Healthcare

With healthcare in the news so much lately, I decided to move this topic to the front of the queue of my backlog of topic posts. In this post I will discuss, in a very general sense, the fundamental issues surrounding the social policies of healthcare. First, accept as a given that there will always be members of society that lack the resources to deal with their healthcare on their own. Their situations could be the result of poor planning or just plain bad luck, but it is inescapable. We, as members of a civilized society, have the responsibility to decide how to deal with those situations.

The first method, of course, is to do nothing. I call this the “Dying in the Streets” method. It seems straightforward enough. If you are irresponsible or unfortunate enough to be in a situation that you can’t handle, you exhaust the resources that you do have, die, and leave your family destitute. As heartless and evil as I make it sound by putting it this way, this is the desired method of a great many Americans.

As you may have guessed, “Dying in the Streets” is not my favorite method. In addition to being unnecessarily cruel, it fails to take into account the full social cost of the loss of the individuals who fall victim to circumstance. Everyone contributes to the whole of society in their own way and their loss is felt. They contribute to productivity, consume, pay taxes, care for their children, and are stewards of their property. When we fail to deal proactively with healthcare we create a domino effect of social problems that must either be dealt with or continued to be ignored. I can imagine this method being justifiable in a poor country with little resources, but in a wealthy country like the United States it is shameful.

The second method is to force medical institutions to take care of people and then figure it out later. I call this the “Freeloader” method. Everyone does their own thing, and in the event that someone has a health problem they receive care at a provider. Afterwards, the provider sends them a bill. They pay it if they can and are willing, but, if not, the provider just accepts the loss. The expenses of those losses are then passed on to other customers of the medical providers in the form of higher costs. In the worst scenarios, the financial losses result in the fiscal collapse of the provider altogether. It seems fairly clear to me that the “Freeloader” method is unfair to all parties involved.

One aspect that the first two methods have in common is that they are market solutions. The general problem with market based solutions to healthcare is that it is not naturally priced. Ask the question, “What is the price of a good or service that will save your life?” The correct answer is, “What have you got?” That is an absolutely terrible place for a consumer to begin a fair negotiation for a good or service. For profit entities will typically price their product at a point to maximize their profits. The price will increase, excluding the poorest consumers, until the difference in price and the customer pool reach equilibrium and maximum profit. The cruel reality of pricing is that some healthcare consumers could actually pay for the cost of what they need, but still not be able to afford the price.

The third and last method I’m going to discuss in this post is to have a compulsory, socialized healthcare program. I call this the “Responsibility” plan. Participation is mandatory, and everyone contributes based on their means in the form of taxes. If someone has a healthcare problem it is taken care of because it has already been paid for. This method includes 100% of the population, and, therefore, eliminates the collateral damage of unnecessarily neglecting the unlucky. It also eliminates the freeloader; everyone is proactively contributing to the cost of healthcare. A centralized payment source negotiates reasonable compensation to medical providers. That removes the market incentive for providers to not accept payment, because not accepting payment would automatically exclude so many customers that it would reduce profit.

Even considering the benefits, many Americans scoff at socializing anything new. Perhaps this is a carryover from the Cold War and McCarthyism. While socialization shouldn’t be our go-to solution for any social problem, I think it should at least remain an option. If we look at the evidence, I think it suggests that healthcare is a good candidate for socialization. World-wide studies on national healthcare systems consistently find that the United States pays the most per capita expense. We are also consistently ranked very low in measurable statistics. These are not trivial statistics; they are things like life expectancy and infant mortality. Many of the countries that are paying less, and getting more, have a mandatory, socialized system. Think what you want about socialization, but they are making it work somehow.

The United States incorporates a bit of all three of these methods into its own disparate healthcare system. If you have a condition or illness that requires long-term care, such as cancer or diabetes, you are on your own. Hopefully, you have insurance or a lot of resources. If you are in an accident and require emergency care, a hospital is required to treat you. Then paying the bill is between you and them. We even have socialized programs for some. Once you reach the age of 65 you qualify for Medicare. There is also Medicaid, which is mostly for low-income citizens. Nowadays, most of us, me included, have private health insurance sponsored, and partially paid for, by their employer. However, there is still plenty of room for improvement. Even with the small progress we have made recently, over 10% of our population still falls into the “Dying in the Streets” and the “Freeloader” category, and we are still paying more and getting less than the rest of the modern world.

