The Politics of Life

The views of ordinary American Tom Brown, Virginia, reveal a staggering short-sighted selfishness and stupidity which I cannot leave unanswered.

There is nothing in the US constitution which says the federal government can fine a citizen for not purchasing a health insurance policy.

Wow, brilliant insight. Just like there's nothing in the constitution about cars, or the internet, or any other progressive, modern, enlightened features of intelligence that exist today. Presumably, as long as there's nothing in the constitution which prohibits the federal government from doing so (and the constitution is usually described in terms of negative freedom, i.e. restraints on what the federal government can do), the founders thought it was probably a grey area that sensible people with more information could hammer out later. One could even argue that the Declaration of Independence mandates adequate healthcare for all Americans, as it requires the government to enforce the 'unalienable Right... [of] Life'.

It will decrease the quality of healthcare and we will end up like England where if you have anything that is the slightest bit postponable you can wait months and months for care.

Oh, God forbid that that hospitals and doctors might prioritise poor, dying people over rich hypochondriacs. Obviously an exaggeration, but there is nothing wrong with treating patients in order of severity. The NHS is not a perfect system, no one would say it is, but it saves lives, unlike the US system. Not to mention that private healthcare still exists in the UK and can get you your pathetic rotator cuff operation on time without having to sacrifice someone less privileged than you to do it.

All in all, this bill is a "Robin Hood" plan to rob the well-off to give to the have-nots, and this is what socialism really is. This may work well in England, but will not sit well with the American people

Brilliant. This is perhaps the biggest issue of American politics, that socialism is such a dirty word (much like those in the UK who use 'social worker' as some sort of insult). There is undoubtedly a base hypocrisy in the opposition of most Americans to this concept of socialism. Like myself, many Americans describe themselves as meritocrats, and, in fact, the country as a whole is founded on meritocratic principles. But a meritocracy can only truly function in a semblance of a fair environment. Obviously, some things are not and perhaps will never be fair (without levelling down), like your genetics. But a true meritocrat recognises that since illness is often, if not predominantly, random, or at least beyond the control of the sufferer, it would be wrong to penalise someone because of it.

Anyone can get sick at any time, and this will be true long after we've sussed out and 'cured' all the diseases that are the biggest threats to mankind today. Meritocracy relies on a fair starting point of equal opportunity, so far as is reasonable. And you simply cannot say that a sick child should die on the basis of chance - his chance of getting a disease, his chance of recovery, his chance of his parents being able to afford to pay for his care. If Republicans can look into the eyes of that hypothetical child (who is actualised and real across America) and tell him or her that they don't have the right to live because that's how they do things in America, then the war's already lost, and we might as well push the button now.

Which is all to ignore that there are serious ethical questions to be had about the entire existence of health insurance in the first place. In China, you pay a doctor when you are well, but not when you are sick, because they believe, since their job is to keep you healthy, that when you get sick they have failed at their job. But in the west, and particularly the US, you pay to get better, you pay when you are vulnerable, often when you can afford it the least, and this despite the fact that the US has some of the most expensive healthcare per capita in the world, but the quality of it is in no way reflected by the price. Insurance as a rule is a pretty necessary industry within a capitalist system - house, car, travel etc. Possessions come and go - life is something else altogether.

Obama might have been able to do more if the Republicans had ever been even remotely interested in bipartisanship. But in the end, he's done what he can, and, as the Democrats keep saying, it's a step in the right direction. Social security had a slow start too. Yes, we got a watered down bill, with significant caves on abortion rights and a public option. Yes, Tom Brown is probably right in proposing the abolition of state-restricted insurance, and including the pharmaceutical companies in the "profiting from life and death" shit-list. Yes, this is an issue which could, unjustly, cost Obama a second term and give the rampant fuck-wittery of the Tea Party movement a groundswell of support. But this step in the right direction, this legislation should outlast Obama, outlast all of us. It's perhaps optimistically been described as the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st century, but, whatever the propoganda and hyperbole by either side, let's hope this step is only the first, and not just a misstep on America's stumble into depravity.