Empathy, Conservatives and Health Care Reform
By HHR | July 22nd, 2009 | Category: Featured | 12 commentsby Dennis Sanders
There has been an interesting exchange between Freddie deBoer and Mark Thompson over at League of Ordinary Gentlemen on how conservatives approach health care reform. It’s been fascinating because I think it explains why the conservative arguments against major change doesn’t ring very true to the larger public.
I don’t always agree with Freddie, but this has been on of the few times that he is very spot on. He notes:
…many conservative blogs, from all the various strata of the ideology, have been doing a very poor job of frankly acknowledging the enormous amount of human suffering our health care system causes.
There are very many people, in this country, who need health care and are unable to get it, because of their financial or employment situations. This is a fact, and it is unavoidable. The number of people so afflicted is a matter of great controversy. A great amount of virtual ink has flowed for the purpose of taking shots at the various quoted figures of the uninsured and the underinsured. And who can say, exactly. But it is a great many people. It is millions; even the most rabid partisan must acknowledge that millions of people in this country lack adequate health care coverage. Millions of people, in the country with the most powerful economy in the history of the world, cannot access desperately needed health care because they can’t afford to.
Our system leaves people suffering. Americans, today, don’t go to the doctor because they can’t afford to, though they are in pain, often debilitating pain. Our system leaves people in financial ruin. Those who are uninsured or underinsured and face major medical conditions are often left with bills that leave them destitute, bankrupt, or both. The numbers, again, are controversial. Whatever they are, they are again real, and again large. Our system also kills people. Prevention and early diagnosis are the foundations of Western medicine. People don’t go to the doctor, when they can’t afford it, and they don’t get early diagnosis, they don’t get early intervention, and they don’t get help until it is too late to avoid permanent injury or death.
When conservatives talk about health care, we tend to focus on the free market and fears of government control. Now these concerns do have some legitamacy to them, but they also lack something…empathy.
Empathy has caused a lot of snickers among conservatives lately, ever since President Obama said he wanted a Supreme Court justice that exhibited empathy. Many conservatives attacked the statement saying that one doesn’t need empathy to be a good justice. Maybe, but that’s another issue.
When it comes to health care, conservatives also seem to not see the importance of empathy in the same way that liberals do. Mark Thompson gives an example:
For years, whenever you see a Dem or liberal discussing the health care issue, they almost always begin with an acknowledgement of the problem – the “57 million Americans are uninsured” refrain, or perhaps a story of someone who died as a result of lack of treatment or because they couldn’t get their insurance company to pay for treatment. These stories and statistics tug at the heart strings, but more importantly they make people care about the issue because they make the issue relatable to those people, making them think “that could be me,” or in many cases “that is me.” As importantly, they give the listener the impression that what follows is a good faith proposal to solve that problem, not some half-assed proposal that’s really intended to advance a broader ideological agenda.
When you hear a conservative or libertarian speaking about the issue, though, you rarely get an acknowledgement of the problem. Instead, you may get a set of objections to the Dem proposal (usually including a rant about “socialized medicine”) or a statement that the free market solution is the better solution or some discussion of the areas of our health care system that are not the problem and that must be preserved and defended.
The liberal argument for health care reform is based on emotion and it works. I’m hardly rooting for a single-payer system, but I know what it means to be without healthcare, and as I’ve stated earlier, I know what it is to be sick and without health care. Democrats may have the wrong perscription to solve the issue, but at least they seem to care.
That’s not what I find when I listen to fellow conservatives. There is no talk about what it might mean to not have health care or to have your benefits cut, or to deal with the rising cost of perscription drugs. As Mark notes, there is some talk about “socialized medicine” and how the US has the best health care system in the world and how we should focus on free market solutions.There is no talk about people’s fears or concerns about this issue.
My own concerns for health care reform stem from my own life. I was a sickly kid growing up. I had asthma attacks on a regular basis, and have many allergies. Luckily, my parents had health insurance to pay for all the problems I had. As I grew into a young adult, I then dealt with clinical depression, which has me on antidepressants and a recent diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome, a form of autism, which has me seeing a psychologist.
