HEALTH CARE AND BIPARTISANSHIP IN THE BALANCE from SOJO 25FEB10

Two good articles on healthcare reform, the second is HEALTH-CARE POLLS, GOOD WILL AND THE GOLDEN RULE.

Yesterday, the Senate passed a jobs bill by a 70-28 vote, showing that even in today’s polarized political climate, bipartisan solutions to the major problems facing the country are still possible.

Today, President Obama hosts a summit on health-care reform with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. Can we hope for the same result? The indications are, probably not. While there are real ideological and policy differences, the bottom line, as some commentators have noted, is that the president and Democrats want a bill to pass, and Republicans don’t.

In the Senate bill that is the basis of the president’s proposal, Democrats have made major concessions. Any semblance of a public option has disappeared, and extended coverage is through private insurance companies. Rather than offering universal coverage, the bill would extend health insurance to 31 million more people; however, 15 million would still not be covered, including undocumented immigrants. Even so, Republican senators maintained their stone wall of opposition, with none voting for the bill.

Democrats could make further compromises -- reform of the malpractice system, for example -- that go against their special interests. But without a guarantee that this would result in Republican votes, there is no incentive to do so. With the mid-term elections approaching, the political reality is that not passing any health-care bill benefits Republicans.

It’s simply the latest example of our badly broken political system. What will win the next election is more important than what policy changes will benefit the country and most Americans.

As the health-care debate enters this final state, Sojourners and I joined with 25 other religious leaders and 57 national organizations in signing a letter delivered to the president and Congress, and an ad in several newspapers read widely on Capitol Hill. In the open letter, we said:

We write to you at this critical juncture to urge you to complete the task at hand on behalf of the millions who are left out and left behind in our current health-care system ... We know that no comprehensive health-care reform bill will be perfect. (Indeed, if any piece of legislation ever fulfills our full vision, our vision is far too small.) However, we also know -- as providers and consumers of services and care -- that inaction at this critical moment is no way forward ... Let us not delay health-care justice any longer. This is your moment for political courage, vision, leadership, and faith. We urge you to take heart and move meaningful health-care reform forward.

In the next days, we must be clear on this one simple message. Inaction on health care is not an option; too many lives depend on it.


Health-Care Polls, Good Will, and the Golden Rule
by Valerie Elverton Dixon 02-24-2010

100224_091022-068-health-careGood will is a primary element of moral conduct. This is an important idea in the thought of philosopher Immanuel Kant. A good will is good in itself because it does not depend upon whether or not the person will benefit from a particular action or not. An individual acting out of a good will considers his or her duty to act in accordance with the moral law.

Kant’s test for whether or not an action coheres to the moral law is his Categorical Imperative, which is very close to the Golden Rule that Jesus taught. The Categorical Imperative says: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” The Golden Rule says: “In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). So, to act from a good will is to act in accordance to one’s duty to do to others as we would be done by — to ask ourselves what kind of world we would create if everyone acted the way we do.

Sadly, many of our Congress members are not acting with a good will. In advance of President Obama’s health-care reform summit, for example, at least one Republican Congress member is saying that the American people oppose the President’s health-care reform proposal. He is correct. A recent Rasmussen poll reports that 56% of its respondents strongly oppose President Obama’s health-care reform. However, what the Congress member does not say is that in polls where the respondents are told what the elements of the bill are, they approve of the various elements, and support for the bill goes up.

A Newsweek Poll conducted Feb. 17-18, 2010, found the following opinions of the president’s plan: opposed 49%, favor40%, unsure 9%. After hearing about the specifics of the proposal, the numbers changed: opposed 43%, favor48%, unsure 9%. Fifty percent of the respondents favor “a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans.”

More people in the Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser Health Tracking Poll believe their families would be better off if the president and Congress passed health-care reform (better off 34%, worse off32%, 26% not much difference). This number goes up when asked if the country as a whole would be better off (better off 45%, worse off34%, not much difference 12%). Thirty-two percent think that Congress should pass legislation that has already been approved while 20% think Congress should pass only those provisions where there is broad agreement. Fifty-nine percent think the delay is due to both sides playing politics.

This Congress member told the partial truth. This is dishonest. This is dissembling. This is unnecessary. There are items in the polls that would support Republican positions. Most people think it is important for health insurers to have the ability to sell across state lines. However, by giving only the facts of the poll that support his position, this Congress member violated the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule. The presumption here is that he would not want people to tell half-truths to him or that we ought not to make half-truth-telling a universal law.

What is worse, we have to spend time checking the facts of a poll rather than learning the facts of the various proposals, a combination of which may finally get this country to universal health care. And universal health care is a moral good and ought to be a legislative imperative.

Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.