Dynamic Yet Consistent

There is outrage in this country, but I fear it for the wrong reason.

A story just broke this week which revealed the weapons company Trijicon has been branding their military rifle scopes with Bible verses.  I have included one such example below.  The ACOG4X32 model number ends with "JN8:12" – a reference to verse 8:12 in the New Testament Gospel of John.  The fear is that this constitutes "proselytizing" and thus is outside the regulations.  People have been outraged that such blatant Christian influence was allowed to find its place in our military.

Oh believe me I am upset by this, but not for the same reasons the ACLU is upset.  It is more likely someone will convert to being a fan of Nashville Hockey by flying an unmanned drone than it is someone will become a Christian after using these sights.  What is frustrating to me is how offensive this juxtaposition of worldviews is.  In John 8: 12 Jesus says:

I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.

That is written on the side of a device used so you can see people more clearly so that you can kill them.  Does anyone else see how screwed up that was?

The entire life, death and resurrection of Jesus points to a life of non-violence and sacrificial subversion.  Jesus embodies love, grace and mercy, yet his words are used to brand an instrument of war and destruction.

We might as well name our next warship the USS Martin Luther King Jr. or put a picture of Ghandi on our nuclear weapons.  I am not worried Muslims will be offended by this verse on the side of a rifle scope.  I fear they will be upset when we use this rifle scope to kill them. 

I guess I must admit that I do fear proselytizing, but not in the way many have expressed.  I am not worried about people sharing their faith in Christianity through verses written on a scope.  I fear people will continue to be converted to this false gospel that the way of Jesus is one of force and privilege.  I fear people will convert to seeing an American Jesus and ignore his radical message of peace, love and non-violence even in the face of oppression and persecution.

Trijicon messed up when they put this verse on their product.  Not because it broke military regulations, but because they have grossly misrepresented the savior they have claimed to serve.

In the past few months I have had several excellent conversations about the origin and inventory of human rights.  It seems most people agree with the idea that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” yet when it comes to specifics there is much disagreement.  For instance… does “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” refer to freedom or opportunity (put another way, are these things something all people should have, or have the option of having — the difference is substantial).

This discussion began when I compared universal education with universal health care and asked if both should be considered human rights.  My friend Aaron pushed back saying that rights exist individually apart from anyone granting them to you.  (Therefore if the government is the purveyor of universal health care, it cannot exist beyond them and thus cannot be a right). Desmond Tutu takes a different approach by saying human rights exist because we are created in the image of God.  Without too many specifics, he argues this means we should extend respect and care to all people.

As nice as it is to say that rights are inherent and/or God-given, it seems the facts of history do not support this.  Most would agree the freedom (from slavery) is a God-given right.  However, in the hundreds of years across which the Bible was written, this “right” was never extended or even articulated.  Heck, even our constitution, which is still a relatively recent document, did not consider this to be a right.

At the end of the day, societies are the ones who give rights, and this usually comes in the form of the government.  Put another way, rights can not be rights until they are extended by the authority of a group of people (government).  Freedom of speech, which is actually a relatively old idea, was first extended under Greek empire.  Before the powers that be articulated and defended that right, it did not exist.  Likewise, freedom from ownership was not a right to be extended until governments listened to the Abolitionists and began protecting people from slavery.

Rights may in fact come from God, but at the end of the day, it is up to governments (or other authoritative communities) to identify and codify these rights.  One thing is clear… Rights are not static, but are evolving.  In the last 250 years, Americans have come to generally agree on a slew of individual rights: right to bear arms, right to vote, right to practice religion, right to private property, right to a fair trial, etc.  While people may consider these to be God-given, they are all actually given by our constitution.

It is my belief that we as a society are moving towards a more civilized existence.  I am glad our constitution protects so many rights and I am also glad our nation has risen up to extend more rights (like voting and abolishing slavery).  I believe we have reached the point where we understand what things should not be done to people and are starting to understand what things should.  It is my guess that in 100 years, everyone will consider education, healthcare, clean drinking water, adequate food and shelter to be basic human rights that should be extended to all.  We should not fear the government extending these rights anymore than we should have feared the government banning slavery.  Change happens, and when it comes to governments extending rights, history has consistently shown this to be a good thing.

Who would ever have guessed that we would be looking back at the presidential campaign of 2008 as a time of relative tranquillity and good fellowship?

