Health Reform: It's the Whole “Brother’s Keeper” Thing

Since yesterday’s “health summit” in Washington, news and commentary has been all about what it didn’t accomplish—what nobody, in actual fact, thought it would accomplish—bipartisan accord. What it may have done, however, is help to simplify the health reform debate by highlighting what the president referred to as the “legitimate philosophical disagreement” that exists between the two sides.

Basically, that disagreement involves the role government should play in people’s lives:

1. Democrats believe that excellent and affordable health care should be a right of all citizens of the world’s wealthiest nation; Republicans believe it should be a privilege.


2. Democrats believe that government should be strong, to serve and protect its citizens; Republicans believe it should be weak, so as not to interfere with the rights and privileges of private entities (especially business interests).

That’s really what we’re all talking about when we discuss American politics: how big or small government should be and what it should or should not do for its citizens.

That’s why Republicans don’t see it as a crisis that over 45,000,000 people in America are uninsured (with many millions more under-insured or at risk of losing their health insurance if they should dare to get sick). Lack of adequate insurance or health care may be a crisis for individuals and their families, but Republicans regard it as their problem, not our problem.

Democrats take the approach that we're all responsible for the quality of life in America, and it’s a shame—our shame—if certain classes of people lack quality of life because of their circumstances.

These fundamental differences explain why Republicans (as well as libertarians and other “conservatives”) are always so eager to give rights and responsibilities to the states, rather than the federal government. In general, they’d rather have 50 relatively weak “governments” (not counting those of the territories) than a strong federal government.

Over the years, Republican administrations have set about limiting the power of federal bureaus and agencies and transferring resources to the states. (For an outstanding explanation of just how this works, I recommend The Wrecking Crew, by Thomas Frank.) Results of this became apparent during the Bush administration, as federal agencies—generally with reduced funding and often headed by people who thought the agency itself should be abolished—began to fail to protect the American people.

Thus FEMA proved completely inadequate to help the people of New Orleans deal with Katrina; the infrastructure continued to crumble in the face of inaction by the Federal Highway Administration; the EPA failed to protect the environment; and the FDA proved inadequate to protect consumers against food poisoning.

With decisions involving the distribution of federal monies being made by the states (a practice that inevitably siphons off a good deal of any budget by supporting two bureaucracies instead of one), school funding is shamefully unequal from state to state, minimum wages range from $8.55 (in Washington) to $5.15 (in Wyoming), and people in Ohio can get $250 for trading in certain appliances that residents of my state cannot.

At yesterday's summit, Eric Cantor trotted out his old trick of slapping the 2000+ pages of the current proposed health reform legislation on the table in front of him to illustrate how bloated and complicated it allegedly is—as if number of pages signifies anything. But I have two questions:

1. How long is too long for a document that might save your child's life?



2. What's more complicated—one way of doing things, or 50?

The Jobs Bill - Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

It takes guts for a Republican to say "yes" to anything in Washington these days. Yesterday, however, five Republicans voted with the Democrats to end a filibuster and maybe—just maybe—get a little something done about the issue Americans care most about these days—jobs.

Progressives are bellyaching because the proposed bill isn't big enough, doesn't go far enough. Conservatives are outraged because it looks like Scott Brown, their Massachusetts golden boy, may turn out to be more than just another stone in the solid wall of opposition to anything the Obama administration tries to get done.

Bully for those Senators for not being completely controlled by the current toxic political climate in Washington. Too few in Congress—even those who may, in fair weather, have a little courage of their convictions—have been been willing to stand for anything lately. Right now, any kind of progress is worth celebrating.

The American Voter, Part III: Social Responsibility

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
—John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

In the first part of our analysis (posted 1/28/10), we talked about some universal human tendencies, such as being swayed by the attitudes and opinions of those around us. In the second part (1/31) we talked about the unique mix of characteristics that tend to define the character of the typical American: extremely hard-working and spontaneously helpful to others in need but also spiteful, paranoid, and a sucker for conspiracy theories.

In other words, Americans tend to think and act emotionally, not rationally, in many areas of their lives—including politics. And in a democracy like America, everyone is involved in politics, whether they want to be or not. To be apathetic and disinterested is a choice that has as much impact as the choice to pay attention to what’s going on and cast a vote. Maybe more—all too many elections are decided by the people who don’t show up.

Americans tend regard themselves as patriotic. According to my European friends, more flag waving goes on in America than in most of the world’s other free nations combined. (I’m not counting places such as North Korea, where the citizens had better wave flags on command—or else.) “Patriotic” emails circulate like dandelion seeds, full of flags, syrupy stories about soldiers sleeping in pits, and snide remarks about how much better things used to be—back in some mythological time when America was the kind of paradise it ought to be now. The one I got yesterday exhorted me to make sure the light bulbs and drier sheets I buy are “made in America.”

That’s all well and good, but—leaving aside the whole question of reducing the complexities of global economics to a platitude—I wonder if the person who sent it along to me even bothers to check labels. It’s so easy to prattle on about the good ol’ days, complain about the present, and hit the “Forward” button. Those are the kinds of things people do every day without thinking. All they require is a little emotional tick, an impulse that’s there one minute and gone the next.

To actually do something constructive for country or community—that’s another matter.

Waving flags, bitching about the government, and forwarding emails have nothing to do with patriotism.

People tend to be proud for two reasons: because of what they have, or because of what they’ve done. Kids—who haven’t lived long enough to actually do much, tend to be proud of what they have—the hottest computer game, good looks, or designer jeans. As they grow up and do things, they may begin to take pride in what they accomplish. Pride in what we have may feel good, but it’s shallow and meaningless self-congratulation. Taking pride in what we do can spur us on to new accomplishments and greater achievements.

