Process Governmentalism

I've always been more concerned with the questions, thought processes, and data input concerning an answer, rather than the answer itself. When I was younger (and to a lesser extent today) I would challenge myself to "prove" a point using a traditionally opposing argument. Something along the lines of 1) We're a Christian nation, 2) Jesus doesn't like guns, therefore 3) Guns should be banned.

I don't actually think (nor does anyone reputable) that we're a Christian nation, but I do think guns should be outlawed. I use a political example because I'm concerned with some of the process governmentalism going on today.

For instance, a large portion of today's debate in the political arena surrounds health coverage for all Americans. On one side, we have the elected majority attempting to capitalize on a large market share of the necessary votes in Congress to drive through a bill that is sub-optimally aimed at covering those that do not have health insurance, or more accurately, can't get affordable health coverage.

On the other side, we have an elected minority that feels as if it has been shoved in the corner and is lashing out at anything even approximating healthcare. This side attempts to leverage arguments and counter-arguments against any healthcare legislation, many attempts of which disagree with one another!

Which begs the question: If I was a Democrat, what Conservative argument would I use to justify healthcare?

To which I would respond, healthy people are more productive. More productive people earn higher incomes over a longer period of time. This higher income over a course of many years results in multiplier effects that radiate outward and improve the economy as a whole. Naturally, some people (such as the retired) will not create any multiplicative effects because they will not be generating any new productivity. This is why it makes as much sense (if not more) to guarantee health coverage for younger Americans (who could conceivably be taken off the field of productivity if they die or are rendered disabled because of a sickness they couldn't get cured because of lack of healthcare) as it does to insure the elderly (through Medicare).

Don't get me wrong. I think this is an abysmal excuse to legislate a more socialized healthcare. The real reason is the moral imperative: we as a nation have a duty to help our fellow citizens. While the economics of universal health coverage simply make good economic sense, human beings cannot be quantified as a dollar rating. Or at least they shouldn't be.

Another argument from the Democrats using traditional Republican/conservative arguments: National Defense. If a nation's population is healthy, then in the event that the nation had to reinstate the draft, or there was a foreign invasion on American soil, the American military would be less encumbered by the fact that it had a healthy population that could rise up and fight alongside the active military.

Unfortunately for the purposes of arguing the opposing viewpoint, there's not really a strategy the Republicans/conservatives could use for arguing against Universal Health Coverage that uses a traditionally Liberal/Democratic argument. The Republicans are trying to use the argument that nationalized healthcare would impinge upon our freedoms (I don't buy the reasoning that anything the government does is innately doomed to failure), by stating that the government takeover of healthcare would limit choices because more people would flock to the public option because it would be subsidized and so much more affordable. But if you're taxes are paying for it anyway, why wouldn't you flock to the public option? It'd be like recouping some of your investment. As to choice, individuals in Arkansas would have access to a wide variety of public options. Other states would have other choices. In Arkansas, anyway, I would have more options with the Federal government's plans, than I would if I searched through the Private options. So, the "impinges on our freedoms" argument doesn't really work, since essentially the public option IS private insurers ultimately.

The only other 'liberal' argument I can think of that the Republican/conservatives might be able to use is one regarding civil rights. If it could be shown that because a public option has a habit of rejecting someone's coverage on an race/creed/religion/class/sex basis, then the Republicans could argue that the public option is unfair to a certain segment of the population and that it should not be legislated for. Of course, then they would have to admit that the private insurers do the same thing, which as I understand they haven't. Neither have I seen a standard argument for removing the 'pre-existing conditions' clause from the Insurer's Toolbox for Rejecting Coverage. I also get the feeling that if liberal/Democrats felt that a public option would be additionally racist/sexist/etc.ist, then they would probably encourage another option.

So, essentially, since I'm not able to argue the 'Null' hypothesis successfully in the Republican instance (and come to think of it, neither can I successfully argue the traditional Republican argument anyway), the opposite must be true, and the public option is indeed the way to go in the National Debate. There is always, however, the theory that I have not accumulated enough evidence and statistics and that a more superior answer is out there.

To that I say: Single Payer.