Bob Greene made the above observation in his article Commentary: America on a collision course on cnn.com.  Greene examines and laments the current political tension that is miring our country.  It is an article well worth reading.

A few days ago I wrote a post on the The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act and how it would effectively ban clove cigarettes on September 22 (along with all other flavored cigarettes except menthols.)  Apparently I am not the only one who finds this particular provision of the bill to be backward.  In fact, since making that post, traffic to this blog has more than tripled (and to think, I thought everyone came to read my ponderings on how the Babylonian exile contributed to the concept of an afterlife.)

Earlier I made a few comments on how ludicrous it was to assume that banning flavored cigarettes would decrease smoking among minors.  Sure kids like sweet flavors, but guess what… adults do too.  I mean seriously, how many kids do you know rolling up a pack of Djarum Blacks in their shirt sleeves? If we extend this line of thinking, it is scary to think what else might be banned.  What about sweet liquors?  I know lots of underage youth who like flavored vodka and Jagermeister and schnapps.  Aren’t these possibly contributing to underage drinking?  Probably a lot more than clove cigarettes are contributing to underage smoking — and really, which one is more harmful?  I would say the drinking.  At least you can die a lot quicker with alcohol than you can with smoke.

Does this ban really affect me that much?  No, not really me personally.  But does it irk me?  Absolutely.

Some people are always bashing big government and think any law is infringing on their rights.  I am not part of that crowd, but at the same time I do get frustrated when laws don’t make sense and unfairly limit choice.  What is most frustrating is to see the inconsistencies are that are obviously present because of some major lobbying dollars from Big Tobacco.

I am not the only one who thinks this.  Here are a few comments from others:

I don’t know of any “kids” that smoke clove cigarettes. They are just too expensive for a young adult’s budget. The teenagers and college students that I see smoking use menthol “FLAVORED” cigarettes or Marlboros. What is happening here is a ban on the freedom of choice on what to smoke. Why not eliminate ALL tobacco products? Why not eliminate beer, as that seems to be the alcoholic “beverage of choice” with the local college kids (I live across the street from a large university in Coral Gables, FL.) – Lisa DeTournay

I am extremely disappointed by this legislative move because it is statistically unsound and most of all I would almost consider the ban illegal. If certain types of alcohol (honestly nearly as harmful whether to the persons body or in the damage they cause as a result of being drunk), say for instance any that is over 35%, were banned, the uproar would be as equally widespread. This law is ludicrous and it, in my opinion, is removing a high volume of taxable commodity that the damn US government could be getting revenue from to get its ass out of the economic pig crap were in. Instead of banning them, make the import tax higher. Its really that simple. -Jennifer

In related news, it looks like a few of the major cigarette companies are trying to stop part of the law before it takes affect.  They contend the requirements for packaging and marketing infringe on their free speech.  What is interesting is that this major lawsuit is being filed here in my home town of Bowling Green, KY.  You can read the whole story in the New York Times: Tobacco Companies Sue to Loosen New Limits.

Let’s keep our kids safe, and let’s try to limit underage smoking; but for the love of God, let’s be reasonable and not destroy freedom of choice with asinine laws and regulations.

I few weeks ago I wrote a post discussing health care as a right.  Since then I have had several good conversations with people from across the political spectrum on what constitutes a “human right” and what the implications are of such a delineation.  Last night I came across a 1996 article by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (a hero of mine) entitled Religious Human Rights and the Bible.  In just a few short pages he frames the question brilliantly by exploring how the Christian worldview calls us to understand the importance and dignity of each human being.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Tutu begins by acknowledging that religion (especially Christianity) has led to oppression and injustice.  Yet, he is quick to counter by pointing out the narrative of Scripture calls for a different view of things.  He bases his argument on the implications of the creation story where all humanity is uniquely created in the image of God.  He says:

The Bible claims for all human beings this exalted status that we are all, each one of us, created in the divine image, that it has nothing to do with this or that extraneous attribute which by the nature of the case, can be possessed by only some people… We must therefore have a deep reverence for the sanctity of human life… The life of every human person is inviolable a gift from God.

Being created in the image of God is not just about identity Tutu contends, it is also about calling and purpose.

The [Biblical Narrative] declares that the human being created in the image of God is meant to be God’s viceroy, God’s representative in having rule over the rest of creation on behalf of God.  To have dominion, not in an authoritarian and destructive manner, but to hold sway as God would hold sway–compassionately, gently, caringly, enabling each part of creation to come fully into its own and to realize its potential for the good of the whole, contributing to the harmony and unity which was God’s intention for the whole of creation.

