We Can’t Wait Until We Can Afford It

It looks as if health care reform is going to cost $1.6 trillion over the next ten years. If that is not enough to scare the pants off you, think about all of the government programs that run hugely over budget. However, this cost does not mean we should not implement a public health care plan that ensures that everyone–that is, everyone, EVERYONE, not just most people–has an adequate health care plan. This is something we need to do, as much as we needed to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. When something must be done, you start doing it.

How many families would get started if women waited until they could afford to raise children to get pregnant? Nobody, except the very rich, can afford to have children. Parents do not wait until they can afford children; they have children and stretch their means to raise them.

This is what the United States must do, now. We must implement a universal health care system and then go about finding the means to support it.

World’s Best Health Care System

It is really aggravating when people claim, without stating their basis, that the United States has the World’s Best Health Care System. In the first place, this is just cheerleading. No matter what school it is, the coach and the student council president will proclaim “We’re number one” at the Friday night pep rally. It doesn’t make any difference if the school is U.S.C. or Eastern West Virginia Polytechnical Institute, which hasn’t won a game in any sport since an opponent was disqualified during the Carter Administration. Depending on how the different countries’ health care is measured, the United States’ is undoubtedly better that Zimbabwe’s, but whether it is better than Sweden’s or Canada’s or France’s is less sure. Furthermore, the quality of the care is beside the point for 100 million uninsured and underinsured U.S. residents. They don’t get it.

Secondly, the United States does not have a “health care system.” We have a medical service industry. Then we have a health insurance industry that rations medical services based on insured status and rakes off 15 or 20 per cent. If we really had a system, one third of the nation would not lack adequate health care.

We need a public health care system like Medicare that everyone can buy into at a reasonable price. Medicare has been a wonderful success, despite all the criticism from the political right, the American Medical Association, and the health insurance industry. There are problems, but they are manageable and susceptible to reform.

Health insurance executives are whining that they cannot compete with a public health care system. What better argument could you find in favor of establishing it? They cannot compete because a public system would be fairer, more efficient, and less expensive than the private insurance industry. These executives are like muleskinners a century ago whining that the internal combustion engine will put them out of business. True, but is that a reason to outlaw gasoline?

We need an inexpensive public alternative to private health insurance. That it will hurt the insurance industry is no excuse for leaving 100 million Americans without adequate health insurance. A fair health care system is a fundamental part of the social infrastructure. It is time to fill that void in the United States.

MLK’s Dream

The 2008 general election forged new ground in U.S. politics.  However, it did not fulfill Rev. Martin Luther King’s dream that his children would “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  Although the election of Barack Obama showed that at least in come cases we have moved beyond judging a person by his or her skin color, we have not arrived at the point at which we judge political candidates by the content of their character.

The scurrilous hatchet job based on religion Libby Dole, the incumbent U.S. Senator from North Carolina, attempted on Kay Hagan, her challenger, and the rumor-mongering about Obama’s connection to Islam are evidence of a concerted effort by the Christian Right and Center to impose a religious barrier against non-Christians being elected to public office.

Dole attacked Hagan as an atheist because she attended a fund-raiser sponsored by well-known liberals at the home of activists who advocate the separation of church and state.  Dole’s televison ad featured the image of Hagan and the voice of a woman — not her — saying “there is no God.”

“Elizabeth Dole is attacking my strong Christian faith,” Hagan said in a conference call with reporters.  She responded with her own ad portraying herself as a strong Christian who teaches Sunday School.

As appalling as Dole’s attack was, it is equally appalling that Hagan defended herself by clinging to the Cross, not by asserting that the qualifications for public office do not include belonging to the right religion, or any religion.  Hagan’s defense is as threatening to the separation of church and state as Dole’s original attack.  However necessary Hagan’s response may have been, based on the Bible-Belt mentality of her constituency, it is disappointing that she made no attempt to inform them that establishing a Christian theocracy is no more healthy or desirable than establishing an Islamic or Hindu theocracy, or adopting a governmental hostility to religion.

The Dole-Hagan affair was not the only disturbing development in the 2008 election cycle.  The so-called Saddleback Forum, really a religious vetting session inserted into the presidential campaign, made it apparent that both McCain and Obama were laying their religious convictions out for the electorate.  In this, they continued a trend set by the current President.
President Kennedy promised that his official actions would be based on his secular convictions, not his religious beliefs.  George W. Bush, however, solicited votes from the Christian right based on his claim to be Born-Again.  He made an implied commitment to run the country according to his interpretation of the Bible, rather than the U.S. Constitution.  That he was hugely successful in pulling votes by virtue of his “values,” despite the anti-family and belligerent biases of his policies, raises the question of whether government in the United States may one day be dominated by clerics, as in Iran.
The Saddleback Forum, in which the “presumptive candidates” for the two major parties presented themselves for examination by an Evangelist, is a terrifying turn away from secular government.  It is an acknowledgment by the candidates that the country is not merely Christian, but Evangelical.
Religious diversity has been one of this country’s strengths.  What happens to diversity when only Evangelicals can run for office with any likelihood of success?  It is not beyond the realm of possibility that qualification for public office may depend on approval by a Council of Clerics, as in Iran.  Approval by the religious establishment will never be an official qualification to run for office, but there may come a time when no candidate can mount a viable campaign without demonstrating his religious bona fides and the only way to do that is examination by religious authorities.
Thus, we have moved away from judging candidates by the color of their skin, but we have started judging them by the flavor and the fervor of their faith.  That falls far short of judging them by the content of their character.

John Payne, Attorney
Garrison LawHouse, PC
1800 Grindley Park Street, Suite 6
Dearborn, Michigan 48124
Come visit me at: http://www.law-business.com
313.563.4900/fax 313.562.3340

Pennsylvania Office:
9853 Old Perry Highway.
Wexford, PA 15090-9312
800.220.7200/fax 412.548.0022

© John B. Payne, 2008