Intellectual debate part 1

Intellectual debate-part 1.

At a time when technology, a large population across a vast swath of land, specialization, consolidation of economic sectors and increasing international trade have made issues more complex and resolving them more critical, we seem less capable of doing so in a thoughtful manner. Our political leaders and partisans in the media have honed their sound bite skills to a razor’s edge and most of us seem content to quote them unthinkingly without questioning the logic or reason (or lack therein).

This brief essay addresses one of the weaknesses in statements regarding the current health care reform debate.

I recently heard someone say that they were against universal health care because it was too much like socialism. There are a couple of problems with this statement and both point to the lack of intellectual activity on the part of the average American.

The first problem is with the definition of socialism. Socialism is government control over the means of production. This label may or may not apply to universal health care, depending on how it is done. Subsidizing of health premiums does not meet the definition. A single payer plan where the government collects taxes, fees or premiums and pays providers directly also fails to meet the criteria (though completely controlling the market for health insurance might be socializing insurance, it is not socialized medicine). In contrast, if the government ran the hospitals, hired the doctors, bought all the equipement, etc, that would be socialized medicine. The recent government bailouts of banks and automakers (and previous takeover of railroads) IS socialism.

The second part of the statement implies that the listener automatically assumes socialism is an undesirable condition. Though many may believe that a pure socialist state is a bad thing, even those do not really object to the socialism of certain elements of our economy. How many Americans would like our military to be a capitalist enterprise? Would we want to lose a war because the lowest bidders did not spend enough money on recruiting or training soldiers? How about legislation? We already have enough problems with PAC money influencing our elected officials; how bad would it be if we opened seats in congress to bidding?

The examples given may seem extreme, but they illustrate at least that there are some tasks best served by non-capitalist means and perhaps we should admit to this and argue for or against partial or full government control of services and economic sectors based on logical premises rather than hot button words and catch phrases that stir emotions, but don’t contribute to the debate. It might even be helpful if some of us would agree to discuss these issues without the use of inflammatory terms or exaggerations. If socialism is bad and the things that make socialism bad also apply to universal health care, then we should say, ‘Universal health care is bad because I object to paying for someone else’s care’ or ‘Government control of health care costs will stifle innovation’ and then be prepared to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.

More to come on this…