Book 2 Ch. 2

In Book 2, Ch. 2, Starr concludes his chapter on the evolution of insurance (successfully, private insurance) by describing what I consider to be the most profound reason for the way things conclude at that period.

Starr describes the situation as being less than ideal; those most likely to receive insurance are those who have the most income. That is, those who have the most access to the insurance to pay for their hospital bills are the ones who suffer the least and need it least. The troubling nature of the system is clear, and begs the questions "How?" and "Why isn't anyone doing anything about this?"

The answer comes in the very next paragraph: complacency. Starr writes, "the private insurance system provided enough protection for the groups that held influence in America to prevent any great agitation for national health insurance in the 1950s." This is hardly surprising, especially given that it is an affliction that eats away at American society today, but it is no less disparaging.

We see another example of how easily people's prices are paid. In a system believe that what matters if if they are taken care of, does anyone really benefit? It is cruel and against common decency to behave so selfishly, to believe that one's responsibility ends at one's self. And yet, with 2/3rds satiated with some form of health care (unequal as that access may be within that 2/3rds), we see the society of the 1950s readily accepting the injustice and throwing the other 1/3rd of the population to the dogs.

I feel as though this is how the current debate on health care reform operates now. While those pushing for health care reform push for it on the basis of equal access for all people (or so we would believe), those against it condemn it for its costs to the people. But there is a difference between both side's definitions of "people." Whereas the pro-side's conception seems to literally encompass the people en masse, the anti-side's seems to mean "the people" as a collection of individuals. They argue about the cost to one person, and another one person, and so on. The fight seems to grip at the very heart of personal loss that can be grouped together. I feel that this aspect of the anti-side really reiterates the sentiments described by Starr--so long as we are covered by our health insurance, to hell with those without (the irony being that even those without have been convinced somehow to argue against themselves).

A line following the paragraph's opening also catches my attention. Starr states that the irony is that in its ferverence to make gains through compromise, labor may have lost out int he long run. The most vunerable populations intended to benefit remain disenfranchised. Neither is this a relic of the political world. It has scarecely been 60 years since then and we saw the same concession lead to the highly politicized Emplpyment Non-Discrimination Act, where LGBT activists sold out the transgender community, a highly vulnerable population seeking protection.

So far, those pushing for health care reform seem to be sticking to their guns about the bill, so there may yet be hope. But I can't help but raise an eyebrow and wonder if they too will sell out some of the most subtle but crucial spirits of the bill in order to merely push it past. Conversely, I wonder how many are so moved to push the legislation that they're willing to let things make it through that should be reexamine or retooled.

Will history repeat itself (again)?