Editor’s note: This is opinion is from Tom Licata, founder of Vermonters for Economic Health and resident of Burlington.
“Governor Dean, you want a more robust Public Option?”
“I think the bill still has some fairly significant flaws but you know we can work with this. This is what Mitt Romney did essentially in Massachusetts, but it’s going to take a long time but it’s going to lead to reforms ultimately. I wouldn’t call this bill reform but I do think it can lead to reform…it’s going to take a lot more work”
“Governor Dean, Philosophically… do you think your party knows…we’ve chosen a different type of society, more akin to Europe?”
“…when it gets [social inequality] out of whack…you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution.”
This CNBC Squawk Box interview occurred on March 25th; two days after President Obama signed into law the most significant major legislation since Medicare, in 1965.
As Governor Dean stated, “This is a form of redistribution,” and “I wouldn’t call this bill [health care] reform but I do think it can lead to reform.” If this major legislation doesn’t – yet – provide the kind of health care change sold to the American public, what “change” actually was sold?
The U.S. Senate’s health-care legislation recently passed by the House does not “reform” America’s health-care system. Rather, it provides for transformative “change.” Change to America’s social contract; change to America’s civil society; and predominately, change to America’s individual freedoms and its relationship with its government.
18th century philosopher Edmund Burke writes of this difference between “change” and “reform”:
“There is…a marked distinction between change and [reform]. [Change] alters the substance of the objects themselves, and gets rid of all their essential good as well as of all accidental evil annexed to them…. Reform is not change in the substance or in the primary modification of the object, but a direct application of a remedy to the grievance complained of. So far as that is removed, all is sure. It stops there; and if it fails, the substance which underwent the operation, at the very worst, is but where it was.”
This health-care legislation “changes” the substance of the object; that object being America’s relationship between its citizenry and its government; a relationship emanated from our Founder’s Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. This, I believe, is what Governor Dean was speaking to; like the proverbial adage of boiling the frog in the pot of water by – ever so slowly – increasing its temperature, he knows goals are attained by – ever so slowly – redefining relationships.
It is here – the substantive change between the relationship of an individual’s rights with that of government’s control over both these rights and property – that our nation’s battle lines are drawn.
Permalink |
I’m so glad to know that Mr. Licata is standing in defense of insurance company property. That is indeed where the battle line is drawn.
Clearly, Mr. Licata has no problem with the current relationship between humans and insurance companies. Instead, he would have us focus on the supposed dangers of government “control” of health care. But what perchance does Mr. Licata have to say about Medicare and the VA? Exactly what rights have been lost from these two programs?
Too bad he doesn’t understand that the ability to enjoy our rights (the ones not already diminished by the Right wing Supreme Court) requires good health.
Permalink |
Yes, it is too bad that Mr. Licata does not seem to understand that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” depends on your health. If he does not understand this, he should try being without health insurance in the face of a major medical problem and see how far his rights go. I’ve been there. There is no liberty when the bill collector is calling.
Too often these right-wingers think that the rights of liberty mean the rights of property and for the property only.
Permalink |
I have posed the simplest of questions through the years but
no one cares (dares ?) to answer it – so I deeply appreciate
this forum. Why the reticience – reluctance – refusal I shall leave that up to keener minds.
Here is the question. If over the course of the past decade Medicare, Medicaid and Insurance Companies had been at a parity in terms of the cost of procedures {MRI’s etc.] what type of increases would we have been looking at from the private sector?
Demonizing insurance companies without acknowledging the
enormity of this imbalance may afford for good political barnstorming and perpetuity but, it is sorely lacking in the required pragmatics of sound decision making. However, as long as no one choses to make the Pogo argument who am I to ripple the waters. Of what consequence – the tsunami is here.
I had hoped (prayed) that the Federal Government would have assumed all Medicaid expenses for the period of one year during which a truly bipartisan legislative committee would have
presented an informed public’s bill to the President for his
signature on March 17th 2010. But, alas simplicity tends to encourage brief time-lines and it pays so poorly.
Permalink |
Mr. Mulligan
I’m confused. Are you suggesting that those who are critical of private insurance companies don’t care about ballooning costs throughout the system? If so, don’t include me in that group.
We’ve known forever that any “fix” (including single payer) that does not address costs is doomed (although at least we buy time and insure everone while we’re waiting because single payer has the benefit of vastly reducing administrative costs).
Clearly, we need to set and stick with global budgets that aren’t allowed to grow unsustainably (as is the case for hospital budgets in VT). The Europeans have managed this problem much better than we have. They spend half as much and get equal or better outcomes.
Is it easy? No. But you are mistaken if you think reformers don’t care.
BTW – That doesn’t mean I can’t still demonize the insurance companies for their atrocious behavior.
Permalink |
Ho hum! Blah,blah,blah! I would assume that Mr.Licata avoids all those government run,’socialist’institutions which he fears will jeopardizes our individual liberty because they are not privately owned,for profit enterprises, such as: Public libraries, Police Departments, Fire Departments,etc. I also assume Mr. Licata, if he has any integrity at all, does not, or will not use Medicare, or does not support the National Guard or our Armed Forces. After a February snow storm, does Mr. Licata shovel the stretch of road in front of his house rather than subverting our right to choose by allowing the town’s ‘socialist’ road crew to do the job. And, no doubt, Mr. Licata was most likely home schooled to avoid being tainted by Marxist/Leninist public schools.
Permalink |
With careful reading, you will find that I wrote a fairly “opinion less” piece.
