Personally Responsible

Providing America with equal coverage in health care was the topic of the editorial in the Rutland Herald on Aug. 8, 2009 titled "All together now." One question the editorial presented is how President Obama is to persuade the majority of Americans who are not facing a health care crisis to support reform of the system for those who are in "dire straits." President Obama's answer is to show the majority of people that they too are in "dire straits" in numerous ways.

This approach attempts to appeal to citizens' self-interest and bring them into such a low mental state of thought to blur the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is better off than many imagine, those whose visions have been potentially corrupted by President Obama's previous reform tactics. These tactics are part of the problem. Lowering America's mentality to bring America into this state of mind of helplessness has reflected in our stock markets and only foresees other future effects.

President Obama wants to create this unrealistic health reform in which all the people are covered all the time. Unfortunately, this is not the case, nor will it ever be. Close to 47 million people in the United States are uncovered by health insurance. However, about 250 million people do have coverage and they have worked hard for it. Why should the majority of the people care about the 47 million who are not? What is in it for them? This is the same question that President Obama is trying to answer. Although his intentions are credible, the approach has many challenges that require careful thought.

As a president, President Obama needs to look out for our nation on a whole and accept the fact that not all the people can be equally covered all the time. Yes, the health care reform is in the interest of each individual, but if people do not comply within the circumstances of reform, a reform cannot exist. This situation needs to be looked upon as an issue of balance and how to balance the needs of 250 million people to those of 47 million. The desirable balance is a point that provides the 47 million people with some form of health care while not sacrificing the quality of care of those currently covered or raising unacceptable cost to implement these laudable goals.

Although the editorial attempts to frame the issue to look after individuals who are vulnerable to disaster, it fails to touch upon the dimension of personal responsibility, a core component of our system. Personal responsibility has created a huge value by harnessing the individual drives of individual spirits. But in an effort to create broad-band coverage, President Obama is removing trust in America's system, making it only possible with more government aid. With that removal, also removed is the individual accountability factor needed to drive our future society.

Surely, this requires robust debate and deserves thoughtful discussions. Just because the Democrats have near absolute control until the next election is not a legitimate reason to rush into this. It is possible to reform our health care system, but we need to do it with the right intentions.

The intentions should include providing America with better quality and pleasure of life, not only for sheer change sake. President Obama's campaign platform included change from Republican and President Bush's policies and is almost cliché now; it is not a race to win any longer. Successful change may not be possible. However, if it is, we need carefully managed plans for success. But then again, change for change's sake has never been proven to be sustainable or always led to good outcomes.

BLAKE BOHLIG

Rutland

There are many letters to the editor that get me all fired up. They inflame my liberal sensitivities, they inflame my inner grammar nazi, or they inflame that small part of me that optimistically hopes most people are rational by proving once more that most people are actually quite ignorant and in their ignorance just plain stupid. This letter didn’t do any of those things. It did touch upon a topic for which I have very mixed feelings: personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility is supposedly one of those American Ideals that makes America America. I can’t find any fault with being personally responsible for yourself and your well being, to the best of your abilities. However, I dislike how so many people fall back on this idea of personal responsibility to suggest that a person deserves any misfortune she suffers. The author of today’s letter uses personal responsibility to make it acceptable that 47 million people don’t have health care. He does so with a sentence that often inflames me: “However, 250 million people do have coverage and they have worked hard for it.” (emphasis mine). That seems to be the sentence of choice among those who argue against anything that would provide a boost for those who are less fortunate. They have worked hard for it. The underlying statement being, those who are less fortunate haven’t worked hard. In this case, the author is clearly saying the 47 million people without health insurance haven’t worked hard.

Surely that can be the only reason a person doesn’t have health care, because she hasn’t worked hard. While I understand this is obviously true, I’m going to ask you to indulge in a short foray into reality. I’m willing to bet one of the largest reasons a person doesn’t have health care is because her employer doesn’t provide it. I’d like to give you two specific examples.

Person M works full time for a small business in the agriculture field. The business doesn’t actually do anything traditionally considered agriculture, but because of some special rules is allowed to declare itself an agriculture business. M has worked full time at this business for at least 10 years. Previously, she worked at several other businesses in the same field. She has a college degree, albeit in an unrelated field. Person M’s employer only employs 20-25 people, most of them part time or seasonal, and cannot afford to provide health coverage to any employees. So, Person M doesn’t have health care.

