It's health care, it's a good thing: Thoughts on health care, religion, and politics

Despite my best attempts, I still feel rather ignorant about the health care debate, although I have found the White House's site helpful for information. The issue is just so huge and complicated that it's hard to have a strong opinion one way or the other for me in terms of reform. What I do know is that the system is broken, that 40 million Americans are uninsured, that private health insurance is expensive for individuals and businesses, and that we need some sort of reform to make health care accessible and affordable to Americans. How do we go about doing that? Well, that's what I do not feel informed nor educated enough to have a strong opinion about. While I knew this was a tricky issue, I have been surprised by people's reactions, not necessarily at how divisive of an issue it has become, but rather at how much anger it has provoked from some people. I agree with NPR's Brian Unger that the Health Care Debate Is Making Me Sick. It's HEALTH CARE people, we are talking about a social issue that is intended to HELP people. How evil can it really be?

While we might disagree about the details of reform, I am stunned some people seem to think we don't need reform. And I'm stunned so many people are getting angry at Obama - disapproval and disagreement are one thing, but anger! It's hard to argue against the need for reform - and if you are arguing against the need for reform then you need to take a moment to realize what a privileged position from which you are speaking. If you have a good and affordable health insurance plan great, but please recognize that you are in a position of privilege and that 40 million Americans are denied this same coverage. It is our responsibility to do something about that. Obama is putting his reputation on the line by trying to fix the system; the easy way out would be to sit around and do nothing, just let it stay broken. He's taking a risk not to win popularity or favor but because he feels it's the right thing to do.

I grew up in a part of the country where I thought the words Christian and Republican were synonymous. When I went to college I suddenly had this realization that I was not a Republican at all. While I tend to be a bit more fiscally conservative than some Democrats, from a social perspective I am on the left. And as a Christian I am often perplexed by the conservatives' response to government socialized issues. It is a Christian attitude to take care of the poor, to give, to be generous, etc. etc. etc. Thus it is my belief that as citizens it is our responsibility to ensure that the government creates standards which allow for underprivileged citizens to take care of themselves. Our current system is screwed up and inhibits access to health care for those who do not fit within the middle class, and increasingly so even middle class families are struggling to afford health care. While I'm not necessarily in favor of socialized health care all together, I do think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that all tax-paying, working citizens have access to affordable health care. If that means public options, taxes, tort reform, subsidies, etc. then so be it. And it is refreshing to see that some Progressive Religious Groups Are Lining Up Behind Obama on Heath Care.


Woman yells Heil Hitler to a Jewish man at LA Town Hall meeting (more info here)This video literally made me feel sick to my stomach - I do not understand such anti-Semitic views and I hope this woman feels remorse for her comments (although I doubt it)


Woman compares Obama to Hitler at Town Hall meeting with Barney Frank (more info here). This video will make you smile, Barney Frank is amusing.

For conservatives (and Christians) to refer to Obama's plan as a Nazi plan, spread rumors about death panels, etc. serves no other purpose than to ignite fear and misunderstanding among citizens. Such accusations are anything but Christ-like and completely distract people from the root of the issue: Americans can't afford health care! The current rhetoric has been so twisted around one would think health care were an evil thing Obama is attempting to force upon citizens against their will rather than a policy intended to HELP PEOPLE! Yes, health care is a GOOD THING, it is not evil nor are Obama's proposals. It is tricky, complicated, complex, and will require much negotiation and compromise of course, but the goal for both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals ought to be the same: find a way to make health care affordable and accessible for all citizens. I particularly loved this piece - The GOP's Misplaced Rage - from conservative economist Bruce Bartlett reminding Republicans that their rage is misplaced - Obama isn't the one they should be so angry with, it's Bush. The article offers a lot of historical contextualization about the economy, taxes, recession, and health care.

" Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting." - Bruce Bartlett

Andrew Sullivan also offers some interesting thoughts and perspectives from conservatives on the health care debate in his article Conservativism and Health Care. In particular, he explains why it was different to oppose stronger government involvement in health care in 1993 than it is to do so now. Quoting David Frum, he writes that the status quo means:

"(1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments. We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion."

By no means are Republicans and conservatives the only ones opposing health care reform (I'm sure we're all aware of the Blue Dogs), but recently liberal CEO and founder of Whole Foods has stirred up a lot of controversy (and even calls to boycott Whole Foods) with his recent Wall Street Journal article The Whole Foods Alternative to Obama Care. While it is an interesting perspective and offers some good suggestions I don't think it is enough. I feel it is still more beneficial to those already insured and doesn't do much for those who can't afford insurance. Overall it's an oversimplification to a very complex problem. He's also too optimistic about "we should all be able to live healthy 'til our 90s". While many diseases are (to a degree) preventable with proper diet and lifestyle, many healthy, active people still get cancer (my mother), have strokes, give birth to unhealthy babies (I was born with heart complications). It's an oversimplication and overly idealistic perspective to say cancer can be prevented by healthy lifestyles. While a healthier population would reduce the cost of healthcare, this view is dismissive of the absolute need for more cancer, heart, diabetes, etc research. It's more complicated than lifestyle and we have not found cures!

