So a health care reform bill passed the House of Reps last night on a vote of 220-215. Some perspective: after months of full-press political arm-twisting, millions of $ of TV ads, speechifying by a popular and charismatic president, and general demagoguery, over 49% of elected representatives opposed this bill.
That's extraordinary.
It seems to me that no bill should be imposed on citizens when that many people oppose it. 51% forces its will on the other 49%. (And keep in mind that only around 10% of citizens were having trouble getting health care.)
If 51% of the eats meat, should everyone be forced to? If 51% of the population is religious, should that religion be forced on the other 49%?
No -- we are and should be a plural nation. The idea that there is "one right answer" is, frankly, a form of religious fanaticism. It ignores the possibility of diversity; it lacks the imagination to understand that people may make substantially different decisions and that that's OK; it believes that souls must be "saved" against their will.
This truly is a tyranny by a majority, and it is the thinnest possible majority.
--
On the topic: the bill is a tragedy in terms of human lives. There are 300,000,000 people in this country who will die of something for which we haven't invented a cure yet. Saving lives comes not from governmental direction but from technological progress.
The invention of AIDS cocktails and malaria vaccines and statins and MRIs has improved health care more than any government ever has -- and at a lower cost, and to the benefit of other nations and generations. These things should be our focus.
The current bill siphons trillions out of citizens pockets while slowing medical progress. Those trillions will now be subject to corruption, waste, and political priorities. Citizens will be spending as much as they ever have on health care. It's just that they'll have less say in how it's spent.
The supposed goal of the bill is to save money -- to prevent bankruptcies in the event of sickness. Which situation would you rather have: the opportunity to buy a life-saving drug that will break you financially, or the non-existence of such a drug?
Health care costs are increasing because citizens are choosing the expensive option. It's an unavoidable choice, no matter how we massage the rhetoric. The only way to avoid that decision is to eliminate expensive new medicines and procedures. That's what this bill will do.
The worst outcome of sickness is not bankruptcy -- it's death. We're choosing the latter to prevent the former.
