Health care reform: The voices of opposition

Unless you’ve been living in a hut in the mountains and completely cut off from society all summer, you’ve undoubtedly been exposed to some mention of the debate currently going on in Washington about health insurance reform. It seems to have permeated every conversation, every television station, and every type of print media. It’s everywhere.

And if you’re familiar with the reform debate, you’ve likely heard the arguments against reforming the health insurance industry, or against the proposed bills – in some cases against bills that weren’t yet written. Phrases like “pulling the plug on grandma” and “death panels” entered the popular lexicon, and opponents have argued that health reform is a secret plot to deny health care to people because they’re white, because they vote Republican, or because they wouldn’t be considered “productive” by the Obama administration.

There has been a race to find the most inflammatory, if blatantly inaccurate, word to describe the idea of health care reform—from “socialist” to “fascist”—and the frequency with which President Obama was likened to Hitler (sometimes, though not often, even on protest signs that lacked misspellings) has drastically increased.

Though the College Republicans are officially against the proposed legislation, Chair Gordon Chaffin* finds the idea that it would create government death panels repulsive and misleading.

“In its original legislative language, it was basically saying that the government would provide counsel to people nearing the end of their life,” he said. “As someone who’s gone through hospice care with a couple of my grandparents, this is something that is incredibly helpful. It makes dying respectable and peaceful… it isn’t at all like the government or some company pushing death upon your loved one.”

However, Chaffin still admits to having qualms with the proposed legislation. In particular, he cites the fee-for-service model, which he says provides “crazy, perverse incentives” to individual doctors and favors specialists. He also believes that the Democrats and President Obama are trying to push the legislation through too fast, as the economic recession is the biggest problem right now and needs to be tackled first. 
Chaffin will admit that he personally supports the health insurance reform that President Obama laid out in his prime time speech, and compares efforts now to require people to have health insurance to previous efforts to mandate universal car insurance.

“After the fact these things become normal to people,” Chaffin said. “Is it going be normal and okay to require health insurance five years from now? Or is it going to still be hotly debated?”
The College Libertarians, on the other hand, see reform differently.

“Libertarians are not in favor of a public option and are not in favor of a public mandate,” College Libertarians President Jonathan Slemrod said. “We’re an ideological group. We don’t think that the government should be forcing people to buy health insurance. We don’t think they should be forcing businesses to pay for health insurance for their employees if they don’t want to, not only because it’s damaging to the economy when we’re in a recession, but because we think it’s morally not right for the state to force people to do things.”

Students of Objectivism President Adam Gaglio agrees.

“Freedom is freedom from initiation of force,” he said.

Both groups agree that reform is necessary, but said the types of changes that are necessary are very different from those being proposed.

Gaglio asserted that the only type of reform bill that would be acceptable would be one which removed all restrictions, because “in the ideal free market health care system, the government would simply protect individuals from physical force and fraud.”

Slemrod said that his ideal health reform bill would remove restrictions about buying insurance across state lines and would offer a tax rebate to individuals and families with which they could buy their own insurance.

One point on which the Libertarians and the Objectivists differ is as to whether or not the number of uninsured people in our country — 46 million is a figure frequently thrown around — is a problem. While Slemrod said that the “number of uninsured is troubling,” and claimed “no one would dispute that we do have a big problem with uninsured people,” Gaglio does just that.

“I don’t think the number of uninsured is a problem,” he said. “Those that can’t afford health care are in an unfortunate position, but needing something does not entitle you to it. Enacting any government program that guarantees the right to the product of someone else’s labor necessarily enslaves someone to provide the product for those who can’t afford it.”

When asked about Glenn Beck’s Sept. 12 rally as well as the infamous August Town Hall meetings, Chaffin said that he believes they represent about twenty-five percent of the population and the general consensus of the three men was that the participants were real people with real concerns. Chaffin called them “misguided” and Gaglio agreed that, intellectually, “they’re lacking.” Gaglio also condemned the rallies for being “too religious” and says that religion does not agree with capitalism.

Because of that, Gaglio argued that a primary difference between the Objectivists and the other groups that disagree with the proposed reforms is that the Objectivists are explicitly atheist.

Gaglio said that the basic principle of the Bible is that you’re supposed to care about and take care of others, so with regard to those other groups, he seemed genuinely confused, and asked what, in the context of these debates, is a truly thought-provoking question.

“How do you not support health care when you’re supposed to be your brother’s keeper?”

*Chaffin is no longer the Chair of the U of M College Republicans. For more see The state of the College Republicans.