Public Option is the Yellowstone of Health Care: So Where is President Roosevelt?

On the plane to Copenhagen where he will make the case for Chicago as an Olympic city, President Obama ought to screen Ken Burns' National Parks television series. Not because it is Burn's masterpiece (it is) and tells an extraordinary story about America ambivalent relationship to nature (it does), but because it also speaks powerfully to the meaning of American democracy.

Watching the President watch the public option in his health care plan go away without a word of protest from him suggests he may be losing touch with the deep American democracy that elected him President.

The public option is the Yellowstone of health care -- a key to what the term public actually means that unlocks the secret of democracy: our capacity to think as citizens as well as consumers, to be public as well as private beings.

Without the national parks, America would not only have squandered its bounty and paved over Eden, it would have failed in its commitment to democracy. It would have permitted the mountains and rivers, the forests, lakes and plains to be expropriated, stripped, cultivated, dammed, mined, deforested, and exploited until the every idea of a national commons might have vanished. In our national parks we are reminded that we are a nation and a commonweal and that our defining equality demands that we recognize our republic as something profoundly public in nature (literally) belonging to all.

But President Obama has allowed the term "public" in "public option" to be hijacked and perverted by greedy privateers for whom democracy is a dirty word and public a synonym for bureaucracy. Watch Ken Burns and you will see that the assault on public lands and national parks used the very same libels against government and democracy being proffered today by the insurance companies. And that Teddy Roosevelt had constantly to remind the country that their land belonged to them in common and that nationalizing the precious parklands was the only way to rescue them from the clutches of the exploiters and privateers who saw in them only a reservoir of dollars.

Public Option represents the American people's common interest in equal and fair health care for all - the government's way of assuring that the "fair competition" promised by the private sector in health care will be realized.

So have a look at the Burns' film, Mr. President, and then borrow the voice of Teddy Roosevelt -"the government is us," he proclaimed, "you and we are the government," -- and give the private interests a lesson in the public good. For the right to a public health system accessible to all Americans is no less precious than the right to national parks accessible to all, and deserves a Roosevelt-size fight.

 

 

Follow Benjamin R. Barber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BenjaminRBarber

Comments

[CLM71]

The problem with this analysis is that in many, if not most national parks, they were owned collectively, but not by Americans, but by American Indians and Alaska Natives. We literally kicked them out, or, in the case of Alaska, set up an uneasy relationship between those who live there and the rest of the "owners". Several parks, including Yellowstone, were originally designed to be like zoos -- with animals and Indians included. We essentially nationalized property that was already collectively owned and used by other nations. See the excellent book "American Indians and National Parks" by Keller and Turek, 1998. One of the parks Ken Burns filmed in, Gates of the Arctic, even now has an ongoing conflict with a nearby Tribe who used to live in the park.

How does this more nuanced history affect the health plan analogy? It's a bit of a stretch, but I would say that rather than one "public" plan for one "public", we should recognize multiple publics, with different needs, cultural ways of healing, and processes of collective organization. I think we should have one set of rules for how to determine how the system will be organized , rights to coverage and how the system will deliberate. But we should allow for local experimentation, adaptive management and a fit to context. And we do need a Teddy, but a Teddy who orchestrates, rather than mandates.

[whalerpilot]

Bully, Bully Mr. President. Leadership is required at this time not bipartsan consensus . Stand up for what you believe to be right and fight the fight. The opposition party of obstruction and No have taken their stand for political gain. What is your stand? Approximately 70% of the American public are behind the public option to insure a competitive market place. Perhaps a rebirth of the Bull Moose Party is needed to restore the Republic to the people and provide opposition to the continued Corporate corruption of Government.

[ChelseaC]

It makes me so sad that Obama appears not to care.
I not only voted for him, but he gave me hope/excitement again after the election was stolen from Gore in 2000.
I knocked on doors, worked the phone banks and donated money.
I'm really disappointed in him.

Mr. Barber,
Thank you for a spot on article.

[HJCampbell]

The parallels between the National Park’s century plus struggle against commercial interests and universal health care 60+ year struggle for against the same opposing commercial interests are incredible. In both cases the money-driven special interest groups have few logical arguments, so they resorts the favorite tactic of propagandists, namely, fear mongering and the middle-class is the primary causality.

[William50]

President R was elected not as a standing Dem or Republican but from the bullmoose party. If you actually want reform, kick the two parties out or at least put into the House and Senate enough middle americans to swing every vote. Then you would have a voice in congress no matter who is in the WhiteHouse.
middleamerican2010
Casey

[Visvesvaran Subramanian]

Uhh... No. Just no. TR was initially the vice president of McKinley, both of whom were Republicans. Then McKinley was assassinated in 1901, and Teddy became president. He was elected in his own right (again as a Republican) in 1904. Then he chose not to run again in 1908. Then, dissatisfied with Taft's presidency, he ran against him in the Republican primary; however, the conservative wing supported Taft, though the more progressive wing supported Roosevelt. Then TR formed the Bull-Moose party and ran as its candidate, causing the Republican vote to be split. Woodrow Wilson won with around 41% of the vote, TR came in 2nd with about 27%, and Taft had a bit less.

Basically, TR made the Republicans lose in 1912.

He was still a pretty awesome president.

[doratocerone]

A single individual, the President of the United States, has the unilateral authority to arbitrarily seize vast tracts of land and declare them public, regardless of the wishes or interests of those local to the area. And this is the epitome of democracy?

