The current state of the health care reform debate feels like a gut punch. A little over a year ago Barack Obama had just been elected. The people had arisen and spoken--about a number of subjects: the wars, torture, tranparency in government, as well as a fair and just health care system.
President Obama felt the health care issue most personally. His mother had battled abusive insurance companies and may have lost a part of her life because of the vicious insensitivity of corporate health care. When Barack (somehow it seems OK to call him Barack) speaks about people losing their homes because of medical catastrophe, there is a core intensity to his words. He, of course, cares about the war, and honesty in government, and other issues, but his mother's sad experience created a fire within him.
For those reasons, health care reform was the first major social change issue addressed by the Obama presidency. A few weeks ago, it seemed that the health care bill was a done deal, with only minor tweaking needed. It was supposed to be signed well before the State of the Union address. Then one day its passage was at risk, and the next day it was D.O.A. What happened?
All of the wheeling and dealing hurt public confidence. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska blackmailed his colleagues behind closed doors for unknown political gain, and Senator Olympia Snow of Washington, after initially balking only about the idea of a public option, seems to have sold her vote to the highest bidder. Big lies and scare tactics by the Republican party worked as usual.
The election of Republican Scott Brown to the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy came as the final blow. How could the most liberal state in the Union knowingly return veto power to the Republican majority? The behavior of the Republican party during this year has been disgraceful. For the sake of political gains in the next elections, a humane and rational change to our health care system may be lost.
This situation reminds me of the debate about term limits in the early 1990s. Public opinion was all for trying the idea of term limits. Years of corruption in public office brought about a grassroots demand to do something different. Professional politicians were seen as driven primarily by potential threats to their career. From the first day in office, the incumbent was running for the next election. Most of their day consisted of fundraising and schmoozing; very little time could be devoted to analyzing and understanding pending legislation.
As with health care, the public was informed that term limits wasn't going to happen. Our congressmen must have laughed at our naivete. Why in the world would they allow such a thing to happen? Term limits would force them to find other careers. Even though there was public support for a constitutional amendment, if needed, the grassroots movement was suppressed. Today no one talks much about term limits and the corruption and inefficiency of our government is unchanged. After hopes for change are crushed, there remains only a dull, subdued acceptance.
But, perhaps most important, the "hope" so prominent in last year's election was beaten down. Remember that just a year ago spirits were through the ceiling. Now, after a year of political obstruction and sabotage, many of us feel deflated and apathetic. It is more tolerable to be detached than to feel the pain of disappointment.
Fear of change is a common, perhaps universal human quality. We all can envision radical changes in our lives, but as the change approaches, we begin to fear the uncertainty and embrace the security of the status quo. In his campaign, President Obama fueled and inspired hope and optimism about the future. Current political reality has frightened many of us back into our caves.
Barack clearly has phenomenal motivational and leadershop skills. However, in practice, he has wandered somewhat, allowing the Washington politicos too much leeway. His political strength lies in a personal connection with the majority who elected him. Perhaps he can, through his massive mailing list, contact all of the contributors and volunteers from the campaign and ask them to become involved again.
Barack's supporters can promote public education about the cost benefits of health care reform: Wellness programs have been proven successful in reducing sick leave in a variety of work settings. Emphasizing primary care will save massive amounts of money very quickly. It is far cheaper to counsel an obese person than to treat diabetes and heart disease. Reserving expensive emergency room facilities for true emergencies is both cost effective and efficient.
Perhaps of greatest impact would be increased public exposure of the abuses committed by insurance companies. In addition to a motivation toward mediocrity that results from corporate greed, a number of politicians are in the financial pockets of insurance lobbyists. At some point campaign contributions become bribes.
As I was writing these words, my wife, Geni, told me she had just received an e-mail from David Plouffe, Barack's gifted and driven campaign manager. Maybe some of that exhilarating feeling from last year can be rekindled. Otherwise, if health care reform fails, the other dreams will likely fade away as well.
Democracy is the sum of the desires of individuals. It is important to remember that our political representatives are our employees, and not elite, privileged and powerful overseers. It is probably just as hard for democracy to change itself as it is for individual people. But it can be done.
