The Philosophy of Health Care Reform

The majority of members that oppose the health care bill can, non-pejoratively, be placed in the "conservative" category. Why is this? The conservative thesis is that the current system is more efficient than that which is proposed to replace it. To shed light on what it means to be called a conservative, the philosopher Michael Oakeshott states that reform opposition occurs, "when there is much to be enjoyed and when that enjoyment is combined with a sense that what is enjoyed is in danger of being lost. It is the combination of enjoyment and fear that stimulates conservatism." Surely, conservatives are enjoying themselves.

As one of the few intellectual conservatives, Edmund Burke, offered very convincing evidence for the utility of conservative views. He wasn't a Tea Partyist by any means, and has said that change is often needed; "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." However, not all change is welcomed or beneficial. Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France is regarded as one of the most enlightened pieces of conservative apologetics ever written. Now the case for health care reform is not synonymous with the French Revolution, but the ideology is sufficiently comparable.

Burke invokes the notion of "latent function", which states that the stability and importance of an institution only becomes apparent after it is dismantled. Maybe the current health care system in the United States is better than a, possibly, failed attempt at reforming it. Maybe not. For this issue, ivory trade is an elegant historical example. To stop elephants from being killed, the ivory trade was banned. This made ivory scarce, but more importantly, expensive. The rewards for poaching subsequently became greater, so more people killed elephants than before the legality of ivory became an issue. I'm not saying that killing elephants and letting people die from lack of hospitalization are one in the same, but there's something to be taken from this analogy.

The fact of the matter is, health care reform is expensive. It could destabilize our already vulnerable economy, but it will also save lives.

This post, coming from one who approaches politics from a liberal perspective, is simply to shed light on the fact that there is a deep history tying socioeconomic reform to conservatism. What is lacking in the current approach, however, is an intellectual overture to the problem of doctrinal reform opposition. Too many analysts are caught up in perfunctory debate, and this is impeding their capacity to conceptualize the opposing philosophies. This is precisely Michael Tomasky's idea of "ideological homogeneity."

In 1957, Samuel Huntington published an article titled Conservatism as an Ideology. In it, he points out that conservatism, by definition, offers no vision of an ideal society; there is no conservative Utopia. Conservatism has no substantive institutional content and is therefor not concerned with content, but with process. Not to seem iconoclastic, but the true opposition of conservatism is not liberalism; it is radicalism. I don't mean militant radicalism, but instead defining it in terms of enthusiasm with innovation and an embrace of rapid change. Disagreeing with an opinion does not imply that you maintain a superior alternative solution, nor does it demand that you hold an individual opinion at all.

As for health reform, my opinion is that of generational partnership, which is to say that we have a fiduciary responsibility to create a state of medical philanthropy; specifically, one that is price independent. Just as in the US participation in world wars 1 and 2, we made tough decisions despite their cost, not because of it.

Bernanke could have done nothing and we'd be better off

Today the Senate voted for Ben Bernanke to remain as the Fed boss. The president saw this as a victory, and called Bernanke, "a critical leader in the nation’s recovery from recession." That's interesting. Did he lead our recovery from recession? Let's take a look.

In January 2009, before the announcement of Obama's stimulus package, the Congressional Budget Office released its projections for the US economy in the 10 year future. Within these predictions were the following; the unemployment rate with reach slightly over 9% in the beginning of 2010, and the total deficit will reach $1.2 trillion. Since the stimulus package was created to retard these negative projections, we should now be proud to present true figures that are better than the projections. Right?

Currently the unemployment rate is 9.7%, and the total US deficit has reached $1.41 trillion. Now let's get this straight. Bernanke is apparently leading the recovery from recession, yet the fraudulent stimulus package bailout has lead to pseudo-criminal proceedings, and the economy has actually performed worse than was predicted without a stimulus package? Why is he keeping his job again?

If it's any consolation, at a vote of 70-30, he received the worst approval of any Federal Reserve chairman in US history.

State of the Union

Before I vivisect tonight's presidential address, let me start by saying that Obama seems genuinely concerned for the future of the nation and troubled by recent congressional behavior. I think that some of the proposals spoken of this evening, if enacted, could easily improve the quality of living for millions of people.

