It would be difficult to imagine a more eloquent and timely case for health care reform than the one being made by Barack Obama. He has staked his early presidency on fulfilling one of his major campaign promises. Everyone agrees -- not counting extremists -- that his recent address to Congress was masterful. Yet an ABC poll quickly showed that 78% of respondents don't believe the President's proposed reforms will help them personally, and over 80% don't believe it will lower their costs.
This fix-it President, who also has the gift of eloquence and an electoral mandate, has hit a wall. That wall has more to do with the future than just health care.
The wall has been put up by all kinds of people. Fear mongers on the right spoil for Obama to fail at anything and everything. Idealists on the left want far-reaching reform rather than a compromise plan. The indifferent middle doesn't want to be bothered. There are a dozen rationales to hide behind: The government is intruding too much into the private sector, the cost of the new plan is too high, cost-cutting won't happen, the deficit is already staggering, nobody wants to pay more for their medical care, and besides, we have two wars to contend with. I'm sure you can add more objections to the list, and we haven't even arrived at what would be a good or bad plan yet.
Let's say that all these objections have merit, since in fact they do. Even the extremists on the far right are trying to find a pulse in the moribund Republican party, and hating has worked well for them in the past. Whatever the merits for opposing health care reform, two points can't be overlooked. First, the system is broken and needs fixing. We elected a fix-it president at exactly the right time, and the adult in each of us knows that he's right to tackle this huge looming problem.
The second point is more dismaying. If the wall doesn't give and Obama's plan is watered down to the point that it turns into a giveaway for the insurance companies, what will that say about America? It will say that lobbyists own the government, that democracy has been sold down river. It will say that extremists, however absurd with their death panels and " the government can't run anything" have poisoned reasonable discussion. A double flaw in the national character was brought out during the Bush years: blind selfishness and moral indifference. That's what Obama is trying to reverse.
Will he succeed? There's no doubt that health care reform, in no small part, requires sacrifice. It also requires compassion, because the vast majority who already have health insurance are being asked to help cover the minority who don't. Obama has rightly pointed out that this isn't a subsidy. If you have medical insurance, you are already paying in boosted premiums for the uninsured. If a procedure costs $1,000 but some people get it for free (the indigent, the uninsured who rush to the ER, illegal immigrants, and the young, who have yet to think about insurance), then the extra cost gets passed along. To extend a compassionate hand is also to ask for justice. More people will be paying for their own health rather than depending on somebody else to foot the bill.
I hope these considerations of character and compassion make an impression. If reform fails, the presidency will survive. If reform is half-hearted, a victory will be claimed and everyone, except for a few harsh critics, will go back to the status quo. The economics will work itself out eventually, probably in a worse way than if we handled the problem today. But the failure of reform will prove that the era of fear-mongering, selfishness, extremist poison, and political hypocrisy is far from over. Let's hope that the opposite happens. It might be just the kind of turn-around we hoped for when this President was elected.
Published in the San Francisco Chronicle
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
Seriously, of course single payer wouldn't pass, but that doesn't make it a waste of time to try. You try to push through single payer, keep the debate going for a couple months, then finally "fold" down to public option and numerous reforms and the opposition breaths a deep sigh of relief, and before they get a chance to work up indignation again, you hammer the bill through.
Seriously, he couldn't figure that out?
Oh, god, something just occurred to me. Did he actually BELIEVE that he could get Republicans to join in reform. Really believed it? I mean, I thought he'd put forth a genuine effort and I believed that he really did HOPE for it, but could it be he actually thought it would really happen?
Did we just accidentally elect a optimistic idealist instead of a pragmatic idealist to the presidency?
Oh say it ain't so! If that's true, then this is going to keep happening over and over, then he'll become cynical. Will he even bother trying once he finally sees the truth?
Oh man, I should've voted for Hillary.
Fact is, Obama is not as cynical as you. Maybe that means he won't "get the job done" as well as someone a little more Machiavellian might have done. Obama's lack of cynicism, however - his (apparent) real moral standing - is a big part of what got him elected.
It’s not just the missing money, the foreclosures, the health care system that doesn’t care. American’s are told to expect another 9-11. We used to live in fear of the Soviet nuclear weapons and were trained to duck under our desks and cover our heads with our arms. Now in a world of nuclear proliferation where a bomb can be in any suitcase, it is futile to even try to duck. There will be no warning. At the same time there will be constant reminders that the glaciers are melting, the oceans are rising and the ozone is disappearing.
This is why the health care reform effort is so emblematic of our national character. Given the challenges that face not just us but the entire planet, if the American people cannot manage to gain control over something as controllable and simple as a health care plan, if they cannot stir themselves for this, then what about the more difficult challenges that surround us?
Obama's plan is Baucus' Plan thought up with the help of the Insurance industry and Big Pharma.
It already caves to the industry. They love this plan what with a mandate and no PO.
However, the battle is lost. As someone else here pointed out, Obama has failed to lead. The Baucus plan is a joke and a giveaway to the insurance monopolies. The summer was dominated by right-wing nutcases, the Idiocracy.
I realized it is hopeless with stunning clarity today. I work in oncology, and a patient brought up the matter of health care reform. Typical uninformed American. She receives Medicaid from the state, but informed me that she doesn't want government "interfering in my health care" and further stated that if Obama's plan (yeah, like he has one) goes into effect, she will no longer be allowed to receive care and will be sent off to die. I didn't have the heart to tell her, she will die soon, Obama or no Obama.
