RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Coverage is the Main Issue for Me

by Valerie Elverton Dixon 02-26-2010

When the various cable news channels announced that they would broadcast the health-care summit, I thought this meant uninterrupted coverage.  I was mistaken.  They not only interrupted for commercials, but they interrupted for commentary.  This left me surfing the channels to find uninterrupted coverage. I commend Fox News for broadcasting the morning session uninterrupted.  But, it too interrupted during the afternoon.  Finally, I gave up on television and watched most of the afternoon session online.

The commentary, both during and after the event, was disappointing.  It was basically useless.  The pundits were primarily interested in who won or lost.  They were interested in process and politics.  There was some fact checking, but not nearly enough information that would clarify terms and issues. There was petty critique of the President for calling the Congress members by their given names.  I can imagine that had the President called them by their titles and their surnames that he would have been criticized for being formal, distant and cold.

However, I did manage to see most of the summit.  Both sides came armed with their rhetorical weapons.  Democrats spoke of ordinary people and the problems they have with insurance companies and rising premiums.  They spoke of the tragedy of people dying because they lack health insurance.  Democrats spoke about areas of agreement with Republicans.

Republicans came armed with stacks of papers, the Senate bill.  They spoke of waste, fraud, and abuse, the idea that the federal government ought not to require people to buy health insurance or set minimum standards for health insurance coverage.  They complained about back-room deals and called for the Democrats in the Senate to renounce use of the reconciliation process to pass changes in the Senate health-reform bill.  They spoke of tort reform.  They spoke of all these things with the constant refrain that the lawmakers ought to abandon the legislation that has passed both houses of Congress and begin the process anew.

What was abundantly clear is that the Republicans have no plan to cover the estimated 30 million people in the United States who do not have health insurance.  A Republican plan in the House of Representatives would cover an additional 3 million people.  As one of the estimated 30 million people without health insurance, as one of the millions with a pre-existing condition, I am interested in affordable health insurance.  Coverage is the main issue for me.  I confess impatience with pundits who question whether or not it was politically wise for President Obama to take on this issue early.  I suspect they all have health insurance.  I have no patience and little regard for elected officials who obstruct, delay, and refuse to cooperate to bring health-care reform to this nation, one of the few industrialized nations on earth that does not provide universal health care to its people.

Last year, a Republican Congress member advised his colleagues to work against health-care reform because its defeat would be President Obama’s Waterloo.  It would be the battle that would break him.  A Republican strategist counseled in a memo that to delay health-care reform would kill it — to the Republicans’ political advantage.  Clearly, the Republicans want to defeat health-care reform while they have no alternative plan that would get this nation to universal coverage.

Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.

Categories: Health
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Where do you get those stats? Or do two out of your three friends like it?
  • "I'm still looking for the website created by those unbiased humans."

    Why Sojouners, of course. Because we all know what would happen if Focus on the Family dared to call their blog "God's Politics".
  • Patricia
    2/3 of Americans believe Medicare is so good that we want to be able to participate - why not let us?

    Why not let everyone have Medicare? We all pay in, we all get health care.

    Medicare for everyone :)!
  • The evidence is all around you, my friend. Unwillingness to see that evidence is not my problem, but yours. Open your eyes.
  • Best health care is medicare? LOL
  • SamHamilton
    Ironically enough, the Heritage Foundation has a blog at which anyone can leave a comment, even progressives. Check it out. http://blog.heritage.org/ Of course, the blog url does have the word "heritage" in the title, so it might be biased. I'm still looking for the website created by those unbiased humans.
  • letjusticerolldown
    Single payer for all. Bill us back for the first $5,000 of non-preventive annual expenditure on a sliding scale.

    Or come up with a different proposal summarized in two sentences.

    God bless you for being able to watch the summit. I turned it on for one minute and couldn't get beyond the depressed, sorry, looks on everyone's faces. How does one get good legislation from a group of sorrowful, joyless, stiffs?
  • kansasmennonite
    Any site with the name american or heritage in it is going to be biased omho. Name me a site where progressives can go and discuss things like conservatives can here.