I'll end on a lighter note by sharing this article from The Onion, which would be so funny if it weren't so true: Congress Deadlocked Over How Not to Provide Healthcare.

Image Credits: Reality Check

More on sports, power, and control

I've been using my Facebook as a blog more than I should so I thought I would try to update today.

In an earlier post I discussed some of the tensions between the NCAA, Social Media, and Fandom. There has been a lot happening recently in the world of sports with regards to social media so I thought I'd give some updates and pose some new questions. What strikes me as significant are the changing relationships between athletes/coaches and fans, but also how these relationships are being policed and are subject to surveillance and restrictions from both leagues (NFL, NCAA, SEC, etc.) as well as traditional media (ESPN, FSN, etc). I'm curious what exactly is at stake for traditional media/leagues if they resist fans' use of social media (by regulating it, banning it, etc.) versus embracing fans' use (encouraging it, creating spaces for it, etc).

For example, the SEC was initially making attempts at regulating fans' use of media during games.

"...the policy also includes rules for fans in the stands. No updating Twitter feeds. No taking photos with phones and posting them on Facebook or Flickr. No taking videos and putting them on YouTube."

As you can imagine there was a lot of backlash to such a policy. Not only is it an extreme policy, it is also an incredibly unenforceable one. Can you imagine not being allowed to text during a football game? As much fun as it is to attend a live game, one of the ultimate frustrations is the lack of updates from other games going on simultaneously across the country. I know that I text more on Saturdays than every other day of the week combined. Part of the fun and camaraderie of being a sports fan is sharing enthusiasm about a game, anxiety about the score, anger at a call, with your fellow sports fans who are not physically present with you during the game. After revision the SEC loosened the restrictions placed on fans and the ways they could distribute their own media.

"No Bearer may produce or disseminate in any form a “real-time” description or transmission of the Event (i) for commercial or business use, or (ii) in any manner that constitutes, or is intended to provide or is promoted or marketed as, a substitute for radio, television or video coverage of such Event. Personal messages and updates of scores or other brief descriptions of the competition throughout the Event are acceptable. If the SEC deems that a Bearer is producing a commercial or real-time description of the Event, the SEC reserves the right to pursue all available remedies against the Bearer."

Interestingly such a statement is strikingly similar to Creative Commons licenses which allow the creator/author/copyright holder to share content for personal use but can choose to prohibit others from commercial/business use. This policy is much more reasonable and protects the commercial aspects of the SEC and CBS without threatening fans' rights to communicate during a game and document their experiences via cameras, videos, etc.

The initial knee-jerk reaction by the SEC though is indicative of the leagues' and networks' realization that traditional gate-keeping mechanisms are being challenged, threatened, and to a certain degree deemed unnecessary. As fans gain a louder voice with the means to distribute information they become in a sense journalists themselves. However, there still exists a need for press conferences, injury reports, highlights, talking heads etc. within the sports world. Rather than resisting fans' particiatpion in this, the leagues and networks ought to embrace fans' contributiions and create spaces for fan media.



In this evolving media environment fans are not the only entity gaining a louder voice independent of media, but rather athletes themselves have greater power to manufacture their own image while bypassing traditional journalists. Unfortunately this is landing many of them in a heap of trouble. There are obvious reasons why policies are needed which restrict athletes' communication. For example, tweeting from the locker room at halftime is just downright dumb and gives your opponent an obvious advantage while creating the impression that players aren't taking the game seriously.

However, what about athletes who want to tweet and communicate with fans on their own free time? Should there be restrictions placed on what they can say? A Chargers player was fined for complaining (half-jokingly) about camp food via a Tweet. Should the freedom to criticize your team or league be prohibited? To what extent should players be granted a voice and freedom to speak and at what point does it become a liability to the league, team, image, etc.? A recent NYT article discussed the various ways Twitter has become a threat to the NFL and the ways in which the league is attempting to regulate it.

There are also countless examples of ways athletes are using social media to construct their own image, self-promote, tell another side of a story, etc. Some of have speculated that NFL players' use of social media could save Michael Vick's image. And then there's Barry Bonds who used his blog to bypass the press to tell his own story of the steroids scandal. And Shaq who regularly updates his Twitter with quirky observations as a way to connect with fans.

The list goes on and on and the more I think about it the more questions I have. I'm still in the beginning stages of parsing this all out (with the help of Craig Watkins). I'm curious what is at stake for a) fans, b) coaches, c) players, d) traditional media, and e) sports leagues in the changing media landscape and evolving fan-coach-player dynamics? Obviously all of the aforementinoed entities exist within a symbiotic relationship, and there seems to be an issue of power and control as fans/athletes gain a louder voice. Who will benefit, who will suffer, what are short/long term consequences of giving players/fans a voice and what are the consequences of embracing/resisting the use of social media?

At this point it seems as though only time will tell...

Image Credits: 1) Comic 2) Chargers/Twitter