[joanno]

Since the first night of this series, I have been thinking the same thing. Another lesson learned is the nastiness of the opposition, the tenacity of many eloquent speakers needed to press the case, and the sheer guts to stand up for the public good. And not to be missed is what happens after the battle is won and the dust settles....everyone rejoices in what has been wrangled 'for the people', even though many of those very people were yelping right through to the end.

[Rog49Thomas]

When TR (who I admire but not worship) ran for President as an independent, his advisors told him that in the South they would have to have a Jim Crow organization and not speak about the equality of man.

Guess what the Progressive Party did down South?

Politicians, all politicians, are human.

If you thought you elected the Buddha last November, it's time for some real self-reflection on your capacity for self delusion.

[baseline]

Belief in protecting the public good is what civilization is all about. Often government is the only way we have to work together for this public good and protect everyone's needs. A "government takeover" of health care may be the only way to move toward the public good . Let's keep moving toward single-payer and the public good.

[bosunj]

Obama is no Roosevelt!

[Visvesvaran Subramanian]

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

[mariah793]

Thank you. That's a very good way of saying it. I felt the same on watching Burn's moving stories about the committment of key individuals to protecting parts of this country from the ravenous exploitive interests or anti-government politics out west. Roosevelts, Rockefellers, Muir, Albright, Ickes.

Things don't change. We just don't have the vision or the leadership at the top. And we don't seem to have any leaders from the business world helping make things happen. Have they all gone? Have we lost our civic leadership to the the wolves of big finance?

Right now the only hero I have is Jay Rock.

[Visvesvaran Subramanian]

The problem is that politicians are afraid to do anything really important and lose the support they have (more true of more popular politicians; less popular ones can get away with quite a bit). As a result, everyone just sits around without getting anything done in Washington.

[alkamm]

A public option is going to happen, but its initial shape will be less than what it will eventually be. We got Social Security in fits and starts, eventually expanding benefits to children who lose their parent, spouses, and those who become incapacitated if they have a good enough lawyer to prove it.

[ajwriter]

Okay, nice argument, but do you have any concept of what was being proposed in the public option in the first place? It NEVER WAS a real OPTION for people -- at best, it would be available only to a small percentage of Americans who didn't have health insurance already! How is that public option? It wouldn't even be available to federal employees who are sick of the predatory insurance interests that have corrupted the federal employee plan. Such a proposal never could reform our system, and it would only give Republicans more fodder to claim that anything "public" doesn't work.

We hereby extend the benefits of Medicare to all Americans -- now THAT would be a public option. It has never been proposed nor been on the table.

[toomuchtolose]

to ajwriter

Didn't the public option start out as being a plan anyone could join if they were dissatisfied with their
present policy? I remember Obama many times saying that you can keep your current plan if you want to keep it; no one will take that away from you. Health reform was needed because so many people had no coverage or had coverage that was too expensive, had large deductibles, and too many restrictions in paying benefits. How did it get watered down to being available only to people who have no insurance?

[PhantomBeast]

President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt was, without a doubt THE most important Man in saving
America's socio/economic power.
HE put people back to work through national park service, America's infrastructure, rebuilding roads,
bridges, dams, schools, national theaters and the American cities.
WE, America Had industry, factories and machinery tooling ready to go waiting in the wings which
was essential to victory in WW 2.
The republican corporate class has stripped and outsorced America's industrial power for quick
and profitable turn over leaving 30 Million Americans without satisfying, meaningful and providing
jobs. To further this elitist class profit machine national healthcare is going to be so profit minded
expensive so that only the corporate elitist and their families will have adequate medical care....The VERY VERY Worst is yet to come.
It was the same scenario just before the French Revolution......

[HeatherTahoma]

I agree completely! President Roosevelt was a genius when it came to Economy!
Healthcare is becoming to corporatized. Every big name is trying to get a piece of it, and the top dogs are winning.

[Visvesvaran Subramanian]

Wrong Roosevelt...

[HeatherTahoma]

I was thinking Teddy Roosevelt when I responded.... Didn't read PhantomBeast's post right....

[jeanrenoir]

The fault, dear Brutus, is in ourselves, not in our star, that we are underlings. The great fear about Obama was always that he was simply too wimpy to lead with more than stirring speeches. He should have been as vigorous in addressing the American people on healthcare as Roosevelt would have been, as relentless against the Republican stonewallers, and as effective. That would have been popular with independents, and he had more than enough ruthless ammunition to blast the Repubicans and win the independents with. At the same time, it is liberals as a group who totally blue it in August, not just Obama. Liberals as a group are much, much too wimpy to be able to dook it out successfully with the Republicans in town halls, etc. Why didn't the liberals simply shout down the right wing crazies all across the country--up close and personal? The right wingers are well-organized, gutsy, passionate, patient, relentless, and determined to never say die. The liberals seem, in contrast, lazy, wimpy, whiny, etc. Like Afghanistan, which the liberals are also too wimpy to deal with--and too wimpy to face the fact that it's totally different from Vietnam--the battle over health care MUST be a fight to the death--since, like Afghanistan, if we loose it, hundreds of thousands of people will end up dying unnecessarily. Liberals are "nice" people--too nice. Politics rewards only the tough and committed and relentless.

[PhantomBeast]

It is now going to be a war between the American People and the elitist republican corporate
class......

[Rog49Thomas]

In the battle between the crazies and the lazies, the crazies generally win most of the time.

Disagree with you on Afghanistan - another pointless foreign adventure with miniscule prospects of success. If after just eight short years, there is no sign that someday there might be a credible Afghan partner for us, it's time to pack up and leave.