I have good reasons. In the current hysteria over “poor lifestyle choices” that are fueling smoking bans, trans fat bans, potential future bans against who knows what, and the concomitant rush by employers to fire or refuse to hire smokers or others with unhealthy lifestyle choices, Universal Healthcare will give government (and Universal Insurance coverage will also give insurers) the right to discriminate against people who do not choose to lead purely healthy lifestyles.

True, some insurers already do discriminate in the form of higher premiums. I am not here to argue the validity or non-validity of this position or whether personal choices pose an undue burden on society as a whole. People being born at all poses what some might consider an undue burden on society and the environment. Any kind of child or adult abuse, being born into poverty, war, racism, classist pressures, or the simple pursuit of pleasure/fun will always lead some to escape through less than optimal lifestyle choices – drinking, smoking, drug use, food, sedentariness, extreme sports, etc. that can all be argued to detract from optimal societal and health conditions and costs. Driving cars could be considered a culprit as well since it is dangerous and leads to many deaths per year not to mention the pollution it causes.

These conditions of mainstream defined imperfection have always been present throughout human history and will not abate significantly even with governmental or industry pressure. They will simply be driven underground. You can argue this idea endlessly on both sides.

How healthy you are and what vices you indulge in is becoming a determining factor in whether or not you deserve full citizenship rights in the US and abroad. In my mind, this is a dangerous trend that marginalizes all who are not perfect.

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2008/01/universal-healthcare-not-at-all.html

As several pointed out above, compassion may drive the idea, but limited resources will force it to devolve into constant bickering and polarization between those who are healthy and those who are not – for whatever reason – personal choices, poor genetic makeup, being raised in a poor environment, etc.

The state is already intruding on people’s right to choose how to raise their own children and into various other “personal choice” issues – for the “public good.”

Requiring Universal Health Insurance or implementing a Universal Healthcare system will only cement the state’s ability to coerce and control people’s personal habits and legalize discrimination against all who do not measure up. This, to my way of thinking, is quite totalitarian in nature.

The new battleground in the 21st Century will not be about race, religion, sexual orientation or any of the other civil rights issues on the books. It will be about health – who has it – who does not – why? and what should be done to enforce conformity to the societal standard of perfection as dicated by Government, the Healthcare industry, Insurance companies, and increasingly, employers..

The battle has already begun and it will bitterly divide the classes, the parties, employees/employers, and all Americans ultimately. Mental acuity and competence regardless of health are being sidelined in favor of bodily perfection and purity. Employers are already doing this – not hiring fully qualified, competent people with less than optimal lifestyles in favor of healthy specimens that decrease their financial healthcare costs. People will be valued or marginalized based on how they look (healthy or not) and whether or not the perceiver feels they are a “financial burden” on their healthcare premiums and/or their quality of life as a whole. To some extent this is already true but will become more extreme in the future.

Ironically, Healthcare Insurance was orignally structured to spread the risk of an imperfect society across all. Insurance company greed for optimal profits, high doctor malpractice fees and the increased (and often unnecessary) testing that accompanies this, plus onerous government paperwork requirements are major causes of increased Health Insurance premiums, not an increase in imperfect lifestyles. Ironically, people are living longer and are healthier than ever, on the whole, when compared to historical norms, which almost guarantees rising medical costs (which impact insurance premiums for all) to treat the elderly that have reached that status largely by virtue of being healthy/receiving more adequate healthcare most of their lives.

Americans are already attacking each other on these issues and asking for government mandates in their quest for the perfect social utopia. Adding Universal Healthcare to the mix will only add fuel to the fire, legitimize discrimination, and lure power greedy politicians to mandate policies of coerced conformity to whatever health norms they are able to “prove” through the latest scientific studies (many of which are discredited within 20 years or distorted or culled to fit their personal viewpoints or feed large corporate interests) in order to win votes/slash costs/act like they care and are doing something for the “public good.”

The danger of imposing health norms that marginalize a certain segment of the population is too tempting with Universal Healthcare. This approach was tried in the past by Hitler – who held the same ideals as many healthcare zealots of today – a perfect, healthy and superior society, beneficial to those who met the “norms” he established and quite debilitating to the rest of the population. One could argue that he didn’t marginalize people over health issues, but because of genetics and ethnicity. However, he did ban smoking for all Germans and was a practicing vegetarian, consistent with his quest for “health purity.” And with gene therapy a very real possibility in the near future, it could be argued that those who do not use this therapy to overcome their own genetic limitations or flaws (as defined by policymakers and healthcare wonks of this time) will add to the burden of society and therefore should be marginalized and denied healthcare since the state is providing it.

I believe the totalitarian dangers of a Universal Healthcare and/or Insurance mandate are real and I have tried to make my case without attacking anyone or impugning anyone’s opinion.

This is my opinion – please feel free to disagree – politely if possible. Thanks for the space to express it.

