Finally! US Health Care Reform

Driving the Traders from the Temple

Above: Barack Obama

Barack Obama has had greater success on health reform than other US Presidents spanning back decades. The gains are significant: but as Wes Bishop argues, the task of building a public health system still remains before him – and before his fellow progressive Democrats.  As this article is published during Easter, the use of Christian imagery is appropriate: especially given the confounding resistance of Conservative 'Christians' to health reform vital for the poor and the vulnerable.  Callous indifference to the needs of the vulnerable was not the way of Jesus, and Easter is an appropriate oppportunity to push that message.

By Wes Bishop

In the time of Christ it was reported that in front of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem a porch stretched out in front of the structure and was the home of many a businessman, entrepreneur, and con-artist. These individuals would hope to make a profit off of the faithful as they made their way into the temple to worship. According to scripture this infuriated the pious Jesus who took it upon himself to rid the temple of these traders. In the Gospel of Matthew it is reported that Jesus used force to drive the merchants away turning tables over, yelling, and throwing objects.

The Spanish-Greek painter El Greco famously depicted the biblical scene in his masterpiece Christ Driving the Traders from the Temple. The scene for El Greco served a double meaning for the scene of Jesus chasing away the greedy from the faithful was not only viewed as a historic occurrence but also an allegory of what needed to be done in society and specifically the Catholic Church. For in the time of El Greco, as in the time of Christ, and in many ways our own modern world, it was perceived by many that the desire to make money hindered people from seeing what was truly important in life.

In our modern world, where western capitalism reigns as the king of economics it is near heresy to question the mantra that “greed is good.” We, especially citizens in the United States, are told that greed is good because it works. It keeps people on their toes, it grows the economy, it harnesses human ingenuity and takes societies to new, unprecedented heights.

This was largely the argument that was being made for the past year as Congress and the newly elected President sought to bring reform to the American health insurance industry. On a daily basis appeals to the ideas of greed, free market capitalism, and laissez-faire economics were heard on such outlets as CNBC, FOX, and a host of other radio personalities while calling any proposed measures of health insurance reform a breach of liberty and a slide into dark socialism.

Yet, when all was said and done these voices were ultimately ignored and for the first time in American history the blockade of health insurance reform was broken and legislation was passed.

The health insurance reform law is far from perfect. As the legislative process dragged itself out on Capital Hill approval ratings for the President, the Congress, and Republican opposition all began to slide as voters became increasingly angry at the inability of politicians to make good on promises made in the past campaign. Yet, poll numbers for politicians was not the only thing that was damaged. As compromise upon compromise was made much needed reform measures were lost.

These blatant inconsistencies and painfully apparent sweeteners, that were added to appease certain members of the Congress as well as the titans in the pharmaceutical and health industries, will eventually have to be taken back up in another reform battle. This battle will be one that will once again test the resolve of liberal statesmen and women, and the common idea that no one should be punished or financially ruined because of health problems.

However, much has been made about the shortcomings of the new law, and much more time has been spent on the various personalities and political implications the law has. Instead of rehashing these points it would be much more productive to look at what has been accomplished. For the first time ever a President and Congress have been able to take up the cause of health insurance reform and actually win. Never before has this occurred. From Theodore Roosevelt, to Franklin Roosevelt, from Truman to Johnson, from Nixon to Clinton this has never occurred before.

For the first time American companies will not be able to charge an individual for insurance only to drop that individual because they become ill. That is now illegal. No longer will a child be able to be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. That too is now illegal. And for the first time tens of millions of Americans will be able to afford health insurance.

Like it is said above this law is not perfect. The pharmaceutical industry was able to buy off and threaten enough politicians so that the ability to buy medication across the border with other countries remains impossible for many. Illegal immigrants, humans in every sense save for the bigotry of borders, will not be able to reap the benefit of many of these reforms even if they pay into it. Abortion, a perfectly legal medical procedure, hangs somewhere in legal limbo as the right for a woman to choose what she does with her body is continually assaulted by a vocal percentage of the population.

Finally, there was the causality of the Public Option, which brings this essay full circle to the opening mention of Jesus and El Greco. One of the persistent criticisms of health insurance reform is that by forcing companies to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions, and by forcing companies to pay for their clients when they become ill, the government will effectively bankrupt these institutions.