When we understand ourselves and others in light of our connection with God, it requires a different response to questions about humanity and the rights of all persons.

[This understanding] imbues each one of us with profound dignity and worth… In the face of injustice and oppression it is to disobey God not to stand up in opposition to that injustice and that oppression  Any violation of the rights of God’s stand-in cries out to be condemned and to be redressed, and all people of good will must be engaged in upholding and persevering those rights as a religious duty.  Such a discussion as this one should therefore not be merely an academic exercise in the most pejorative sense.  It must be able to galvanize participants with a zeal to be active protectors of the rights of persons.

Even if we capture the depth and breadth of the implications of this understanding of God and his people, we are still faced with the fact that humanity was given the freedom to choose right or wrong, good or evil, obedience or rebellion.  We must not only understand who we are in light of our creator, we must also walk the delicate line of what it means to embody this reality.  Tutu explains:

We are created to exist in a delicate network of interdependence with fellow human beings and the rest of God’s creation.  All sorts of things go horribly wrong when we break this fundamental of our being.  Then we are no longer appalled as we should be that vast sums are spent on budgets of death and destruction, when a tiny fraction of those sums would ensure that God’s children everywhere would have a clean supply of water, adequate health care, proper housing and education, enough to eat and to war.

Tutu contends that it is only when we are willing to first understand ourselves and others in light of our relationship with God and our role as bearers-of-the-image-of-God, that we are truly able to to grasp the dignity, worth and inherent rights of all persons.  He concludes:

The biblical understanding of being human includes freedom from fear and insecurity, freedom from penury and want, freedom of association and movement, because we would live ideally in the kind of society that is characterized by these attributes.  It would be a caring and compassionate, a sharing and gentle society in which, like God, the strongest would be concerned about the welfare of the weakest, represented in ancient society by the widow, the alien, and the orphan.  It would be a society in which you reflected the holiness of God not by ritual purity and cultic correctness, but by the fact that when you gleaned your harvest, you left something behind for the poor, the unemployed, the marginalized ones–all a declaration of the unique worth of persons that does not hinge on their economic, social, or political status but simply on the fact that they are persons created in God’s image. That is what invests them with their preciousness and from this stems all kinds of rights.

Tutu’s analysis is poignant and thought provoking — especially for Christians.  It is not adequate to define human rights in terms of the constitution or any body of law.  Likewise, we cannot base our decisions on what is right on economic models or political ideologies.  Instead, we must ask a different sort of question. We must inquire as to how we can love and care for all people — all of whom are created in the image of God.

All marks of emphasis in quotations are mine. Religious Human Rights and the Bible was originally published in Volume 10 of the Emory International Law Review.  You can download the complete file here from The Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.

It is not just a rumor.  As of September 22nd, it will be illegal to sell clove cigarettes in the United States.  On June 11, 2009 the Senate passed H.R. 1256, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, with a vote of 79-17.  The next day the House approved the same bill 307-97. (Who said bi-partisanship was dead?!?!).  On June 22 President Obama signed the bill into law.

Here are some of the things the act does:

• Creates a tobacco control center within the FDA and gives the FDA authority to regulate the content, marketing and sale of tobacco products.
• Requires tobacco companies and importers to reveal all product ingredients and seek FDA approval for any new tobacco products.
• Allows the FDA to change tobacco product content and includes a ban on flavorings besides tobacco and menthol.
  • Worthy to note that the ban on flavorings applies to cigarettes only. Pipe tobacco, cigars, and the like are not included.
• Calls for new rules to prevent sales except through direct, face-to-face exchanges between a retailer and a consumer.
• Limits advertising that could attract young smokers.
• Requires cigarette warning labels to cover 50 percent of the front and rear of each pack, with the word warning in capital letters.
• Bars the use of expressions such as “light, “mild” or “low” that give the impression that a particular tobacco product poses less of a health risk^.
  • It is worthy of note that the bill makes no provisions that ban the import of the banned items for personal consumption, only for “sale or distribution”, meaning that the law as it relates to the import of the items in question remains unchanged.

For the most part the regulations require tobacco companies to jump through a few more hoops and be a bit more forthcoming.  There is however one industry that will be completely shut down by this law: the clove cigarette (kretek) industry.  Once the bill goes into effect 3 months after being signed into law (September 22, 2009), it will be illegal to sell cigarettes with any flavoring other than menthol.