I submit that for all too many Americans, pride in their country is a kind of childish, egotistical pride in what they’ve inherited and what others have worked to achieve—pride of place, pride of ownership, the kind of “ha, ha, mine’s better than yours” mentality that’s so common among children.

It’s good to be grateful for what we’ve been given, through no effort of our own—but gratitude isn’t giving, and pride isn’t contributing.

These days, thankfully, American sentiment is at least supportive of those who serve in the armed services. Unlike during the Viet Nam era, when soldiers returning from war were often treated like the enemy, we at least appreciate the men and women who show up for duty—whether or not we agree with the policies that sent them where they had to go. For the moment, at least, the emotional wind in America is wafting in support of those who put themselves on the line for their country.

But what about the men and women in Washington—in Congress and the White House and on Capitol Hill? They, too, are at least showing up every day. Whether you question or admire their motives, they’re at least doing something—some of them selflessly and with genuine desire to be of service to their country. When I hear people trash the government or politicians in general, the question in my mind is, “so what are you doing for your country?”

Obviously, we can’t all go to Washington and help make public policy—just as it’s not everyone’s job to carry a weapon in war. But as Americans, there are things we can do and should do to earn the pride we feel in our country.

First, I think it’s the responsibility of every American to think. And thinking has to be more than turning on the TV to our favorite news channel and soaking up the headlines. More than forming opinions, thinking involves withholding judgment—trying to keep an open mind until we’ve accumulated enough information to understand all sides of an issue and make reasonable, rational decisions. It also means understanding our own basic values, and accepting that others may be working in good faith from a different philosophy and set of core values. It means reading, listening, and looking for understanding—not just picking up attitudes from others like we pick up a cold.

Second, I think it’s the responsibility of every American to actually do something in the service of others—and in the spirit that we are all one another’s brothers and sisters. President Kennedy started the Peace Corps, in which over 200,000 have served as ambassadors of hope and peace to nations around the world. AmeriCorps, founded by President Clinton in 1994, has involved nearly 600,000 Americans serving Americans—and, in the process, gaining and job skills and experience. Thousands of Americans regularly heed President Obama’s calls for public service—as did Presidents Bush and Clinton when asked to lead the American efforts to help the people of Haiti.

Finally, I think it’s the responsibility of every American to maintain a positive attitude. In our nation, as in our families, schools, communities, and companies, attitudes—positive or negative—determine both morale and productivity. Being positive doesn’t mean ignoring problems—it means approaching them with a can-do attitude and working cooperatively with others. It means focusing on the solution rather than bemoaning the problem. It means not blaming others—or even ourselves—but rather working toward resolution and a vision of a better tomorrow. In a healthy country—as in a healthy family, school, community, or company—there’s no time for cynicism, pessimism, snide remarks, or tearing one another down.

There must be time, however, for problem-solving and for respectful, constructive criticism—not of people, but of policies and procedures that are in conflict with our basic human values or that simply don’t work.

Good Ol' American Joe

I've got a question for Ms. Palin: How's that ol' Joe-the-Plumber thing workin' out for ya?

For a slightly more sober analysis of American political trends, here's an extremely interesting take on current populist sentiments.

Tomorrow: Part III in our ongoing discussion about the American voter.

More about "Snowmaggedon"

For those who may be interested in pursuing this topic further, here's a good round-up of information about GCC.

Rhetorical Questions . . .

. . . for any readers who may admire or be a part of the Tea Party movement. After reading this article from the NYT (the whole article, not the headline), are you proud? Or are you worried?

Do you think awakening America's never-too-deeply-buried tendency toward paranoia and conspiracy theories is a constructive or a destructive thing to do? Is now the time for America to go backward, or forward?

Morris Dees, a great hero and great American, helped rid Northern Idaho of hate groups and paranoid militia types. Now it sounds like those weeds are thriving again, fed and watered by the likes of Glenn Beck.

So who's the "patriot"--the peace maker or the fear monger? The rational, responsible man, or the entertainer dedicated to stoking up the ire of the lunatic fringe?

Heath Reform: The Ugly Truth

I’m really getting sick of hearing the word “bungled” associated with health reform. The Democrats haven’t “bungled” reform—the Republicans have stone-walled it every step of the way, from the day Obama entered the White House. Apparently that’s good and effective politics, since it’s succeeded in making a lot of Americans cynical about the whole process and snide about Washington—a situation that never bodes well for incumbents.

In spite of giving lip service to the need for health reform, every blessed one of the Republican House and Senate members have refused to cooperate on any part of a health reform package—and that’s after 12 years of ignoring the whole issue while they were in the majority. Now, a year into the new administration, I hope they’re proud of what they’ve accomplished—or not accomplished, depending on how you look at it.

Conservative estimates are that about 45,000 people die each year from lack of access to health care—in other words, they can’t afford it. We know that a large percentage of personal bankruptcies—some say as many as 60%—result from debts due to lack of adequate and affordable health insurance. If projections of bankruptcies filed during 2009 are anywhere near accurate, that means that the 100% failure of the Senate Republicans to negotiate in good faith about health reform is at least partly responsible for 840,000 economic tragedies for families and small businesses.

That’s over 1,000 deaths of individuals and 21,000 bankruptcies per Senate Republican (and Joe Lieberman, whatever he is these days—I can’t keep track). In all fairness, it has to be said that some of the lily-livered “Conserva-Dems” from conservative districts have to share some of the blame for dithering and hiding behind the backs of the more out-and-out, true “conservatives” (or, as I suggested yesterday, “reactionaries”). So maybe not every Senate Republican can be blamed for 1,000 deaths and 21,000 bankruptcies.

But how many is enough?

Come on, people. Let’s just get this damn thing done.