Too bad.

The good news, for you, is that in two days will will get a break from the incessant political ads which are about as truthful as a 16-year old who promises to pull out in time.  The bad news is that the sniping will continue until the next election cycle begins in two years.

I’ve received plenty of responses to my last little diatribe, and rather than respond to each of them one by one, I’d like to offer a blanket response.  First, I’d like to respond to one post in particular.  How can you shoot down the concept of government subsidized health care while simultaneously advocating an arrangement shared among extended family (I believe you called it “clan”)?  You’re making the same arrangement from a smaller base.  Instead of looking at all of the United States as “your clan”,you break it down into smaller social units of people that you happen to be related to by blood.  There’s a difference?  You have no problem “chipping in” to help others, as long as they’re family.

There are two fundamental arguments at work here.  Obligation is not something that can be forced upon someone else indefinitely.  At some point an individual must accept responsibility or he will either be negligent of, or actively resistant to, that obligation.  On the other hand, living in a society is a social contract.  In accepting society’s benefits and protections (police, roads, armed forces, etc.) you implicitly agree to obey that society’s laws.  The law is not an “ala carte” menu.  You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you obey and which do not apply to you.  Law applies to all equally. (at least, in theory)

The question that must be answered is “Can government perform this societal function better than the individual, and would the benefit of such activity be beneficial to all?”  In a comment from Data Vortex, he includes a link to a story about a Congressman who votes to give money from the treasury to a family who is burned out by fire.  Indeed, in the story cited, it would be inappropriate for Congress to vote to give money to an individual or single family.  The story fails to pass the test of the above question.  It does not benefit everyone equally.

However, what if Congress had voted to create a trust fund that could get all families who are burned out by fire back on their feet?  What if such a fund were available to any families who needed it?  Such a concept would pass the test of “beneficial to all”, and if such a plan were possible, the government could employ the economy of scale required to make it happen.  It does not answer the practical details of such a plan, and I believe that is our greatest weakness as a government.  Too often, we pass bad ideas as law in the interest of “doing something”.  “Something”, in this case, has to be the RIGHT thing.

I would not support “Universal Health Care” if the plan is “a blank check for every medical procedure”.  Such a plan would invite waste and fraud.  I do not believe that means that there is no solution that would provide benefit to all, but I believe it is a problem that should be addressed, and soon.  I believe that promoting competition in the medical and insurance marketplaces is beneficial.  I believe that transparency in the insurance industry is a good idea.  I believe that if an individual can do better on their own that they should be encouraged to do so.

But I also believe that “Tough Shit” is not a good enough answer to those who can’t.  At some point, it is in our interests to look out for our fellow Americans.  Not on every issue, and not all the time, but at some point it makes things better for us as individuals if we make sure our neighbors are in good shape.  There is a continuum between “every man for himself” capitalism and “nanny state” socialism.  The question is where we lie on that continuum.

Some argue that government inefficiency is so endemic that the private sector can do things better in nearly every case.  Extreme Libertarian views would have every road be a toll road, every police force paid for by private citizens, and every social safety net run by a charity or other private organization.  Failure is met with the response “Tough Shit”, and to the victors go all spoils.

I’m going to tell you a different story.

I have a friend named Jay.  Jay’s son, Tyler, was born just 2 days before 9/11.  Just after Ty’s 3rd birthday, he started showing some symptoms of illness.  At first, they appeared to be allergies.  Then he started having headaches and nausea.  The next diagnosis was Bell’s Palsy.   After Jay pushed the doctors to give Tyler a CAT scan, they found a tumor on Tyler’s brain stem in June of 2005.  After surgery and more than a year’s worth of chemotherapy, Tyler was symptom free.

In order to pay the expenses associated with his medical care, Jay and his wife went deep into debt.  Insurance didn’t cover everything, and even his friends started a PayPal donation fund to help make ends meet.

When the symptoms returned later in 2007, Ty had to endure more chemotherapy and radiation treatments.   Now it wasn’t just Jay and his wife being stretched past their financial limits.  Their extended family and friends were pitching in even more money.  The community around Jay and his family went to the mat for Jay and his brave little boy.

It wasn’t enough.  Tyler Hibinger passed away last night.  He was 7 years old.

Having adequate insurance would not have saved Tyler’s life, but the crushing financial burden of this unspeakable ordeal isn’t going away just because Tyler lost his struggle.  There is no damn reason that this country and it’s people can’t get together and provide a safety net for families like Jay’s.  There is no damn reason that “We the People” can’t chip in together and provide coverage for families who need it.

“Tough Shit” is not good enough.

If my taxes have to go up a few percentage points per year in order to make sure that no more families have to face a financial burden like this in order to save their child’s life, then I’ll fuckin’ pay it and be glad I could help.  If others want to look at this and say that government is taking their money at the point of a gun, then let’s tell them “Tough Shit” and see how they like it!

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Our Union is pretty fucking far from perfect when citizens can, in good conscience, tell a family like Jay’s “Tough Shit”.  We’re doing a pretty lousy job of promoting the general welfare when we tell millions of our fellow citizens “If you get sick, you’re on your own.”.  There are no Blessings of Liberty to a family who will be in debt for a significant part of the rest of their lives because they had to take care of a sick child.

There will come a day, and I don’t think it’s that far off, when folks look up and see no perfect Union, no Justice, no general Welfare, and precious few Blessings of Liberty.  The step after that will pretty much kill the notion of domestic Tranquility.

If we are the nation that we all say that we are, it is time to step up, pitch in, make sure your friends and neighbors aren’t left to the tender mercies of Social Darwinism and come up with a solution.  Insurance companies aren’t going to do it.  Doctors and hospitals aren’t going to do it.  We have to do it as one nation, under God (or Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Insert the deity of your choice here), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, not just those who can afford it.

R.I.P. Tyler.  Uncle Grimmy loves you.