Person L works full time for a very large corporation. She has worked full time for this corporation for one year. She had to wait six months to gain eligibility for health care coverage, and then accepted it. Six months later, for reasons completely unrelated to L’s ability to fulfill her responsibilities, her employer decided to change her position to part-time and hire more part time employees. As a part time employee, L is no longer eligible for health care.

So, here we have two instances of a full time (which is usually accepted as within the definition of hard working) employee who, through no fault of her own, is without health care. What are we to take from this information? Should M, in order to be personally responsible, have chosen to work at a larger company that could afford to offer health care? Even though L’s example shows that large companies are just as likely to avoid offering health care if possible? Should L have worked harder? Even though the company openly admitted the change in L’s position had nothing to do with her ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the position? In what way would this ideal of working harder have helped either M or L? In what way would this ideal of personal responsibility have helped either M or L? I guess all they can do is be personally responsible for not getting sick.

The author suggests that the problem with Mr. Obama’s proposed health care plan is that it undermines personal responsibility. But, I fail to see how that is true, or, more importantly, how being personally responsible helps maintain health care. I think the problem with Mr. Obama’s proposed health care plan is much less vague and immeasurable than the possibility of undermining personal responsibility. I think the problem is that Mr. Obama would let health care remain an employer responsibility. The above examples are clear proof that leaving health care in the hands of employers is a recipe for lack of health care. Employers will, again and again, find ways to avoid paying the high and growing higher cost of health care. Employers will refuse to offer health care, cut full time positions to lessen the number of employees who are eligible for health care, or pass along enough of the costs to make it unaffordable for employees. The way health care is handled now has nothing to do with personal responsibility, and everything to do with profitability.

A more rational rebuttal

It is not a question of what that person's life is worth that I don't know, it is a question of whether their life is worth more than mine or my husband's to me? Because that is what it comes down to, do we have to work ourselves into an early death to fund every single need everyone in the country has?

The main problem with this belief is what happens when you extrapolate it out to every single person. What if every person believed this? What if only a simple majority of people believed this? Very simply, it means that you are worth less. As is your husband, and any children you may have. Your parents, your friends, your loved ones. You're all worth less. Worth less than who? Than me and my loved ones, of course. Because if I believed the same as you, the only ones worth my resources are those I love. And I can't possibly love everyone.

Furthermore, if you extrapolate this belief to the other "welfare" programs our taxes cover it means I'm not going to pay for the education of you or your children, nor can you drive on my roads, use my public library, or benefit from my personal police force, fire department or ambulance service. Because I'm working much too hard to have to share my earnings with anybody other than my loved ones. Damn the poor and their ignorant inability to pull themselves up by their boot straps. And I would just like to point out that there are those who "abuse" each of these systems. There are children who are truant more often than not, and yet draw tax payer dollars for that school. There are those who leave smoldering cigarrettes in a trash can or couch and end up burning down the house. Should we let that house burn down simply because the person made a bad decision? Should we ignore all the nearby houses that might also burn down? Do we just chalk it all up to bad decisions and walk away feeling snug in our belief that the same could never happen to us because we're smart enough to have made the good decision to not smoke?

Poor health care drags down more than just the person actually suffering from ill health. It drags down the spouse who shares fiscal responsibilities. It drags down the parents trying to help out. It drags down the children who are then without the many benefits money can bring. Really, it is not that unlike a burning building.

I think we are also failing to consider a "cost" in this whole analysis. What about the "cost" of losing an able bodied person from society? If he/she had been healthy, what contribution might he/she have made? Perhaps tutored a child? Been a big brother/big sister? Donated money to help fund the arts? Might that child whose parents were unable to afford the summer camps for science have found a break through in cancer research? What are we giving up when we give up on that person? There is no way to quantify it except to look around you at all those people who have contributed in meaningful ways to our society and just imagine if one of those people had been stuck with a major health problem and no insurance in our society. What might we have lost?

To me, your statement sort of sounds like these 3rd world countries we hear so much about. You know, those ones we lament about. The places we arrogantly believe would be saved by democracy and a free market. In those countries, the only kids who get an education are those with parents rich enough to afford the private schools. The only places with good infrastructure are where the rich want to be able to go, or need to be able to move their goods. The only folks immune from violence and thievery are those who can afford personal body guards or even a small army.

Let's be honest, it's not as if I'm (or we're) asking you to provide a Wii game for every household, or a new car for every 16 year old. I don't think anybody is begging the gov't for a big screen HD tv, or a brand new laptop. We just want to ensure that every citizen has access to and can afford treatment of health problems. And we'd like to prevent as many of these problems as possible. I truly believe we would have a healthier, more productive and happier society if each person was able to receive treatment for illness in an effective and timely manner.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face

Because that is what it comes down to, do we have to work ourselves into an early death to fund every single need everyone in the country has? The answer to that is no, that person is not worth that much to me and no we will not continue to work at the pace we are to earn what we are in order to pay more taxes to support more welfare programs.

