What Haiti tells us about health care

When confronted with words and images depicting the suffering in Haiti, what did America do? The government sent salaried employees to help and committed resources and material. The government gave tax deductions to individuals who contributed to that relief (although it wasn't necessary as there was already a great outpouring of charity). Individuals and corporations dug into their pockets and gave freely to aid those in dire need. The generosity of the individual Americans was matched by the good deeds of the US government. While we can all Monday morning quarterback the efficiency and priorities, it does show how we can work together to solve (or at least ameliorate) the most terrible of situations.

This is what ethical behavior is all about. It is the voluntary choice of doing good. It is what we need to encourage, good people helping each other in times of need.

This is precisely the opposite of what the health care reform was all about. Health care reform, as envisioned by the Democrat plan, was pitting one citizen against another, pitting government against the people, pitting one state against another. In the age of identity/group politics, this sounds good, but Americans have not yet embraced groupism. Most still long for and believe in the American dream of individualism, individuals pulling together in the melting pot, taking the best from each to make the greatest for all.

What would happen if we took this type of energy into the health care arena? We would get health care providers donating their time; individuals and corporations providing charity for the needy; government providing facilities and salaried workers to help (perhaps Medical Corpsmen, VA hospitals, and military logistics); perhaps even tax breaks for those who donate time and money to the care of other Americans. We would have the poor and needy doing their part by trying to live healthier lifestyles. Would not this feel better than pitting rich against poor, employed against unemployed, state against state, inner city against suburbia?

We are who to judge

DocBrain would like to blow up two notions: moral relativism and multiculturalism.



First, lets deal with moral relativism. This is the concept that there is no good and evil, no absolute right, only perspectives and values. It is often summed up as "one man's terrorist is the other man's freedom fighter." Many people accept this as a truth, an absolute fact, but there is just one problem: no one has proven moral relativism to be true. So, moral relativism is an assumption, a theory, with no data to back it up. The assumption is based on the fact that every moral code devised seems to have some flaws, either due to the code not being universally applicable or due to some aspects of human nature that run counter to the code. An example of the former are codes that prefer one religion over another (ie, you cannot be a good person unless you are a Muslim/Jew/Catholic/Christian/Hindu/etc). An example of the latter are codes that run against intrinsic human nature (ie, you cannot be a good person if you are gay/want to keep what you earn). The failure to clearly define an absolute code that would determine absolute good and evil is not proof that one does not exist. Instead, it is a call to thought, a duty to work to find the best possible definition of an absolute moral code.

This leads to the concept of multiculturalism. Should people be considered as equals, or as units of larger entities...cultures? If cultures are defined in narrow superficial terms, then multiculturalism is a good thing. Such superficialities could include: foods, clothes, dances, and other artistic expressions. When we try to add values to cultures, we run into core conflicts. As no individual culture can prove that its core values are above any other, the only way to enforce your values is to convert the unbelievers or to dominate them. Each person is a member of a culture, a "culture warrior" for his particular culture. This negates the belief in individualism as the goal. The goal becomes cultural supremacy or at least peaceful coexistence. If cultures can coexist peacefully, then there must be a superior level of values that makes this coexistence a good thing. That some cultures are not content with coexistence (ie, fundamental Islam) indicates that some do not accept a universal code of values. That fact does not prove that such a universal code is wrong, doesn't exist or that multiculturalism is good. Cultures that vie for supremacy of core values can not coexist. A culture that defines good in terms of its specific members will always be in conflict with other cultures. This includes those that elevate by race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or any characteristic (even wealth or poverty). So, the only good multiculturalism is the superficial. The deep ones that divide people lead to loss of individualism and to a fragmentation of humanity into groups. While some groupings are helpful and in fact needed, the ultimate goal is to eliminate deep divisions between groups, allowing each individual to strive for his own destiny.