With that being said, I'd like to start with a direct quote from Obama. "Let's try some common sense." Indeed, let's; for instance, how should the viewers react to the issue of education. As a current applicant to graduate schools, my mouth was watering at the proposals in the middle of the address. Some of these include abolishing taxes on student loans, issuing $10,000 tax credits to families with children in 4 year programs, increasing the value and volume of Pell grants (I have 2 right now), and allowing over one million alumni to limit their yearly loan payments to 10% of their total salaries for a maximum of 20 years after graduation. It would be an understatement to call this a vast improvement to the affordability of higher education.

There is a problem though, the president went on to explain the 3-year freeze that had been widely publicized earlier in the week. Such legislation would cut or freeze budget allocations to domestic programs. The only areas that will be not be frozen are national defense, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. How are we supposed to expect such great changes in education if educational spending is to be frozen? Say it ain't so.

On a lighter note, Obama sent a challenge to congressional filibusterers on the topic of health care reform stating, "if anyone has a better plan for lowering premiums and bringing down the deficit, let me know." This seems to go hand in hand with the Congressional Budget Office's recently announced projections of the future economic deficit. Additionally, the Center for Economic and Policy Research released a projected budget deficit in the event of passing or denying health care legislation. The consensus seems to be that the republican response to the challenge of health care reform is either misinformed or, more likely, just plain wrong. Health care, in addition to improving the lives of millions of uninsured Americans, would reduce the severity of the current recession. I honestly hope that the republican congressmen can produce the "better plan" that Obama asked for, since the current plan looks pretty convincing.

Now I'd like to address my favorite portion of tonight's speech. The president called for a internet source that would, "publish all earmark requests on a single website, so that we can see where our money is being spent." If this legislation is enacted, without the obvious ability to be destroyed by political nomenclature chaotics, it would save me and other bloggers a huge amount of time digging up the dirt on politicians.

My final comment is the least pragmatic of my current concerns with tonight's announcements. The concern is with Obama's statement with respect to our defense policies; specifically that we should, "do what we can to ensure a better future for our citizens and for the world." I think that any forward thinking American citizens, who take this statement as seriously as I do, would first demand that we remove the United States exemption to UN Security Council article 51. This would hold the US government responsible for pre-emptive military aggression that is deemed illegal to every other participatory member of the United Nations. This will virtually never happen, but everyone needs to be aware of why the international community condemns the current US presence in Iraq.

Disliking Bernanke has nothing to do with liberalism.

Timothy Geithner, in all of his wisdom, gave an interview to POLITICO describing his position on the possible dumping of Fed Head Ben Bernanke. He also saw this as the perfect opportunity to do what he's best at; lying. Here is Geithner's statement with respect to Bernanke's position:

He's done a remarkable job of helping steer this economy out of the great recession. And I think he'll play a very important role in helping in the success of our efforts to try to make sure we are bringing this economy back to durable growth.

If by "great job" you meaning failing to predict, or (more likely) choosing to ignore, an $8 trillion dollar housing bubble that took A DECADE to reach failure, then yes, he's doing a kickass job. The economist Dean Baker accurately illustrates Bernanke's job perfomance in his analogy that, "preventing the collapse of the financial system should probably seen as being comparable to a major league outfielder catching a long fly ball. It's not that easy, but major league outfielders do it." This gave me a good laugh.

Ask yourself, how would neglect/incompetence on this level in virtually any self-respecting company be resolved? It would almost certainly result in immediate termination.

Moving on, Geithner accidentally told the truth (partially) during one portion of the interview when he stated, "I think the markets would view [replacing Bernanke] as a very troubling thing for the economy as a whole." Well, Tim, you're right. Losing Bernanke absolutely could turn out to be a disaster for the markets. The thing you seemed to have left out, but what your job position demands you to recognize, is that the market and the "economy as a whole" are not the same thing! If it were otherwise, why would Glass-Steagall be an issue at all?

The fact of the matter is, no matter how well/poor their private investments perform, financial markets remain the most highly compensated employment sector in the nation. They have, beyond any reasonable doubt, shown taxpayers that their banks are exterior to the economy as a whole and are acting accordingly.