I merely reiterate an interview with Governor Dean and point to his acknowledgement that he “wouldn’t call this bill reform…”
With this legislation’s health care mandates and other provisions, I acknowledge the inevitable change in “America’s relationship between its citizenry and its government.”
The vitriol responses posted here confirm the main thesis of my piece, that is:
“It is here – the substantive change between the relationship of an individual’s rights with that of government’ s control over both these rights and property – that our nation’s battle lines are drawn.”
Permalink |
Profoundly disturbing here are the comments suggesting that Health Care is a right. Such an assertion shows a serious misunderstanding of economics. If Health Care is a right, then so too is food, clothing, and shelter… and maybe a car, and a couple of vacations. I suggest the pundits here read a little Adam Smith, some Hayek… and yes some Marx as well.
I for one would be more than happy to site back, collect my Obama money and get my rights in Health Care, food, clothing, shelter, and education – but if we all do that – just who is going to provide those goodies?
Permalink |
“Profoundly disturbing here are the comments suggesting that Health Care is a right. Such an assertion shows a serious misunderstanding of economics.’
I have read Adam Smith and Marx, among other so-called economists. Though it’s been a while since reading, I do not remember anything in there about health care not being a right of all individuals within a culture, nation, state society, considering that it was not their fault that they were born into that society. If we understand economics it is only the privileged or the lucky that get health care? And if so, then who will be around to support the privileged and the lucky since the rest of us will die off from lack of health insurance/care?
Permalink |
Don’t let it get to you.
Mr. Malmros is only repeating what he’s been taught. The problem of course is that Mr. Malmros’ notion of “economics” is nothing more than a construct. Are there parts of it that sometimes reflect / predict human behavior? Sure. But there are also enormous holes (e.g., externalities like pollution & GHG).
Moreover, the idea that humans have no interest in work beyond earning a buck is ludicrous. People are naturally curious and most want to be useful. Perhaps it’s the nature of work in industrial and post-industrial America that we should think about. For many, work is not challenging or interesting (and for most, not terribly rewarding). What an enormous waste of human energy and potential.
Finally, Mr. Malmros’ “economics” is predicated on one principle: that maximizing profit is necessarily in the best interests of society. Has the profit motive led to material advancement? For many yes. But for many others, no. Acquisitive individualism is just one model.
In the end, the economy is supposed to work FOR us, not be a box that limits our opportunities. Why should we support a system that has so many serious flaws? After all, we could choose to maximize something else (good health, full employment, take your pick). Would that look different? You bet. But I reject the idea that we have no options.
Permalink |
What is the limit on individual rights?…or is there a limit?
Does an individual need to contribute to society to earn these rights?….or are you born with them?
Permalink |
Such loaded questions; and your premise – “individual” rights. Isn’t that really the nub? It appears to me that you view rights from the narrow perspective of individuals; as if we are separate from our community. [unfortunately, that's one of the wrong turns we made some time ago]
And it’s so literal; as if the only context is a 200 year old document instead of 10,000 years of human development.
How does one “contribute” to society? Work? Pay taxes? A rather simplistic notion. Do children “contribute” to society? Do the elderly? How about the disabled? Are those who invent new technologies making a greater contribution than those who plow the fields and produce your food? What about those who – while trying to maximize profits – destroy 1,000 jobs in America, only to (re)create them in China? They served shareholders? Is that good enough? Did they “contribute”?
The Founders thought only property owning White men should have the “right” to vote. We got beyond that. Will you acknowledge that there may be other changes ahead? If not, I’m afraid we have nothing to talk about.
Permalink |
“The Founders thought only property owning White men should have the “right” to vote. We got beyond that.”
Doug, am sure that there are alot of people among those that finance the tea partiers and the ranting crazies that want to return to this situation.
Permalink |
Lots of interesting and well said posts here.
In my opinion, any “fix” or “reform” to our Capitalistic profit driven healthcare system is too little and too late.
The system was built to make profits and make people rich. Once you give someone a way to make a ton of money its really hard to take it away or get them to give it up. The system the way it is has made being a healthcare provider or healthcare insurer so very lucrative. Capitalism may be a good thing when it comes to business competition, but it has no place in healthcare. It was a big mistake to set up our healthcare system this way in the first place. The only really fair and ethical system is the single payer plan which should have been implemented from day one. You cant implemant it now, what would we do with all the out of work insurance people? Its just too huge to mess with now. The new changes will just make it harder on business’ which will drive up the cost of all goods to consumers, which will eventually take us all to a place we dont want to be.
Its just too late. Unfortunately the “too late” scenario can be applied to most of our gov.’s humanitarian policies.
We are headed the way of the Roman Empire. Its just a matter of time thats all.
Permalink |
John
You’re right. The transition to a single payer system would have very significant labor impacts. But that’s not a reason to walk away. We have a lot of unmet needs and problems to be solved. Those who work on the admin. side of health care are perfectly capable of doing other things. We need to redirect their energies to other purposes. Would there be a cost? Absolutely. But the savings in health care would be immense so after the transition we (collectively) can put those resources to better use.
Permalink |
“Once you give someone a way to make a ton of money its really hard to take it away or get them to give it up.”
Agree with you there, John. Well said. It is also more about power — the power of controlling life or death — that what’s been called the medical-industrial complex has garnered over the years that is also difficult to give up in favor of single-payer. I agree with you that it is too late, though I would add the phrase, almost too late, to save it. We have the chance now, if we as a state and the nation has the courage to get over the money part. For that I think we lack.