The long and the short of it, is that I’ve had some experience with the health care system. As an adult, I’ve gone through periods without health insurance. Just because I don’t have health care doesn’t mean those illnesses stop. I’ve gone though periods where I’ve had to decide to not take a certain drug because without insurance it was to damn expensive.
Health care reform for me isn’t just an exercise in ideology; it is a real issue for me. Like any Republican, I have my druthers on having some kind of Canadian-style system, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think this is an issue that the government has to have a role in. No parent should have to worry about whether they can take care of their kid who is having trouble breathing and wondering if they can pay for it.
What this comes down to is that conservatives and Republicans are going to have to let down their ideological blinders a bit and actually start to listen to people’s concerns. Mind you, conservatives our not alone in allowing their ideology to cloud their vision. As Mark Thompson notes, liberals have similar blinders when it comes to public education, closing their eyes to charter schools and vouchers, even when schools are failing.
I don’t know if conservatives are going to allow themselves a bit of empathy on this issue, but it might do them a bit of good.
Dennis Sanders is a pastor living in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He has worked on centrist Republican issues for years, including stints as President of the Minnesota chapter of Log Cabin Republicans (a gay/lesbian advocacy group) and Republicans for Environmental Protection. Dennis blogs at NeoMugwump and happily lives with his partner Daniel and serves two cats, Morris and Felix.
on 
on 
on 
So in your eyes how can Republicans be empathetic to the health care issue all the while maintaining a more conservative approach (or a free market approach) to health care reform?
Empathy is a great quality, there is no doubt about that. Healthcare reform is needed as well and needs rational ideas to get the job done. As you say Conservatives lack the interjection of empathy in their ideas for reform, the opposite can easily be said for the Liberal views as well. They are missing rationality. You can not sit back and say things like the majority of the country will benefit from our “free” program, and yet, fund the program by taking the personal earnings of the minority groups to fund it just because they have “enough”.
I sympathize with the less fortunate because I was one of them. I have spent years uninsured and have visited the emergency room to get treatment. I understand. I worked hard to get myself into a better position so that I could afford the insurance rates from the private system. But while I was not able to, I also noticed the lack of assistance availiable through the “Old Government Healthcare” system that we know as medicade/medicare. We already pay into this system, and yet NOT ONCE have they talked about reforming it, but adding a larger version. The “unfortunate” should have a safety net in place, the children/elderly should be covered, the incapable should be covered under the medicade/care system, but there are cases where THAT system hasn’t worked to its intentions. Why not fix it?
If there was a way to get the two ways of thinking to meet…
I am opposed to almost anything run by “The Government” and on the issue of health care I ask myself are we looking in the wrong direction?
Why are prescription drugs cheaper in Canada? Not genetic or substitute drugs but the same drugs sold by the same companies. Why are drug companies allowed to charge Americans more? Why are we subsidizing the world?
What part of Rx is going up? How can they justify the increases? Maybe the parts that are increasing should be addressed? Or are we subsidizing an ungrateful world?
What part of health care is increasing? Labor? Technology? What? Let’s identify the parts that are increasing and let’s address them!
I am opposed to almost anything run by “The Government” and on the issue of health care I ask myself are we looking in the wrong direction?
Why are prescription drugs cheaper in Canada? Not genetic or substitute drugs but the same drugs sold by the same companies. Why are drug companies allowed to charge Americans more? Why are we subsidizing the world?
What part of Rx is going up? How can they justify the increases? Maybe the parts that are increasing should be addressed? Or are we subsidizing an ungrateful world?
What part of health care is increasing? Labor? Technology? What? Let’s identify the parts that are increasing and let’s address them!
How can people be against a plan that has not even been completed or proposed yet? At this time they are in the process of fact finding, brainstorming and building a plan. So far, the President, is looking a programs like Canada’s, the Mayo and Cleveland clinics. Which focus on Doctor guided decisions based on what is best for the patient. He clearly stated that 2/3 of the money is already being paid without results that are on par with other countries that spend less with better results. What part of this mentions socialized medicine or increasing the burden on a minority? As far as how the remaining money to pay, there are many proposals being considered. The only thing off of the table is any plan that puts the majority of the burden on the middle/working class. Makes sense?
