost. This assumes that we think people are smart enough to determine when it is something that they can just buy a perscription and when they need a doctors advice. For instance if anyone has had a UTI when they get another UTI they know what it is - they call the doctor $150, he runs lab work $60 it comes back and sure enough you have a UTI so you get a perscription $30 and you get feeling better. So you pay $240 when you knew what you needed and could have done it for $30. Granted this will make the different illnesses more resistant to medicines - but the doctors will perscribe medicine anyway because if they don't do something and you get worse or die people sue them for not doing their job. Just some food for Thought.
Thanks for your comments--As I mentioned before, I really think that we need to be more willing to throw around ideas, and be willing to have our ideas thrown around, in order to come to a clearer knowledge of objective reality.
You made a lot of points--some of them statements of opinion, and some of them statements meant to be taken as facts. The problem is, I have no way to know which of those statements are accurate, and which are statements overheard and passed on without verification like a really long game of "Telephone". The closest thing to citing a source in the comment came when you noted, "If someone wants to explore the problem in greater detail they should take an economics class or just google the tragedy of the commons." (which is unfortunately vague beyond usefulness in this situation).
As I mentioned in the post, this is definitely a "Hot-button topic", and we see opinions polarized one way or the other. Obviously there is an objective reality which would dictate which opinion is most closely associated to that objective reality, and in order to figure out which opinion that is, we cannot overlook the importance of citing sources and articulating specific reasons for believing the way we do.
Otherwise, all we're doing is spouting the same stuff we've been told without verifying it for veracity first. And if that's the case, what's to say if what we're communicating is truth or lies? We can only know by verifying it first.
(Here's a website that in my opinion does a pretty good job of separating facts from fiction in certain politically charged topics, with the page below specifically written about the health care debate--take if for what you will: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/a-final-weekend-of-whoppers/ )
Yes I state facts which can be verified by reading the bill. Second I state opinions which need no verification other than knowing that it came from me and were simply stated to produce thought provoking conversation so as to focus on positive solutions to health care that have not been addressed. May I respectfully disagree with your comment "(which is unfortunately vague beyond usefulness in this situation)."
Possibly Vague beyond usefulness for someone who is not willing to type in 4 words to google but if you are willing to put in a little effort see below - it is quit interesting.
Here is what you can simply get by using google/wikipidia for tragedy of the commons:
The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.[1] The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.
Central to Hardin's article is an example (first sketched in an 1833 pamphlet by William Forster Lloyd), of a hypothetical and simplified situation based on medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin's example, it is in each herder's interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the carrying capacity of the common is exceeded and it is temporarily or permanently damaged for all as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed to the detriment of all.
Or for those of you who feel google is not academic enough to get a rough understanding of what I was trying to say please look up the following:
Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (December 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248.
Robert J. Smith, "Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons by Creating Private Property Rights in Wildlife", Cato Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Fall 1981), pp. 439-468.
Tierney, John (2009-10-15), "The Non-Tragedy of the Commons", New York Times blog, http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/the-non-tragedy-of-the-commons/
Managing the Commons by Garrett Hardin and John Baden
I apologize if my statements were taken as a personal affront. Please rest assured that if you felt attacked in any way, I meant only to challenge the statements you made and not you personally.
I also apologize because I think my intentions might not have been perfectly clear: I do not and don’t want to appear as though I have ownership over any given idea. I care about one thing above all else: Truth; coming to see objective reality as it truly is, and not just as I would like to see it, or as I think it should be seen.
So please take it as I intend when I ask to see the sources behind your facts, when I ask you to articulate the reason and logic behind your opinions. I frankly don’t have my hopes set one way or the other concerning the health care bill. As long as we can come to a realistic assessment dictated by real and not contrived data, it won’t matter. For better or worse, truth is truth.
I hope you’ll forgive me if I am skeptical of claims made without sources to back them up. You’ll surely understand if I ask you to show me where a certain item (or items) might be located in the bill when you say “It’s all in the bill”.
You show me the data (valid, pertinent studies, math, peer reviewed articles, etc.) and I will be the first to stand up and admit that I was wrong, that I didn’t have the whole picture before, and that according to this new data, path “B” is the more appropriate course of action.
Your source citing the 1968 study by Garrett Hardin was a great start—a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal, a repeatable and falsifiable hypothesis, etc. But unfortunately it is only a start. Your comment alluded to one who perceives certain data as useless to be “too lazy to Google the term.” I would argue that it is intellectual sloth to jump to such conclusions in a moment of haste. Data can be useless in a given context for a variety of reasons, from lack of pertinence to appealing to any one of a wide spectrum of logical fallacies. Yes, I am familiar with the “Tragedy of the Commons” (not as familiar as some—a person has to choose their specialties). But I am also familiar with the “Dilemma of the Commons” in general, including the “Tragedy of the Anti-commons,” which at the very least suggests that there is more to Garrett Hardin’s work than was let on by his original article.
My statement regarding the sources’ uselessness referred more to the vague reference you used (Google it), rather than the study itself. That being said, your appeal to said study, although interesting in this context, is also somewhat of a logical fallacy, the “false analogy”, or comparing apples to oranges. The analogy might hold (albeit with caveats: see “dilemma of the commons”) if we were talking about more of a communal system—but we’re not. We’re talking about expanding health care and insurance coverage to a wider audience than currently is benefited from them. To a very large degree, the system will remain in tact—people will still have premiums and co-payments which will deter frivolous use of their coverage. But we will also benefit from some much needed overhauls in the system such as lack of rejection due to “preexisting conditions”.
But all of this is beside the point. When you get right down to it, the original post and the comments that have followed have not been about the health care bill itself, so much as about the importance of knowing WHY we believe what we do, and verifying for ourselves that the information we used to come to that belief is true.
Feel free to send me any information you think might open my mind to a clearer view of reality. I don’t feign to be infallible. I don’t claim to be incapable of making mistakes—I simply try the best I can to follow truth the best I can. And in that light, you won’t take it personally if I ask where your information comes from, right?
I am not offended by a request for sources. I would like to point out that there is a source/statistic to prove or disprove everything. Although we may try to analytically prove or disprove something or ultimately come to Truth. More often then not we have to rely on our feelings to tell us if something is right or wrong. This may be because the spirit is trying to tell us something, it may be that our brain has already figured it out and we have not realized it yet so something just looks wrong but we can't tell why (this happens to me at work all the time). In some cases the right answer for one person is not the right answer to another person because we are all here to grow and learn and the things we need to learn are different. When it comes down to it there are very few questions that can be answered by a definite Truth. The Healthcare bill is not one of those questions. Does God exist - that is a question that can be answered with a Truth - yes he does. Is the health care bill good - that can be answered with a big depends. I think once we get the important questions answered, most people who view your blog do know the answers. Everything else falls into place because we see things as part of the bigger picture which is Gods Plan of Happiness.
While there may certainly be a source/statistic to prove/disprove everything, there is most definitely NOT a VALID source/statistic to prove/disprove everything. What is the difference between a valid source/statistic and an invalid one? Scientific rigor, nothing more and nothing less. Empirical, verifiable, repeatable, & falsifiable experimentation properly researched and communicated in a peer reviewed journal.
No amount of feeling one way or another can change the objective nature of reality, or "truth" . . . but we're getting off topic. I enjoy discussing things, but typically prefer to keep the discussion within boundaries to keep everything from spiraling out to unmanageable levels. I don't know how god entered the discussion, but if you would like to continue it, I would love to oblige you on a less public rameumptum--send me an e-mail, and I would certainly enjoy any discussion we might have, provided we keep it based on reason, logic and respect.
Post a Comment