About a week ago, I had a political discussion at work which revolved around the Blunt amendment and Republican/conservative talking points. The answers I gave him were actually some of the things I've wanted to say online, so I thought I would try to reproduce it for fellow Kossacks, FWIW.
The conversation began when a coworker stopped me and asked what I thought about making church organizations pay to cover contraception for their employees. It sounded like a sincere question, so I mentioned that President Obama had sidestepped that issue, putting the burden on the insurance carriers.
My coworker noted, though, that the church organizations would still be paying for this coverage when they paid their premium. I replied that we all have to pay for things we might not necessarily support. What if the employer didn't want to pay for blood transfusions, transplants, psychiatry, or service on Saturdays or Sundays?
My coworker appeared to think that these weren't fair comparisons, because these were medical requirements. I argued that matters of contraception were also matters of health. And many of these same organizations that were opposed to contraception were providing Viagra to men. My coworker pointed out that one [Viagra] produced babies, and the other one [contraception] prevented that. I stuck to my argument that both of these still involved health care. [Conservatives talk like having a baby is just like pooping -- a natural process, no biggy.]
At this point, my coworker pivoted, declaring that it came down to an argument as to whether health care was a right or a privilege. He argued that our country currently has a system based on privilege. To the contrary, I told him. Our country already has Medicaid and Medicare. These are government health insurance programs intended to insure that our citizens too poor or too old to get private health insurance nevertheless have health care coverage. This shows that, as a country, we believe there should be basic health coverage available to all citizens -- as a right.
The problem, I told him, is that our health care system ensures that the poorest and the elderly have coverage, but we rely on employers to cover the rest. And this is increasingly hard for employers to do. Many employers are dropping it. More and more working Americans don't have medical coverage. It is even hard for those workers who have private health insurance to pay off medical bills. I mentioned to him that a large number of personal bankruptcies have been due to medical bills.
[In Conservatopia, every worker is free, free to shop around for employers who carry the insurance they need. And if one employer doesn't hire them, they are free, free to continue shop around for another employer who might! For, in Conservatopia, the worker has unlimited resources, no social encumbrances, and the promise that a more generous employer is right around the corner! Or, if not, they should just suck it up, because life isn't fair.]
The bottom line, I told him, is that we will have to move to national health insurance. We can't depend upon employers to provide health insurance coverage anymore. It is even worse if they provide health insurance but declare that there are medical procedures or treatments which they don't want to cover, for religious or moral reasons. Take it out of their hands, with national health insurance coverage!
My coworker feared that this might eliminate private insurance carriers. I noted that what happens is, private insurance provides a higher level of service, beyond basic care,
[I forgot to mention it, but this is what has happened with Medicare, in that private insurers have created "Medigap" plans.]
At this point I told him I had to go back to work. But it was a rare moment when I felt I had done a good debate performance, and I thought I would share it with you.