Govenment funding of a system is not the same as a government run system. I support a govt finaced system that allows doctors the freedom to practice without worrying about profit motives of the insurance company.
Under the Constitution’s welfare clause, the Govenment has the ability to enter into the maket as a competitior whenever it is warranted to serve and benefit the citizens.
[...] Care Reform 2009 July 23 by sitemanager There is another great article by our friends at Hip Hop Republican about what is lacking in the GOP’s health care message. There is little doubt that [...]
Why in the world would anyone want to continue to put a Blood-sucking Leech, a middleman, aka Health Insurers, between them and their Doctor is one of the great mysteries. Part of the answer is the power of the media, Rush et al have convinced, nay, DUPED, Y’all into believing the free market is the answer to everything, when in fact it is a RIGGED game!! i.e. Enron, WorldCom, AIG, Goldman etc etc Big Pharma/Health INs are spending over $1mil/day PER DAY to defeat any govt sponsored competition!!
How about we extend Medicare to ALL americans and beef up the Enforcement/Investigation divisions to crack down on Fraud? That is a jobs creation that pays for itself. We can also make sure the Multi-Nationals Y’all are so enamored with PAY their fair share of taxes, cuz they AINT!
A CNN “Poll of Polls” released Wednesday indicated that less than half of Americans now approve of how Obama is handling the issue. It shows 47 percent of Americans approve of how the president is dealing with health care reform, while 44 percent disapprove.
Freedom and liberty being lost is empathy enough.
What would you rather have, your freedom and liberty, or a nice cry and neither?
If you value neither, then I can totally see why you may want someone to sing your sorrows, especially if you think at the end of the weeping, there might be free goodies.
If Medicaid and Medicare are failing, why would we want a full scale version of this program rolled out to the whole country (minus the President himself and the Senators who will maintain their private health care benefits)? I don’t think that is “caring about us” or empathetic at all to put us in debt for a system that will surely fail and give everyone less coverage than they currently have. Medicaid is for the poor who need it. And Medicare is for the elderly. We already have government programs to cover those groups. The middle class and upper class should be able to maintain private health care coverage. I don’t see the problem here.
FLAvaMan:
Please excuse me but Pres. Obama wanted to have this passed yesterday, in the middle of the fact finding mission. “Drill baby drill” but this time they are drilling the American people
The man spent an Hour explaining nothing, about a plan he knows nothing about blaming the other guys for everything and taking responsibility for nothing. DEMOCRATS ARE BLOCKING THE CRAZYNESS, REPUBLICANS cans stop squat. Affordable health care is a pretty broad term, affordable for whom? I pay $700 now and it could be lower but I get to write it off, I know that amount is not affordable for the 47M currently uninsured, and more than 3% will find $350 per month unaffordable the numbers don’t make sense. I have a proposal let’s learn on the job, Fix Medicare, cut the cost in half and cover twice as many and I’ll vote my republican reps out of office if the doesn’t wash Obama’s feet. I’ll pray for Pres. Obama and hope he can feed us all with 7 Loaves.
I agree with you. I think we as conservatives have left out the “we care” attitude and it seems to be more about business and dollars. I’m in the insurance industry and find myself cussing under my breath every time I have to tell a new applicant they can’t get health coverage because they have ADHD, or that their rate will be this much higher because of their health history. I find it disgusting that a family of 5 pays as much for health insurance as they do for their monthly mortgage. Everyone needs health coverage, I agree with that. I think the better way to accomplish reform is to look at the reasons the cost for care is so high. First off…malpractice insurance. If they focused on tort reform, making it so Dr’s and Hospitals can’t be sued for ridiculous things, and then put a cap on things that you could sue for. If it’s gross negligence, (like they cut off the wrong leg) then the gloves come off, and the sky is the limit. But if Dr’s and Hospitals don’t have such overhead costs, they could pass the savings onto the patient and insurance company’s. Also, the high deductible plans combined with HSA’s are really the way to go, in my opinion. Let the small dollars come from your own pocket, rather than nickle and diming the insurance company. When it’s your own money, you think twice about things. I also think that inviting more competition in each State would drive down the cost of insurance.