I leave you with a link to this well-reasoned article that addresses some of the issues I spoke to above:
http://www.sirc.org/publik/bad_habits.shtml

Enjoy!

Tell me, in your own words, how federally managed health insurance does not

1) by law, coerce participation

2) leave the citizen no other option

MD

i think you’re the one who continue to embarrass yourself by using bogus terms like “totalitarian coercion” in describing universal health care.

but that’s just me.

’nuff said.

~C

I’m not conflating anything. Totalitarianism is the name for a force that has its origins in the natural world. Electricity comes from the natural world. Sound comes from the natural world. Humans, having the same origin, are prone to totalitarianisms of various kinds.

so how does that advance your argument against universal health care?

Because the point of America, bluntly, was to enact a system of government to prevent totalitarianism!

Why do you think America was the philosophical “dream of Europe”? Why do you think the principles used to found America were so exceptional, so unique?

Because in virtually every society before the founding of America, power by those at the “top” was abused. From tribal to monarchical.

Understand the history of the battle between individual liberty and the State before you continue to embarrass yourself like this.

“different categories”! exactly my point! you are conflating the definition of totalitarianism (i.e. nature is totalitarian) knowing that the most common notion of that word when used in the context of political discussion is *negative*, and when used in the context of the government, it is a scare tactic.

i would appreciate it if you could link to the Paglia and W.A. Mathieu articles so i would have more understanding of your context.

nevertheless, your assertion only proves that all federal laws are “totalitarian coercion” (by your definition). so how does that advance your argument against universal health care?

i think you’re better off arguing on the free-market angle or the inefficiency of government angle, or maybe some other angle, instead of throwing ambiguous labeling.

that said, the free-market and the federal government as already “so big as to perform most of its bureaucratic tasks unsuccessfully” angles are weak arguments that have already been busted.

see Mythbusting Canadian Healthcare, Part II: Debunking The Free Marketeers

see The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, proclaimed that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” (note that this also disputes Dan’s ideological argument–”idea that health care is a universal human right is flawed…”)

see also PNHP: Single-Payer FAQ

i suggest that we continue the discussion in this thread:

Coerciveness of Health Insurance Industry

~C

Coercion is being forced by law to do something you wouldn’t do of your own free will.

Not all forms of coercion are bad. The collection of taxes by local, state, and federal government is a classic case of coercion that is generally accepted to be necessary.

However, you really can’t get around the fact that a “mandate” on the issue of sickness insurance is coercion. What does a mandate mean if not to coerce a person to do what the law mandates one do?

I mean, basic definition here.

As far as totalitarian, plenty of forces are totalitarian. Nature is totalitarian. Electricity (the electric field) is totalitarian. Sound can be considered totalitarian. The consistent thread through these different forces is that the thing in question (nature, electricity, sound) completely fills up, by nature, its container. By perceiving it in any form, you perceive essentially its entire form.

For more on how nature is totalitarian, see Paglia. For more on how electricity is totalitarian, see McLuhan. For more on how sound is totalitarian, see W.A. Mathieu.

But those are in different categories, for sure, than what federal governments do. But still, one looks for totalitarianism when, within the category of law/society, an government entity completely fills up its container.

Such is precisely the case with federal government-mandated (or worse, managed) sickness insurance. With the Clinton plan, for example, nothing is left out, is it. There is no where for a person to go where the federal government is not involved directly or indirectly. Indirectly, in this case, is in evidence in the celebrated “choices” that the Clinton government plan offers. If the government is behind the choices (which it would be in her plan), AND allows no one to opt out of the government involvement in their sickness care choices, then the federal government has exhibited the same basic quality of all totalitarianisms: it has filled up the container.

The rest of your argument, Chris, boils down to the assertion that because there exists in present day America clear violations of the principle of Federalism, enshrined in the constitution, there exists justification to further violate the constitution.

Which is to say, your argument is weak. And your definitions very narrow. Mine includes yours, but allows for more, in other words.

MD

i just posted a follow up. check it out.

Busting the Myths of Canadian Health Care.

~C

But I do disagree with the language of coercion and totalitarianism in this context.

Matthew cited the 10th Amendment as proof that health care is not a power delegated to the feds.

On the other hand, one could make a legitimate argument (I think) that the promotion of the General Welfare clause to the Fed. Legislative branch is a rationale for the justification of federal level legislation on health care.

Welfare is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as “health, happiness, or prosperity.”

Granted the Framers of the constitution were not thinking about 21st century health care issues when they inserted the Welfare clause (how could they?) and I don’t want to get into a huge legal debate on Original Intent vs. Original Meaning vs. Living Constitution.

Just to say that IF one made a reasoned argument for health care under the Welfare clause and IF the process was democratically verified through the Three Federal Branches, then yes I think that reduces the import of the coercion and totalitarian argument. Whatever one’s personal views on the specific policy in question.

