Patriotism and Health

It was inevitable that the discussion concerning the social and economic costs of illness, injury and disease would become a political one. Under the economic casuistry now in fashion, virtually every aspect of personal and social behavior is quantified in terms of its costs and benefits to society. While smoking was initially the most salient behavior subject to this new economic calculus, it was only the first. Obesity soon was added to a growing list of behaviors and lifestyles found to be contrary to good health, and so harmful to the economy.

If health care becomes national policy, then keeping people in good health, and thereby controlling costs, would become a matter of national policy. Once the taxpayers become responsible for providing health care to the public, the obsession over healthy habits and lifestyles would only increase. The issue of public health would no longer be simply a medical matter, but a political and economic one as well. Every group with a health care axe to grind would seek to grind it in Congress. Reports concerning the costs and benefits of different "lifestyles" and "habits" would proliferate. There would arise a whole new industry dedicated to a new health care casuistry that would determine the economic costs and benefits of various habits and lifestyles. Habits and lifestyles that would save money; good. Those that cost money; bad.

There was a letter to the editor in this morning's "Dallas Morning News" that I fear presages the inevitable result of this new health care casuistry: that maintaining one's health is patriotic. Those whose behaviors and lifestyles would increase the costs of health care, or undermine productivity, would be considered as acting against the public good, ergo unpatriotically. True patriots would live lifestyles that saved the government money and increased productivity. Perhaps the day might even come when tribunals exist to evaluate the health habits of individuals to determine who was contributing, and who was detracting, from the public health and thereby decide who was acting patriotically, and who wasn't. Those found to exhibit counterrevolutionary lifestyles and behaviors would be consigned to ill health and public scorn.

Obama in the Classroom

It is conventional wisdom that children are impressionable and caution should be exercised as to what they are allowed to see, read, hear and listen to. They are also easily awed. Most parents are aware of the awe a policeman, a fireman, or even a lion tamer, can inspire in schoolchildren. Imagine the awe that the President of the United States will inspire. It is unlikely the children will even listen to the president, but rather will sit in rapt fascination - as no doubt will many of the parents and teachers.

Children lack the power of critical thought and objectivity. The president is no doubt is aware of this and so will condescend to speak in terms the children will understand. What is it that is hoped children will take away from this? That they will devote themselves to reading and paying attention in school? Do they really expect the enthusiasm of these children to last over the entire course of their trip into adulthood? The awe will remain long after the details of Obama's talk are forgotten.

When a fireman speaks to children, the children want to become firemen. If an astronaut speaks to children, they want to be astronauts. My hunch is that after Obama speaks to the children, they will all want to grow up to be president. The corollary to this is that these children will gain an enthusiasm for government and an interest in "public service" and help ensure a new generation enthusiastic about government and aspiring to "serve their country."

It is argued by some that what the president has to say is important, even to children. But what can the President of the United States possibly have to say about education and "values" that teachers, parents, coaches, and clergy cannot say better? Perhaps the president's real motives lie beyond the children that will ostensibly make up his audience. It is likely that Obama's real audience will be the reporters and cameras that will be there in abundance.

Everything the President of the United States does is political. From ribbon cuttings to planting trees, there is an unavoidable political component. In today's environment of constant media coverage and scrutiny, everything from the president's choice of ties, to the gesture of his hands, is evaluated in terms of how it might add or subtract from the message, and how that message will be perceived. Despite the portrayal of Obama's talk as a genuine, unpolitical, and sincere attempt to encourage academic achievement and perseverance on the part of school children, there will be an unavoidable political component to his speach. Regardless of the press releases, it is likely that Obama's real message will be that he cares deeply about all Americans, even the children, and that he wants nothing but to help us, therefore we should trust him.

Clearly, nothing human is foreign to Obama. There is no suffering that is not felt by him; no struggle that is unknown to him; no dream that is not shared by him. His compassion and concern know no limits and therefore he deserves nothing less than our support, our enthusiasm, and our trust in his noble struggle for a better America; and indeed, a better world. But it will take more than a talk to children to persuade me.

Federal Health Care vs. Charity

Imagine, for a moment, if some of the untold millions of dollars and countless hours being spent on the behalf of the federal health care proposals were spent instead on some of the many charities and private foundations that exist to help the poor and those in need of medical care. Imagine what the Shriners or Habitat for Humanity could do with only a fraction of the money being spent to lobby the government on health care, let alone the money that would be spent should a federal health care plan be passed. Why are so many concerned by the state of health care and the plight of the poor willing to overlook what could be achieved by supporting private charities and foundations with the same zeal that they support federal health care? No doubt for the same reason politicians are.

My guess is that the those involved in lobbying for health care reform are strongly disinclined to support any plan that might deny them the influence and control over policy they seek. Meeting a need is not enough for those "concerned" over health care in the U.S. They demand influence as well. And, why spend millions if one cannot get the credit, not to mention the thanks of a grateful public?

The great advantage of shifting the responsibility for the poor, the suffering, and the ill to the government is that it allows the rest of us to go on about our lives without the burden of having to do anything ourselves other than pay our taxes.

Power of Legislation

Just because a law is passed to address a problem, does not mean the problem is addressed. Passing a law against racism does not end racism. Passing a law to address hunger does not end hunger. Unfortunately, many in Washington seem to believe that once they pass a law or adopt a new regulation, their work is done. It doesn't matter if the issue has been properly or effectively addressed. They pass legislation, allott funds, delegate responsibility, then move on to the next issue. If they are pressed about the issue, they state that they have "taken action" and so demonstrated their resolve. If the issue at hand is unemployment, they will avow their determination to draft or enact legislation or point to the steps they have already taken to address it. If the legislation is enacted, they claim victory, point to the merits of their actions, and consider their duty done and conscience clean.

Similarly, many advocacy groups will demand legislation to address some issue they find of concern. They insist that a law be passed to discourage or limit an objectionable behavior or that new regulations and laws be passed to encourage more helpful activities or address some pressing issue. If those laws are passed, and the regulations are enacted, they too will consider their mission accomplished, at least for the time being, and claim victory in their newsletters.

After the laws are passed, the regulations enacted, and the policies adopted, it is left to the bureaucrats to administer and enforce those regulations and policies, which they do with a numbing disinterest and inefficiency. This is of little concern to Congress or the lobbyists who labored for the adoption of those laws and policies however, since their job was to get them enacted, not to see if they are helpful or effective.

Liberal Paradise

I used to live in Washington, D.C. As anyone familiar with the social and economic make up of Washington knows, the distance between neighborhoods in Washington is small, but the difference between them is great. Not far from the Capitol and the swank neighborhood of Capitol Hill, is the liberal paradise of Anacostia. I suspect very few of those who work or lobby on Capital Hill would ever consider visiting, let alone living, in Anacostia or any of the other, less trendy parts of D.C. All the wonders and bountiful fruits of liberal compassion and beneficence are on display in Washington. The clear and powerful examples of liberal government at work can be viewed on the street corners and amidst the litter, graffiti, broken windows, and decrepit buildings that not only make up much of Washington, but many other cities as well.

To the noble and beautiful souls in the liberal bastion of Washington that believe so sincerely in the blessings offered by government, and work so hard to extend those blessings to the unfortunate and mistreated, I would suggest that they venture out from their bourgeois cocoons and spend time in the communities and neighborhoods they are trying so hard to serve and see how well their noble intentions and sentiments are being translated into reality.