bulwerlytton

You know that good-natured waitress who takes your order and brings your iced tea down at the cafe?  Doesn't she always seem to brighten up your day just a little bit?  Chances are, she's uninsured. 

How about the independent mechanic that you trust way better than the wrench turners down at the local Mega Mart?  Isn't he the embodiment of the American work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit?  He's probably uninsured, too.

What with having to respond to the outrageous "Death Panel" claims and cover the latest gun-toting vigilante at a Town Meeting, there's been little written in the press about a much more fundamental untruth that seems to hold sway among health care reform opponents.  The argument goes like this:  "Why should I have to pay for health care for those lazy, unemployed bums?" 

That argument, a common one among reform opponents, is fundamentally flawed in that it presupposes that the uninsured are also unemployed.  The fact is, the majority of the uninsured, barely shy of two-thirds, are above the poverty line (Source: SHADAC estimates from the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2008).  That is, they have some form of private income. 

A great many working Americans are not provided health care insurance by their employers, and even a basic health care policy is out of the reach of the millions of Americans who work at or near minimum wage.  Keep in mind that many of these hard-working Americans have families -- children -- who have limited or no access to health care.

In December of 2006, Unbossed.com reported on a (then) new study revealing three distinct categories of Americans who make up the 45 million non-elderly uninsured in this country:

1. People who are eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP but do not participate. The reasons include: "administrative barriers, limited outreach efforts, or lack of knowledge about eligibility for public health insurance coverage, or because families themselves do not make the necessary efforts to obtain coverage."

2. Those with enough income that they are not eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, but who cannot afford to pay for health insurance. The study noted: "Health insurance premiums have risen dramatically in recent years: Premiums for private-sector employees of all firm sizes averaged about $3,700 for individuals and $10,000 for families in 2004." As a result, many employers drop insurance coverage or decide to shift cost increases to their workers. In addition, many workers are not eligible for coverage by their employers. These include probationary, part time, and seasonal employees.

3. Finally, some have higher income but are not eligible for employer plans. Their only recourse is to pay individual premiums, which are very high. A large number in this group are self-insured. Others are denied coverage, often because they have poor health.

While loudly decrying "Death Panels", the NonProgressives are willing to condemn, possibly to death, millions of Americans who are working, contributing members of society, at least some of whom already qualify for government sponsored health care, but are too sick or ignorant to use it.

It's safe to say that the majority of anti-reformists identify themselves as Christians.  The demographics of the Republican Party make this abundantly clear.  What's confusing to me is the apparent disconnect between the teachings of Christianity's founder, and the actions of his putative followers.  Didn't Jesus teach with crystal clarity that there is a moral obligation to care for the sick?  Didn't he demonstrate his very divinity by following through on what he taught?  It just seems so obvious:  Faced with an opportunity to provide more health care to more people, would Jesus do it, or would he not?

It's time for a reality check.  You can't have it both ways.  Either pick, "What would Jesus do," or, "I'm Sorry, Jesus.  I didn't."

There have been some fairly outrageous claims being tossed around about health care reform in the last several weeks, perhaps none more outrageous than Sarah Palin's absurd "Death Panel" statement.  While rational people might like to believe that this is an isolated incident stemming from the lunatic fringe, several members of the news media, and even some high-powered politicians, were quick to embrace the pejorative for  the sake of headlines and/or political gain.  Now Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), formerly viewed as a voice of moderation by President Obama, seems to have embraced the Dark Side of the Force.

Senator Grassley, one of three Republican senators in the powerful Senate Finance Committee who fashion themselves "negotiators" on a bipartisan health care reform bill, commented at a town hall meeting in his home state, "There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end-of-life, and from that standpoint, you have every right to fear.... We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."  In a somewhat bizarre twist, the senator also stated, "You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life. You ought to have counseling 20 years before you're going to die. You ought to plan these things out."  He did not elaborate on how one decides if they are 20 years away from death.

About 20 years ago (coincidentally), I worked as a PR flack for a major military medical center in San Antonio.  It was common practice there, and in most hospitals, to provide terminal patients with counseling on such things as wills, hospice care, and "heroic measures".  While I agree with Senator Grassley that many of these things should be taken care of well in advance of death, the fact is that many people simply don't do it.  When the end of life is in sight, it becomes an absolute necessity, and providing such counseling is viewed by many as a humanitarian gesture, including, apparently, several members of the GOP.  There's a fairly extensive list at of Republicans who have supported similar legislation at   .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/memo-to-palin-republicans_n_256390.html

Because the Huffington Post story linked above deals solely with federal legislation, it makes no mention of what should be an ironic sidebar to the story:  Grassley's home state of Iowa already has a similar provision (Iowa House File 2539), which, in reality,  merely requires Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions for anyone who voluntarily chooses it, and Grassley’s own grandson, state Rep. Pat Grassley (R-New Hartford), voted FOR the bill just last year.

There are two choices for how to interpret Senator Grassley's comments:  Either he is unaware of the laws in his own home state, or he is being disingenuous (lying) about his interpretation of the pending legislation.  Iowa State Senator Joe Bolkcom, chair of the Iowa Senate Ways and Means Committee and a former member of the Iowa Health Care Reform Commission, apparently agrees: “Is Senator Grassley, said to be the leading Senate Republican on health reform, so misinformed that he honestly believes this outrageous distortion? If so, then I question his ability to ever make an informed judgment on the health needs of Iowans."  He went on to draw the logical conclusion:  “However, I don’t think Senator Grassley is misinformed. I think it is more likely that he has decided to pander to the most extreme members of the Republican base by repeating outlandish statements that he knows to be false."