I mean I haven’t seen anyone on either side of this debate make an argument that somehow they expect this (as of now) hypothetical law would be instituted by some non-congressional measure, like a coup or dictate by fiat.

Sure such a law would be coercive in the sense that any law is coercive. I mean the government creates coercive measures to prevent/discourage tax evasion, homicide, and any other law passed frankly. Can’t say I think it is more coercive necessarily than any of those.

I disagree with all kinds of law that I still comply with–and there are mechanisms from within the republic to overturn laws one finds objectionable.

What I mean is there is coercion and then there is coercion.

There has been no discussion I’ve seen here of what would be the penalty for non-compliance with the law, for example. What if it were say a small fine?

Matthew and I have had this disagreement elsewhere and I don’t want to re-hash it, but I think totalitarian means gulags, concentration camps, and military dictatorships making people disappear, minus trials, legal rights, etc. Iow, Organized systematic violence and propaganda.

Obviously I can’t imagine Dear Leader Hillary sending in shock troops to break down your door and put boots on your neck to enforce a health care mandate.

I understand Matthew to have a different understanding of the word totalitarian which he is employing in this context.

It might help Matthew (unless I missed you already having done so which is possible) for you to define what you mean by totalitarian, so others can judge whether it would be applicable in this case or not.

Peace.

Chris

I’ve previously mentioned that my wife’s pregnancy with our first child, Twyla, occurred while we had no health insurance.

What did we do?

Well after making many phone calls to various medical practices in Chicago (shopping around!) we found a hospital that had a small clinic of four nurse-midwives. Informed that we had no insurance, the hospital responded that they have a seldom-used option whereby the patient and hospital agree to a flat-fee arrangement, to be paid in installments if we chose.

We were excited, and we happened to have the $2500 available, so we paid in full right away (transparency of costs!)

This agreement included as much prenatal care/visits with the midwives as we wanted, including as many ultrasounds as we wanted (ended up to be two), included a 24-hour stay in the hospital after the birth. If Hannah had elected to have an epidural injection, it would have been $500 extra. But she didn’t want that, and had an entirely intervention-free birth.

The point is how often do people shop around, and how often are all the costs transparent.

Rarely, especially on the latter. People sometimes find out about the costs of a medical procedure far after the fact, through documentation sent to as a matter of procedure by our insurance company.

But before a procedure, I don’t think I’ve ever known before it happened how much it was going to cost. I’ve since tried to ask, and what happens is invariably a headache. America does not have a habit of medical cost transparency.

The rule of thumb is that when people know how much something costs, then the cost of that something goes down over time. It is pretty much true about everything, even complex technology.

Whereas the costs of medicine, which has plenty of complex technology, in America, isn’t going down generally, but going up. It doesn’t obey basic laws, because it is not allowed to by the current American system.

If people shopped around more, and if costs were transparent, then the overall costs of medical care would go down for everyone, because that is the way of technology.

I think the model for America involves more out-of-pocket expenditures by private citizens (paying hospitals and clinics directly, w/o insurance involved) as well as having a wildly competitive market for catastrophic-care type insurance, for the care that is too expensive to save for. This wild competition between insurance providers would drive down the prices, and no longer would insurance have to come in cooperation with your employer (which was a bad idea from the start and came about on the scale we currently have it completely as an accident).

HSAs, or health savings accounts, could be become more common, and continue to be untaxed as incentive to save to pay for routine-care stuff out of pocket, and perhaps some more emergency-type care.

Anyway, the basic point is that our first pregnancy opened our eyes to the possibilities and problems of our current system. But nothing at all tells me that intervention on the part of the federal government — all ready so big as to perform most of its bureaucratic tasks unsuccessfully — would help matters whatsoever. Because neither would help create a habit of shopping around, or the habit of transparency of costs.

We need empowered citizens, who know their options and are free to find what works for them, and have the incentive to do so. Insurance companies, being businesses first and foremost, will respond to the market. People must lead, the rest will follow.

End of story.

MD

One. Just like you. Just like everyone here. Cut the Wilberian New Age delusions about “perspectives”.

And for the record, I don’t have Republican values; I have American Conservative values. I would explain the difference but you’d ignore it, then cherry-pick it out of context, and then find 5,000 links that I don’t care about.

I’ve said all I have to say, again noting that I agree that the system America uses for sickness insurance should change. The question is how, given that we are talking about change in America, not some imagined place. America, with a history, with a set of unique principles, with a heritage of liberty and a government with limited ambition.

I’ll also note that no one disputed that government-managed care is coercion, and no one meaningfully disputed that it is form totalitarianism. I’ll also note that the people who argued most passionately for universal insurance admitted they didn’t understand or study America, its principles related to this matter.

I’ll finally note that Dan’s first comment (Feb 7, 2008 6:25:47 PM) stands undisputed; rightfully because his points shine the brightest, by my lights.

MD