From time to time, I get political material in the mail.
The common theme of all this correspondence is a solicitation for
money. A recent letter from Public Citizen, a lobbying group, begins
this way:
Dear Friend,
The world is now divided in two.
Countries that cover all of their citizens with
health insurance. And those that don't.
Countries that make it unlawful to profit off of
basic health insurance. And those that allow for health insurance
corporations to profit off the sick.
Countries where health care is a human right. And
those where it is not. Where if you can afford it, you get treated.
And if you can't afford it you may die.
Pay or die.
The letter goes on to state that 120 people in America
die every day for lack of health insurance and that our current
health system costs us $350 billion more than it would if we didn't
support a system that pays that amount to the insurance industry for
basically needless services – services that can be provided by
government. This group is promoting a “single-payer” system or,
using language most people can understand, Medicare for everyone. My
purpose here is not to seek your approval of such a program, but to
point out that if I were a teacher now-a-days I would make copies of
this letter and distribute it to my students.
Again, not to convince them to support Medicare for all,
but to present a concept: health care as a “human right.” Is
it? If so, what does that mean? Is it a natural right, such as
liberty, or is it a civil right; that is, a right that is “created”
by human society, such as the right to social security retirement
benefits. I have my opinion regarding Medicare for all, but my job
as a social studies teacher was to have students become aware of the
debate, have them research it, analyze the opposing positions
regarding it, and have them come up with their own position of
whether or not this policy option should be adopted by the US. It is
a legitimate topic because I believe health is a basic human concern,
such as the concern to express our opinions, and that the
commonwealth is affected by the level of health – and, therefore,
the level of healthcare – that prevails in a federated society like
ours.
One can look at this from different angles: what should
the role of government be regarding health care? How does the level
of health care among Americans affect equal opportunity among our
citizens? What will the option of single-payer mean to the costs of
health care? What will it mean to those costs if the current system
is allowed to continue or if we do away with the Affordable
Healthcare Act and go back to the way it used to be? Is health care
a form of security – much as defense against foreign enemies is –
and therefore a legitimate concern of government? I can think of
other questions to ask students, but this selection gives you, I
believe, a sense of what issues are involved in this policy question.
And what I would definitely stress would be the facts. Does a
government program force doctors to work for the government?
Medicare doesn't do that. How does a government program affect
doctors' pay? Medicare, I understand, does do that. Wherever the
facts go, we should follow them and avoid cherry-picking to bolster
one side or the other. The problem with political messaging by
lobbyists and other spokespeople is that our public discourse is
depleted of unbiased reporting of the relevant facts. Even news
accounts seem to tailor their reporting to a far less degree than
what would be considered comprehensive coverage. When reporting on
these issues, the news media should go out of its way to remind
people of the meaningful contextual information to make whatever
develops on a daily basis meaningful to the overall situation. If
true, for example, the “fact” that 120 Americans die each day
from a lack of healthcare should be repeated constantly.
The letter from Public Citizen emphasizes the need to
adopt a single-payer system for practical reasons. It does couch the
argument as one which regards health care as a right, but the reasons
for the position concern mostly costs. Yes, the number of people who
die every year due to a lack of health insurance coverage is a moral
concern, but just stating the death rate does not delve into moral
considerations regarding this gruesome detail. Why is human life,
from a moral perspective, so important? I don't get a sense why it
is from the letter. Maybe such language is a turnoff to the general
public. A specific political campaign needs to be sensitive to such
a bias, but a classroom is where such a concern should not be
avoided. Of course, such a turn in a discussion needs to be in an
atmosphere that has already been established for such a concern.
Before any mention of health care as an issue is made, instruction
should review the different ways that moral questions can be viewed.
Included is the notion that governments are not individuals, but
institutions designed to seek the most good when they are behaving
morally for the most people – a utilitarian view of morals. Should
this be the way a government treats an issue that determines if
people live and die? This is a question more complicated in times of
peace as opposed to war.
Yes, healthcare is a “juicy” issue and one that
deserves class time. A letter from Public Citizen or perhaps a
political tract from a conservative group addressing health care
provides a potentially enticing “springboard” that can initiate
investigation and discussion over what our policy should be. Should
it revert to what was in place before Obamacare; should it stay with
the Affordable Healthcare Act, or should it move on to a single-payer
system such as Medicare for all? While complex, a suitable set of
materials can, at a minimum, explain to secondary students the basic
stakes involved with this policy decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment