Real Christians vs Selfish Heretics

Traditionally, the “Public Protestants” have believed in reforming society, and bringing the Kingdom of God to Earth. They take a far more collective view of the world. The Private Protestants see the world in terms of individuals—the individual’s relationship with God. And in the secular world, they champion “individual rights.”For them, individual rights trump equality. These are today’s neo-conservatives.

Episcopal Bishop Paul Moore helped define the difference between Public and Private Protestants (and illuminated where today’s conservatives fit in the scheme of things) only five weeks before his death from brain and lung cancer, when Religion in the News reports, “the 83 year-old retired bishop of New York willed himself into the pulpit at St. John the Divine Cathedral in Manhattan one last time. From that familiar platform, he ripped into President Bush’s plan to invade Iraq. ‘It appears to me that we have two types of religion here, Moore pronounced. ‘One is a solitary Texas politician who says, ‘I talk with Jesus and I’m right.’ The other involves millions of people of all faiths who disagree.’”

Not surprisingly, the two points of view frequently reflect a class divide. Those who enjoy a comfortable place in society are not terribly interested in reforming it. The “have not’s” are more likely to call for reform.

Of course this is not always the case. I think of Moore and William Sloan Coffin, the Yale chaplain who fought to try to save working-class children from being shipped off to Vietnam. But as Religion in the News points out, they have few heirs: “If Moore resisted the ravages of time rather well, the same cannot be said for the religious and social culture that produced him. New York City was once the intellectual and organizational capital of a vigorous, high profile, mainline Protestant establishment that has virtually evaporated.”

Meanwhile, as Rhys Williams, editor of Cultural Wars in American Politics, observes, today “the so-called New Christian Right . . . often represent newly middle-class constituents in growing suburban centers Rhys Williams, editor of Cultural Wars in American Politics-- These upwardly mobile suburbanites are far more interested in their own success than in changing the world. They are not their Brother’s Keeper.

Of course, U.S. demographics are changing and the two sides of Protestantism applies to a shrinking segment of Americans. Many of us are neither Public Protestants nor Private Protestants. We are Buddists, Catholics, Muslims . . . Many of us are agnostics or grew up in no organized church.
Yet the difference between those who think collectively and those who think in terms of the individual still apply and often---though not always—divide along class lines.

This brings us to health care reform. Those who think in term of the individual always ask: “What’s In it For Me And My Family?’ They fear that they may have to pay higher taxes—or “give something up.”
When they are told that the well-insured are often over-treated, and exposed to unnecessary tests, and treatments think “I trust my doctor. I want all of the tests and treatments.” When they are told that 1/3 of our health care dollars are wasted on ineffective procedures and over-priced products –and that if we squeezed out the waste, we could afford high quality sustainable care for everyone—they smell a plot to redistribute wealth.

And of course, they are right. We should take some of the health care dollars lavished on full body scans, unnecessary MRIs, by-passes and angioplasties that do upper-middle-class and upper-class Americans no good—and spend those dollars, both on public health, and on care for those who don’t have access to good care today. What affluent Americans don’t understand is that when they undergo unnecessary treatments they are, by definition, being exposed to risk, not benefit. They are not as lucky as they think.

They are not receiving the best healthcare in the world. They are receiving the most expensive healthcare in the world—and often, as Dr. Atul Gawande pointed out in a June 1 New Yorker article, in those parts of the U.S. where we spend more on care, outcomes are worse.

Nevertheless, in recent weeks, the mainstream media has been appealing to the fears of those who already have good group coverage—and worry that while reform might be good for someone else, it will cost them more, and perhaps cut into their benefits. Media Matters has done an excellent job of tracking how “the media continues to spread conservative misinformation on health care reform.” Here are just three examples:

? “Wash. Post column cites inapplicable CBO assessment to claim public plan option has ‘huge cost, minor benefit’” July 07

? “CNN.com joins Republican fear-mongering about Canadian-style health care” July 07

? “CBS' Smith advanced falsehood that Dems are taxing small businesses to fund health bill” July 19

Meanwhile, when the 1,018 page House Plan was made public, even progressive newspapers failed to give readers much-needed, solid information on the strengths of the plan. How many Americans know that, under the plan approved by three House committees: insurers would not be able to charge co-pays for preventive care—including eye and foot exams for diabetics; insurers would not be allowed to “cap” coverage, either annually, or over the course of a customer’s lifetime; adult children would be able to remain on their parents’ insurance plan through age 26? Do they know that the House bill would reform Medicare, reducing costs while lifting the quality of care, paving the way for a public sector insurance plan modeled on a new, improved Medicare?

I have written about the way the media’s coverage of healthcare reform—and of President Obama himself—has stirred fears, while ignoring the positives, here.

Even the New York Times has been repeating conservative lies about reform, most recently the canard that healthcare reform will promote “euthanasia for the elderly”:

“A provision of the House bill would provide Medicare coverage for the work of doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care. “Conservative groups have seized on this provision as evidence that the bill could encourage the rationing of health care. The Family Research Council, for example, said the bill would ‘limit end-of-life care.’ The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said, ‘This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.’”

That’s it. No rebuttal. The article just moves on to another topic, without explaining that the House bill would pay doctors to explain palliative care to patients, making it clear that palliative care is all about giving patients options-- by providing full information about the the benefits and side effects of various treatments. With that knowledge, patients (or families) can play a role in deciding which treatments to pursue. Palliative care is not about abandoning hope. Patients continue to receive potentially life-saving or life-prolonging treatments as long as they want them. And because palliative care specialists are trained in the fine art of pain control, they don’t die in screaming pain. Why didn't the Times spell that out?

Continued>>>
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Maggie_Mahar_642F5006-E55B-4901-8D36-2340F6213AE3.html