Health Care Reform as a No-Win Scenario

Last week David Brody posted an article at the Huffington Post on why health care reform is a lose-lose proposition for Democrats. He has a point. Politically there is just no good way from Democrats to deal with health care reform. They are literally dammed if they pass it and dammed if they don’t.

Health care reform is a seamless web. You simply can’t cut a hole in the web and put a new piece in it. We can’t just pass the parts of the health care reform package people want and not pass those parts of the package people don’t want. We either have total health care reform or no health care reform. There is no middle way nor has there ever been one.

We just can’t ban insurance company practices we don’t like. Insurance companies need these practices if they are to control costs. In order to make banning these practices palatable we must mandate universal converge. Otherwise people will have every incentive to not purchase health insurance until the really need it. But once we mandate universal purchase we must subsidize insurance coverage for those who cannot afford it. So a universal mandate must of necessity become a universal entitlement. Furthermore in order to control costs the government must play a significant role in regulating health insurance and even providing it. It is with universal entitlement and the expanded role of the state that health care reform becomes a no win scenario.

A large minority, indeed possible a majority, of the American people are against new universal entitlements. We can barely afford the ones we have. At some point deficit reduction must include entitlement reform. We do not reform entitlements by creating new ones. This is especially true if the new entitlement has virtually unlimited projected costs. Even worse this is a universal entitlement that increases the role of the government in health care. Many Americans like government even less than they like deficits. So those opposed to health insurance reform can campaign on the issue of entitlement and the expanded role of government and expect to receive good results at election time. And this is why so many Democrats in the House and Senate are reluctant to pass health care reform.

But without health care reform the cost of health insurance will continue to increase until only the very wealthy can afford it. Eventually health care will become a luxury like a Lamborghini or a 50,000 square foot mansion. This is our fate if we can’t control the cost of health care. And making it a universal entitlement provides the only way we can really control the cost of health care by the state. So the Democratic Party base is in favor of passing health care reform regardless of the consequences. As Blanche Lincoln has recently discovered the base of the Democratic Party can make life difficult for those it dislikes. That base clearly intends to dislike those Democrats who do not support health care reform. Democrats simply can’t win elections without the support of the base. But winning that support means supporting big government new entitlement health care reform.

So dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t. This is the Democrats dilemma on health care reform.

Secularism and Morality

As we saw several days ago secularists find truth by finding and studying facts. For secularists truth is a description of what nature does. Truth is the correspondence between our conception of things and things as the really are. We study facts in order to refine our conception of reality. In this way our conception of reality is closer to reality as it truly exists. We simplify this concept by saying truth requires proof and proof requires fact.

Unfortunately we cannot base value on fact. We cannot say what nature ought to do merely by describing what nature does. Moral values describe what nature ought to do. Moral values are just that; values. Since we cannot base value on fact secularists have a big problem with moral truth. Since there are no moral facts there can be any moral truths.

Secularists are often accused of moral relativity. The accusation is correct. To the secularist there is fact-based truth and there is opinion. Since there can be no fact based moral truths all moral truths are nothing more than personal opinion. For them to be other than personal opinion there would have to be reference to facts that all persons could interpret in the same way. Since people who speak of moral law cannot show the truth of moral law by reference to moral fact secularists conclude there are no moral laws. In this way they defend the idea truth requires proof and proof requires fact.

Secularists adopt this position because it helps to prevent the excesses caused by using the ends to justify the means. Demanding factual proof is a way to avoid the need to settle disputes by the use of force. Given the destructive power of force in the twenty-first century one can see why its use should be avoided wherever possible. Unfortunately for secularists this also is a moral position. There are no facts to justify it.

Moderation in Religion Part 2

Yesterday we saw unquestioning faith was necessary for strong belief. But unquestioning faith is dangerous. By faith we can move mountains. And by faith we can bring down skyscrapers. With hijacked planes. Skyscrapers with people in them. This is not the kind of thing we should encourage. Alas we can’t discourage it by weakening the faith of those who do it.

We say we want moderation in religion. But we want moderation in religion as a means to an end. What we want is an end to the truly evil things people do in the name of religion. We think we can do this by convincing people to question their religious beliefs. But people aren’t going to willingly question their most fundamental religious beliefs. In any case their beliefs aren’t the problem. It’s the things they do that are the problem. What we want is for them to see the things they do as the truly evil things they are.

Religion gives people the highest possible ends. With the highest possible ends comes rationalization for the lowest possible means. Means so evil they would otherwise be seen for what they are can be rationalized because the act is being done for the service of good. Here the ends truly justify the means. This is what makes religious fanatics the danger they are. A religious fanatic sees the ends as so holy righteous and just that the evilness of the means no longer matters.

Dealing with religious fanaticism means getting the religious fanatic to see the evilness of the means makes the ends evil as well. Some means are so evil they can’t be used regardless of the consequences of not using them. Moderation in religion means recognizing that the ends don’t always justify the means. The religious moderate is a person who realizes some prices are simply to high to be paid. Moderation in religion does not mean questioning one’s religious truths. Moderation in religion means accepting that not everyone will accept your truth claims and that there are limits as to what can be done to change their minds.

Moderates vs Extremists

What makes a moderate a moderate? What makes an extremist an extremist/ The difference is in their attitude towards the idea that the ends justify the means.

For the extremist the ends always justify the means. No matter how evil the means the goodness of the ends makes the means justified. The greatest good justifies the evilest of means. This is what is meant by bearing any burden and paying any price in order to reach a goal. Set the goal. Do not question how the goal is achieved. This is the extremist creed.

For the moderate there are means which are simply not justified by any ends whatsoever. There are acts so evil they must simply not be done. For the moderate is is better not to achieve the goal than to achieve the goal through evil means. For the moderate there are burdens which simply must not be borne; prices which simply must not be paid. For the moderate evil is evil. You cannot justify doing evil by the good which may result.

Extremists do not like moderates. To the extremist the moderate is a coward. To the extremist the moderate is a wimp. To the extremist the moderate is weak. Those who are willing to accept failure rather than pay the price for success simply must not be listened to. Their views must be ignored.

Nor do moderates like extremists. To the moderate the extremist is dangerous. At his worst, claims the moderate, the extremist can be truly evil. To the moderate some cures really are worse than the disease. The moderate is concerned about the price of success. The moderate asks whether the village really was saved if trying to save it lead to its destruction? Was trying to create heaven on earth worth it if hell on earth was the result? To the moderate those who consider asking such questions a sign of weakness and cowardice are among the most dangerous people who ever walked the earth.

The most critical battle is not between the Muslim and the non-Muslim. Nor is it between West and East or Republican and Democrat. The truly important battle is between moderate and extremist. The question is what price should be paid for success? is it possible for sucvcess to cost more than can be paid?