It has been a crazy week in Washington; with the government shut down (the final straw in a seemingly fated congressional break), a White House police chase (involving a young woman w/ presumably a very frightened baby), an impromptu show of unnecessary secret service force, the assassination of the aforementioned woman (who, if your keeping track, was not armed but clearly killable), I did what I always do when the absurdity of the world makes its digestion improbable--I turned to John Stewart. Luck always, he made the im-palatable somewhat more palatable but still not very good. After watching the clip from Monday night's show, I began to reconsider the status of the Affordable Care Act within a Utilitarian context. Let's back up a second. What does this law have to do with the government shutdown. Well, from what I can tell, and I'm sure there is a lot missing from my assessment, there are a lot of people who feel that the act is unconstitutional, overreaching, and, in short, anti-american, in its essence. Of course, some of these claims can quickly be effaced. First, the law went to the supreme court, which then decided that it was constitutional. Check. Second, overreaching, hmm. I'm not so sure about that one. Maybe i'll come back to it. And, the third, un-American. Well, America is a complex place. With so many different languages, regions, dispositions, ideologies, religions, et al., one would be hard pressed to write a comprehensive explanation of what it means to be American. With so much division within this massive country, one might begin to ask just how united these states are to one another, or how united people are within specific states. After a Presidential election, you get that beautiful, red and blue map, where each states looks so solidly in one camp: either DEM. or REP. Of course, this map, with all of its Manichean simplicity, hardly captures the in-fighting that occurs on paper, on just this one political designation. Oh, and did I mention, many American citizens do not vote or cannot vote; those who have been incarcerated and those who are still denied documentation are among that number. So, really, I find that sort of an impossible claim to make. This bill, which, by the way, has already been passed into law, is un-American? I'm not so sure. Let's return to the overreaching part. Structurally, the government steps in to impose a certain logic upon the world; through the school system, local and federal legislation, campaigning, ect. This definitely has not always been the case, but it certainly seems to be the case now. With governors, congress people, and mayors (not to mention local politicians) fight to control the kinds of textbooks that enter classrooms, what kinds of things go into those textbooks, ect. With each one of these decisions, there is a political agenda at hand. This one example can be extrapolated out to all kinds of things, including controlling the ways in which women especially can control their bodies. So, does it seem so strange that the government would require individuals to purchase health care. It certainly seems in their best benefit. Some might rightfully argue that this solutions serves simply as a stop gap measure to compensate for a bloated Health Care system that is in need of serious reform. This issues is being framed as an ideological battle not a pragmatic one. I'd have trouble arguing against a bill designed to make health care safer, cheaper, and more accessible to the massive; however, that isn't really what people are discussing. So, let's talk ideology. The question at hand seems to be: do people have the right to heath care no matter what. Well, when it comes to ER visits, it seems so, but what about when people get cancer, need some kind of an organ transplant, or need to be hospitalized for a psychological condition? Well, it gets a little hairy in these situations. Consistent with Mill, I think that there are certain fundamental human rights. The most simplistic and foundational ones deal with necessities, like right to food, water, shelter, safety from violence (and fear), health care, and education. Within the happiness metric, these four things seem pretty important. Without them, it would be difficult to go about living in the world successfully, or contentedly. I like to think of this bill as attempting to satisfy, in its convoluted way, the second to last pillar in this list. If you care about Americans, if you care about humanity, how can you argue against this kind of health care reform, if you alternative is no health care at all? I don't think it is possible.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
It has been a crazy week in Washington; with the government shut down (the final straw in a seemingly fated congressional break), a White House police chase (involving a young woman w/ presumably a very frightened baby), an impromptu show of unnecessary secret service force, the assassination of the aforementioned woman (who, if your keeping track, was not armed but clearly killable), I did what I always do when the absurdity of the world makes its digestion improbable--I turned to John Stewart. Luck always, he made the im-palatable somewhat more palatable but still not very good. After watching the clip from Monday night's show, I began to reconsider the status of the Affordable Care Act within a Utilitarian context. Let's back up a second. What does this law have to do with the government shutdown. Well, from what I can tell, and I'm sure there is a lot missing from my assessment, there are a lot of people who feel that the act is unconstitutional, overreaching, and, in short, anti-american, in its essence. Of course, some of these claims can quickly be effaced. First, the law went to the supreme court, which then decided that it was constitutional. Check. Second, overreaching, hmm. I'm not so sure about that one. Maybe i'll come back to it. And, the third, un-American. Well, America is a complex place. With so many different languages, regions, dispositions, ideologies, religions, et al., one would be hard pressed to write a comprehensive explanation of what it means to be American. With so much division within this massive country, one might begin to ask just how united these states are to one another, or how united people are within specific states. After a Presidential election, you get that beautiful, red and blue map, where each states looks so solidly in one camp: either DEM. or REP. Of course, this map, with all of its Manichean simplicity, hardly captures the in-fighting that occurs on paper, on just this one political designation. Oh, and did I mention, many American citizens do not vote or cannot vote; those who have been incarcerated and those who are still denied documentation are among that number. So, really, I find that sort of an impossible claim to make. This bill, which, by the way, has already been passed into law, is un-American? I'm not so sure. Let's return to the overreaching part. Structurally, the government steps in to impose a certain logic upon the world; through the school system, local and federal legislation, campaigning, ect. This definitely has not always been the case, but it certainly seems to be the case now. With governors, congress people, and mayors (not to mention local politicians) fight to control the kinds of textbooks that enter classrooms, what kinds of things go into those textbooks, ect. With each one of these decisions, there is a political agenda at hand. This one example can be extrapolated out to all kinds of things, including controlling the ways in which women especially can control their bodies. So, does it seem so strange that the government would require individuals to purchase health care. It certainly seems in their best benefit. Some might rightfully argue that this solutions serves simply as a stop gap measure to compensate for a bloated Health Care system that is in need of serious reform. This issues is being framed as an ideological battle not a pragmatic one. I'd have trouble arguing against a bill designed to make health care safer, cheaper, and more accessible to the massive; however, that isn't really what people are discussing. So, let's talk ideology. The question at hand seems to be: do people have the right to heath care no matter what. Well, when it comes to ER visits, it seems so, but what about when people get cancer, need some kind of an organ transplant, or need to be hospitalized for a psychological condition? Well, it gets a little hairy in these situations. Consistent with Mill, I think that there are certain fundamental human rights. The most simplistic and foundational ones deal with necessities, like right to food, water, shelter, safety from violence (and fear), health care, and education. Within the happiness metric, these four things seem pretty important. Without them, it would be difficult to go about living in the world successfully, or contentedly. I like to think of this bill as attempting to satisfy, in its convoluted way, the second to last pillar in this list. If you care about Americans, if you care about humanity, how can you argue against this kind of health care reform, if you alternative is no health care at all? I don't think it is possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, I find the GOP's current behavior to be repulsive. The American people are currently being taxed with very little representation, something that goes directly against what we claim to stand for 'as Americans'.
ReplyDeleteThe Affordable Care Act was deemed constitutional and passed into law. For people like Ted Cruz to use their power as representatives to literally shut down the government because they're upset with what their country is doing is simply astounding to me. The ACA is already in place and people are registering DURING the shut down. The stand still our government is at feels like petulant children holding their breath until their parents will buy them a candy bar.