Avik Roy has done the unthinkable. In a recent op-ed title he used “conservative’s case” and “universal healthcare” in the same sentence. And bridged these disparate words by the preposition for.
Spoiler alert: Roy has asked Republicans to embrace universal healthcare.
The Twitterverse is abuzz. An angry Gary P. Jackson, a self-affirmed conservative, tweeted:
“there is NEVER a conservative case for Marxism….especially Universal healthcare.”
Stated differently, universal healthcare is the worst form of Marxism except for all other forms of Marxism.
Thus far Roy has not been asked to produce his birth certificate, which is just as well. Roy, a prolific Forbes columnist and a scholar at the Manhattan Institute, was healthcare policy adviser to Mitt Romney. He is not a cheerleader of the Affordable Care Act.
There are things one may disagree with Roy. However, his short treatise, How Medicaid Fails the Poor, was impressive, as it deftly dealt with Medicaid’s structural problems. That a right-of-center policy analyst would write a book with that title is one of the many ironies I am now accustomed to encountering (the other delicious irony was the love of Cadillac health plans by unions).
“…[conservatives] have to agree that universal coverage is a morally worthy goal.”
The arguments put forward by Roy are pure common sense. No one objects to public education as “socialized education.” If conservatives are afraid that universal healthcare means big government, government is already heavily involved in healthcare.
And not just Medicare, which a certain tea party placard asked the government to keep its hands off!
The per capita government spending on healthcare in 2010 was $4000; fourth highest in the world, ahead even of that evil bastion of socialized medicine, the UK.
So arguing about government involvement is merely quibbling about the price, not the principle. And to get the right price, i.e. the right level of government, it is imperative that right of center policy analysts and Republican lawmakers are also, not solely, involved in health policy.
But if you start the discussion with “death panels” and verses from Leviticus it is likely that people will tune you out. And US healthcare is the worse for tuning out conservatives. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) would have been more robust if bipartisan. Because it is the nature of conservatives to present a painful dose of reality, the trade-offs and to ask for details that reformers simplify in vanilla statements about ideas that have germinated in their REM sleep.
Healthcare is best served when reality presented by the right meets midway the aspirations of the left.
If more federal involvement does not mean greater access to healthcare, the obverse is surely true: less government involvement does not mean less access.
Perhaps the government is a catalyst for healthcare delivery, but a catalyst whose effectiveness is not dose-dependent.
Roy contends that healthcare can be provided to all and that the government can be shrunk. He uses the delivery model of Singapore and Austria as examples. Without wading too much in to the details, which is not the point here, this surely is worthy of further consideration. Even the most ardent supporters of the ACA concede that the ACA is a temporary stop to something better, and arguably not that scenic lookout on the Trans Canadian highway that one struggles to leave.
We are not there yet. We need to keep moving.
But conservatives have extirpated themselves from the discussion by fearing the “u” word. Universality has nothing to do with whether healthcare is a right or a privilege, that’s sort of irrelevant; mere tardive adolescent musings such as those about free will.
If conservatives are afraid that acknowledging universal healthcare is a Faustian bargain they must realize that they sold their soul to Mephistopheles a long time ago.
The conservative outlets should be praised for publishing Roy’s piece at a time they could be enjoying schadenfreude from ACA’s rickety launch.
The right seems to be taking the gravity of healthcare debacle seriously. It is time to reciprocate.
Saurabh Jha, MD (@RogueRad) is an Assistant Professor of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania. His scholarly interests include the value of imaging and dealing with uncertainty in clinical decision making. Jha views most problems in medicine as problems of imperfect information. He trained in the UK and migrated to USA for more predictable weather and a larger yard.