While contemplating several news items of interest over the past two weeks, and in between attending multiple doctors' appointments, I have been trying to formulate several questions to which I would like self-styled conservatives to answer. Not in a spirit of combativeness, but in a spirit of honest inquiry.
I'll admit it: I am not alone in being quick to the mark, and making assumptions about other people's goals, motives, and aspirations--it's a normal human analytical shorthand. We all do it. But I am trying hard to gain some understanding here, some genuine understanding. I hope it results in civil, and civic-minded, conversation. Maybe if we all worked a little harder at trying to understand viewpoints that are not normally our own, we could actually begin to resolve some of the most contentious issues of the day. That is all I'm trying to get at with the things I am about to ask. Honest!
I should also note: this post is a work-in-progress. I am going to refine and add detail as time and energy allow. Please revisit it periodically. I'll make a note to myself to add a comment whenever I add to the body, as a way of flagging the additional content I will have included.
Question the first: Why are for-profit companies presumed to be better at almost everything than is government? Government must be good at some things, or else there'd be no reason for it to exist at all. For-profit companies exist to benefit their owners--that, by definition, is the meaning of "for-profit." While they provide goods and services that people want and need, they do not exist for the good of those people. They exist to make profit--to take in more than they give out--again, all for the benefit of their owners.
In an ideal world, this trade is a "win-win." People get the goods and services they want and need for a price they are willing to pay; the company gets more in terms of value than it gives, thus fulfilling its "for-profit" status, and also stays in business because it keeps making profit, thus incidentally continuing to provide what people want and need.
This is not an ideal world, however. Too often, people have needs; not just "wants," or "nice-to-haves," but genuine "needs," or "must-haves." [Think "I will literally die without obtaining the benefits of this good or service."--Ed.] Too often, these needs are beyond their means to obtain.
Please note: I am not talking about big houses and fancy cars. I am talking about the things most basic to modern life: food, shelter, physical safety and security, medical care, meaningful work, transportation. Perhaps you disagree, especially about the last two items. However, please consider: we are living in the 21st century, not the 17th. It is literally impossible for everyone on the planet to be 100% self-sustaining. Technology has made it so. We must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. People must work to get the money to exchange for the goods and services they cannot provide by themselves for themselves. And in these days, where one works and where one lives are not typically within reasonable walking distance of one another.
Please also note that I am not talking strictly about money. People's time and energy have value, too--value that must be included in any calculations about whether any particular good or service is worth its asking price.
I also included medical care in the "needs," not "wants," category because I know from personal experience that without good health, it is impossible to do the work required to earn the money that will pay for the other goods and services we do not just want, but truly need, just to stay alive.
So to refine my first question, let me ask it this way: why are so many people not just willing, but seemingly eager, to entrust their health care decisions to companies whose very reason for being requires them to take in more money than they pay out--to put it bluntly, to accept your premiums but deny your claims? Health IS life. I've said that before. And since life is the most fundamental of our unalienable rights, and health care literally promotes, preserves, and protects life, isn't running our health care system on a for-profit basis simply wrong? Why not have a not-for-profit system of health care, where decisions are made based on their merits, and there are objective, written standards that can be consulted--and an impartial decision-maker to use those standards to resolve disputes about care . . . instead of an anonymous corporate employee whose own job depends on increasing his employer's profit margins?
I really just don't get it. I would hope someone would explain it to me. But please, not with references to non-existent government "death panels." Private, for-profit insurers are operating those now. [Which leads me to a tangential question to wit: Have you ever noticed how quickly many people who do bad things are to accuse their opponents of doing the same bad things that they, themselves, are already doing? It is an effective way of distracting attention from the real issues.--Ed.]
Hence my question the second: Whence comes this presumption that "government" equals "bad"? I do not deny for a second that government screws things up. All that government consists of is a lot of people, and none of us is perfect. However, I do deny that government is some evil, alien entity that exists to suck the life and freedom out of the people. In this country, the government IS the people. Isn't that still taught in elementary school civics classes? And if not, why not?
Let me point out that the only time government doesn't work is when you put people in charge of the government who say they don't believe in government. After all, they have a vested interest in proving their point. For just one example, contrast the lack of effective response to Hurricane Katrina to, oh, say, the US space program in the sixties. Large parts of New Orleans STILL haven't been rebuilt, 5 years later . . . and yet we went from not even having put one human being into orbit to landing two of them on the moon, and bringing them home safely, in about 8 years. Furthermore, we already have the technology we need to rebuild New Orleans, whereas we had to create everything for the moon shots from scratch.
Also, have you ever wondered why our national infrastructure seems to be falling apart of late? Here's why: between 15 and 20 years ago, the Reagan Administration removed infrastructure maintenance funding from all federal budgets. It made that administration's budget numbers look better, and the price wouldn't have to be paid till decades later, long after its architects [and I use that term loosely--Ed.] have moved on--and we're reaping those rotten fruits now. I keep thinking of the old Fram oil filter commercials--ironically, also dating from the Reagan era. Fram turned the higher retail price of its oil filters into a positive by reminding people that they could spend a bit more up front, to get a Fram filter . . . or they could wait, and have to cover the cost of a total engine rebuild when their less-expensive, and thus presumably lesser-quality, filters did not do the job. As the mechanic in the Fram commercials said, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Well, as far as our infrastructure goes, it's now "later." And we can thank the Reagan administration for that.
This is the same reason I do not understand why certain members of Congress claim to be so worried about the expenses associated with certain new legislative proposals, such as health care reform ans switching us over to more environmentally-friendly energy production. YES, it's all expensive. But the longer we wait, the more expensive it's going to become. The only things delay will do are (1) increase the costs to us when we finally have no choice but to change, and (2) keep those costs coming out of the pockets of those least able to afford them, instead of making everyone pay a fair share for the societal benefits that changing now will give us all.
Part of living in a civil, civilized society, is that we ALL have not just rights, but responsibilities to one another. Some people have forgotten this. They are fighting against returning tax code rates even to their levels during the Reagan Administration . . . rates that were (to that point) the most favorable the rich had seen in many decades. I do not understand why so many people who are being hurt financially by these attempts to disable the government go along with them. I've heard some say that to do otherwise would endanger all our precious freedoms, which sounds good--but since when is "freedom" the same thing as "irresponsibility"? You wouldn't be able to make your fortunes without taking advantage of all the things government provides us all--from transportation systems to coinage to physical safety. Everyone who gets the benefits should cover their fair share of the costs. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once pointed out, "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." I really do not get why so many people do not get that, and I wish someone would make a serious attempt to explain it to me.
Question the third: why isn't everyone totally appalled by the dramatic increase in hateful behavior, threats, name-calling, baseless accusations, and--let's face it--racially-biased crap spewing out of the mouths of some people in this country? I am willing to bet that a lot of the people doing and saying the hateful things consider themselves to be good Christians. I would like to understand why they think their expressions of hate do not contradict their religious beliefs. Do they honestly think that Jesus would agree with them? If so, what Bible are they reading? I do not get it, but I'm willing to at least try to understand. I really do hope someone tries to explain these things to me. As long as anyone who disagrees with me is willing to engage in civil discussion, so am I. Please, help me understand "where you're coming from."
No comments:
Post a Comment