A few weeks back Ron Paul made a very interesting speech about his stance on health reform. Now I find a lot to admire about Ron Paul, he is willing to discuss the deficiencies of American foreign policy, he was a big supporter of third-party candidates in the 2008 election and he generally avoids towing the party line. However in this speech, in which he lays out 17 points against health care reform, I find one of the most major flaws in his positions exemplified, namely his unwillingness to challenge corporate power.
If you click the link you can read his arguments and I will provide some brief responses to them.
1. If one assumes that an individual does not have a right to health care then you are assuming that someone's right to property comes before that right. Meaning that property is given a higher value than life and health.
2. This assumes that a government run program will not function with the interest of the people in mind. Although government has proven that this is often the case, through neglect of the public interests, a government run health care program should be the opposite of this neglect. Certainly a non-profit government problem would care for its recipients more than health insurance companies who function only for their own self-interests and profit.
3. This statement is historically false. Any significant government entrance into the health care industry has been denied since Teddy Roosevelt first introduced the idea and Harry Truman later made the first strong push for it. These possible reforms have repeatedly been halted through health insurance companies cries of socialism.
4. There are numerous efficiently run government-programs, including medicare. To argue that governments providing any service creates an inherently flawed system is to argue against some of the most fundamental American institutions.
5. I concur with this statement.
6. I concur with this statement as well if (as he most likely is not) referring to laws that favor private insurance companies monopoly over the health care industry.
7. I do not believe that inflation has a lot to do with this debate.
8. Bureaucrats should never interfere with health care as they do in numerous way through the current system, where most insurance companies pay individuals to search for pre-existing conditions through which to deny care. In a single-payer health care system (which there has been no significant fight for by congress) a person would be provided care by a hospital or other health institution and would not have to be approved for care as the current system does.
9. I agree with this statement, with the understanding that it would do little to change the current system. For people to really begin spending less money a non-profit entity is necessary.
10. The cost of litigation is a relatively insignificant aspect of the money most health care providers spend. The government should not take steps that defend medical practitioners who make mistakes that harm their patients.
11. This is one of the most common talking points used by insurance companies when making arguments for their forms of 'reform.' I don't see why this shouldn't be done, but it would do little to lower health care costs as most companies from state to state follow the same business model.
12. I concur.
13. Health insurance is fundamentally different than most other forms of insurance in that it affects individuals, and by extension society, very directly. Individuals often find it difficult calculating risk with regard to their health. Insuring everyone some form of cheap insurance will ensure that people are not weighing the financial burden private insurance will put on them against the risk presented by not having it.
14. I agree that the insurance industry does have an all too close relationship with the government, but this relationship primarily takes the form of the government allowing massive insurance company bureaucracies to exploit their customers.
15. I believe that the usefulness of fines is certainly debatable especially when they are being forced on the most poor, but when one considers this one must also consider the fact that those without health insurance often incur more costs upon themselves and society when they are injured or fall ill. Fines are simply a patch and do little to fundamentally change things.
16. I concur.
17. I concur.
Ron Paul in his speech presents some of the most common and most influential arguments against reform. I think common ground is possible in this debate, but not when the interests of the majority of the citizenry are ignored.
No comments:
Post a Comment