But, it’s ok for me to work myself into an early grave so that I can afford health care for myself? It’s ok for one of my friends to put herself tens of thousands of dollars in debt doing the drug research that is providing you with good health care? (Do you know how much work grad students do in the research field? Practically for free.) See, this is what bugs me about this discussion. The assumption that I’m not working hard and I’m just living off your taxes and your hardwork. Guess what, I work my ass off everyday. And I always have. I don’t want your hand outs. I don’t want your charity. I just want to be able to go to the Dr when I’m sick, and get regular health check ups to make sure I don’t end up with the diabetes that every single person on my father’s side of the family has. (I can promise you that letting me get preventative care now will be a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for my care when I’m a diabetic and on a gov’t funded health care system because I’m so sick I can’t work.) I just want to be able to live healthy and happy. And that includes not having to work 10-12 hours a day 6-7 days a week. I have a full time job. I have a BA. I even have a fancy-schmancy title: department Manager. I make well below the living wage. The living wage around here (calculated by me before the hike in fuel prices) is about $12.50 per hour. And when I say living wage, that’s what I mean. That’s the average amount of money a single person needs to earn to be able to live. That’s rent (on an average 1 bedroom apt), heating fuel, electricity, phone, gas, food, car insurance, college loans. You’ll notice I didn’t figure in a car loan (because I’m smart enough to not get a car I can’t afford), nor internet access, nor cable tv, nor going out to eat once a month, or renting a movie, or buying a new pair of shoes, or any of the myriad of things that make a life. Oh, but I did include a pet because the stress relief is key. Guess what I make. $10.60 per hour. In order for me to afford to live, I would need to work my full time job (38 hours per week, with a set, but constantly changing schedule that already eats up 1 weeknight and every other weekend nights) plus another part time job. I’ve done this, and it is not a healthy way to live. I still barely made enough to pay my bills, I was constantly tired, over stressed and permanently sick. And I still couldn’t afford to go to the dr even though I had insurance. How can you possibly consider this a system that works? It doesn’t. It’s a simple fact. This system does not work.

The thing is, nobody has to stay at a low income job. You don't even have to go to school to move up from low income, you just have to keep a job for long enough to move up in your position there. Which brings up why I hate it that they keep raising the minimum wage. The only people this really benefits is the people who skip from menial job to menial job and have no desire to ever do anything better. It hurts small business. But that's another arguement (sic).

I’m sorry, but I find this deeply offensive. You think I’m choosing to stay at a low paying job? Do you think I really have that many other options? Seriously? And to suggest that education is not necessary is the most absurd thing I’ve heard. I guess I shouldn’t have wasted my time going to college. I could have started out as a school janitor and worked my way up to superintendent in no time, right? Because the higher paid positions rarely require further training, education, or skills. As a further example, I did exactly what you’re talking about. I started out as a part-time menial laborer. I helped put together the store I’m currently working in. I helped put in the shelving, set all the displays, put out product. I was lucky enough to be kept on as a peon cashier. Quickly moved up to a part time “titled” position. Then earned a full time “titled” position. Within 10 months of starting with this company I earned the position I currently have. Perhaps you’ll recall what my current wages are. And I’ve had my 1 year anniversary with raise. It was about 3%. That’s right, we’re talking a whopping 43 cents (give or take a penny). But, I’m sure if I just stay with this company long enough I’ll be just fine. Nevermind that they screwed me out of my health insurance.

Or, I could use the example of my previous job. Where I worked for 3 years, starting as a part time phone rep, and working my way up (rather quickly) to a full time full customer service rep. And even though I received glowing reviews, always learned all my tasks quickly and fully, worked hard, had near perfect attendance, and continually sought more responsibilities, management cut me off. Wouldn’t let me move up any further. Never saw my application for a higher position. When I quit that job I was earning a little less than what I’m currently earning. So, yes, the idea that you just have to stay with a company long enough and you’ll work your way up is perfectly valid.

Yes, I have qualms about putting the gov’t in charge of a health care system. Yes, I worry about those who will abuse the system. No, I don’t think we’re going to have a quick fix, or a miraculous cure. But, the status quo isn’t working. It hasn’t been working. It’s not going to start working. Staying with the current system just because you’re scared of the alternative doesn’t make sense.