Truth-telling and Health Care Reform

There is an important issue up for debate and discussion. There is a great need for health care reform in our country. Rates continue to rise, the cost of medicines and procedures continue to rise at a pace far outstripping our ability to pay for them. Last night on the news I saw that BC/BS of Michigan is getting permission to raise rates by 22% in October. That's pretty steep.

What we're seeing in this situation, and a reason why the popularity of reform has plummeted is that the opponents have done a great job of distributing disinformation about what is happening, suggesting for instance that if passed the elderly will be euthanized. Then when congressional representatives go home and seek to speak to the issue they're confronted by angry mobs more eager to shout and intimidate than talk.

I appreciate the word that Jim Wallis has brought to the issue, calling for truth-telling and responsibility.

He writes:

I have said that one important moral principle for the health-care debate is truth-telling. For decades, the physical health and well-being of our country has been a proxy battle for partisan politics. Industry interests and partisan fighting are once again threatening the current opportunity for a public dialogue about what is best for our health-care system. What we need is an honest and fair debate with good information, not sabotage of reform with half-truths and misinformation.

Yet in recent weeks, conservative radio ads have claimed that health-care reform will kill the elderly (it won’t), that it will include federal funding for abortion (it doesn’t), and that it is a socialist takeover of the health-care system (it isn’t). The organizations promoting these claims, including some Religious Right groups, are either badly misinformed, or they are deliberately distorting reality.

I've not read the bills -- yes bills -- and I doubt most people shouting about them have either. In the end we will, hopefully, get some kind of reform. It won't be perfect. It will involve compromise. It may or may not include a publicly financed option. Hopefully it will provide some kind of competition where none exists, will provide a way of reducing costs, provide for more primary care doctors (a majority of doctors today are specialists -- that's where the money is), and make the process fairer for all.

Whatever emerges from this process, let's give it a fair hearing and not distort the conversation. This is especially true for those who claim a Christian perspective -- honesty should be part of the method!

Ultimately this is a moral issue for our nation. Both Presidential Candidates in debate agreed that affordable health care was a right for every American, not a privilege. Most Americans seemed to agree -- what happened in the intervening months? Here again is Wallis:

Health-care reform that will provide quality, affordable health care for all Americans is essential. It is a moral imperative that in a nation as prosperous as ours, no American should go without health care, especially the poorest and most vulnerable among us. Reasonable people may differ on how best to accomplish this goal, and I welcome the rigorous policy debate currently under way in the House and Senate. But in the final analysis, it should be a moral priority for all of us.

I agree.