Djarum Blacks. A popular clove cigarette that will soon be banned under new legislation.

You can read the pertinent text of the bill below.

SPECIAL RULE FOR CIGARETTES.—Beginning 3 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, a cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to limit the Secretary’s authority to take action under this section or other sections of this Act applicable to menthol or any artificial or natural flavor, herb, or spice not specified in this subparagraph. ~Sec 907.a 1 A of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Bill

What makes this so reprehensible is the fact that the big tobacco companies have been pushing for this legislation.  While it appears to seek to curb products that would be appealing to youth, the truth of the matter is this bill is designed to block competitors of the traditional tobacco dealers.  Just look at the exception of menthols.  Why is that flavor not included?  The answer is simple: because people like Phillip Morris make way too much money to risk pissing them off.  The irony of the matter really comes out when you start looking at statistics.  Are kids using cloves and vanilla cigarettes a “gateway” to “harder” products like Marlboro Reds?  No!  Just read this analysis from Sarah Torribio.

Statistically, however, the flavor kids consider tastiest is straight-up tobacco, in the form of Marlboro brand cigarettes (produced by Philip Morris). Some 81 percent of established teen smokers consider Marlboro to be their ticket to flavor country, according to a February 12 article.

The next most popular flavor is mint, in the form of menthol cigarettes (Philip Morris produces a wide variety of menthol cigarettes, as well). A recent survey by the American Legacy Foundation turned up the following stats: Menthol cigarettes are preferred by 81 percent of black teens, 32 percent of white teens and 45 percent of Hispanic teens.

In 2007, high school students were surveyed about their smoking habits. Twenty percent of teens surveyed said they had smoked in the last month, according to the American Lung Association website.

A relatively small number of these had smoked clove cigarettes (6.8 percent of the 20 percent who had smoked) and candy-flavored bidi cigarettes (1.7 percent).

…

Philip Morris’ reasons for this stipulation are as clear as the numbers. Menthol cigarettes, which add up to 28 percent of cigarettes purchased in the United States, are used by a significant number of teenagers and an even more significant number of minority youths.

Thus, clove cigarettes (which represent .09 percent of all cigarettes purchased in the United States), and flavor cigarettes (which have an even smaller market share) are a red herring.

By supporting this bill, big tobacco companies like Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds can appear to be taking a stand against underage smoking, while suffering no ill effects to their bottom line.  In fact, this bill helps them out by reducing the competition.  While I can certainly get behind many of the other elements of the legislation, this ban on flavorings does nothing to protect children and instead limits the choices of adults.  There is no evidence this ban will improve the health or decrease the smoking rate of Americans.  What it best illustrates is how effective big corporations are at shielding their profits because of effective lobbying.  For further analysis I recommend Up in Smoke: How the Tobacco Industry Shaped the New Smoking Bill.

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die." - Teddy Kennedy

Last night, on August 25, 2009, the US Senate lost one of its most famous/notorious members.  Edward “Teddy” Kennedy was serving his ninth term when he passed away after a fight with brain cancer.  At the time he was the second most senior member of the Senate and was the third longest serving senator ever.  After his older brothers John and Robert were assassinated,Ted made a name for himself as one of the most polarizing figures in congress.  He was always unapologetic for his strong liberal views and was consistent in his fight for civil rights for all people.  Love him or hate him, he was a figure to be reckoned with.  Here are a few quotes from Senator Ted Kennedy:

The Constitution does not just protect those whose views we share; it also protects those with whose views we disagree.

It’s better to send in the Peace Corps than the Marine Corps.

Frankly, I don’t mind not being President. I just mind that someone else is.

America will not be America until we free ourselves of discrimination and bigotry

War should be a last resort, not the first response.

It is possible to love America while concluding that it is not now wise to go to war, … The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line.

Surely, we can have effective relationships with other nations without adopting a chip-on-the-shoulder foreign policy, a my-way-or-the-highway policy that makes all our goals in the world more difficult to achieve.

The nation lost a courageous woman and a true American hero. A half century ago, Rosa Parks stood up not only for herself, but for generations upon generations of Americans.

Our struggle is not with some monarch named George who inherited the crown. Although it often seems that way.

When we rebuild the land ravaged by the winds and the floods, we must rebuild it to be a more just and fair land.

