Browsing the archives for the health care reform tag

THE POLITICS OF THE BROKENHEARTED (GIFT FROM PARKER PALMER, VIA CAROL, WITH GRATITUDE)

Mar 13, 2010
Howard
Uncategorized

Our Support Group has been meeting for over a quarter of a century, our present circle of five

intact for a decade.  I am unsure just “what it is” that coalesces to create the spirit

and tone, the nourishment and nurturance, the comfort and the challenge of our group – but it is

infilling and life-giving for each of us.  I trust the following vignette is not too personal.

I am no fan of Birch Bayh, but his unexpected and emotional announcement, now several weeks ago, not to seek re-election to the Senate troubled me.  If one aspires to influence our nation in a real and substantive way, what better opportunity than to become a senator?  That’s what Bayh had thought, until what is arguably a dysfunctional and broken Senate changed his mind.  I arrived at our monthly Support Group gathering unusually, uncharacteristically discouraged, my usually dauntless hopefulness badly bruised.

I could hear all that in my voice as well as my words, as I tried to share what I was feeling.  “You sound broken-hearted,” Carol said, in her typically firm and gentle way.  Even as I felt something rise to resist that word, it felt, at the same time, oddly right.  Each word I had used in my sharing was “down-pulling,” not only describing my feelings, but intensifying them.  But “broken-hearted,” for reasons I could not fathom, reversed that momentum.  It was animating and up-lifting, comforting my heart and energizing my spirit. 

Associations began to constellate in my mind.  A line from a hymn sang quietly, “sorrow and love flow mingled down.”  There is both sorrow and love in broken-heartedness.  Words of the prophet Jeremiah whispered into my mind’s ear, his words so often mingling anguish and power.  Is there empowerment in the anguish of broken-heartedness?  Watching a “rich young ruler” walking away, his grip on his wealth and power unable to yield to a higher invitation, Jesus is broken-hearted.  Seeing a people without a shepherd, without leadership and direction, he is broken-hearted again.  Three disciples unable to stay awake, another betraying him with a kiss, his prayer blood-soaked and wrenching.  And that awesome cry of forsakenness from the cross.  Does faithfulness and ultimate trust flow from broken-heartedness?

Parker’s new book will be titled “The Politics of the Brokenhearted,” Carol added, the word a gift from a colleague and friend we share in common, Parker Palmer.  Loops began to close.  Might shared broken-heartedness become unifying, even amidst our differences, healing our personal lives and our government, per chance the Senate.  An illustration came to mind: What if the Health Care Summit – more civil, it seemed to me, than the debate had been to date, but nonetheless ideologies stalemated and colliding as the day unfolded – had begun with shared broken-heartedness.  Not as a partisan ploy, an ideological tactic, but as a common starting point.  Broken-hearted that 25,000 American died last year of preventable or treatable diseases . . . broken-hearted that tens of thousands lost their homes, some exhausting their financial resources short of securing adequate medical care, many going into bankruptcy . . . broken-hearted that thousands were losing health care as fallout of the unemployment crisis . . . brokenhearted that we spend twice the percentage of our GDP on health care than nations with universal coverage, leaving thirty-five million citizens without care.

My hope, always vulnerable, is restored.  My commitment to social justice, faith-defined and biblically-rooted, has firmed.  My spirit has re-found its sturdiness and resilience.  But I have chosen to welcome broken-heartedness as a companion – a source of vision, empowering action, and grounding both vision and action in confidence that I follow a God who will “work all things together for good.”

3 Comments
Tagged , , , , ,

THE BEST GOVERNMENT (POLICIES, DECISIONS) MONEY CAN BUY

Mar 3, 2010
Howard
Uncategorized

Candidates for sale!  Policy positions to the highest bidder!

Executive or legislative decisions for serious contributors!  Serve a term or

two and welcome to the real money as a high end lobbyist!

Something I know about politics I learned in third grade!

My third grade teacher, Miss Roth – back in the era where flip-top desks (some with ink-wells!) were bolted to the floor in neat and orderly rows, where pull down maps and alphabets in precise penmanship poised above blackboards and dusty erasers, where students raised their hands and the Pledge of Allegiance added the line “under God” – decided we might experience a touch of democratic process if we had an election for class president.  Much to my surprise, more class clown than student, I was nominated to be one of two candidates.

