In Which Our Heroine Wonders about the Lack of Compromise in Health Care Reform
Several months ago I wrote an entry about my frustration with the growing lack of civility in political discourse.
And in the ensuing months my general frustration continued to grow . . . and grow . . . and grow as I watched the increasing tensions surrounding the passage of the health reform bill.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure I am: 1) a registered Democrat (though I consider myself a moderate/independent, I must register with a political party to vote in my state’s primary elections) 2) fully insured 3) in favor of health care reform.
So, it is only natural that I am going to watch the debate as someone who is sympathetic to those trying to pass the bill. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that I want this bill passed over the objections of the other party—because I feel as though only bitter fruit can come when sowing seeds into ground that’s been fertilized with hostility and resentment.
That said, in the face of the whinging and handwringing on the part of the Republicans in the House yesterday who complained that the Democrats wouldn’t compromise, I offer this (and credit to The American Prospect for originally linking to it). There are three things that catch my attention in this chart. FIRST that the plan that passed mirrors almost exactly the 1993 plan that was proposed BY REPUBLICANS as an alternative to the Clinton Plan. SECOND that in two places where there are deviations from the 1993 plan (Prohibition against lifetime spending caps, and extending coverage to dependents), the Senate plan took from what the current republicans offered. This is reinforced on the White House Web Site where President Obama specifically outlined what ideas came from the Republicans. THIRD: My gosh, there’s a WHOLE LOTTA ‘NO’s in the 2009 alternative plan.
For me this begs the question of the Republican Party—if the 1993 plan proposed by your own party’s leaders isn’t good enough, what is? The American Prospect suggested that perhaps
This liberalism stands in contrast to the conservatism of today, which sees liberalism as a force to be annihilated and liberals as traitors if it sees them as Americans at all.
Similarly, the non-partisan Media Matters finds that the Republicans failed to negotiate in good faith.
And I have to say that having watched Republican Congressmen lie (one [who’s name I’ve unfortunately forgotten] even continued to cite “death panels” in spite of how frequently that’s been debunked), and distort the truth during the course of the debate for reasons that I cannot fathom (although opensecrets.org showed an interesting trend related to how strenuously some Congressmen objected to the bill and whether or not they received campaign funding from insurers, medical device organizations, or medical professionals. In one case all three) as really I cannot see what’s so un-American about a healthier population.
The above-linked Tom Price was on the floor of the House this afternoon, and in addition to decrying the passage of health care reform as a dark day for all America, he went on to decry the hyperpartisan way in which it was passed. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I have to applaud and say, that Tom Price, you and I can finally agree on something!
There was a disgusting amount of hyperpartisanship with this bill—especially on the part of Republicans. After all, 34 Democrats voted against it while not a single Republican voted for it.
In spite of the fact that this bill will only cover abortions in the case of rape, incest, and risk to the life of the mother, Republicans continued to posture related to the “souls of the unborn” being endangered in this bill. In fact, displaying a disturbing lack of fundamental knowledge about the very procedure they supposedly lobby against, The National Right to Life Coalition has called the bill “the most extreme piece of pro-abortion legislation . . . since Roe v. Wade.” Here’s a basic civics lesson: if it has a “v” in its name, it’s a court case (in this case Supreme Court) not a piece of legislation.
Obama insisted the bill wouldn’t cover abortion. Most other Democrats insisted the bill wouldn’t cover abortion. 59,000 CATHOLIC NUNS insisted the bill wouldn’t cover abortion (and noted, that step 1 in being pro-life is perhaps being pro-health), but few people listened—including Joseph Cao, who’d initially earned my esteem for being the sole Republican to vote in favor of the bill in its earlier form.
Similarly, I heard Republicans decrying the cost of the bill. When the CBO analysis proved that it would actually reduce our deficit, the non-partisan, independent agency was accused of being untrustworthy. Of course when the CBO score came for their version of the bill, they really liked the numbers (in spite of the fact that it covered only 10% of what the Democratic plan did). When else has the Republican Party not liked the CBO’s analyses, when they priced the war in Iraq.
I don’t mind ideology. Everyone has a perspective; I disclosed mine at the outset. If the Republicans truly believe that there is something inherently dangerous in ensuring that Americans are healthy, then they are welcome to that opinion. But when facts are twisted, withheld, and distorted; when legitimate counterpoints are dismissed and ignored; and when rather than condemning the actions taken by some extreme members of your party the party chairman simply says, they were “idiots out there saying stupid things,” I can’t help but wonder what the party’s afraid of. There’s nothing wrong with crossing a line in the sand. There’s nothing wrong with compromise. But instead, it seems as though that line has become a ditch, and then a chasm, and now something akin to the Grand Canyon.
Ted Kennedy gave a speech at Liberty University in spite of the fact that they used to invoke his name as a scare tactic during fundraising. The Bipartisan Policy Center called him the last of his kind. I truly hope he’s not. While the founders felt that a multiplicity of sects and factions was a necessary evil to government lest the majority trump the rights of the minority, Lincoln noted that a house divided against itself cannot stand—our divisions now run not north vs. south, but individualism vs. group.
Republicans often cite America’s history of independence as a reason to oppose health care reform. What they don’t get though is that independence does not equal solipsism and isolation. No single person founded America. No single idea founded this country. And even the most “individualist” of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, once wrote
Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to…the general prey of the rich on the poor.
in fact speaking of the preying of the rich upon the poor, this blog has an interesting analysis of a quote that’s been attributed to him as a way to sow seeds of dissent against the Obama administration. And I must ask, by denying the “working poor” health insurance, what is that but the rich preying on the poor.
To cite another Kennedy, I also recently reviewed Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s book, and as I get back to the idea of the individual vs. the community, I can’t help but reconsider her discussion of how that’s also come to color theology
Religion has also become privatized in its message: Today the moral lessons we hear–and the moral values we pursue in our politics–have everything to do with personal behavior. Living the moral life has come to mean something like: Don’t have too much sex, gay sex, extramarital sex, premarital sex; don’t have abortions; don’t look at porn; don’t demean marriage. (Not that many of us follow all these rules [...] the highest divorce rates are in the most conservative parts of the country [...])
We, as Americans are a strong group—and in fact our ability to act as a community has been shown time and again—following Katrina, following 9/11—to be as much as part of our make-up as our “independence.” In fact, I would even argue that by allowing sick people to get medical care, we are enabling their independence—it only requires a view that is more outward than inward directed. And had we not been outward directed, we would’ve never uttered “Westward Ho” or sought to walk on the moon.
We’re a strong country, and I’m proud that we’ve taken the step toward becoming a stronger one. I only hope that others will ultimately see it that way too.
