Obamacare and You   E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot October 14, 2013     I am amused by the arguments that promote Obamacare as a solution for healthcare problems and the resulting misconceptions about the intent of those who oppose it.   All of the competing ideologies of American politics, including the Tea Party, agree that the healthcare system of the US is broken and must be fixed.   Both the liberal and conservative plans aim for reform, but there is a problem: the structure and approach to the reform. The ideological difference in both camps would not allow an agreement.    While the solution offered by Obamacare seems attractive to liberals, many are not familiar with the conservative alternative.   The following are some ideas conservatives have put forth in their would-be healthcare reform package:   1. Citizens must not be denied coverage because of preexisting medical conditions, which is a policy that prevents insurance companies from discriminatory enrollments. 2. Policies that allow the purchasing freedom of health insurance across state lines; obviously, to induce competition among insurers to ensure value and lower cost. 3. Emphasis on Health Savings Accounts for everyone, including the poor. The government covers the poor, as it does on food stamps and Medicaid. And citizens are allowed to keep their health savings' accounts like money in the bank, which can be willed or passed on to the next generation for health necessities. 4. Limiting charges on malpractice claims – an attack on tort litigation to curtail abuses.   Taken together, and under the above plan, everyone can be insured, the conservatives claim. And that like in Obamacare, the plan will cause a boost in healthcare enrollment, which in turn will lower the overall cost of health insurance for everybody.   But there is an impasse in the approach for both ideologies.  While the liberal approach favors a government portal to healthcare delivery, the conservatives want a straight marketplace approach for the individual to access health insurance.   Conservatives see the government approach as a move for a power grab by liberals against individual liberty and a very costly method to boot.   The liberals see theirs as the epitome of social justice since healthcare is a right that must be enjoyed by all.   Not surprisingly, liberals always go for social changes through the pathway of government. Many of the social programs enacted by liberal administrations in the past, from Welfare and Food Stamps to Medicare, were created and are managed to this day by the government.   As much as conservatives agree that the current healthcare system in America must be fixed, they also think that a government-based approach is an overreach, imposes unnecessary control over the individual, and would not provide the needed benefit, despite the heavy inherent administrative cost.   The ideological differences on how to fix the healthcare problem are reflected in an opinion piece in the LA Times of February 2012. The opinion starts with the statement:   “On Sunday, Charlotte Allen, who describes herself as a conservative somewhere to the right of Pedro the Cruel, and Diana Wagman, a pacifist, vegetarian, Prius-driving, NPR-listening liberal, explained in separate Opinion articles why they have trouble talking to people with different political views”   The LA Times, a liberal paper, had no trouble finding a conservative “to the right of Pedro the Cruel.” Indeed, “Pedro the Cruel” fits the liberal preconception of conservatives; haters of women, children, who want to starve the poor and kill the old!   Whatever the preconception, it is also a reflection of the differences in the philosophical founding of the two ideologies in America.  And it will be obtuse not to consider the differences in the current healthcare debate.   The utilitarian ideas of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, that society should pursue the “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people,” drives the liberal argument for use of government to administer healthcare.   This also comes with the liberal belief that the marketplace cannot supply every human need; thus a poke at the conservative thought.   However, this liberal reasoning is contradicted by the fact that government itself goes back to the marketplace to purchase needs, like health care, for the individual every day. What government does, in reality, is to control what is purchased; thus, the perception of the power grab.   The process of procurement and distribution becomes the political pork: The poor get via subsidies what is purchased through control by the government. Conservatives see this act as a purchase for votes.  But liberals call it the fulfillment of social justice.   John Rawls, the philosopher, advances the social justice hypothesis this way: A just society demands social justice. And that inequality should be allowed only if it benefits “the least advantaged in society.”   Social justice is attractive mainly because of its appeal to compassion. The entire universe of world religions is full of the concept; thus, it becomes easy for political adventurers to attach themselves to its emotive impact and to gain power; consequences be damned.   The political reality is “the least advantaged” cannot be counted, or truthfully identified.  Photo identification for voter registration, anyone?   Also true is the fact that not all are born with silver spoons in their mouths. Apart from the sick and the handicapped, there are strivers among us that in fairness are poor, if they allow themselves that luxury.   Yet, many who don’t fall easily under the classification of “the least advantaged,” are taxed to support the poor.  How is that socially just?   Dr. Ben Carson, the famous neuro-surgeon, who opposes Obamacare, attributes the drive for the Affordable Care Act to the wish to control.   “Because when the Obama administration took office in 2009 the economy was in crisis, yet all forces were directed toward getting this legislation passed,” he said.   Dr. Carson is also the biggest proponent of health-saving accounts.   He insists that this drive for government control of Obamacare is the style of communist regimes and quotes Vladimir Lenin as saying, “socialized medicine is the keystone to the establishment of a socialist state.”   Needless to say, for the conservative the cost for control through Obamacare is at the expense of the liberty of the individual.   Conservatives believe that the needs of the “least advantaged” can best be served through the marketplace.   With the right policies controlling the practices of the healthcare industries by government, the “social justice” for all can be assured:  the right to purchase health insurance across state lines, limitations on health malpractice costs, and the issuance of health savings accounts to all are what will be required of the government.   The guiding principle in these policies would be to push politics and government out of the way and to bring the individual directly to his healthcare needs.   It is also to avoid waste and to encourage economic efficiency in an industry that is ranked 7th in the US economy.   For those who believe in weakening the political opportunist's chance to use the excuse of social justice, via a government-controlled healthcare scheme to buy votes, the conservative marketplace-based plan offers more value.   E. Ablorh-Odjidja, publisher, www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, October 14, 2013 Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com. Or don't publish at all.