Office rhetoric

I was thinking about healthcare and national pride. Here are some talking points for the office:

Coworker: Something anti-government related to national healthcare

You: Look, the government of the people of the United States is the government that put the first person on the moon; it is the government that ended the Great Depression and defeated fascism in the same administration; it is the government that provided food and healthcare to all of its poor and ended poverty for our elderly. If you don’t want to provide insurance for the 40 million Americans who don’t have it–fine. If think it is good that our health insurance is tied to obedience to our employers–fine. But don’t say we can’t make health insurance available to everyone and independent of their employers. If France & Canada can do it, we can do, and we can do it better.

[Of course, for me, I’m compelled by my faith to care about the least of these. So, I can’t really accept the position that the 40 million uninsured people don’t deserve health insurance. But that’s just me. I’m not asking anybody else to follow my religion. I just don’t like people saying our country is incapable of dealing with the problem that every other industrialized nation already has.]

The bracketed part is optional. Nothing thoroughly researched to be sure, just some issue framing.

3 thoughts on “Office rhetoric”

  1. So does no one ever talk about the fact that wealthy Canadians and Europeans often buy supplemental private health care because the national benefit is not quite enough? I’m not saying baseline healthcare is not a good thing, just trying to keep my head out of the sand as we talk about it. Your statement that every industrialized nation has done this is not exactly as simple as that.

  2. Clearly the issue is more complex then I made it. Just because we put a man on the moon doesn’t mean we can manage a beauracracy. (The fact that we have effectively managed many beauracracies does.)

    Why do I care about wealthy people buying supplemental healthcare? Someone else brought this up today as a problem with the Canadian system, weird. What I want is for the working poor to have a GP to go to instead of an ER doc. I also want people to be able to change jobs without worrying about minimal healthcare.

    I guess your point is that if we adopt certain plans, my healthcare costs may go up (increased taxes plus supplemental). That’s fair. We’ll need to look at specifics, but it is such a specific.

    There are a number of things that make me sick to think about. 40 million uninsured is one. I really think it is unconscionable.

  3. I’m as guilty of talking about it in too-simple terms as anyone. It’s just a hugely complex issue and requires so much study.

    Yes, my point was that it is not a given that Euro-style universal healthcare gets everyone to what we all think about when we think of healthcare. And necessarily five years after universal healthcare is implemented, you are going to complain that there are two healthcare systems, one for the rich, and one for the poor. The rich can get healthcare the poor can not. I’m not saying your complaint at that stage is wrong or bad, just that once we’re used to this “floor”, they’ll be another definition of what an immoral level of healthcare is.

Leave a Reply