This health care debate is getting out of control.  We seem to have reached the point where no one is listening anyone and both sides consistently descend into the type of demonization where everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a Nazi.  Therefore, it is not my goal to convince anyone to change their view on the issue, but rather to present a different way of looking at it.

At the end of the day, there is one question under-girding this whole debate and no one seems to be approaching it directly.  Rather than arguing over the merits of a single payer system vs. co-opts, or arguing over how much government intervention is acceptable, we must first as this: Is healthcare a right? How you answer that question is going to determine how you approach every other question.

For the last century we have generally assumed that education is a right of every American.  Before the mid 1800’s the school systems were nearly all private and it was not until the Reconstructionist movement following the Civil War that nearly the entire country offered “universal education.”  We have reached the point where no one questions the appropriateness of using tax dollars to ensure every American the chance to graduate high school.  Of course reform is needed, there are inefficiencies that need to be addressed, and problems the system faces; but no one is arguing we should cut off access to education just because people can’t afford it.  Again, this is because we assume education is a right every citizen is entitled to.

So what about health care?  If we think it makes sense to extend education to everyone, why not basic medical care as well.  After all, our Declaration of Independance understood the presence of certain inalienable rights including “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  In my book, basic health care falls under the right to life.  And why wouldn’t it?  Do we really think the ability to be healthy should be a privileged only extended to the rich, those with good jobs, and those who are already healthy?  This is the debate we need to engage first before we get into the logistics.

Let’s jump back to the discussion of universal education because I think there are many parallels we can learn from.  First, both are expensive.  In America, according to the Education Department, we spend roughly 7% of the GDP on education — most of that comes in the form of tax dollars.  By comparison, health care consumes 14-17% of the GDP depending on which source you use.  Apples and oranges right?  Well not really.  If you look at countries with socialized medicine, their spending levels are dramatically lower.  Spain spends 7.6%, the UK spends 7.7% and Canada 9.6%.  [ASIDE: Did you know the average health insurance company spends 12% on administration, while Medicare/Medicaid only spend 2%]

Beyond just looking at cost, I think many of the charges leveled against universal health care can be dispelled by looking at our universal education system.  One of the most persistent questions concerning a “public option” has been how can fair competition exist a for-profit private company and a government entity.  The same question of competition could be asked of the education sector: How can any private education institution compete with public schools who offer free tuition?  If you ask me, private schools do just fine.  There are plenty of people willing to pay more for exclusive environments.  Just look at private colleges.  Even though they generally cost 2-3 times what a public university does, enrollment is still strong.  Why is that?  Because even when there is a free (or cheap) public option, people still want exclusivity and choice.  In a recent town forum discussion, a University of Colorado student asked Obama how private companies could be expected to compete with a government run plan.  That is a good question for sure, but the irony lies behind it.  This student is receiving a government subsidizes university education, and asking his question to a person with a degree from Harvard – the oldest private university in the nation, and coincidentally, the first corporation in our nation.  The costs are not even close.  UC tuition is 4-6K per semester while Harvard is 17K.  That is not fair competition is it?  Yet which school would you rather have a degree from?  When you offer a good product, there is always competition.

What about the rationing of care?  You would think that since the government is picking up the tab for everyone’s primary education, they would need to ration educational expenses — you know, get rid of the people that cost the most.  In practice, the opposite is true.  Special education students are given more resources and extra services despite the fact it is of increased cost.  Additionally, even though a public education option exists, parents have the option of seeking additional interventions on their own.  No one is kicking little Johnny to the street because he costs an additional $1,000 per year because he need speech therapy.

Our education system is not perfect.  There are blatant ineffeciencies and places where reform is clearly needed.  There are areas where we are not providing the services we should, and times where the government is overstepping its bounds.  But at the end of the day, people are not looking to throw out the whole system.  Why?  Because we think education is a right, and when we believe this we are willing to work with the system even if it is not perfect.

Considering health care a right is not some crazy liberal thought — it is widely held by the richest countries in the world.  The following countries have universal  health care: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.  We are not breaking new ground, we are simply exploring an understanding of human rights that is already commonly held in developed world.

When we argue against universal health care, we are arguing against the worth of another human being.  I am convinced in 100 years it will be as inconceivable to deny health care to people as it is today to deny education.

Sonia Sotomayor

I am bit behind the news cycles with this post, but I did not want to miss the chance to comment on the role communities play in determining truth.

