Health Care Reform and Arrested Development

Take a trip down memory lane back to grade school.
Remember what would happen when someone would sneak in a few pieces of candy either for himself or to share with his circle of friends?
The teacher would admonish the sugar smugglers with a line similar to: "You can't have any unless you bring enough for the class."

At least, I'm pretty sure I remember something like that happening. To other people, of course. I was a good kid.

Anyway, it seems to me that there is something of this mentality at work in the rhetoric behind health care reform. Either everyone is supposed to have the same, or else the person who has more is going to get punished.

There is something appealing in the argument -- why should little Tommy get something that the rest of the class...or country...can't have? It just doesn't seem fair.

On the other hand, when the teacher demands that student surrender their sweets, the point usually has less to do with justice than it does with preventing the other students from getting distracted when they see someone else eating something they can't (and, perhaps more likely, to prevent kids from going into a sugar-rush in the middle of class). The actual logic of the argument doesn't really fit. Why should one child be deprived of candy just because the rest of the class doesn't have any? What if little Tommy bought that candy with money he earned doing chores when the other kids were playing on their NintendoDSes? What if little Tommy had been saving that candy after other kids had eaten all of theirs? Ultimately, the argument that one person or a group of people can't have something unless everyone can have it is fraught with peril in the real world. Neither is it a sincere argument, since we can be pretty confident that most teachers wouldn't suddenly let their classes gorge themselves on candy every day just because someone was willing to provide them with a high fructose cornucopia.

It would, however, be unfair and unjust if kids started bringing in enough candy to share with everyone but chose wittingly to discriminate against certain classmates out of irrational prejudice. If little Tommy chose not to distribute candy to kids who wore glasses, just because they wore glasses...then an important social lesson would be taught by scolding Tommy. However, what does it teach Tommy to tell him that he shouldn't have things simply because other people happen not to have them? What does it tell the other children?

I think something of this mentality is currently at work in health care reform. People seem to get upset that some have better health care than others...or that some people have no health care at all. But are differences in the quality of healthcare necessarily unjust? Of course not, so long as everyone is playing fairly by the rules. Why should it be unjust if one company offers better healthcare than another as a means of luring better employees? Why should it be unjust if one man puts his resources into making himself and his offspring more competitive candidates for better jobs?

If the teacher says that Tommy can only have candy if he has enough to share with the rest of the class, his response should be to tell the teacher that it's not his fault that the rest of the class didn't think to bring their own.

Comments

[BaltoCath]

Point about health-care 'reform' taken, but Tommy's candy smuggling problem isn't based on Teacher's militant egalitarianism, but on the fact that Tommy should be paying attention in class instead of snarfing.

When I was in grade nine we had German after lunch, and we often sneaked in dessert under our desks. One day, my neighbor was spotted by the teacher, who gave him the "did you bring enough for everyone" routine. My neighbor, being a good sport, arrived the next day with 12 rolls of Life Savers. The teacher, being an even better sport, delayed start of class for a few minutes while we all had dessert.

[Peter Terp]

Students are always litigious, if nothing else.

One might say that we are all born with a little lawyer in us. I guess that's what makes natural law available to our conscience.

On a less (or perhaps more) serious note, my conjecture on "enough for everyone" also points towards how often pedagogy becomes self-defeating. I can't tell you how many times students will remember the clever lesson plan...but then have forgotten the material it was supposed to convey. I wonder how many grade school social "rules" have been internalized and retained long after we've forgotten how to diagram sentences...