American Politics, Part VII

I want to address the hostility to “socialized medicine.” Why does the word “socialized” work people up into a frenzy? I think it is because of our deeply-held belief in the basic features of capitalism, which I would agree is the best economic system (although it must be contained by the government, as I argued a few weeks ago). Capitalism works because it throws a harness around each person’s desire to better his own economic circumstances. Here’s an example of healthy capitalism: if there were only one, state-controlled computer manufacturer, then we could expect that computers would become sub-standard rather quickly. There have to be several computer manufacturers that are in competition for my business, because the result of the competition will cheaper and more powerful computers.

Conservatives argue that medical care should work essentially in the same way. Hospitals should remain privately-controlled because in an effort to get me to come to their hospital rather than the other guy’s hospital, each hospital will do its best to control costs, provide a clean environment, and offer effective care. Health insurance companies should work in the same way: there should be many private insurance companies competing for my business, because then those companies will work to offer the better and more affordable insurance than their competitor.

Next week I want to develop more of an argument for “socialized medicine.” But for now, I will simply point to a glaring dissimilarity between the case of say, computer manufacturing, and that of medical treatment. The conservative has made the same capitalist analysis in both cases, but the cases are not the same. Let’s say I am making a decision to purchase a new computer. So I look at the selection, read some consumer reviews, and discover that the computer market is not to my satisfaction. I have other options: I can decide to refurbish my current computer, to do all my work at a computer lab or at a work computer, to share a computer with my wife or roommate, etc, etc, etc. The point is, the consumer has options, and he can decide to leave the marketplace if he does not find current market conditions to his liking for whatever reason.

This is when capitalism is great. Computer company A notices that sales of new computers are down to people in my socioeconomic demographic, and so the board members at computer company A get together and figure out how to make their computers better, faster, cheaper, prettier, etc., so that I will change my mind about buying a new computer.

The situation with health care is quite different. If I become dissatisfied my insurance company, or that the cost of a check up is too high, then I can look around for a new provider or new doctor. But I cannot reasonably be expected to opt out of the marketplace entirely in most cases. I know and you know that it does not cost $16,000 to bring a healthy baby in this world with no complications. Somebody is getting rich at my expense. Now, if this were like the computer situation, I would just decide tosuch as that of giving birth, it is just not reasonable to ask someone to forgo treatment entirely until costs come down. The insurance companies have you, because I can’t leave the marketplace. The computer manufacturers have to get you, because I can leave the marketplace, and so they have to work hard for my business.

I understand that I have not yet argued for socialized medicine. But I hope I have shown one difference between a company a hospital.

American Politics, Part VI

A helpful comment, followed by my clarification of my comments last week:

“The Indians dying out was not a "deliberate and systematic extermination of an entire race of people," which is what the word 'genocide' means. This is just another way that Leftists like to use guilt manipulation to make us feel bad about being Americans. Here is an article that does much more justice to the complex historical situation, which concludes that "To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history" (http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html)

We can't punish your ancestors as much as some would like to, but we can and should do our best in our current political circumstances. I do believe that we should be hospitable to the 'sojourner', but how long would you let someone stay in your house without paying rent, especially if they added a new family member (thousands actually) every day?”


The Orthodox Heretic responds:

I’m not trying to make anyone feel bad about themselves, nor do I wish anyone to be punished. In fact, I have a lot of pride about what our country has been able to accomplish. I don’t feel guilty at all about living in America, and I don’t think you should either. After all, the ‘Native Americans’ were inevitably not truly ‘native,’ but probably won the use of this continent through bloodshed. That’s just kind of how nature works – “nature red in tooth and claw,” as they say.

But I insist on pointing to the moral inconsistency in saying that we, as legal residents, are morally justified in residing in America, while those who have recently come here are morally unjustified. My soul is disturbed by those who stand up in our country and argue that the Latin Americans broke the laws by sneaking over, and that therefore they should not be rewarded for their stealth with amnesty. Those sorts of conservatives look thoroughly ridiculous on their moral high-horse, because they also have no elevated moral status which would allow them to look down their noses at “illegals.”

I agree with you that there are some difficult practical issues that come with unrestricted immigration. That is why I mentioned that we, as the current legal residents of a country recognized by the United Nations, have the right to use our own cleverness to keep out illegal immigrants. In principle, I am not particularly disturbed by those efforts, although I have some concerns about the motivations of these patriots. Deep down, do they just want a “pure” society? How is such zeal, as demonstrated by the “Minute Men,” those self-appointed border-guards, in any way reconcilable with Christianity? But as I said last week, I don’t have any good answers of my own about how to deal with illegal immigration, except to insist that the “no-amnesty” folks either haven’t thought through this issue properly, or else are not much like Jesus.

American Politics, Part V

The illegal immigration issue is a difficult one. This is clear simply by observing that Bush and Ted Kennedy have at times been on the same side of this debate, and that there is nothing recognizable as a standard ‘party line’ for either party, as there is for perhaps every single other issue. I have to confess, I don’t know exactly what kind of policies I would support if I were in the government.

But one part of the debate is clear to me, and that is that the “no amnesty” people are hypocrites of the worst kind. Liberals sometimes make the argument that “This is a country founded by immigrants.” That is partly right and partly wrong, for the full truth is that this is a county founded by illegal immigrants. In 1776, some Europeans, who were not invited to this continent, signed a piece of paper declaring that this country belonged to them. As far as I am aware, no Native Americans were invited to this ribbon-cutting ceremony, which declared that the land upon which those Englishman stood was the legal property of the United States. With one stroke of the pen, those men went from being English citizens to being citizens of the United States of America.

No, our ancestors did not break any actual laws by coming here and butchering the Native populations. There was no extant piece of paper that described the illegality of countinent-usurping. But I am sure that if the Native Americans would have gotten around to codifying some laws, one of them might have included a “no-genocide” clause. I don’t know any educated people who are proud of all the sordid details of how our founding fathers came to be the sole possessors of the United States of America. But I also don’t know any Americans, myself included, who are willing to move. The one and only reason for this is that moving now would be a pain; we are already settled and comfortable here. We have bestowed amnesty upon ourselves! So to deny amnesty to Latin Americans currently residing in our country only because they came into this country without our permission, and yet to extend amnesty to our founding fathers and thus to ourselves, seems altogether morally absurd.

If you don’t want anymore illegal immigrants in our country, then build a wall, fine employers, or increase border security. I personally feel that these measures are a little much, but I also believe that it is our right as current legal residents of the USA to stop illegal immigrants from coming. But to oppose a path to citizenship for those already living here on moral grounds is perfectly ridiculous. Surely certain Latin Americans got into this country by using deception and stealth; but now, here they are! At least they did not commit genocide against those of us legally residing in America, which is more than I can say for my ancestors.