Health Care Reform Day

Ugh. I'm so nervous about the health care reform vote today, but I can't stand to look at/listen to any news about it. I'm for the reform vote, just in case that was unclear. Like most everyone else, I can't claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of its every provision. Nor am I 100% pleased with those provisions with which I'm familiar.

But the key features that attract me are its move away from profit-based health care insurance to a more socialized care. I just don't think that someone's ability to receive necessary medical care should be contingent upon their ability to pay. Health care ought to be a right to be enjoyed by all, not a privilege to be bought by a few. I should think that was implicit in the spirit of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" (yes, yes--that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but we're talking spirit of laws, not the letter, right?).

Will this plan cost money? Well, the Congressional Budget Office's report suggests it will cut the deficit, but frankly I don't think there's much of a way around the fact that a less-for-profit system will inevitably impose more social cost in the short term than a for-profit one.

And I'm OK with that. I hear so much now from folk like the Tea Partiers about how angry they are that government is daring to suggest that they pay for this or that social service. For them--I should say, for some of the people identified as their spokespeople ('cause there's really no leaders, right? It's an authentic grassroots movement that's somehow unified but not responsible for maintaining its unity, right? Thus, Tea Partiers can claim at once that they represent the true, authentic will of the people and still get to act wounded when media organizations call them on the racist/xenophobic sloganeering at some Tea Party functions. It's rhetorical having your cake and eating it, too: "You'd better listen to us! Except when we say embarrassing things!")--

Sorry. Parenthetical rant. For those Tea Party officials I've heard who have cogent quotes, the anti-health care bill bias seems to stem from at least two sources: 1) Health care reform is necessary, but not right now (i.e., not in a time of financial crisis); and 2) Health care simply isn't a right, and to try to make it so (a.k.a. "health care for all") is un-American.

Now, while I disagree with both arguments, the first seems at least more sensible to me. It would take a great deal of argument, for instance, to suggest that the current system is working as-is and that reform of some sort isn't eventually necessary. The question for the first line of thinking seems to be "when is best to institute reform?" They suggest "later." By way of disagreement, I note that throughout most of the last two decades (i.e., between the early nineties recession and the Great Recession now), the US enjoyed a fairly prosperous economy as well as mainly Republican-controlled congressional houses. How much health care reform happened then? Zip. Nada. [Edit: Well, that isn't quite true. Republicans did pass some reforms, such as expansions to Medicare's prescription drug benefit, which as many point out indicates how popular government-run health care programs are once adopted] To my mind, Republicans have signaled as clearly as they can that they are simply uninterested in comprehensive reform. Ever. [Edit: This statement, however, seems to remain true...]

The second argument, though, worries me, as it bespeaks a much deeper divide regarding the purpose of government in general. For some of the Tea Partiers I've heard on TV and radio, the US government exists primarily to protect individual rights, especially when those rights come into conflict with governmental or general-social interests. This isn't wrong so much as it is incomplete. It neglects the complementary purpose of government "to secure the common defence" and to "promote the General Welfare" (from the Constitution's Preamble). In other words--yes, defending the rights of the individual is important, but those rights and that defense must exist in concert with provisions for the General Welfare of society at large.

Perhaps the quotes from and interviews with Tea Party members and other anti-health-care-reform advocates I've heard are incomplete, but too often I hear the "protect individuals from tyrannical government" argument without any mention of the fact that government exists for the good of individuals. For all its limitations on government, the Constitution is not purely a check on government's power but also an imperative that directs that power toward positive ends. Democratic governments work of, by, and for the people.

Sometimes the work for the people in general trumps the will of the individual. I may dislike paying taxes when part of those taxes go to fund roads I never use or civic services I may never need. But taxes aren't about me as an individual any more than roads or fire departments or coast guards are dedicated to only my needs. Similarly, I may never have need of catastrophic health care insurance myself (lord willing). But I still fully support the notion that part of my tax burden needs to be making sure that such insurance is available for those who need it regardless of their ability to pay. Why? Because making sure people don't suffer an die just because they're poor is foundational to the mission of a government charged with promoting the General Welfare.

And, to speak more specifically to the Christian p.o.v., I have trouble seeing the Christ-like rationale behind making health care a commodity rather than a human right. I'm sorrowful that the Christian church in its various forms--particularly its Protestant forms--hasn't been more vocal in supporting health care. I in no way support the Catholic Church's extreme (I do think the word is appropriate) stance against abortion, but at least the various factions within the Church--pro- and anti-health care reform--have been part of the conversation. Moreover, the articulated stances--both the "we can't support it because of the abortion provisions" of the Council of Bishops and the "it does too much good not to support" of the group of 59,000 nuns--both of these exemplified how faith and theology can inform and animate a debate.

Where is the Protestant church? Where is the evangelical church? Within these sectors of Christianity I detect terrible discourse of silence or, worse, a call to resist initiatives for making society more just if those initiatives dare impinge upon the individual's profit margin. I'm hearing more and more references to the very few verses in the Bible that seem resigned to poverty (e.g., "the poor will always be with you"), as if these trump the overwhelming number of verses calling on Christians and Jews to fight poverty, to resist the lures of material wealth, and to put the needs of the neighbor above the profit of the self.

And the hair-splitting rebuttals I hear from some evangelicals--"Yes, but there's a difference between individual charity and governmental thievery"--cuts no mustard with me. Evangelicals more than anyone else have been arguing persuasively for the place of faith as motivator for political stances. More conservative evangelicals are hardly shy about citing faith as a reason for opposing abortion, reproductive rights, and gay rights. That so many of them now seem distanced from or utterly opposed to the expansion of health care for people otherwise unable to afford it reeks of selling out. One can oppose gay marriage without cost. But ask someone to pay more in taxes so everyone can get life-saving treatments (not just "emergency room" care--how sickening that argument is!)--then you ask for an actual sacrifice, an actual cross to take up, an actual delay on one's journey to dirty yourself to help a neighbor in need.

To be clear: I think health care reform (expanding benefits to more and more people regardless of profit motive) makes sense even from a non-faith-based perspective. But my personal support of health care stems from my faith, from the imperative from Lord Jesus to help those in need, to love neighbors as ourselves, to lay down our lives for others.

I hope it passes. [Edit: It did! Hurrah!]

More later,

JF