Miss Roth announced we would have a “campaign” – as she worked to expand our limited glossary of political terms.  Each candidate, Richard and I, would announce a “platform” (word #2 in our election process lexicon), what we would do if elected.  I immediately proposed a five minute longer recess, just to get the ball rolling.  I was into it!  Jane and Nancy were really good at art, so I got them to make posters: Friend for President.  My dad had a collection of We Like Ike buttons and we used the reverse side of milk bottle caps to make Elect Howard disks to paste on the face.  My campaign seemed to be gaining momentum.  Victory was in sight.  It was Thursday.  The election was tomorrow.

Thursday afternoon there was a commotion just outside the front door.  Richar’s campaign workers stood by a large box – filled with candy.  Richard must have conned his brothers and sisters to fork over their entire Halloween take.  His cardboard carton overflowed.  Free candy. As much as you want.  Elect Richard for President.  After the frenzy, every student’s pocket was crammed with goodies.   And to make matters worse, where we arrived the next morning, same spot, Richard must have grabbed every stocking stuffer he’d ever gotten, no doubt conning his siblings again, the same crate overflowing with mini-puzzles and yo-yo’s, an array of playground balls and baseball cards, colorful balloons and magic tricks.  Gone in less than a minute.  Richard won the election handily.  (I later learned that Richard’s dad has contributed to the candy and toy budget).  Election finance reform was not among the phrases Miss Roth shared (that was decades away).

What’s changed since my third grade defeat?  We have the best candidates money can buy.  When lobbyists on a single bill, health care reform, outnumber legislators eight to one; when the health care insurance industry spends $34 billion on a campaign to defeat that bill; when the Supreme Court votes to protect and expand the right of corporations to finance candidates and lobby for legislation, can we have anything other than the best candidates money can buy?  When the banking industry spends $500 million on lobbyists in 2009 and the pharmaceutical industry spends $100 milllion, deftly divided almost equally between the two parties?  Making the best decisions money can buy!  Purchasing the best policies up for auction!

My good friend is recognized worldwide for his insight and wisdom on global politics and economics.  He teaches and has clients on every continent.  He is a Canadian.  Elections occur on a predictable schedule, or can be called more precipitously by the government in power, he explained to me.  But in either case, a candidate has a clearly defined season of electioneering with a specific campaign budget.  Corporate leverage is virtually non-existence. You carry out a campaign, articulate your position on issues, speak as persuasively as possible for your political philosophy, spend your budget carefully and await election results.

I have no idea, he confesses with disarming candor, how you can expect governance that serves the best interests of the people, when you have, name it for what it is, the best candidates money can buy. 

3 Comments
Tagged , , , ,

“HOWARD, ‘SPLAIN TO ME . . . I THOUGHT DEMOCRACY WAS MAJORITY RULE . . . ‘SPLAIN TO ME THESE ‘OTHER RULES’ . . . PLEASE”

Feb 15, 2010
Howard
Uncategorized

Imagine you are in a foreign culture and you suddenly have to explain, per chance defend, “the electoral college” – its history, its intent, its operation.  Easy to get tongue-tied.  You may articulate the concept, but its logic may be more elusive.  Upon the heels of that awkward task, you are asked to offer interpretation and rationale for “filibuster.”  Yikes!  You might explain its operation, but try to convey its importance.  Forget imagination.  Here’s some real live narrative.

I am just back from a month in Mexico.  Mexicans, especially in my son’s neighborhood, love to talk politics.  Even the peasants among them are alert and well-read, perceptive and inquiring.  And they just love to challenge North Americans.  Conversations over cervezas or a good tequila are predictably lively.  My exchanges with Jose, who lives next door, are always particularly vigorous.  He loves to ply me with a probing question, roll his eyes, and break into a mischievous grin.  A recent question resonated clearly, indeed awkwardly, with another from a decade ago.