Admittedly, I am just barely scratching the surface of this issue. It is huge and complicated, and these are just my basic thoughts. Here is what I hope you take away from this. Healthcare is a critically important issue with serious real world consequences; literally life and death. We have a responsibility to our fellow citizens to work together to help improve our quality of life. The next time healthcare reaches the national forefront, and it will again probably sooner rather than later, give change and progress a fair chance. With healthcare in particular, we have the opportunity to review what other nations are doing. There are a lot of solutions out there that have been studied for years. We can look at the data and create an informed and reasonable plan that will work uniquely for us.

Patriotism vs Nationalism

Understanding the definition of words that we throw around is important. In order for people to understand each other, they have to be speaking the same language. I frequently see the concepts of patriotism and nationalism used interchangeably or improperly. I have witnessed long arguments between people on social issues where they failed to even understand each others points due to differing understandings of these words. They have similarities, but they have very important differences as well.

Nationalism is the idea that people and land are divided with borders and identity. It is a personally defining designation in addition to, and separate from, race, religion, gender, and family. It is not necessarily a bad thing, and humans have worked this way throughout all recorded civilization. Patriotism is the devotion, love and support of ones nation. You cannot have patriotism without nationalism, because without a nation there is nothing with which to be devoted. However, you do not have to be nationalist just because we live in a world of nations.

A nationalist is someone who thinks the people of their nation are somehow inherently better or more deserving than the people of another nation. In this way, it is more akin to the prejudices of racism than it is with patriotism. This heightened sense of prejudice inspired nationalism is often mixed with other forms of prejudice to further alienate and subjugate groups of people. The logic goes something like this. People of a certain religion or race or whatever, are not “real” members of a nation. They don’t love it and appreciate it like we do. With the argument framed like this, one can hide their racism and other prejudices behind their nationalism, erroneously claim that they are a patriot, and more conveniently impede the rights of the groups they despise.

In the United States we see this time and time again with racial minorities, religious minorities and immigrants; it’s been happening since the beginning. Bigots hide behind faux-patriotism to claim America is for Christians of European heritage. When in reality the very first amendment to our constitution explicitly forbids the government from establishing an official religion and from prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. A little later the fourteenth amendment granted citizenship to anyone born within the borders. This was a far more generous deal than most other nations offered and really opened up the options for immigrants quite a bit. Immigration expanded and the United States grew and thrived as a result.

A patriot is simply a person who loves his or her country. Love, however, is not as easily defined. When I think of love, I can’t help but think of the love I feel for my own family. I know them, and I want to know them more. I want to see them grow and succeed. I want to help them. I want them to be happy and safe. For me, this is the standard of a patriot.

Being a patriot does not mean that you should not be critical of your government. It is quite the opposite. You should absolutely be critical and constructive regarding your government. I love my daughter dearly, but that surely does not mean that she can do no wrong. She is a spirited, firebrand of a preschooler, and, because I love her, I am constantly correcting her behavior. I do this, because I want her to learn, grow and be successful. I feel the same way towards my country. Those that attempt to characterize individuals who are critical of their government as being unpatriotic are so unpatriotic themselves that they don’t even know what the word means.

There is also a certain amount of interest and participation necessary to be a patriot. How can you love something you know nothing about? A patriot knows about the history of their country. They are reasonably familiar with the founding documents, laws, geography, and peoples that make up their country. As with most things, there is a scale of patriotism. You don’t have to be a history professor, but you should be able to ace a citizenship test. You don’t have to be a regular at your city council meetings, but you have to at least know who your representatives are and vote. Frankly, I’m setting the bar pretty low here, but I’ve had discussions with people claiming to be patriotic that couldn’t even name our three branches of government and had never voted in their lives.

I think it is also important to note that nationalism and patriotism are not mutually exclusive. One can be a nationalist and a patriot, just one or the other, or neither. A common problem that I run into with people is when they are a nationalist and think they are a patriot. Not knowing the difference, they then confuse my lack of nationalism with being unpatriotic. A conversation about social policy can quickly go off topic and I end up just trying to explain why I don’t hate America.

