A Case of the Claps

post by Paul Kelleher

If you haven't yet seen the video of the audience reaction to a health policy question at the most recent GOP presidential debate, take a look now.  

I agree with others that the audience's response was, at best, extremely distasteful. One wonders if their response would have been different if, rather than refer to a "healthy 30-year-old young man [who] has a good job, makes a good living" and who decides not to spend "200 or 300 dollars a month for health insurance," Wolf Blitzer had instead referred to someone who simply could not afford decent insurance (or who was denied coverage for some reason). My hope, obviously, is that we would have heard less clapping and fewer shouts of "YEAH!" when Ron Paul was asked if the 30 year old should be left to die.

The few shouts of "YEAH!" notwithstanding, it is interesting to me that the audience reaction that's getting attention is the clapping in response to this claim by Ron Paul: 

“That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.”

I agree that one thing that freedom is about is the freedom to take risks. A key reason why it is generally wrong to coerce or manipulate another person (at least whenever this is in fact wrong to do) is that s/he is entitled to determine his/her own plan in life. The decisions of responsible individuals are theirs to make, and this is part of what makes life worth living: when things go well people are entitled to take some pride in the planning and effort that was involved in getting to that point. But the price of the opportunity to take pride in one's decision-making is that one must take some responsibility when things don't go as planned. If one were always rescued from the negative effects of one's decision-making, that would render pointless much of what makes life worth living.

But none of this entails that all decisions are such that people should be forced to bear the consequences of them. More importantly, none of this speaks to the issue of when a decision is sufficiently free and voluntary in the sense that betokens valuable human agency and which makes the outcome a suitable object of pride, contrition, self-reproach, etc. The hypothetical healthy 30 year old "who makes a good living" is not representative of the uninsured individuals many of us are concerned with. We're worried about those who are priced out of the market by virtue of health status or economic standing. We're also worried about those who will become priced out of the market if costs continue to rise. We believe that when these people get sick and cannot afford care, their being left to die is the flipside of an unjust economic system, and not the flipside of the correct way to respect autonomous decision-making. 

Comments

[Bill Gardner]

No disagreement about freedom to take risks. Remember the video of the Eiger? Let's stipulate that the young man deserved to die and so did all the executed Texans. My question is whether glee about deserved deaths comports with an attitude that life is [choose one] sacred | the highest value.

[Paul Kelleher]

I don't know that video. Can you link to it? Or is it a movie? In any case, glee about any death is prima facie wrong. In most cases, I think there's good reason to think it's even wrong in the final analysis.

[Beth Haynes, MD]

Paul, I greatly appreciate you way of expressing your thoughts on this difficult human problem. Thank you.

I do not think that it is a proper use of government's monopoly on the use of force to take from some to give to others. That does not mean that I see no role for helping those who get sick and can not afford health care, or food or shelter. I too am worried about people who are priced out of the market --but from my understanding of economics, I see government implementing policies which have caused much of the problem and will lead to even greater disparity.
It is frustrating that so many of those who want to use government to solve these types of problems demonize those of us who do not. Instead of seeing that we simply disagree on how to attain a more humane world--we are viewed as cold-hearted, uncaring pariahs who clap with glee at the death of someone who chose to forego insurance. Until we can get past that, there will not be a true conversation.
Again--I greatly appreciate your efforts to create a space for that conversation to take place.(Not just this post, but many others also.)

[Beth Haynes, MD]

I should add---I realize that demonizing takes place from all sides. It isn't helpful no matter where it arises.

[Bill Gardner]

Beth,
I would say that the mass of humanity, in every party, will often express demonic attitudes about life and death. There are individuals -- in every party -- who do not.

[Bill Gardner]

Paul,
It was posted in a blog I have been meaning to recommend to you: http://notunlikeresearch.typepad.com/something-not-unlike-rese/2011/04/perfecting-something-in-your-life.html

[Paul Kelleher]

Bill- Oh yes, now I recall the video. That's an excellent comparison and point.

[Beth Haynes, MD]

Bill - I don't understand the point you are making. That most people will react strongly and negatively, and rightly so, when life and death are involved, or that most people are inappropriately emotional in matters of life or death, or some other meaning? Can you please clarify for me?
Thanks.

[Paul Kelleher]

Sorry for the delayed response, Beth. Thanks for your comment.

You write: "I do not think that it is a proper use of government's monopoly on the use of force to take from some to give to others."

I partially addressed this issue in a recent post. Not sure if you might have missed it:

http://notunlikeresearch.typepad.com/something-not-unlike-rese/2011/09/going-baseline.html

--Paul

[Bill Gardner]

Hi Beth,
Another way to put my point would be that I don't think I was demonizing the crowd. The crowd demonized itself. I think that is why Rep. Paul looks so shocked in the video. I think he is a morally courageous guy, by the way, see his response to Santorum's comments on "American exceptionalism" elsewhere in the debate.