Dr. Greed & Mr. Compassion

By Courtney Halgren
The Peanut Gallery
on Armed Services:

The prospect of privatizing military healthcare has embroiled liberals and conservatives in the Armed Services committee in a philosophical debate over human motives. While both parties agree on the need to revise the current system, uncertainty about doctors’ wages and their effects on patient care pits ideological Democrats against reality-conscious Republicans.

Conservatives grilled liberal speakers on the issue, pressing Representative John Barrow (D-GA) to elaborate on how quality of care would change with a public healthcare system. Barrow replied defensively, asserting that human compassion should determine patient care as opposed to salary. 
While this view of human nature directs Democratic legislation, the conservatives have abandoned ideology in favor of a practical outlook on human motivation. Representative Edward Royce (R-CA) rejects any prospect of public healthcare completely, arguing that any successful bill needs to employ “self-interest to produce [healthcare] aims.” The fiscal initiatives that conservatives promote have their base in not only human motives, but also skepticism of government abilities. Royce proclaimed, “we cannot give the government a lot of leeway when it comes to managing institutions.”

Moderates from both parties hope to overcome this ideological opposition, with multiple bills incorporating a public option or government support of a private system. Representative Jo Bonner (R-AL), co-author of a bill that plans to allow veterans to choose doctors but pay for treatment with help of government funds, explained, “this is a reconcilable difference of opinion, one of degree rather than of type.”

As debate rages on, these ideological differences threaten to dissolve any attempts at bipartisanship.