Wednesday, September 30, 2009

      The Hits Just Keep On Comin'!

      In all my busy-ness recently, I somehow missed the occurence of a major marker on this blog:

      ***OVER 30, 000 HITS TO DATE! ***

      If you're reading this, then you're one of those 30K. Thanks for stopping by. And thanks to all the rest of you who have kept this blog alive. To celebrate, I'm opening up the comment section to suggestions for what you would like to see on this blog in the next month or so. (Consider this another variation of the "Just Ask" challenge from a couple of years ago.) I'll do my best to field all requests.

      If you're a regular visitor, I'd like to know who you are, so I encourage you to become a "follower" of readmorewritemorethinkmorebemore. Just scroll down the column on your right and click on the "Follow" button. It's that easy!

      Thanks again, everyone!

      What's Wrong With the World Today?

      Last night, I participated in a panel discussion of global issues entitled "What's Wrong with the World Today?" as a part of Rhodes College's "Think Globally, Act Locally" week. My co-panelists were two colleagues of mine, one from Economics and one from International Studies. It was a lively and productive discussion, I think, and I learned a great deal both from my colleagues and from the Q&A session. If you're curious, my answer to the question was (not surprisingly) "human rights violations," the economist's answer was "poverty," and the International Studies prof's answer was "a lot of things." (Her overarching point was that global issues are always complex and interrelated, and should not be thought of in isolation.) One of the best things about last night's panel was that there was real and significant ideological differences between the panelists-- something that I don't think is represented enough in panel discussions like these. Too often, in my experience, these events bring together a series of speakers who mostly agree with one another, and then recruit an audience that basically serves as a "choir" to whom the speakers preach. Not so last night. There were real disagreements, which (if engaged with both candor and care) can be truly enlightening experiences.

      So, what I would add to my list of "things that are wrong with the world today" is this: not enough panels like the one we had last night!

      Wednesday, September 23, 2009

      Hello, Dalai

      One thing you CANNOT say about Memphis is that it doesn't have a sense of humor about politics. Especially mayoral politics. Remember, this is a town that has not one, but TWO, mayors (one for the city and another for the county). We also had the same Memphis City Mayor, Willie Herenton, for five consecutive terms (that's 18 years). Herenton resigned a couple of months ago from the office, only to announce 90 days later that he would be running in the election to find his replacement. So, it takes a lot to surprise us in the world of mayoral politics.

      But the hits just keep on coming!

      Yesterday, the Dalai Lama arrived in Memphis to receive his "Freedom Award" from the National Civil Rights Museum. He was met by Memphis City Mayor-Pro-Tem Myron Lowery and Shelby County Mayor A.C. Wharton. In case there was any doubt, welcoming a spritiual leader on the order of the Dalai Lama is a big deal for any city. I mean, it's such a big deal that one can easily imagine civic leaders thinking long and hard about what they might say and how they might act when the moment arrives. I bet our two mayors stayed up all night thinking about it.

      Mayor Lowery opted to color the event with a little local flavor. Local flavor in the form of a fist-bump and a double-entendre reference to Carol Channing's old Broadway role. But, alas, this is one of those things you just have to see for yourself:

      Thursday, September 17, 2009


      In light of the (somewhat reductionist, mostly exaggerated) stereotypes of different United States' regions evidenced in the comments section of my post a few days ago, I thought I might remark briefly on this rather unfortunate phenomenon. (Please click on the image to the right to see what I mean.) "Regionalism" expresses itself both positively and negatively, of course, as "Southern" can mean "gentile, polite, and endearingly eccentric" in one context, and "backward, racist, and violently ignorant" in another. Characters, dialects, customs and beliefs that we believe to be endemic to certain areas, however, are rarely as uniform in those places as we credit them with being. Surely, anyone who's ever lived anywhere knows this.

      I wish we questioned our reflexive (and non-reflective) regionalist characterizations more often. Liberally-minded people seem otherwise willing to accept that the popular stories we tell about broad swaths of the human population-- inasmuch as those "groups" are identified by race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, or creed-- are woefully inadequate descriptions, if not outright misrepresentations. And yet, alas, regionalist stories somehow escape critical attention.