 

Rewind ten years: Gore v. Bush

The extended presidential election process between Al Gore and George W. Bush, had recently, finally, per chance unfortunately been settled      . . .  by the Supreme Court rather than the ballot box.  “Howard, ‘splain this to me,” Jose pleaded (our robust exchanges are in what we affectionately call “spanglish,” his English on a rough par with my Spanish, neither close to fluent).  “Mr. Gore got the most votes, but Mr. Bush won the election.  ‘Splain to me, please.  I thought in democracy majority rules”

I tried to ‘splain the electoral college the best I could, his perplexed look mirroring my own struggle with what seemed an arcane and dated and, as my fumbling search for words revealed, distorting provision in our electoral law.  He was quick to admit that it is not uncommon in Mexico, as they put it, “to win the election but lose the count.”  But this was different, he sensed – accurately, I think.  Bottom line.  My country’s commitment to democracy had just exercised a procedure by which “minority ruled.”

In the years since, when occasions arise, Jose has not passed up opportunity to re-visit what remained an odd and seemingly unjust electoral procedure . . . “Howard, one more time, ‘splain to me.  Mr. Gore won the election.  Mr. Bush is president.  ‘Splain to me.”

 

Fast forward ten years: Senate voting procedures

Mexicans have been fascinated by the health care reform debate in the U.S.  Like the vast majority of developed nations (Mexico on the fringe of that demographic category) the irony of a system that spends per capita, or as percentage of GNP, more than any nation on earth yet delivers health care to its population so unevenly is an enigma.  That private insurance companies make billions of dollars in annual profit, can refuse coverage at their discretion, can deny policies to anyone with a pre-existing condition, have primary decision-making about financial re-imbursement is utter mystery to Mexicans.  That millions of people have no coverage at all; that people die for inability to afford life-saving, disease-combating treatment or medication; or that thousands of people are forced into bankruptcy by medical bills they cannot pay astounds them.  Jose made me most uncomfortable when he asked a most probing question, “Doesn’t this embarrass you, as an American?”  I am not given to sheepishness, but my stammering response felt for all the world like embarrassment.

He caught me by surprise with how current with the Senate’s deliberations he was.  “Howard, ‘splain to me.  Fifty-nine senators agree on a reform plan, while forty-one are in opposition.  The plan is defeated!  What happened to democracy, to majority rule?  And ‘splain to me this ‘filibuster’ thing, please.”  I gave it a good try, blowing dust off memories of my college political science course, gathering what I have learned from the more recent debate.  Jose interrupted.  “How can your government function if you need 60% of the vote to do anything?  Won’t it stop working?”

“I think maybe it already has!” I found myself reply. 

 

1 Comment
Tagged , , ,

IT’S CLEARER FROM BACK HERE! (a reflection on health care reform)

Nov 26, 2009
Howard
Uncategorized

Usually we “step closer to see more clearly” – making distinctions, noticing details, observing  subtle inter-connections.  Except with impressionist art: “step back to see more clearly.”  Consider Cathedral at Rouen by Claude Monet in the National Gallery, one of thirty paintings by the French master of the façade of that great cathedral, each a different time of day.  Stand first a foot or two from the canvas, where you can make virtually no sense of the short, broad brush strokes, shades of white, yellow and orange.  Step back six feet and you can discern basic contours of the cathedral – immense doors, a circular window, a soaring steeple, the heft of the portico rising from the columns that frame the entrance – but no detail.  Step back, four or five feet at a time, and statuary spaced on pedestals above the window become increasingly clear, the fold of robes, and the length of beards, clearer yet with each backward step.  From twenty feet figures in the Rose Window become clear enough to name the biblical scenes depicted.  Ironically, paradoxically all becomes clearer from a distance.

View health care reform like an impressionist painting.  Step back from the increasingly acrimonious debate, details that distract, and the ideological maneuvering.  See the whole canvas of health care reality.  Nicholas Kristof ingathered the widely available data compactly – the awkward if not embarrassing data – in a November 5th Op-Ed piece in the New York Times.    We may have awesomely advanced health care technology, but our health care delivery is nothing short of woeful.

