Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Good and Evil
Is there something in the human condition that makes us yearn for epic battles between good and evil? Are we as a species driven to ignore obvious facts if they contradict the narrative that our political choices are between heaven and hell rather than about picking the least bad option from a lot of less than stellar choices?
I ask this because a dear friend who is otherwise thoughtful and rational became extremely upset over Congressman Mo Brooks’ statement regarding pre-existing conditions during an interview with Jake Tapper. He said, “…we need to take into consideration all those people who have lived good lives, they’re healthy and they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy. Those are the people who have done the things the right way and they’re having their costs skyrocket and it’s not fair…”
Of course this lady who survived cancer a couple of years ago is rightly concerned about being priced out of the market by proposed changes to our healthcare laws. The Congressman’s statement was inartful and horribly stated, but the offending quote also leaves off the end where he said, “…in fairness, a lot of the people with pre-existing conditions have those conditions through no fault of their own, and I think our society under those circumstances needs to help…” But, she can’t accept that he was merely daft rather than evil. Her amen chorus on Facebook is right there passing judgment on the representative (and by extension all the people who elected him to office) as ignorant and cruel.
Obviously what Brooks attempted — and failed — to convey is that we cannot afford to subsidize poor life choices. The problem is that coverage for pre-existing conditions is a wide net which catches those like my friend who should not be penalized for a spate of rotten luck as well as the obese, diabetic smoker and the recreational meth user. This is not a matter of good versus evil. It is a problem of tradeoffs where no right answer exists. When we collectivize the costs associated with health care (and that is what our current insurance system does) then we will always be presented with certain problems like free riders and help for people with pre-existing conditions being gamed by the irresponsible.
Below is the bit of the interview that created the angsty outbursts.
.
Published in Healthcare, Politics
Saying dumb [expletive] obviously doesn’t get us very far in the world…
Also the Right. Ideology quickly turns into a certain kind of measuring contest. I’ve dipped my toe into municipal politics and the water is hot and smells like sewage. But, my city is in trouble and either all the candidates are too dumb or too scared to present common sense solutions. So I’ve decided to cannonball into the hot, farty water for a year or two — probably get nowhere or maybe not — then go back to PTSD counseling after giving a fond farewell to politics for good like this (CoC warning):
Here is what he said about pre-existing conditions: “…a lot of the people with pre-existing conditions have those conditions through no fault of their own, and I think our society under those circumstances needs to help.”
Doesn’t sound like blame to me.
Exactly. And yet people focus on the dumb sounding bit so they can have their rage. That’s the part I don’t get, except that Kate explained it very well in a previous comment.
I am not enraged. :) And I do agree with the second part of the statement he made.
I guess I was reading something into this discussion that wasn’t there, for which I apologize.
I was listening to MD&E on the way to work this morning and Kevin said that covering pre-existing conditions is asking insurance companies to bet against something that has already happened. From now on when people talk about health insurance I’m just going to think:
It isn’t insurance, not any more.
I think on this topic the entire nation is like a pilot that’s lost the horizon. We simply are disconnected from reality. The more I think about “insurance” as it is operated today I would say that we have a socialist healthcare payment system where the socialism has been outsourced from government to private enterprise. It’s going to fail for the exact same reason socialism always, always, fails.
Perhaps the reason health care costs are so high is insurance. Why should those who provide health care compete for a patients dollar when insurance provides a guaranteed income. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. You do not make a profit by paying out on claims.
Insurance companies protect their bottom line by refusing to pay for specific procedures. Doctors and hospitals protect their bottom line by charging a non- negotiable price for each procedure, as well as for each Kleenix a patient might use.
Progressives love it because inside every Progressive there is a totalitarian screaming to get out. They lay awake at night frustrated because they cannot be at everyone’s dinner table supervising what they eat and drink.
Right, this I think is the core of the problem.
If health insurance were true insurance, and you buy a policy when you’re young and healthy, and pay your premiums every month, then you cannot ever develop a “pre-existing” condition. Even if some rare disease strikes you out of the blue, and causes you to need expensive care for many years, you already have insurance, and that insurance should be liable for covering your costs w/o raising your premiums.
The problem is, we have this weird system where most people get their health insurance via their employer due to a tax loophole, and furthermore most employees can change providers every year during open enrollment. Most people end up changing jobs, and therefore “insurance” providers, many times over their lifetime, so even if you are continuously covered and pay your premiums your entire life, once you develop a chronic condition you will likely sooner or later end up in the “pre-existing conditions” bucket.
Yes. Yes that is the human condition.
“The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b. who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list.”
– John Derbyshire
Jonathan Haidt also discusses how fundamentally illogical the human mind is. To simplify his ideas, your friend doesn’t get a dopamine boost by thinking through economics.
In my view there are two very different issues conflated here:
#1 does strike me as heartless. Sure there are risk factors for certain conditions we can reduce by changing our behavior, but it’s still a matter of genetics and luck, I’m not going to blame someone for getting sick.
#2 is more debatable. As conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility. If someone decides not to buy insurance, spends the money instead on sports cars and exotic vacations, then gets sick and suddenly demands I should pay for his expenses, I am inclined to blame him for being irresponsible — not for getting sick, but for failing to plan ahead.
But as I mentioned above, some people are blameless on both fronts, if they had insurance all along but lost it b/c they lost their job, and now can’t get a new plan b/c of their “pre-existing” condition.
Your opening paragraph was so enticing I wrote a response before reading through the comments. Sorry for retreading similar arguments.
Jimmy Kimmel is the perfect embodiment of this. He says he wants universal health care but he doesn’t know that America and Switzerland are about the only countries that produce new drugs. Thusly by being for universal healthcare he is increasing illness and death globally by reducing the incentives for biotech companies to research. He makes policy based on anecdotal evidence and doesn’t think beyond stage one. Additionally, lets say his baby did need the surgery and Jimmy Kimmel was a guy who didn’t have health insurance and thought it was a great idea to bring life into this world without fulfilling his moral duty to provide for his child. (Something that universal health-care would increase.)
Does anybody here really believe that they would just kick Jimmy Kimmel and his baby out to the curb? I for one don’t. Though it is possible that he the hypothetical loser-Dad Jimmy Kimmel would be burdened with debt.
Klavan podcast today is great on this subject.
Cui bono?
A dramatic story of good vs. evil sells. Web sites, newspapers, talk radio, podcasts, etc. are going to make more money packaging stories this way than by writing long, detailed, scholarly think pieces that no one will read (or buy).
PACs and non-profits have no doubt learned that the good-vs-evil narrative is a much more effective way to raise money, too.
Finally, the two parties themselves benefit. If you convince people that our party is good and the other side is evil, they will be more motivated to vote a straight party ticket every time.
Moral hazard is an issue whenever it comes to insurance, even health insurance.
You may not blame people for getting sick, but the government will blame them once we have socialized medicine. For now the left will go into hysterics over anyone who does it, but the national conversation will do a 180 on this once our system is fully nationalized.
Single push-up DESTROYS Ben Shapiro.
I would love to debate this doofus.