If you find Senator Grassley's comments somewhat "disingenuous", let's move on to the poster child for the NeoCon movement, George W. Bush.  The quotes below are from current Texas law, signed by then-governor George Bush in 1999:

"If an attending physician refuses to honor a patient's advance directive or a health care or treatment decision made by or on behalf of a patient, the physician's refusal shall be reviewed by an ethics or medical committee."

So if a patient or his/her family don't agree with the physician, it goes before a board to decide the patient's fate. AND:

"If the attending physician, the patient, or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the individual does not agree with the decision reached ... the physician shall make a reasonable effort to transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to comply with the directive. If the patient is a patient in a health care facility, the facility's personnel shall assist the physician in arranging the patient's transfer..."

And if the panel decides against these residents?

"A person does not commit an offense under Section 22.08, Penal Code, by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from a qualified patient in accordance with this subchapter."

In other words, Governor George Bush signed into Texas state law a provision that gives doctors (not the government) the power to make life and death decisions, then protects that decision under the law.   Goes a bit further than offering voluntary counseling, doesn't it?  Don't take my word for it. Read it yourself: (For Deathers: these are called "FACTS":  a piece of information presented as having objective reality. -- Merriam Webster)
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm

Let me be very clear:  I have absolutely no problem with either Iowa or Texas law.  Neither gives the government the right to euthanize Grandma, despite all the hysterical posturing from the right.  End of life counseling, and (I know this is going to get me in hot water) even placing end of life decisions in the hands of qualified doctors, makes sense from both a practical and humanitarian standpoint.  I'll stipulate that the latter statement is open to debate, but surely no rational person can argue that providing terminal patients with voluntary counseling is a bad thing.  Can they?

Let's not make the common mistake of underestimating our opponents.  While it is tempting (and simple) to write off these preposterous charges as lunacy, the fact is that they are deliberate misrepresentations based on a political agenda.  And that agenda is transparent:  Maintaining the status quo so that insurance companies can continue to reap obscene profits while providing substandard care.

Sharing one's opinion always contains an element of egotism.  After all, what is there about my opinion that makes it unique or more valid than any of the millions of opinions expressed on the Internet every day of the week?  Probably nothing.  The niche I hope to fill, however, doesn't seem to be very highly contested at this point in our national history.  I'd like to offer a voice of moderation, of common decency, of simple logic that appears to be sadly lacking in current political discourse. 

OK, ok -- Full disclosure.  For those of you who know me, either from the classroom or in my past lives as a career Air Force NCO or a free-lance public relations consultant, I admit that I'm hardly a poster boy for moderation.  I've been described (justifiably) as "loud", "opinionated", and even (gasp!) "radical".  I will accept the first two appellations, but I take issue with the last.  Not the denotative definition of radical, because I do favor "drastic political, economic, or social reforms."  It's the connotative weight of the word I refuse to accept -- that there is something fundamentally unpatriotic about criticizing or wishing to change "politics as usual".

I came to public education late in life.  By the time I first stood in front of a classroom, I had already passed my 45th birthday.  It quickly became apparent that the model under which I and my peers were educated is quite simply out of date.  With the explosion of the Information Age, it is no longer sufficient to memorize discreet facts and parrot them back to the teacher in return for a gold star and a pat on the head.  The focus in public education is shifting, and I agree that it needs to shift, to a "critical thinking" model in which we emphasize research and analysis methods over rote memorization.  In many cases, however; this shift has led to the belief that students can employ critical thinking without the foundation of data, discreet facts, on which logical analysis depends.  Although this is far too complex an issue for an introductory blog, I'm certain I'll come back to it in great detail at a later date.

The point is this:  The liberal/conservative divide in this country is becoming truly frightening.  It is my belief that a majority of that divide results from the American people's unwillingness or inability to apply the fundamentals of logic to daily discourse.  Evidence the seemingly endless train of ad hominem and ad populum arguments , false dilemmas, band wagon appeals, and red herrings that substitute for both public debate and news reporting today.  If you're familiar with these terms, you already understand their debilitating effect on any unified attempt to effect change.  If you're not, may I recommend an excellent primer:  Gerald Levin's Writing and Logic.  It's a very short, easily digested outline of how to frame a valid, effective argument. 

And that is my goal here.  I'd like to see the heat of political debate toned down from its current foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric to something more productive:  a dispassionate, logical approach to problem solving.  Obama doesn't want to put your grandmother to death.  Conservatives are not part of some national plot to thin the ranks of welfare recipients.  Self interest is not inherently wrong and neither is a compassionate degree of social welfare, particularly for children.  Somewhere between these extremes, I believe, lie the opinions of the majority. 

----------------

Edward Bulwer-Lytton was a 19th century English writer and politician, best remembered for popularizing the cliché, "It was a dark and stormy night."  I use his name because, however clichéd, this quote seems to characterize the current state of political discourse in the United States.  It was also Bulwer-Lytton who first noted, "The pen is mightier than the sword."