    Why can't conservatives help the poor through better health insurance and care? What are they afraid of?
  • ingreif
    yes we have all these government entities and lets just look at how badly they are run or how in dept they are or how much fraud is involved. MAYBE if we correct such issue then health care would be better served through government but at the moment i seriously doubt it. Its funny you casll republicans obstructionist when dem. had a majority to pass whatever they wanted. DID THEY NOT. so it didnt matter what republicans wanted. and valeria said the republicans didnt have a plan to cover everyone. Well maybe they think there plan would eventually help to cover everyone and without government takeover or worry abou the cost to us. Does the current plan cover everyone, i dont think it does. She spoke of half truths in another article yet places a few here. nice job. this site isnt any differen then those horrible lying dishonest evil conservative sites who just bash the other side. heritage.org would be a good site for some of you. A honest conservative site without the blame game going on. I havent seen them bash or call the other side names like a certain pres. here has done. they show a disagreement but its nice enough. Theres a point of disagreeing and just demonizing. here conservative republicans are just plain satans deminions. nothing but bad christian evil hate mongering kill them all let God sort them out type folk. Or it just seems that way at times.
  • Charles Kiker
    You keep repeating that government is the cause. I know Ronald Reagan said that, and Republicans today seem to follow that mantra. But I find no evidence to support that claim. Medicare, which is my primary insurer, is by all objective standards far more efficient than the big insurance companies.
  • nancyv
    The best health insurance program is Medicare, a government program. The more people that belong to a pool for insurance, the lower the rates. With outsourcing of jobs overseas, and all the job layoffs, the pool for Medicare is shrinking. By the way, Keith Olbermann does have free health clinics travel throughout the country. They are paid for by donations from viewers. Isn't it pathetic that the so-called "best health insurance in the world" cannot provide for all Americans. I guess it's more important to the private health insurance execs that they have 8 cars, live in four gated communities, and can buy all the baubbles and bangles that their millions can provide.
  • Well, it certainly bothers me that the poor cannot afford health care. Unfortunately, government has been the biggest reason for higher health care costs. Insurance companies enjoy an oligopoly thanks to the government. Medical schools can charge what they want because the government will back or subsidize loans that would otherwise not be made. Doctors are then strapped with huge amounts of debt, and in turn charge a fortune for sometimes routine things. Add to that medical licensing laws that prohibit nurses and other qualified non-doctors from performing routine duties. And during the Great Depression wages were frozen by the government, so employers began competing by offering health benefits, which isn't bad per se, but now that so many of our health benefits are tied to our employment, individuals are "stuck" in jobs or lose coverage because of unemployment. Add to that the expense of taking care of veterans of unnecessary and illegal wars, printing money to cover those wars (which is essentially stealing from the poor to pay the government and benefit the wealthy), and no wonder we've got people in poverty who can't afford such things.

    That anybody believes the free market (which I know you didn't say... but others do) is part of the problem doesn't have a clue as to why prices are so high, and why many of us cannot afford them. There is certainly a place for insurance, but just like every other market where there is even a little bit of competition, prices come down over time, sometimes even rapidly. (Diamonds are not scarce, by the way, and are expensive because of a cartel. This is similar to the insurance cartel which enjoys government-granted privileges.)

    Here's a question... if it's the moral thing to do to insure everybody, or to provide coverage for everybody, why haven't a group of morally upstanding citizens, "progressive" folks like Olbermann, Soros, or even not-so-wealthy folks like Jim Wallis and others, created a health insurance company that doesn't deny claims, chooses to be non-profit ("people before profits!"), and charges low premiums? Certainly if such an entity would be so popular and viable, it would be the envy of all without insurance, and people would flock to its low premiums, no denial of coverage, etc. Why can't somebody do this? Government restrictions and laws.

    Competition works, but government restricts it, and so prices go up. Supply and demand curves always work the same: less supply, more demand. Thanks to government, that's exactly what we've got. And so now only the relatively wealthy or well-connected can afford the best care.
  • Charles Kiker
    There are food stamps for those who cannot afford food. Years ago I was watching William F. Buckley, probably on firing line. Some kind of government health program was under discussion then, in the '70s I think. It has been under discussion since the days of Harry S. Truman. Anyway, someone in the discussion then said, "The poor cannot afford health care." To which Buckley responded, "The poor cannot afford diamonds either." Evidently Buckley was no more bothered that the poor cannot afford health care than that the poor cannot afford diamonds. That callous attitude is still around. It bothers me not a whit that the poor cannot afford diamonds. But it bothers me a great deal that the poor cannot afford health care.

  • LadyJess78
    We do. We have WIC and foodstamps and, in many places, emergency food services to ensure that people don't starve to death. We do, in fact, have a single payer system that ensures the basic human right of food. We have a single payer system that ensures the basic human right of education. We have a single payer system that ensures the basic human right of protection (police, firefighters).

    The public option does not differ all that greatly from any of these systems. It ensures, simply, that those who can't afford insurance, do not die because of a lack of appropriate health care. Just like foodstamps ensures that people who can't afford food don't starve.
  • There are 300 million people in the United States. There were maybe 300 people in that room, and if you include all elected officials in both the House and the Senate, plus the White House, you'll find no more than 1,000 people. And that's being pretty generous with respect to who exactly will be making these decisions about health care.

    To even think that these several hundred people, most of whom have never worked in health care, health insurance, or ran a business, are supposed to "fix out health care system" with a few laws is preposterous! I can understand the idea of making laws that protect people, but to impose upon the American people—of whom not even a majority agrees with the current swath of proposals—forced benevolence for the uninsured is neither just nor moral.

    Nobody wants to see people without health care. Nobody wants to see people go bankrupt because of large medical bills. Nobody wants to see a neighbor lose a house because of an accident. But the current plans by both parties are naive at best and pretentious at worst. It's like using patchwork to repair an old quilt, when in reality what is needed is a whole new design. The current system of health care has fallen under its own weight; government intervention and regulation have caused prices to skyrocket, insurance industry collusion with the government has created a dependency on a third party to pay for routine things (we don't do this with other goods and services such as food or housing), and imposing a tying of health care with employment has created an unnatural bond that puts people in an awkward position.

    Valerie wants a single payer system for such "basic human rights." What about the right to food? Should we have a single-payer for all of the basic food we need?
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008