Prosperity Through Productivity: A Conservative Myth

Over the last year I lost a great deal of faith in the ability of American citizens to form coherent opinions on important social and political issues. This decline in faith is more distressing because I didn’t initially have much faith in the masses. Perhaps the greatest source of irrational, ill-educated opinion in the past year has been the health care debate. I do not agree with David Brooks and other conservative thinkers that Obama and the Democrats should heed to the opinion of the majority regarding health care. If the majority acquired its news from unbiased, reputable news sources and harbored basic critical thinking and analytical skills, I would find such an opinion more tenable. Rather than foster educated opinions on the moral, social, and economic consequences of health care legislation, many citizens have failed to check their unconscious, irrational fears and biases.

There are many myths behind the anger roused by health care reform debates, and one of the myths at the heart of the conservative unconsciousness is that the upper and middle classes deserve more because they work harder while the poorer classes are in an economically and socially inferior position because they are lazy and choose not to work to improve their lot in life. This fallacious idea, heavily influenced by America’s Protestant background, merits a lengthy discussion debunking such a noxious idea. This is not that discussion. Rather I would like to focus on how this myth perpetuated itself in the health care debate and support my belief that expanding health care to most Americans is just.

First of all, it is important to point out the critical flaw in the current (yet soon to be reformed) system. For an individual adult under 65, chances are the only opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance is through his/her employer. The basic concept is you work, you get insurance. Fair enough in theory, but in reality, the system doesn’t work for the simple reason that there are not enough jobs for every American citizen. Were there a plethora of jobs (and all these jobs offered health insurance), the system would be more just and the “you work, you get insurance” concept would pan out. But currently, there are six job seekers for every one job opening, so not only are the odds of finding work daunting, the opportunities for acquiring health insurance are greatly limited. Yet, the situation is even worse because, as implied above, not all jobs offer health insurance, so those who are fortunate enough to find part-time work may still not be able to acquire health insurance. Simply put, the “you work, you get health insurance” concept does not pan out because unemployment can never be 0%. Certainly a portion of the unemployed can be accurately labeled as “lazy,” but factors other than work ethic and motivation (the factors behind “laziness”) lead to unemployment including economic, political, and social forces in the environment and the age, race, gender, skill set, and education of the individual. It would not, of course, be prudent to suggest that the school teachers, factory workers, and construction workers who lost their jobs during the recession and consequently lost their health insurance don’t deserve health insurance because they cannot find work. In 2008, 46.5 million people living in America did not have health insurance. I consider it hasty to suggest that more than 15% of the population is too lazy to deserve health insurance.

To use a personal example, I was dropped from my mother’s health insurance plan less than a month after graduating. I was to be covered under her health plan for 3 or 6 months (I forget the number) after graduating, but she had to find a new job because she could not live off the amount of money she making after being demoted (though her company made it seem like a simple change in job position). She switched jobs after I had taken finals, so her new company’s health plan would not pick me up. Neither would my stepmother’s company’s health plan (at least in Illinois—in other states I may have been able to get on her plan). My father isn’t offered health insurance because he is a contractor. I am fortunate in that I continued to work for the company I worked for throughout college, and that I could get on their health plan, but I couldn’t help but look around at my commencement ceremony and wonder how many in my graduating class would not be as fortunate as me. In fact, young adults between 19 and 24 are the age group with the highest rate of uninsured individuals. In 2007, 30% of young adults did not have health insurance (this number has most likely increased since the recession). A great New York Times story detailing some of the consequences of this is linked here.

I believe the above suggests that the health care reform bill which will cover 30 million more Americans is just. Not only will the health reform bill protect the unemployed and underemployed, it will also allow young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plan until they are 26 and give would-be entrepreneurs the opportunity to pursue their dreams. America is best represented by the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans, and the health care reform bill will protect the liberty and aid the pursuit of happiness of young adults and entrepreneurs. Soon prospective software developers, restaurant owners, writers, musicians, and artists will be able to pursue their goals without the looming threat of a personal health crisis bankrupting them.

While I obviously support the idea that the health care bill is just, I (and even many economists) do not feel comfortable supporting the idea that this health care reform bill will control rising health care costs and bring down the budget deficit. These economic considerations are vital to our country’s prosperity and the liberty of all American citizens. The conservative arguments against the health care bill because it may fail to address these economic issues will still be important to consider even after health care reform has passed. The argument that the unemployed and underemployed don’t deserve health insurance because they are “lazy,” however, should be dismissed.

My last note is on the display of hateful, violent, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic outbursts directed towards politicians such as Barney Frank and John Lewis after the health care bill was passed (see here and here). These acts were despicable, and the Republican politicians that encouraged such violent fervor seriously hurt the credibility of the Republican party (read Bob Herbert’s brave denunciation of these protestors and politicians here). I do, however, feel that this was the inevitable end to the signing of the health care bill, and it is a great example of the dangerous conservative myths behind the anger towards health care legislation. This article merely argued against one of the less dangerous myths, and that was the myth of less bigoted conservatives. The lunatic fringe (as the group is popularly named) that feels comfortable expressing violent speech and wielding offensive signage most likely became larger during the health care debate. I just hope they still constitute a small minority of American citizens.