I opened my mouth in an attempt to educate, then quickly shut it. I am beyond weary of trying to have an intelligent conversation with this fringe.
After this country faces economic collapse in the next 5-10 years from the increased demand of the Baby Boomers, people will be screaming for single payor, let alone public option.
Just as you must, as an oncologist, inform a patient when she is going to die, no matter how onerous that duty may be; you must, as a citizen, engage other citizens on political subjects, to inform them better, or try to, ESPECIALLY if you're speaking from a position of real authority in another sphere, as a cancer patient's oncologist.
That political conversation, like the discussion of the patient's illness, is an onerous duty. But just because the conversation about cancer is a part of your job, and the other conversation is not, doesn't make it more important to fulfill the work-related duty, than the other. The political conversation, that's civic duty, and above price, and when you shirk that duty, you, like your misinformed patient, have ceased to be a fully functioning American citizen, until such time as you have the heart to take up, again, the responsibilities your voter's registration confers upon and requires of you.
*Remember that we want our country to be successful and all of our citizens to be happy, healthy, free and productive. While we may passionately disagree on how to achieve those goals, we still share the good intent of them.
*Remember that political commentators getting people riled up say outrageous things partially because they may believe them, but more often because it gets them ratings, and they are in that business.
*Choose with our eyes and wallets the sort of political discussion that should be occurring.
*Place less judgment on people for their political stances and learn to listen to each other instead of trying to talk over each other
*Learn to see nuance--shades of grey between black and white political positions.
Ex: I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative and believe in a balance between capitalism and regulation. Take abortion: Against it for myself except severe circumstances; however, For every person's right to choose. Where I think the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice movements can agree is that we'd like to reduce the need for abortions. With cool heads, we'd probably make huge progress.
Have a great day!
Really? I don't know, but I suspect that selling our souls to Big Insurance might be enough to prod people into action. Eventually, things will get intolerable enough for us to revolt. In the meantime, we have high-interest credit cards to keep us from starving. If that ever ends, the office of the presidency might not actually survive.
Bipartisanship is a myth. In reality it is making someone else give up what they believe, so you can get what you want.
They can't go all in on anything because the won't survive it politicly. The blue dogs are demacrats elected in republican states.
You have to change things slowly,like the frog in the hot water, and the president has talked himself into a corner with the promises.
Mr. Chopra...
We can only hope.
When we voted for change, I'm not sure we all knew what we were bargaining for... that the power-brokers would be so entrenched that they would fight like he// to keep the status quo... I'm not sure that we really knew what it would take to truly effect the change this country needs. It is, apparently, a monumental effort, which is always on the verge of failure. There may always be a delicate tipping point; requiring maximum effort to keep the thing on track, in each of the arenas where we need the most help: economics, health care, education, the wars, trade agreements, fuel, the environment.... and the list goes on. In this age of instant messaging, and txtng etc, we are in danger of wanting things fixed yesterday, and failing that, Americans may be prone to quickly lose interest and become apathetic. Perhaps it was apathy which helped to get us into the mess, because we "let George do it". I'm not sure we can afford the luxury of apathy anymore. The republicans are more than willing to pick up where GWB left off.......
It provides detailed data of the distribution of wealth over time in the US; compares statistics between the US and other democracies; and describes the dynamics of wealth and power. For example: In 1960, the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay was 42:1, yet by 2004 that ratio has reached 411:1.
So perhaps this is another reason why the success of the health care bill is not certain. From a diversity perspective, it is understood that when a group has power, the group dynamic is generally to work to maintain and grow that power, which seems evidenced above by the extreme disparity in the pay ratio that has occurred over time. Perhaps those with the power are exerting all their influence to insure they retain said power?
I am seeking to create a discussion group for a frank, authentic and ongoing conversation about the concept and issues related to class, especially in the United States and Canada. If you or anyone you know is interested in participating, please contact me at TMPayne1@comcast.net.
Have a lovely day and thanks for your time!
You meant to type:
"...exerting all their influence to ENSURE they retain said power?"
This would have been a great "commentary" in a McClatchy paper or other mainstream outlet.
You say:
"The wall has been put up by all kinds of people... Idealists on the left want far-reaching reform rather than a compromise plan..."
No, on the left we want only what was promised... change we can believe in.
Go ahead, call me crazy but I expect reform to be reform.
That is an opinion, and you're welcome to it, but please don't state your opinions as fact. It is not divisive to recognize irreconcilable differences. The divisions were already there -- Dr. Chopra did not create them.
And don't even presume to think you can speak for "most people on both sides of the aisle."
Also, why can't I speak for most people on both sides of the aisle? Mr. Chopra, who you are defending, said 'everyone agrees' that Obama’s speech was ‘masterful.’ Perhaps he shouldn’t say everyone (and then, once again, frame it with only ‘extremists’ would disagree with Mr. Chopra), since I and many I’ve heard - who aren’t extremists by the way - felt his speech was less than stellar. Unless you think he does speak for everyone, in which case I wonder when exactly is it right and wrong to presume? You seem to have an inconsistent approach, if I may be so bold.
Oh, and saying the divisions were already there does nothing for your argument. I didn't say he created them. I simply pointed out that he was going a long way toward keeping them alive.