I’m finding what’s going on with regard to health reform absolutely astonishing. I don’t even know where to begin. And there are bloggers far better and more prolific than me who are covering it all very well. You know where to go. I will point to one post over at Interesting Times that I found thoughtful and compassionate in ways that I find I often don’t have the patience to be.
While the visible argument is about public vs. private, the [FacelessGovernmentBureaucrats] vs. the [FacelessCorporateBureaucrats], I think the underlying fear that drives that argument is not WHO but HOW. And this fear exists on both sides of this debate.
Those who advocate for public health care fear that the profit motive of corporations leads the FCBs to make cold decisions about health care options based purely on profit-loss statements with no consideration for the well being of individuals (result: excluding pre-existing conditions, cutting benefits just when you need them the most, etc.).
But, those who advocate against public health care fear that the “best intentions” of the FGBs will lead to them making judgments on “value to society” that will be based on prejudices they don’t agree with (result: “death panels”, etc.).
It brings to mind something I was thinking about back when Robert McNamara died. There was much discussion at the time about how, in retrospect, is handling of Vietnam (and other things) was a stark example of the downsides of letting technocrats set policy. There certainly needs to be a balance between the bloodlessly analytical and the need to recognize that democracies only work when even the non-technocrats accept the legitimacy of policy. And I say this as someone who has clear technocratic tendencies, constantly wishing that science and reason would hold as much sway in Congress as … some other things. However, the divide is just so great between those who resonate with appeals to tribe (really, the most charitable way I can put it) and those who wish people would just read their 20- (or 200-) page policy paper to understand why their 10-part proposal to solve global challenge X is juuuust right.
Communication across this divide is harder and harder. It’s a problem.
