Where Interest Lies Honor Dies

I have engaged in several conversations with opponents who are not yet my enemies. They deserve the honor of being heard before commencing battle. And I am within my integrity to listen for my own arrogance.

These conversations, of course about Unicorn Care, begin with some statement of support for the ideal. “Getting sick should not lead to bankruptcy.” “Freedom is not having to worry about affording health care.”

I join not with my best argument, but with the economics. It is Unicorn Care because the numbers cannot work. Nothing is free. Hiding the cost of care does not remove the cost of care.

Here some opponents first show their selfishness. They do not care that someone else must pay. They want to be free from worry, but shirk the responsibility that is inseparable from such a liberty.

Some accept at least partial responsibilty, claiming a willingness to pay. They will contribute something toward their ideal. “This law may be flawed, but it is good step.”

But we are still at odds. My opponents are still believing in unicorns.

Part of the object of “reform” was to reduce costs. This would be achieved by increasing efficiency across the health sector.

The claimed efficiencies depend on fighting human nature. Preventative care only works if people get the screening. And in my life experience, most people do not. Not due to cost (inability to pay), but because people just don’t like going to the doctor. Even fewer willingly go to the dentist.

We are just like our pets, who do all they can to resist being taken to the vet.

In order to achieve efficiencies, going to the doctor at the first indication of illness is essential. If most people wait until they need urgent care, there’s nothing gained.

But how can government compel anyone to see a doctor? Many times the illness is not evident to others.

And how can one who delays care be punished? Fines lead to bankruptcy. Denial of care leads to death. The government has no lever which does not introduce the problems this whole fiasco was conceived to solve.

So I argue that getting care quickly is a duty to the ideal. Seeing the doc is a personal sacrifice each owes to the many. These arguments have been used to sell Unicorn Care. I make them personal.

You have to do more than send a check. To serve the ideal and make the law work as promoted, you have to take time out of your routine, suffer the inconvenience and lost wages (even if care is free, there are still real costs), and face your fears.

And again my opponents show their selfishness. “No, I can’t go to the doc all the time.”

They may not have the choice. When the Health Secretary realizes that people are not getting screened, even for free, screening becomes compulsory.

If the goal is worry-free care, it must be also responsibility-free care. Which means there can be no choices. The individual is made to serve the collective. People become means to the ideal end.

And thus I find my way into my best argument. Denying choice denies humanity.

But my opponents have demonstrated they don’t care so much about humanity. Despite the framing and the rhetoric about the good of society, my opponents are out for themselves.