We can be sure that Dr. King would demand action. "Of all the
forms of inequality," he said, "injustice in health care is the most
shocking and inhumane." It's disgraceful to allow 45,000 people to
die each year because they don't have health insurance, and we can assume he
would support any effort to lower that number. But those deaths won't
disappear altogether under the current proposal. The CBO estimates that 9
million people will remain uninsured, and they're awfully optimistic about
the number of people who can pay staggeringly high premiums. The latest figures show that there are 46.3
million uninsured Americans. That means that even if the CBO is right, more than 8,600
people will still die each year from lack of insurance. The actual
number could be much greater.
Nor will we have equal health care for all. The infant mortality
rate for African American babies in the
"... elderly black and Hispanic patients often received substandard care for common but serious conditions like heart attacks, congestive heart failure and pneumonia. Researchers say their data suggests that the nation's healthcare system is racially and ethnically segregated, not just for the elderly, but across the board."
These elderly patients have Medicare, and many higher-income minorities have
employer coverage, so this is not an insurance issue. It's the product of
an ongoing system - call it "healthcare apartheid" - that treats
minority patients differently and less effectively than whites. In 2010,
American healthcare is still "separate and unequal."
It's also worth considering what Dr. King might have thought of health
reform that has jettisoned the public option, leaving for-profit insurance
companies in sole command of most Americans' healthcare. We can't know
his reaction, but we do know that he said "traditional capitalism"
has "created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many
to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged smallhearted men to become cold
and conscienceless ..."
Added Dr. King: "The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of
an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition
..."
Will the coverage people receive tomorrow protect them in time of
need? Reform will provide many people with health insurance - and will
require many others to purchase it. But our current private-insurance system
still leaves actual medical treatment out of many people's economic grasp, and
often fails to protect them from financial ruin caused by illness or injury.
The problem's getting worse: “Insured people in poor or fair health
experienced more than a 5 percentage point increase in unmet need (9.0% in 2003
vs. 14.2% in 2007)," a recent
study concluded. These findings are consistent with a Gallup
poll showing that three out of ten Americans, the vast majority of whom had
health insurance, said they were forced to put off needed care.
People will have insurance, but not assurance, after reform passes. They will receive coverage but may not always receive care.
It's hard to imagine that Dr. King would be satisfied with mandating
Americans to purchase inadequate insurance from for-profit companies, or with the Senate bill's
harsh treatment of some Americans at the lowest end of the income scale. A
family of three making $25,000 per year would pay $1,025 each year in premiums
under the Senate bill, while under the House bill they would be covered by
Medicaid with no premiums at all.
What about the so-called "Cadillac tax"? It's hard to
believe Dr. King would support taxing costlier benefits, especially when
"rich" benefits have very little influence on whether a benefit plan
falls under the tax or not. The discriminatory effect of the tax , which cuts benefits because of forces outside people's control, seems hard to reconcile
with Dr. King's philosophy.
Dr. King would probably be gratified that health reform will benefit many
lower-income people. But it's hard to picture him supporting provisions
which place heavy burdens on those who can ill afford it. Reform
accomplishes some worthwhile things, but only at the cost of a massive transfer of
wealth from the middle class to for-profit insurers.
Many people on the Left have been cheering for the Senate bill for
weeks. They say that thosenoisy activists pressing for a better bill
are too abrasive and too demanding, that they're making life too difficult for
the President and Congress. For guidance on that, we'll have to turn to
Dr. King's famous Letter From a
"I must confess I am not afraid of the word 'tension.' I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth."
On this Martin Luther King Day, the struggle isn't over. There's still time to fight for the most just, wise, and equitable bill possible. And if there's a signing ceremony, the time to fight won't be over then either. The work, in fact, will have just begun.
If MLK could vote in Massachusetts tomorrow, would he vote for someone who supports the Democrat's version of reform, unconditionally, with increased access to abortion or would he support the person who says we should go back to the drawing board. I suspect he would favor the later. MA already has government run health care and it has a 35% approval rating. Those folks know what Obama has in mind for the rest of us.
Posted by: j.mckenna42@yahoo.com | January 18, 2010 at 03:26 AM