So, how can you tell if you are a nationalist? A nationalist tends to hold symbols, such as flags, in very high regard. For example, you might think that honoring the symbol is more important than expressing the freedom it represents, so you would never damage the flag even if just to prove that you have the freedom to do so. Let’s all be glad a very patriotic Supreme Court decided that even such acts that some felt deplorable were, in fact, protected free speech. You might actually consciously believe that your national identity is better than other national identities, and you may have a very narrow view about which sorts of people qualify as a true citizen. Nationalists also tend to think very highly of the military.

A patriot participates. At very least you must be a good citizen. Patriots honestly pay their taxes. They vote even if they think it doesn’t count. They attend jury duty when called and don’t try to get dismissed. A patriot is knowledgeable of the history of their nation as well as its current state. Many patriots more actively participate by taking government jobs, joining the military and volunteering in their community. So, if you want to discover if you are a patriot first ask yourself how many of these traits you possess. Next, go online and find a few citizenship tests. You should be able to pass them with flying colors. If you can’t pass the simple, multiple choice tests, it doesn’t matter how big the flag on your vehicle or house is; you are absolutely not a patriot.

Facts, Opinions, and Beliefs

I continually observe that people do not understand the difference between facts, opinions and beliefs. This is such a fundamental understanding of our own knowledge that without it we cannot even begin to have a rational discussion about the merits of our positions on issues. That is why I chose this topic for the first substantive blog post on True Neutral Politics.

A fact is an objective truth. It doesn’t matter what we think about it, how we feel about it, or even that we are aware of it at all. It is true regardless. We know that it is true because it is supported by evidence. Evidence we can see, study, and test. Just because someone claims that something is a fact doesn’t mean you have to believe them. I am a proponent of the “Question Everything” mantra. However, there comes a point when we have to accept reality.

An individual cannot be omniscient. It is not possible to be an expert in, nor have first hand knowledge of, everything. We can almost never reach a level of absolute certainty. Perhaps our entire world exists only in the dreams of some extra-dimensional, celestial being. While some may find these wild, philosophical concepts fascinating, in any practical sense, they are useless. When, in the world that we exist in each day, there is an abundance of evidence and an overwhelming consensus amongst experts, it is time to accept something as a fact.

I will illustrate this point with an example. I accept that it is a fact that the earth is a sphere (more or less), and that it spins and orbits a star. I have never personally circumnavigated the earth from outer space. I haven’t even traveled around the world within its atmosphere. Nonetheless, given the abundance of evidence and consensus amongst experts in the field of astronomy, I will confidently claim that about the earth. You might be saying to yourself, “That is ridiculous, of course everyone agrees the earth is round.” Well, actually, like I said, it is a sphere (more or less), and, semantics aside, there is not total agreement on the topic. Look up “The Flat Earth Society”. I’ll admit, it is impossible to tell if they are serious, are trying to prove some point, or are just trolls. Regardless of their motivations, however, they exist.

When there is an abundance of evidence and an overwhelming consensus amongst experts in a field of study supporting a fact and we refuse to accept it as such, it is called a conspiracy theory. When we believe in a conspiracy theory we are literally claiming that the hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people involved with the study of something are all working in a coordinated effort to obfuscate, or somehow mischaracterize, the real truth. All of these, so-called, experts are able to hide their devious plans from anyone who would expose them. We believe this against all odds, and without credible evidence of our own claims. Conspiracy theories, like philosophical nothingness, are useless tools for developing social policy.

Opinions are your personal, subjective thoughts about something. An opinion may be how much you like, or dislike something. It may be that you think a particular policy will elicit a particular outcome in the future. While it may be possible to confidently predict some simple things, such as dropping something will fall, any idea of what will result from a complex social issue will always remain an opinion. That is not to say that some opinions aren’t more substantial or some predictions aren’t more likely than others. It is not your opinion that a verifiable fact is not true, such as the world is flat; that is just called being wrong.

Beliefs have a less specific definition. They are basically anything that you think about something. You may believe a fact is true or false, but that doesn’t make it true of false. A fact is either true or false, and we know it because it can be proven; it doesn’t matter what you think. You may believe an opinion is right or wrong, but, yeah, well, that’s just like your opinion, man. Beliefs would even include faith, which is just a belief in something despite its lack of evidence.

The only way the concept of belief adds to our understanding of our positions is when we think of it in a more general sense. You believe in a value or virtue. That belief helps you form your opinions about facts. For example, you might believe in individual freedom. Then, when you discover a fact that there is a new law proposed that restricts individual freedom, you form your opinion in opposition to that law.

