Thoughts on Public Healthcare - Part 1

Let’s talk about something controversial.

Politics and religion are two most controversial things to immediately come to mind.

As almost everyone who follows my writings have no doubt concluded I am an opinionated individual and absolutely nothing is sacred in the view of my analyses.

That’s one the things that I love about his country, it allows me to not only think about whatever I want whenever I want it also allows me to publicly state exactly what’s on my mind as I do on this site without punishment, even when they go against the public norm.

Almost everyone upon sites like this partake in the exact same freedom I am exercising, whether or not they choose to take advantage of it is their choice.

Why?

Because we are free to do so.

We are free to publicly call out individuals and publically criticize or praise them as we see fit, no matter how biased or rude we choose to be in doing so.

We are free to publicly incite talks of sedition (with the small caveat that you are not organizing or planning activities that can cause physical harm to others or their property).

We are free to publicly criticize or praise the religions and personal beliefs of others.

We are free to publicly criticize or praise the government and their decisions.

Aside from social backlash and the opinions of others for us, we are free to think or say anything we want.

Our thoughts, beliefs, and actions are determined by information. It is upon information that we make our judgment. All information impacts our decisions, even if it is inaccurate information, it’s all fair game.

Take the public healthcare bill which just passed. From my observations, everyone has an opinion and almost all of them fall into one of two categories, they’re either for it or they’re against it and it is exceedingly rare that I see a topic such as this where the response is so black and white. Furthermore I would bet money that ninety-nine percent of those with an opinion have failed to read the entire bill, if any, myself included.

The majority of us have no complete knowledge of everything that is in the bill. So where do get our information that we use to make the judgments we base our decisions upon?

There are three ways that I know are most often used (excluding “gut” responses).

The first is to observe how public healthcare (I’d say socialized, but then I’d have to define the word since its meaning “socialized - to take part in social activities, or behave in a friendly way to others; to give somebody the skills required for functioning successfully in society or in a particular society; or to place something under public ownership or control” and inform everyone how things like social security benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, the public parks, etc. are all socialized systems) works in other countries. For those who are very determined to access information will likely ask citizens about how they feel about the public healthcare in their countries.

The second method involves observing the current situation of privatized health care (at the time of this writing the public option has yet to be implemented), and see how many people are unable to obtain health insurance due to preexisting conditions, lack of finances for the necessary insurance, and/or working for employers who do not or are unable to provide health insurance. Perhaps in this observation they can also see the excessive costs involved in an uninsured medical visit.

Lastly, there is the option of hearing about what is in the bill by listening to what others say about the bill.

While these are all valid options, every option has its own areas where information can be distorted.

Referring to other countries or individuals for guidance can lead to misinformation based upon a lack of substantial research on the observer’s part or differences in sociocultural and political values between the citizens of two different countries.

Observing the current situation leaves one privy to their own observational abilities, be they good or bad. Depending upon a person’s personality or commitment to maintaining an unbiased observation, the quality of what they observe is going to be questionable at best.

But, by far the most inaccurate and misleading of the three methods is the last, the opinions of others.

Think about this for a moment, but only if you can do it by yourself without the input of others.

Just how informed are these “experts” you are basing your opinion upon? Have they read the bill or did they base their opinion upon the three observational methods I have just described? And do they have anything to PERSONALLY GAIN from the outcome of their opinion or from their opinion itself?

A sole fact remains: If your opinion is based entirely upon the opinions and interpretations of others, you are making a judgment on bad information.

I have news for all of you; the following people are not experts on the healthcare bill:

Bill O’Rielly
Glenn Beck
Rush Limbaugh
Ann Coulter
Sarah Palin
The hosts of Fox and Friends
Joe Scarborough
Keith Olbermann
Jon Stewart
Stephen Colbert
ME

The only difference is the last three, at the risk of comparing myself too favorably to satirists who I consider to be masters of their craft, publicly admit and know they are not experts.

Not satisfied with that list?

Chances are:

Your minister
Your priest
Your physics teacher
Your government teacher
Your principal
Your parents
Your brothers
Your sisters
Your friends
And YOU

ARE NOT EXPERTS.


To be Concluded Tomorrow!

Cheers,
Eric Summers