      To that end, let me just say for the record... again... that "the South" is a complex and complicated place. None of that complexity, and none of those complications, are accurately reflected in popular, negative, regionalist accounts of the South. In fact, I would vernture to say that it is precisely those accounts (part history, part just plain "story") that occlude any kind of productive reflection about the complexities that the South makes appear as complex in the first place.

      Wednesday, September 16, 2009

      Beyoncé Wins Fight Between Kanye and Taylor

      For all the hype about big, mean bully Kanye West and his poor, innocent victim Taylor Swift, you'd think that somebody died at the VMA's a few days ago. But, alas, it was just a bit of garden-variety entertainment drama. No real biggie. Even still, since everyone else in the Universe, including the President, feels the need to comment on it, I offer my $0.02 here:

      First, Kanye was right. Beyoncé's "Single Ladies" blows that Taylor Swift song/video out of the water. Sure, he shouldn't have "stormed the stage" to say so, but what he said was true. Everybody seems to want Kanye West to be a loose cannon when it comes to him saying things like "George Bush doesn't care about black people," but then get all bent out of shape when he suggests that the VMA's might be a little rigged. Loose cannons say unexpected and unorthodox things. You don't get to pick and choose. And, speaking of that, Taylor Swift should loosen up a bit. If you don't expect outrageous things to happen on the stage at the MTV Video Music Awards, it may be time to take a break from La-La-Land. Finally, in addition to being talented, beautiful, and damn-near perfect, Beyoncé's response proved that she is also one of the classiest chicks out there. Her yielding the stage to give Taylor Swift her "moment in the spotlight" was a Masterclass in Virtue.

      Game, set, match: Beyoncé.

      Monday, September 14, 2009

      Happy Birthday, dear Blog...

      Today marks the 3rd Anniversary of the creation of this blog. Thanks to all of you who have kept it interesting and active over the years.

      Sunday, September 13, 2009

      MY "Nigger"

      [NOTE: I hope you'll forgive the obviously provocative title of this post. Hopefully, it will become clearer by the end.]

      Given the popular story that is told in this country about the differeneces between the North and the South, you would think that those of us who have spent most of our lives below the Mason-Dixon would have endless, ready-to-hand anecdotes of blatant racism to share. This is not true of my experience. In fact, my (relatively) short time living in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut yielded FAR more run-ins with explicit racism than my considerably greater time living in Tennessee and North Carolina. In the seven years that I lived the Northeast, I experienced the occurance of not one, but FOUR, incidences of white (fraternity) boys dressing up in blackface. (The story of one of those incidents, at Penn State, is here.) And I heard, first-hand, the N-word used more times in those short years than I had ever heard, or have heard since, back home. (As an aside, I have often wondered whether or not my Southern accent might have further encouraged some Northerners, who were already inclined to use racial epithets, to assume I would be a sympathetic audience for that kind of speech.) Of course, that is not to imply that there is actually less racism in the South, but only that-- again, in my experience-- it tends to be more subtle and nuanced than stereotypes of the South would suggest. Even people who sport the Rebel Flag (pictured above) tend to explain that first by DENYING that they do so because they are racists. Symbols of Confederate culture are often cited as being blatantly racist in the same way that racist epithets are, but Southerners young and old these days know that such symbolic content needs to be disavowed. "It's about heritage, not hate," one will often hear. Bad faith analyses aside, my point is that-- contrary to what most people think-- Southern racists tend to be a lot more subtle in their prejudice than popular accounts of them would suggest.

      Not so in the following story, unfortunately.

      Recently, I went out with a few of my new colleagues to do karaoke at a fairly typical dive-bar here in Memphis. We were a mixed group: Northerners and Southerners, gay and straight, black and white, Americans and immigrants. We sat, we ordered a pitcher, we chatted, and eventually we started perusing the books that list the karaoke songs. Nothing to write home about so far. Then, one in our group, who is African-Amercan, showed the rest of us a page in the book she was holding. Scrawled across the page was the word: "NIGGER." Not that this would make a difference, but it wasn't scrawled on a page that listed songs by a black artist or next to a particular song like Nina Simone's "Young, Gifted and Black" or James Brown's "Say It Loud." It appeared to be just there, totally random, in the middle of the book, as if its author just couldn't hold it in anymore and decided any old page would do. For some reason, this seemed more egregious to me than if it had been written on the bathroom stall where, at least, one could imagine that the author wanted everyone to see it. Rather, this location seemed more maliciously stealth, as if s/he were thinking: they'll never see this one coming...