Here in the United States, like quite a few places around the world these days, we have the right of free speech and free thought. While this sounds simple enough, it can be misunderstood. All that free speech means is that is not illegal to say, with a handful of exceptions, or think something. Not being a crime is where the protection ends.

The fact that it is not illegal to think something does not in any way mean that any opinion or belief is just as relevant as any other opinion or belief. There are people who refuse to accept proven facts. Many opinions are based on facts with little or no evidence to support them. They can be derived with logical fallacy and full of hypocrisy. Beliefs in magic and medieval era values lead to distorted opinions of even true facts. To put it another way, just because it is not illegal to be wrong does not mean you are not wrong.

Furthermore, just because saying something is not a crime does not mean that there are no consequences for expressing one’s thoughts. Social media accounts being suspended or shut down, product lines being removed from stores, and boycotts of businesses are a few examples of the potential consequences of ones speech, and none of these things are going against anyone’s rights. When these things happen, people cry about free speech and how it’s not fair. However, the truth is that the fact they are not arrested is evidence that their right to free speech has not been violated. No one else is required to like, support or give a platform for what you have to say.

At this point, I am asking for people to think about what they think about things. Is something a fact? Does it have evidence? What are the general values that I feel are important for me, my core beliefs? Are my opinions based on actual facts? Are my opinions derived using logical fallacy? Are my opinions consistent with my beliefs? If everyone just questioned themselves a little more, I think we could significantly reduce the bullshit machine gun that our social discourse has become.

What is True Neutral Politics

True Neutral Politics is my personal blog where I discuss social policy, current events and politics. It’s nothing fancy; just a basic blog template. You might think that the word neutral implies I am not taking sides, but that is far from the truth.

True Neutral is a reference to my alignment. Alignment is a system in the Dungeons & Dragons role playing game that is used to classify a character’s general moral and personal attitudes. There are two scales: good and evil, and law and chaos. And, you may or may not be neutral on one or both scales.

A good person tends towards altruism and will make personal sacrifices to help others. An evil person lacks compassion and will harm others for pleasure or personal gain. A lawful person values tradition and order. A chaotic person values freedom and spontaneity. While the alignment system is relatively simple and only reflects a small portion of a character's personality, let alone a real person, I think that understanding someone's alignment provides helpful insight into how they view the world.

Personally, I take no pleasure in harming others, but I lack the willingness to take personal risks to help others. This makes me neutral between good and evil, but I like to think I lean towards good; they are scales after all. I see the value in tradition, and I see the value in progress. I’m not particularly beholden to either, so I am neutral with respect to law and chaos as well.

When you are neutral on both axes, this is called True Neutral. A true neutral person evaluates each situation based on its own merits without a strong ideological prejudice. I think that makes true neutral the most reasonable and logical alignment and a fitting theme to my blog.

For many years now I’ve been reading online posts and articles of a political nature. Some of them are very informative and reasonable; there are a lot of smart people out there across the political spectrum. However, some of them are complete nonsense full of incorrect facts, logical fallacies, poor reasoning, hypocrisy, conspiracy theories and even outright lies. Many of these issues are important and worth understanding.

Occasionally, I’m motivated to rebut a post or article, but comment forums and social media in general are terrible mediums to explain complex social issues. Real life is complicated, and there are many layers to understanding. Any comment more than a few sentences is ignored, and, even if its not, is soon drowned out in a sea of bickering and divisiveness and forgotten. Additionally, situations continually repeat themselves and any previous explanation is lost to internet history.

True Neutral Politics is place where I can more thoroughly explain my positions on issues. I really do make a conscious effort to make them as brief as possible, but, typically, they will be longer than what is reasonable for a social media post. It is a place where I can organize the layers of logic used to discover my positions and keep them perpetually for future reference. And, hopefully, it is a place where I can further develop my positions through rational discourse.

You may have noticed that True Neutral Politics does not allow comments. That is because, this is not a place for bickering, trolling, and spamming. If you have something to add to a post you may email me at feedback@trueneutralpolitics.com. If I think what you have to say is worthwhile, I will add it to the post. Please be patient; I have a full-time job and a family. If you prefer a more public forum, you are free to share your thoughts about what I’ve written on whatever other medium that allows it.