What Side Are You On?

Throughout history, there are those whose positions have ultimately been on right side and those who have on the wrong side. I put this in the context of if someone argue for or against something that was later view as the better position or a backwards position. An article I came across highlights that exact argument: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/opinion/19kristof.html?_r=1

These right/wrong side arguments usually circulate around major issues like slavery, voting rights, or fighting a war. The latest incarnation of this right side/wrong side argument involves the health care debate. There are critics of reform seeing this whole thing as a delusion and the beginning of socialized medicine. There is talks of "deteriorating service" and invasion of privacy in the ER and patients will lose the ability to choose their own doctor. All worth arguing...if true. These arguments are like recycled paper; reused. Put aside and used again forty years after the last time they were needed. The battle for Medicare in the 1960s is very similar to the battle for this health care reform bill. And the critics in the 1960s are back/the next generation of critics is using them. The ironic part of this is those who opposed Medicare use the argument that this bill will hurt Medicare. Seems a little two-faced to me. How can you argue against something in the 1960s then turn around and argue against this current legislation to safe what we have...something you once opposed.

But we can go further back than the 1960s to see this empty rhetoric. Before this health care bill and before Medicare in the 1960s; there was Social Security reform in the 1930s. The same individuals who are attacking this bill and who attacked Medicare gave similar types of arguments against Social Security. The critics viewed it as a socialist program; just like the critics viewed Medicare and the health care reform. Social Security was said to only add to the Americans' tax; similarly to what Medicare was supposed and the proposed health care bill. Senator Daniel Hastings, a Delaware Republican, even said that Social Security would "end the progress of a great country." I wonder how America has turned out in the last seventy years? I think we progressed pretty good, Mr. Hastings. These same outlandish arguments continued to be made and continue to be made.

When Presidents Kennedy and Johnson brought up and pushed for a government health program for the elderly, critics called Medicare socialist just like they referred to Social Security as such. Conservatives voiced out that Medicare would be the equivalent of rationing health care. The American Medical Association was so against Medicare that the head of the A.M.A. suggested that the quality of care would decrease and it was evil to go along with the plan. Medicare was viewed as a matter of politics with the nation's health. Also something that might sound familiar; Britain and Europe were brought into the conversation as health care system in ruins. Health care systems that America should avoid becoming more like despite the fact that more people are covered in those countries and generally are healthier. Maybe these critics need to open their eyes to the errors of their predecessors.

The hyperbole of the 1930s carried over to the 1960s and has carried over to today. The arguments against Social Security reemerged to become the arguments against Medicare and now those arguments have reemerged to become the arguments against something close to universal health care. Social Security has seemed to work out pretty well. Medicare has seemed to work out pretty well. The critics of Medicare has turned the corner and see that it does work. Life expectancy has gone up since the 1960s and America has used a system to ensure those who 65 and over are given the necessary care. However, the group on the other end of the age spectrum aren't cared for properly. Hospitalized children who are not insured have greater than a 50 percent chance of dying than those with insurance. The biggest reason is what anyone without health insurance suffers from: a lack of preventive care when someone initially gets sick. So, why is there a plan to cover the elderly, but not the youth? Why do people continue to rally against universal care...for kids? And, for fiscal conservatives, health care for children is cheaper than health care for the elderly.

Social Security in the 1930s wasn't perfect nor has been. Medicare in the 1960s wasn't perfect nor has been. And this current legislation is not perfect nor will it be the perfect bill, but it is better than what exists just like before Social Security and Medicare were enacted. The biggest thing, though, is those who opposed Social Security and Medicare were wrong in terms of their fears. Those similar critics today and questioners need to take a hard look at history and decide which side they want to be on. The side that creates progress and fosters change. Or the side that fills people's heads with lies in order to prevent necessary progress and change. What side are you on? Which side will those in Congress be on? Time will tell, but history does teach us a lot. It has shown us that Social Security and Medicare have panned out and if passed this health care legislation will certainly follow suit. One decide at the end of day, which side they are on as history will be the judge of their decision.