On August 6th, the US Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor as the 111th  Supreme Court Justice in the United States.  By all accounts her confirmation was relatively smooth sailing despite the partisan bickering found mostly on the fringes of the discussion.   With her 68-31 confirmation vote she became just the third woman and the first hispanic to sit on our nation’s highest court.  This selection process revealed a lot about our nation, but it also provided a lens through which we can view and understand the nature of “truth.”

While the confirmation hearings were generally calm, many lambasted her as being an “activist judge” and several organizations openly opposed her selection.  The most most notable was the NRA, who submitted an official letter calling her views on the 2nd amendment into question.

If you read the letter and followed the arguments against her, you will find the people who stood against her did so largely because the disagreed with the way she understood the law.  The reason they were so adamant in their opposition is because they realized at the end of the day, it does not matter what any individual thinks a law means, but rather, what the majority of the supreme court thinks it means.  The NRA and other conservative groups want like minded thinkers to be on the court because they realize the what the second amendment (and all laws) truly means is not static, but rather is interpreted.  Literally, the law means whatever the court says it means.  You can disagree, but you will be wrong.

It is interesting when you think about how the leanings of the courts affect this.  At certain times in our nation’s  history, the truth of the law was more conservative.  At other times, it was more liberal.  But what was constant is that legal truth was determined by the supreme court and the community of people who formed it.

Morality functions in the same way.  The only difference is the communities who determine it are much larger.  Think of misogynistic practices and slavery.  At one time these practices were considered acceptable and moral — but obviously this is not longer the case.  Did the morality of the acts change?  No.  Rather, the communities who determine morality changed (over time).

I have learned from many conversations that many people are not comfortable with this discussion — especially Christians who believe in the absolute truth of scripture.  The problem is that the meaning and “truth” of scripture have changed more often than our Constitution.  If you don’t believe me just read a survey of how various commentators have understood The Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke.

Truth is not individually relative.  That is to say, we all can’t go around making up what things mean.  But at the same time, it is dynamic.  Truth is determined by the communities who are willing to earnestly seek it.  It is my hope that each of us will take the question of truth seriously, just as we expect Sotomayor to seriously question what the truth of the law is in every case she is presented.

One of the top stories in the news this week has been the increased tension surrounding universal health care. (See for instance Health debate turns hostile at meetings.)  The plan being discussed in congress certainly has its problems, but unfortunately we have reached the point where meaningful discussion has transitioned into hyperbolic arguing with emphasis on scare tactics, skewed statistics and atypical anecdotal stories — and that is from both sides.

Sarah Palin

A prime example of this can be found in a statement by Sarah Palin which she posted on her facebook page.  Here is an exerpt:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Discussion of health care does involve life and death decisions.  It also involves money.  In our current system money, not human rights and human dignity is the primary consideration.  It takes money to have health care.  The insurance companies are out to make money.  They make more money by charging people more and paying less.

Lets look at some of the charges against a universal plan, and see how they apply to the current system

• Health care will be rationed – People are worried about the government telling them what procedures they can get and where they can get it.  Guess what… that already happens.  Insurance companies dictate which doctors you can go to and which procedures are covered.  Plus, those without health insurance can’t get the procedures at all, so we are rationing for rich.  We may disagree whether health care is a right or a privileged, but I am not comfortable with the deciding factor on who lives and dies being wealthy.  Palin argues the elderly, sick and disabled will be the ones most affected.  The irony is that these groups are the ones who already have the hardest time getting coverage.  Even with a minor pre-existing condition, getting coverage  is very difficult if it is not employer provided.  Again, we see rationing already exists, but the only people who get it are the skilled.
• There will be a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor – Guess what… there already is.  If you look at the chart designed by the GOP in order to scare people into thinking things are more complicated than they are, you will realize most of the boxes and lines already exist.  We already have government involvement in health care.  Universal health care would not add another layer, it would simply change who you are dealing with.  As it is, the insurance companies stand between you and your doctor and they are motivated to not provide you with service because doing so would cost additional money.



• America has the best health care in the world and that will be lost – This one is all about definitions.  What is undisputed is that America has the most expensive health care.  We pay on average more than double the average of every other developed nation in the world.  However, even after spending that much we still are 17th in the world in terms of life expectancy.  According to the World Health Organization, we are far from having the best system:

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

I think there is plenty of room for discussion around this topic, but we first must be honest with the system we have.  America is not plotting new ground here, instead we are following every other developed nation in the world who has chosen to go this path.