      As I've grown older and as I spend more and more of my time exclusively around professionals and academics, I find that I have less exposure to this kind of blatant racism. But self-selecting groups like the ones I generally spend time with tend to give one a skewed picture of the world. In particular, I find that it has handicapped me in my ability to respond to the kinds of events like what happened at the karaoke bar. What does one say? How does one react? Obviously, it's an outrage. Obviously, it's wrong and offensive. But just as obviously, I think, it's not indicative of "the South" as a whole, nor is it without a history and a context that can, even if it doesn't excuse or justify, at least explain it. Is there a difference between finding "nigger" scrawled in a karaoke book or on a bathroom stall in Memphis really different from having a convenience store clerk warn you about your "nigger" neighbor in Philadelphia?

      I am inclined to say: Yes, it is different. I'm sure that a part of that inclination is motivated by a desire to apologize for the South, which is my home and to which I feel a kind of defensive loyalty. But I am not, I hope, an unreflective apologist for the South. The truth is that I believe our long and complicated history of explicit racism makes us more responsible for its perpetuation. We should know better. We should do better. We should take greater offense at the violation of those moral and social rules of which we are not, and cannot pretend to be, ignorant. When I taught my Philosophy of Race course at Penn State, my students always and only talked about "racism" by reference to "things that happen in the South," as if it were a regionally-specific phenomenon. Racism in the South is the rule, and in the North it is an anomaly, they thought. On the contrary, when I teach Philosophy of Race here in Memphis, each and every student already considers him- or herself implicated in the discussion. "Racists" are not some strange people far, far away. "They" are one's neighbors, one's family, one's own self. Try as one might, there's no escaping accountability for it.

      What I try to teach my Philosophy of Race students, and what I think the students here in the South are more inclined (even if reluctantly) to accept, is that the anonymous "NIGGER" in the karaoke book might as well be my "NIGGER." Racism is not primarily an individual phenomenon (though it is also that), but a structural, systemic phenomenon. I cannot, in good conscience, utterly divorce myself from responsibility for the appearance of "nigger", for the set of beliefs and affects that motivate its appearance. I either contribute to a world that makes that offense, that hatred, that kind of perverted pride possible... or I contribute to a world that makes it impossible. As long as it is possible in MY world, I am obligated to account for it. And that account will always oblige me, implicate me, and condemn me in some way.

      Wednesday, September 09, 2009

      President Obama's Health Care Speech (9/9/09)


      Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

      When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

      As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

      I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

      But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future - and that is the issue of health care.

      I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

      Our collective failure to meet this challenge - year after year, decade after decade - has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

      We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

      But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

      One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

      Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It's why so many employers - especially small businesses - are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally - like our automakers - are at a huge disadvantage. And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it - about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.

      Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

      These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.

      There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

      I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

      During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

      We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors' groups and even drug companies - many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

      But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

      Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

      The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

      It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge - not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans - and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

      Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

      First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

      What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

      That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan - more security and stability.

      Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves.

      For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

      Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those - particularly the young and healthy - who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek - especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions - just can't be achieved.

      That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

      While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

      And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I'd like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

      Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

      There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

      My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

      So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

      Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

      Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

      Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

      It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated - by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

      For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

      Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public - and that is how we pay for this plan.

      Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for - from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

      Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system - a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. That's not my judgment - it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

      In fact, I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

      More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

      The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies - subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

      These steps will ensure that you - America's seniors - get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut - especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

      Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system - everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

      Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money - an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

      Finally, many in this chamber - particularly on the Republican side of the aisle - have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

      Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years - less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent - but spent badly - in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

      This is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight - Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

      But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

      Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

      That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed - the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

      I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

      In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform - "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it - would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

      I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days - the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

      For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

      But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here - people of both parties - know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient's Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

      On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent - there is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it.