No argument is made that people with pre-existing conditions and the sick do not need health insurance to cover the cost of health care. The argument is instead that private industry is not adequate in providing a necessary service to a people of a country. The answer then is simple. Just as capitalists were not the answer in the time of Christ to help people connect with God, so to are capitalists not the answer in assuring the health of a citizenry.

In the spirit of capitalism though it is only fair to keep competition alive, therefore it is time to create a public option where individuals have the free choice as to whether or not they want to take their chances with a private firm or whether they want to have a plan that is backed by the collective might of the American government.

Undoubtedly, this reform measure will be met with much resistance and rancor. The individuals who make a fortune off of the industry will fight tooth and nail to preserve their way of wealth. It will therefore be the responsibility of the citizenry, the saviours of any democracy, to chase the traders from our temple which is and always will be the halls of our legislative centers.

The snows of winter do not melt in the span of a single spring day, but we have seen with this current government that reform is possible. We must continue the push for reform, and paint our own act of chasing the greedy away from our temple.

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.


see:   http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Analysing America's Health Debate - by Wes Bishop

The GOP's Waterloo

Shortly before the August recess, before the various members of Congress returned to their districts and states, a coalition of conservative organizers held a meeting in which Senator Jim DeMint R-SC stated in a conference call that, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him…” The comment had been preceded by a careful strategy that if the health care vote could make it past the August recess then conservatives would be able to apply pressure in town hall meetings, demonstrations, and calls to congressional offices. In all honesty it was not a bad plan. It was perfectly constitutional, and conservatives, despite their past mistakes, have every right to make their voices heard to their elected officials.

However, the plan was seriously flawed in many aspects. In the August to follow accusations began to abound that the concerns being expressed by conservatives were not real, that the conservative movement was being manufactured, and that in fact the goal of the protest had nothing to do with health care but instead to slow down a piece of legislation for political purposes. Such was the position taken by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In many ways this was both true and false. The reason this dichotomy exist is because there is almost always a difference between what a populace is protesting and what political leaders want to extract from those protest.

One need look no further then the 1990’s to see that a significant number of Americans have anxiety over the concept of health care reform. This should not be surprising. Ever since Harry Truman the health care and the insurance industry have put much time and money into the message that health care reform is bad, that it is unnecessary, and that it is a form of the dreaded “Red Menace.” These concerns are real and politicians such as Reid and Pelosi ignore them at their own risk, but a close examination reveals that this time the opposition truly is different from even a few years ago. What is different this time is that the conservatives are not focusing on what is important. This is where DeMint’s plan is fundamentally flawed, because DeMint and many of the protesters are not in fact protesting health care reform, no more then the TEA Parties where demonstrations concerning taxes. Instead, what these August demonstrations are is really just protest against Obama. One hears the term Obamacare, one can readily see Obama on protester signs dressed as a quasi-Hitler, and politicians such as former Governor Palin are creating science fiction scenarios where the elderly and sick have to prove their worth to live.

It is all nonsense, and reasonable American citizens are beginning to understand that. The very name, Obamacare, is a reflection that conservatives are angry that John McCain and Sarah Palin lost, and not how health care is going to be provided. In reality it is congress that is writing this bill, not Obama, so a better term would be Congresscare. Yet, since the protesters are mad that Obama is president above all else no one will see this as the driving force or loose label used by protesters.

DeMint himself illustrates this Obama obsession that the conservatives have developed by comparing American legislation to Waterloo, the 1815 battle were various European Allies succeeded in stopping the French Emperor Napoleon. It occurred after Napoleon had returned to France after his 100 days of return from exile.

If the Nazi comparisons are shameful in the exploiting of historical emotions then the comparison to Waterloo is just plain silly. Not surprising considering DeMint’s claim to be for individual liberty but also in favor of banning single mothers living with significant others from teaching.

Health care reform is needed, even the staunchest conservative will admit this fact. It will most likely occur with or without the support of the conservatives but in the sake of preserving their own movement leaders such as DeMint had better come to terms with history. This will include accepting the 2008 presidential election and understanding what Waterloo was really all about because if the GOP destroys health care reform again it will not matter what temporary victory they will have achieved. Like Napoleon they will face a brief and bitter return to power before being ousted, and perhaps like the French Monarch this time it will be permanent.

-Wes Bishop