Many mistakenly think that the caduseus (or Staff of Hermes) is the symbol of medicine, but in fact the Staff of Asclepius is the correct medical symbol
As far as I can tell, there were two major objections to the health care bill that just passed the House. The first, coming from political conservatives and libertarians, objected to any government involvement at all. The second, coming from pro-life people of conscience, objected to the expansion of funding for abortion.
Obviously, the first group are most vocally dissatisfied. They’ve just plain lost.
As to the desires of the second group, it’s hard to say whether President Obama’s promised executive order will truly satisfy them. I suppose history will tell.
As for those who supported the bill, well, they speak as if this is a victory on the level of ending slavery or segregation. This bill has put an end to a great evil and has opened the door for a great good.
What fascinates me is how almost all the conversation about health care I’ve heard (and been involved with) in the past year is based in ideas of morality, of ethics. Almost none of it focused on the practical, concrete aspects of the bill. If someone disagreed with someone else about health care, that person wasn’t just wrong; he or she was bad, evil, a hater of the human race and all things American.
It’s about right and wrong – in a way
Now, I’m sure at least half of you will find something to disagree with on this blog. In fact, if you read long enough, it’s probably inevitable that I’ll say something that rubs you wrong or insults a principle that you hold dear. I know that’s the case with me: even the writers and friends I’m most like-minded with sometimes say or do things I consider downright stupid. And let’s face it, I’m no better than any of them.
But when these disagreements happen, even when we disagree about really serious moral issues like abortion or warfare or whose turn it is to empty the dishwasher, it’s critical to remember that it’s a person that I’m arguing with.
It’s a person who has reasons for his or her opinion. It’s a person who is trying to do and say what seems best to him or her. It’s a person, not an animal or a monster.
A person’s arguments can be wrong, or can lead to evil conclusions. But a person, in and of him- or herself, is never evil. So the goal of every argument is not to figure out who is right or wrong; an argument is not about judging a person. Instead, an argument helps us figure out what is right or wrong, what is good or bad, so that we can together follow what is good and avoid what is evil.
How to fight fairly
So, I find the quickest way to quiet my own anger when someone disagrees with me is to put myself in their shoes. Why, I ask myself – and sometimes the other person directly, does this person think that way?
This has a double benefit: first, it reminds me that this is another person and the goal is to find the truth together; second, it helps me see the strengths and weaknesses of their argument, so that I can see what’s right and wrong more clearly.
If I’m able to explore the question with them, it also lowers the level of anger and frustration. Even if nobody “wins” the argument, if we don’t walk away in perfect agreement, we at least have agreed to understand one another.
For the record
So, on health care: I’m for universal availability of health care; I’m against abortion (as well as other elective procedures) being included in basic health care; I don’t have a principled objection to government involvement, but I’m highly suspicious of our current governmental structures. I think the “health care exchange” is maybe the best part of the bill. I’m sure history will tell us what the worst part of the bill is.
There, I’ve said what I think. Feel free to disagree with my argument; just don’t dis my person – or anyone else’s, if you please.
Thanks for this reminder. It’s one that those of us on both sides of the argument would do well to remember.
I tend to agree with you about the exchanges being the best (and most often overlooked) part of this bill. In fact, David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, pointed out that this structure is more consistent with free-market principles than the current employer-based system. Perhaps a future, more complete reform would allow everyone to participate in the exchanges.
As for the abortion question: it is my firm belief that a health care reform that funds abortion is not worthy of the name. Abortion is not health care, period; it is antithetical to the principles that cause me to support reform in the first place. With that said, I don’t really feel competent to answer the question of whether the language in the Senate bill (which will now become law) is sufficient to maintain current law against the federal funding of abortion. The Bishops say it isn’t, but other experts (on both sides of the abortion issue) believe it could very well cause private insurers to stop covering abortion altogether. What I object to, in the strongest terms possible, is the impugnment of the characters of Sister Keehan, Professor Jost, and even Representative Stupak himself. While their conclusions as to the content and possible effects of the bill may (or may not) have been wrong, they at least deserve the benefit of the doubt as to their motives.
Heh. I just having this conversation with my Dad.
Politics has been in “winner take all” mode for the last 2 decades. It isn’t about a more “perfect union” – it’s about beating the snot out of the other guy. If I object to the costs of health care reform, it’s not because I’m raising an issue worthy of consideration, it’s because I must hate humanity. I must be backward and need to be beaten.
And honestly, if I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t be cheering. That wasn’t the final vote and it’s not a done deal. (I think there is a serious worry that the entire bill could be thrown out in the courts…) But they’ve exhausted the troops and used practically every strong arm tactic to get it this far. What happens if it stalls in the Senate?
I wish that Obama had been the true “change” candidate – ie, that the culture wars and procedural shinagans would have died down. Alas, he has been the “more of the same” candidate.
Also, just read about the buying of Stupak. (Didn’t pay much attention over the weekend). So much for principles. And I was almost impressed with him, too. Clearly my bad.