Democrats and healthcare are easy to explain. Democrats want everyone in the US to have access to health insurance. The easiest way to achieve that is by the federal government. Every other industrial country has managed to have its national government guarantee all citizens access to health insurance, so why not the US?
But what about Republicans and healthcare? Why does Obamacare drive them to such hysteria that they are willing to see people in their states suffer rather than the plan succeed? Some people would say it is pure partisan spite. I imagine there is an element of that, but it didn’t start with Obama, after all. Universal healthcare has been a Democratic goal since the days of Truman, and Republicans have thwarted it every time. They did make an exception in the case of Medicare-D under GWB, but it took a lot of arm-twisting to get it passed, and Republicans have generally repented of Medicare-D as a failing they have vowed never to repeat (although not, of course, to repeal). What is the big deal here?
But what about Republicans and healthcare? Why does Obamacare drive them to such hysteria that they are willing to see people in their states suffer rather than the plan succeed? Some people would say it is pure partisan spite. I imagine there is an element of that, but it didn’t start with Obama, after all. Universal healthcare has been a Democratic goal since the days of Truman, and Republicans have thwarted it every time. They did make an exception in the case of Medicare-D under GWB, but it took a lot of arm-twisting to get it passed, and Republicans have generally repented of Medicare-D as a failing they have vowed never to repeat (although not, of course, to repeal). What is the big deal here?
When I feel nasty, I want to say that Republicans value a high rate of
uninsured as a positive good. But that
is (probably) unfair. More accurately,
the libertarian wing of the Republican Party considers it deeply immoral for
government at any level (with the possible exception of county indigent funds)
to spend taxpayer money making healthcare available to anyone. The “constitutionalist” wing has no objection
to state or local governments doing so, but considers it unconstitutional for
the federal government to spend taxpayer money on healthcare. And Jonathan Haidt would assure us that the Tea Party sees any government guarantee of health insurance as violating the laws of karma, since anyone who is uninsured must have done something to deserve it.
Regardless of which view one takes, this is an awkward position to be in, since the federal government has,
in fact, been spending taxpayer money quite regularly on healthcare since
1965. And, worse yet, the American
people seem to like it and would get terribly upset if the government actually
stopped. So what do you do? Well, stop the rot where it is now, and hope
that maybe some day in the distant future you can reverse it. This means an almost hysterical overreaction
to any attempt to expand government coverage of health insurance at least
partly as an act of displaced aggression against the illegitimate abominations
like Medicare and Medicaid that already exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment