Ed Schultz asked last week if it was a moral imperative for nations such as ours to provide healthcare to all its citizens. I don't believe that a nation's morality depends solely on this issue, but perhaps the question is how much healthcare should be provide to satisfy this moral imperative. (Author's note: I'm not saying we don't have one, or that having one is a bad thing. I'm just thinking out loud here...).
For example, I am happy to pay for emergency services, so that accident victims for example aren't just left on the side of the road once the police are finished and the tow trucks leave. You may get billed afterwards for your trip to the emergency room but at least you're seen, although there's no guarantee that you'll pay the bill, assuming you could afford to in the first place. But does my enthusiastic willingness to pay for such things without question mean I want to pay for all your doctor's visits the rest of our lives?
Which brings me to Ashton Kutcher's quote. I too reacted with hostility towards his opinion that he doesn't want to pay for the guy who's "getting a triple-bypass because he’s eating fast food all day and deep-fried snickers bars." But the more I pondered his quote the more I realized that I don't want to pay for it either. And yet, I DO want to pay for whatever emergency services can save someone whose life is at stake because, quite frankly, if you're life is in jeopardy and I can save you then I don't care how you got to that point or what you've done in your life before now.
Is Kutcher's hypothetical triple-bypass a life-saving procedure? And is that the same as an emergency procedure? Patients put on organ donors lists, like those needing a new liver for example, must follow strick guidelines in order to continue to qualify for those organs and the transplant procedure. Who checks those things? Or do we merely take the patients' word for it? Some jobs require random drug tests to qualify for employment. Truthfully I don't support such things but at least the employeer is getting a service in return for its money. Paying for someone else's healthcare doesn't even give you that, and STILL we should put no conditions on it? (Author's note: I should add that one can argue we're paying for the greater good, and that's everyone's business - again, just thinking out loud here...).
One the other hand, maybe having to pay for the triple-bypass of the guy who did nothing healthy his entire life is simply the price we pay in order to ensure coverage of all the OTHER people in need. All groups have their bad apples after all, usually a small minority. You don't want to punish the entire group because of them. Some of the policemen whose salaries we pay turn out to be crooked. We don't abolish the entire police force, though we do set up internal watchdogs, and of course we stop paying the policeman...
In answering the question why the Left supports the public option, Digby says "Well, for me, it's mainly because I resent the hell out of being forced to give money to a bunch of greedy private interests who game the system for their own enrichment on the backs of sick people." I resent it too, but I don't know that fixing it requires the implementation of a public option. Surely, in a world where Congress isn't owned by the insurance companies, substantial reform could be achieved without it.
So, this is the source of my ambivalence towards the public option. Mind you, I am not a conservative, nor am I a troll. These are ruminations, not accusations. Some are no doubt factually inaccurate, which I urge you to correct. I want the discussion, because I doubt I am alone in my ambivalence on this issue.
However, the next time someone says we shouldn't have to pay for the healthcare of someone who doesn't bother taking care of themselves I have a radical suggestion: agree with them. Then suggest we start this process by enacting a stringent, detailed review of the personal lives of all 535 Congress members. After all, we're already paying for their healthcare, and they will no doubt jump at the chance to lead by example, right? I would love to see how the republican congressmen who are so fond of that talking point react to such a suggestion, wouldn't you?
Author's update - from from CaliSista in comments:
. Picking and choosing who can be covered is a recipe for disaster.
I think what I'm asking is, do we get to decide what they'll be covered for. How big a promise should we as a society make to ourselves? We can promise everyone - not picking and choosing, everyone - coverage for severe, life-saving, bankrupting procedures. I eagerly support that. How far beyond these examples should our promise extend though? That is what I'm pondering.
Update x2: more good comments, this one by BentLiberal, helping me clarify my ambivalence:
And your plan to only pay for emergency care, but not preventative care ("checkups") will take even more money out your pocket. It's a penny wise, but pound foolish approach.
Several commenters explain why this is true, assuming they're correct. But it was emergency care vs. preventative care that I was trying to say in this diary (and which took BentLiberal one sentence to say). Do you believe that substantial reforms and guaranteed emergency care fulfills our moral imperative to ourselves? I'm enjoying reading the answers.