Roland Duerksen: ‘Slippery slope’ not always outcome we should dread

Palin's last laugh
11/20/09
‘With the help of Butler County United Way’
11/20/09
Honoring his family
11/19/09
‘It’s about character’
11/19/09
You're in denial
11/18/09
> More opinion headlines

1:41 PM Wednesday, November 4, 2009

We have heard and read a great deal about health care reform in recent months. We need to hear and read about it (and so do our representatives and senators) until our government finally installs a health care system that, to keep costs down, provides a public option.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and others are afraid that the public option would put us on a slippery slope leading to a single-payer system. They may be right. A true liberal favors a Canadian or European single-payer system and sees the public option — about which the argument now swirls — as a necessary compromise. And that is compromise enough.

The slippery-slope metaphor has long served well to warn people against entering areas of thought and action that may take them — beyond their control — to undesired results. We need constantly to be on guard against such an eventuality. But the slippery slope need not always have a negative connotation.

Airline passengers who have just crash-landed may owe their lives to a slippery slope that takes them to safety. A shipyard would not want to be without its slippery slope at launching time. The value of the slope to sledding and skiing is obvious.

Some would say that Benjamin Franklin ventured onto a slippery slope when he founded the volunteer (as opposed to private-enterprise) fire company. It led not to undesired results, but to government-run fire stations throughout the country.

Not always does treading on “dangerous” ground produce results that conservatives predict. The establishment of public universities in the U.S. did not lead to a fully government-financed higher-education system, such as those prevalent in European countries — desirable, though, as that might have been. And the presence of the TVA and electrical cooperatives has not given us socialized electricity.

Sen. Hatch’s fear of the public-option slippery slope exemplifies the governmental timidity that has been prevalent ever since President Ronald Reagan uttered his Orwellian declaration (shortly before the year 1984): “Government is the problem.” Though hideous governmental distortion is the problem in George Orwell’s novel, had the author foreseen Reagan’s comment, he would have added it to his three prime examples of “newspeak”: “War is peace,” “freedom is slavery,” and “ignorance is strength.”

Let’s note that legislators may use arguments related to the slippery-slope metaphor as a smokescreen for their allegiance to deep-pocketed insurance companies, rather than to the well-being of citizens. Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., (along with their wives) come readily to mind.

Of course, none of us knows whether or not inclusion of the public option would ultimately lead to a single-payer system, but that is not the question. The point is that we’ve got to have health care reform and it must contain a means of keeping the insurance companies from running the cost astronomically higher.

Later we can deal with either opposing or supporting the single-payer system. At present, the public-option compromise is good enough. It is an urgent necessity.

Roland A. Duerksen is a retired Miami University professor.

Share this article

ADD COMMENT

Comments feed

It is obvious there are some dems who are blind to the fact that the Obama Healthcare legislation would turn all of our healthcare over to the Obama Administration. You think he is some refined man walking the narrow path of good for us? He plans to control as much as he can get in his Marxist hands. In answer to Leigh's question directed to me: I haven't thought about a boycott of my Medicare. I would prefer to not even have to rely on it, thank you.

Devon Mills
2:13 PM, 11/5/2009

REPORT ABUSE

I think it is interesting and alarming that comments here and elsewhere indicate a fear that a public option would "turn healthcare over to the Obama Administration." The Obama administration is a transient thing...as per our 2 term limit on the presidency. (and no..I don't think that will change.) The public option is only for those who have no other recourse and would serve about 2% of the population. Devon Mills, do you plan to boycot your government Medicare program when the time comes?

Leigh
10:07 AM, 11/5/2009

REPORT ABUSE

cda - well said and exactly right....!!

No Mo Bho
8:18 AM, 11/5/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Spoken like a true socialist who has lived in the "hot house" environment of a public university, and never in the real world of the private sector, whose "greedy" economic engine created the wealth to pay for a parasitic public sector. The examples cited are juvenile, and he either doesn't comprehend the concerns about the role of government, or simply doesn't care, now that he has his tenured benefits. Consider SSA, medicare, USPS, welfare, Fannie/Freddie, etc.
Government healthcare? No!!!

cda
7:59 AM, 11/5/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Professor Duerksen: Your thought that a govt. option should not be a dread is a good thought. I do not, however, believe the result would be a good one considering the content of the current healthcare proposal the dems have concocted. They have 1,990 pages of twists and turns that would turn our entire national healthcare over to the Obama Administration. Considering his history as a "community organizer," similar or perhaps exactly like Acorn, I dare not dream of supporting such an event.

Devon Mills
2:38 PM, 11/4/2009

REPORT ABUSE

There is 1 additional comment

SHOW ALL

We welcome your comments. Please remember this is a public forum and behave appropriately. Your comments must conform to our visitor's agreement.