Some questions about "Doing the right thing" for America on Health Care

I've always thought that the only reason needed to justify doing the right thing is simply because it IS the right thing. No police watching to see if you do the right thing and arresting you if you don't. No vengeful god or gods threatening you with hell if you don't do the right thing. Not even peer pressure make sure you act like everyone else by — wait for it — doing the right thing. Just do right because it's right.

The concept seems simple, and I'm sure that most people (Americans and non-Americans) would agree that doing right for right's sake, even if that's not the only reason, is a good practice.

However, no one seems to be able to agree on is what those right things are for our multiple problems* here in the United States and around the world. We have no paucity of people telling us what the right thing to do is, but few of them seem to have a good rationale (or any rationale) for why their right thing** is a positive and viable right thing.

As citizens, we are asked to evaluate these right things (proposed policies) to determine which really are right, for whom, and why. Again, as citizens***, we are doing a crappy job, partly because we aren't asking good questions, and partly because we aren't insisting on good answers. Mostly, I would like to know why a particular policy is the right thing to do, and what assumptions (values) support each policy, and how the assumptions and policies are related. Here are some more specific questions I would like answered about the recent SCHIP veto by President Bush:

• Why is $35 billion (a figure I heard on the news, but haven't been able to confirm) too much to spend to provide health insurance to U.S. children through a program that has proved successful?
• If this expansion provides health insurance to some families with the means to afford health insurance, why is that a problem? Isn't providing coverage to everyone who needs it more important than excluding a few who could get by without it?
• If some children are not covered, isn't it likely that at least a few children will die as a result of not expanding the program? How many dead children are an acceptable loss? (Kind of dramatic, but I'd like to know the answer.)
• Why is government health insurance a good/bad idea?
• How is government paid health insurance different from government provided health care, or is it?
• What assumptions about health care, personal responsibility, society's obligations to children, and government spending drive healthcare policy? Why?
• Clearly, a person's income level (or that of a child's parents) influences the quality of health care a person can access. Is this a good thing? Why?
• From a purely economic perspective, wouldn't expanded health insurance coverage mean more discretionary money for consumers to spend and/or save/invest? And wouldn't this be a good thing? If an increase in general consumer spending is not a good thing, why is healthcare spending more valuable to the economy than other types of spending/investing?

I would ask these questions of everyone at the federal level: the President, Senators, Congressional Representatives, administrative agencies, etc., and probably some at the state level as well.

More later,

Russ

*Of course, if everyone were doing at least a version of the right thing, our problems might not seem so numerous and so monumental.

**Before we get too far into this I should mention that I have a firm belief that there are multiple right answers to almost every question. For example, even mathematics has more than one right answer to some questions: 2 + 2 = 4 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 1 AND 2 + 2 = 5 - 1 and so on. In this example, 2 + 2 has an infinite number of right answers. However, that doesn't address the question of what is the best right answer.

***Don't blame the media for everything. Yes, reporters and editors are doing a crappy job, too, but citizens must take ultimate responsibility. Full Disclosure Alert: I have worked as a full-time journalist and currently teach journalism at Vincennes University in Indiana.

Even "well-informed" Senators don't understand the concept of democracy

"Senator Biden, probably the best-informed member of Congress on Iraq, insists that loose federalism, not partition, is his goal."

Well-informed on Iraq, perhaps, but not well-informed about how democracy works. It doesn't matter whether Biden wants to partition Iraq or create a loose federation. What matters is what the Iraqi people decide. Unless the United States annexes Iraq, what Americans want is irrelevant.

This kind of arrogant, ignorant thinking is typical of American politicians – and Americans in general – who seem to believe that the whole world revolves around the United States and that U.S. interests are the only interests that count.

More later,
Russ