  • The U.S. ranks 21st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile
  • We are 37th in infant mortality and 3th in maternal mortality
  • Statistically, Canada’s health care system out-ranks that of the U.S. in five of ten key categories, the U.S. superior in two, with three a tie
  • Among 19 developed countries the U.S. ranked 19th in “preventing avoidable diseases”
  • Americans take 10% fewer drugs than the global population, but pay 118% more per pill
  • The U.S. does rank 1st among those 19 developed countries in the health of those over age 65 – the age at which a universal health care system becomes available

The very first attempt to craft health care reform legislation was vigorously resisted when insurance and pharmaceutical companies exercised concerted opposition, but was ultimately defeated when it was successfully characterized as . . . Bolshevik – in 1915!  I do not write to advocate a partisan position, even on the current health care proposal before Congress.  I write to personally declare that this “reality seen from a distance” is morally unacceptable, ethically indefensible, and humanly abominable.  That nearly a century has passed with that same reality available to those who would look, without public outcry, without some combination of public and private creativity and action-taking, of which we are clearly capable, is nothing short of a disgrace. 

I write as a follower of Jesus and the Prophets, in close partnership with those who follow Mohammed or Baha’u’ullah, the Buddha or Confucius of those of other paths that weave spiritual fulfillment and social justice.  My mind, my heart and my faith tradition will not countenance silence, insist on outrage, stir lovingness, and demand action.  Come stand “back here” and join me!

No Comments
Tagged , ,

THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFY THE MEANS: How Ideology, Policies and Partisan Positions Distract from the Essential (as in Health Care Reform)

Sep 20, 2009
Howard
Uncategorized

Health Care Reform, like any piece of legislative agenda – as it passes through legislative process – is like a Trip Planner, perhaps for a summer vacation or a business trip.  There’s a departure point and a destination.  In planning a trip I need to be clear on where we are and where we want to go.  All the rest is “means to that end.”  There are factors to consider – comfort, cost, speed, efficiency and safety to name a few.  But my goal remains clear – my destination.  Flying is quick and safe, but likely the most costly, first class more than coach.  I could buy a ticket on a train or bus, the train likely faster but more expensive.  I could drive.  I could hitchhike.  But there is an “end in mind” and my chosen mode of transportation is “means to that end.”

It was called “contextual ethics” and it caused a stir several decades ago.  Turning a familiar slogan on its ear, it argued that “the ends always justify the means.”  And, as a corollary, it reversed another presumed truism, “the road to truth is paved with good intentions.”  I wonder if a momentary revival of this controversial approach to moral compassing, this challenge to typical ethical discourse, might be fruitful.  The health care debate prompts my writing, but this re-visiting may shed light on other issues as well.

It seems to me that the exploration of the matter of health care reform has lost its focus and has become captivated and captured by distractions.  Public option . . . a single payer system . . . solutions grounded in free-market capitalism . . . health care as a right or privilege . . . the level of government participation in health care management  . . . public sector versus private sector . . . cost management and funding plans.  Ideological collisions abound, competing positions multiply, partisanship builds, mutually exclusive strategies rage, slogans eclipse substance – a debate about means.  And, as important as that dialogue may be, it is serving to obscure clarity about desired ends and a focus on shared intentions.

Late breaking news mid-blog!   I just took a break to catch a portion of Morning Joe, the MSNBC morning talk show.  A conversation about health care reform, complete with quotes and video clips, was both surprising and promising.  An unexpected, potentially significant shift may be occurring, emerging from those ideological, partisan, to-date rigid and dug-in positions across the spectrum.  A young, conservative legislator names and advocates a shift from “partisan to problem-solving politics.”  Joe Scarborough, host of Morning Joe, a self-identified conservative, confesses that he had failed to realize how little competition exists among health care providers, with virtual single servers in a number of states, which made a public option more persuasive.  Sam Tanenbaum, author of Death of Conservatism, argues that Bill Clinton was the “last conservative president in America” because he “adjusted ideology to a sense of the times.”  Later comments about a possible softening of Iran/U.S. relations prompts someone to say, “how Reagan-like: show muscle and then negotiate.”  But most startling a clip from Thursday night’s Bill O’Reilly Show where he said (can this possibly be accurate?!) he wants an insurance option for working Americans . . . that government “cobble together a cheaper option.”

Could it be that intention and outcome are re-emerging as essential – that all Americans have health care?  It’s not rocket science!

 

 

No Comments
Tagged , , , ,