Musings of Maaia – Justin

I have often heard opponents of the new health care reform bill make an analogy to the U.S. Post Office when arguing that the government option for health care will be a disaster. They cite the fact that the Post Office struggles to remain financially viable and that, when it isn’t, it is simply bailed out by tax money. I will not argue these points, as they are factual. Indeed, the Post Office needs to do some things to make itself viable in the age of electronic bill-pay and e-invitations. However, I only wish that opponents of the health care bill would carry their analogy through to the end. If they would, they might see that the Post Office–and therefore the health care bill–actually plays an important part creating a just economy for the people of the United States.

The role Post Office creates and maintains a fair and just market. First of all, this tax-subsidized company does not eliminate competition, as evidenced by the successful competitors UPS, FedEx, and others. Secondly, the Post Office sets a fair price for its services, ensuring that FedEx and UPS cannot set an exorbitant prices for their services. When I say that opponents of the health care bill need to follow their comparison through to the end, what I mean is this: Let’s pretend that the Post Office does not exist, and that FedEx and UPS got together and decided to charge $10.00 to mail a letter. What could we do about it? Nothing. What if these companies make an additional $40 billion in profits, and still decide to raise the price of mailing a letter from $10 to $15? What can we do about it? Nothing. And yet this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in regarding health care. We have companies who are beholden to no one–not to customers, not to government regulators, not to their own consciences–they are beholden to no one but their own greed. And there is nothing we can do about it. Nothing, that is, except elect officials who can combat this injustice. And they have. Our elected official have decided that if they create a government option (among other features and safeguards) for health care, it will force these companies to play fairly and justly in the market. And isn’t this a noble use of tax-payer dollars? To defend the rights of tax-payers to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Isn’t health care at the very core of every one of those basic rights?

Another argument I have heard, based on various Fox News polls, is that doctors are afraid of the reform and may decide to stop practicing. They cite that there will be too many patients and not enough money to be made. But since when has adding millions of new customers ever done anything but improve a market? The government is effectively adding millions of new customers–and therewith new earning potential–to the health care market. Are the doctors not able to handle this? Well, then we need more doctors. Where will we get them? Might we actually have to actually consider reinvesting in the dozens of third-world countries we have exploited, scouring them for the potential doctors, nurses, and physician’s assistants we need? Might we have to help these people to build schools in order to train health care professionals for themselves and for us?

Opponents also claim that all of this is a heresy against the sacred free-market economy.  As if the bailouts that began with President George W. Bush and continued with President Obama were not evidence enough that this is not a free-market at all.  I would certainly be a fan of a totally free market economy, if in fact such an economy did not time and again prove itself to fail in every detectable way. A totally free market always results in the exhaustion of the resources of that market, whether it is over-drilling, over-fishing, over-mining, over-polluting, or the over-pricing of real estate and commodities. A totally free market always results in the exploitation of the poor. And, when the government steps in to protect its poor, then the free market results in the exploitation of the poor of other countries. The only logical defense of this in history has been the concept of “Social Darwinism,” the idea that those who can thrive in the market are the ones who are fit to reproduce and carry on the human race. However, this idea is humorously flawed, primarily in two way: First, that those on favor of it almost unanimously give their offspring loads of money, education, and other services with which to start out with. How does this ensure that only the most financially-capable will carry-on the human race? Secondly, we have the myriad occurrences of intelligent poor people being forcefully kept-down by others. Thirdly, we have the myriad stupid people who find themselves rich through various means.

So, opponents of health care reform make a half-assed analogy to the Post Office, and then throw out words like “Armageddon,” and “Hitler” to paint images in our minds that this health care reform is the biggest mistake the U.S. has ever made. Any time someone uses the word Armageddon, they reveal themselves as one of three things: A fundamentalist Christian waiting for the end of the world, a fan of cheesy Bruce Willis movies featuring Aerosmith songs, or someone trying to use the politics of fear as a weapon against people who are trying to make things better. Or, all three. Any time you smell the politics of fear, I would suggest steering-clear. President Obama wanting to partially socialize medicine has nothing to do with National Socialism (Naziism), despite the fact that they share a word in common. If anything, the more resonant analogy would be Hitler’s use of the politics of fear to accomplish his designs–something I have heard from only one side of the health care debate.