      That large-heartedness - that concern and regard for the plight of others - is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

      This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

      You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

      What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

      But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

      Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

      Monday, September 07, 2009


      I was talking to one of my colleagues recently about our shared concern for demonstrating to students that "philosophy" and "religion" (or theology, or religious studies, or whatever) are different disciplines. Although they sometimes address the same subject matter, and although there is much in religion that is philosophical and much in philosophy that is religious, they are nonetheless NOT the same. As disciplines, they operate with different rules, and what is permitted by one is often forbidden by the other.

      Actually, that's not completely true. I mean, insofar as (capital-R) Religion and (capital-P) Philosophy are both academic disciplines, many of their rules are quite similar. I mean the kinds of scholarly, peer-review rules that dictate to we eggheads that we can't get away with saying completely crazy stuff. But, in the grand scheme of things, those rules of "scholarship" are first and foremost Rules of Philosophy. They are rules designed to ensure that our products of thinking most closely approximate the "truth" of what we're thinking about. They are rules to which reasonable people, thinking reasonably, can all agree. Rules like the law of noncontradiction, rules about the soundness and validity of arguments, rules that insist on repeatable (i.e., non-idiosyncratic) results. Those are OUR rules, left over from the halcyon days when Philosophy was the grand synoptic discipline, before all the hyper-specialization, when all learning was "philosophical" inasmuch as it was the product of a love of wisdom. The "scientific method"? Yep, that was really ours, too. To all the natural scientists, social scientists, historians, and scholars of the arts and letters, I say:

      It's the philosophers' sandbox. You're just playing in it.

      So, I hope my esteemed colleagues in theology and religious studies will forgive me for what might seem like a somewhat reductive comparison of our disciplines, but there are certain things that I think can be taken seriously in theology and religious studies courses that are, quite simply, verboten in philosophy. Of course, the line between faith and reason is never as clearly identifiable as we like to think it is, but where philosophers are obliged to Reason (even and especially when it doesn't "make room" for faith), theologians operate with a different sort of litmus test. Becuase both disciplines are ultimately concerned with questions of meaning and value, the procedures for making those determinations are often confused by students. And it's that entirely common confusion that my colleague and I were discussing when considering the best ways to reinforce to students the difference between Religion and Philosophy courses.

      Perhaps it's best to consider an example. Let's take the "rapture."

      Here we have a story-- a myth, really-- about the end of times. According to the Christian Bible, Jesus (the Son of God) told his disciples: "In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also." (John 14:2-3) Saint Paul confirmed this in many of his letters, most especially his letters to the Thessalonians (at 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-7), the Phillipians (at Phillipians 3:20-21), and the Corinthians (at 1 Conrinthians 15:49-55). The Gospel of Matthew also confimes this story, where we get the somewhat scary account of two men standing in a field or two women grinding with a hand mill during the Rapture: one disappears and the other is "left behind." (Matthew 24: 36-41) Of course, these accounts of the Rapture are entirely speculative, as even Christians will acknowledge that the Rapture has not yet happened and so we can't really know what it will be like. Nevertheless, the belief that the Rapture will happen is a matter of faith. In the same way that I may believe that a friend who makes a promise to me will follow through on that promise, I cannot possible know in advance whether s/he will or will not, and so my belief in that promise is a matter of faith and not knowledge. The discipline of Philosophy is primarily concerned with the latter and not the former, so dealing with speculations about the future is where things get complicated.

      Of course, I don't really know that the sun will rise tomorrow, either. But we generally agree that I have better evidence for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow than believing that my friend will keep his or her promise. The reason that I take the staircase down in order to exit the building from my second-floor classroom, as opposed to just stepping out of the window, is that I have strong and compelling reasons to believe that what I call "natual laws" (like the law of gravity) don't admit of exceptions and, consequently, my "belief" that I would fall to my death from the window comes to occupy a place in my mind analogous to "facts" that I know from direct experience (like, for example, that my cat's fur was soft when I just touched it). When we're talking about more- or less-"justified" beliefs, we have all sorts of criteria for determining the merit of speculative claims, but (in Philosophy, at least) none of those criteria are (or should be) tempered by our investment in the outcome. I may consider the promises of Jesus (and his disciples) to be as reliable as a the promises of a good friend of mine, but that still leaves them a far cry from the "promise" of Nature that I will fall to the ground if I step out of a window.

      Let me say that I am all for encouraging (careful and moderate) belief in "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," which is the definition of "faith" according to the Christian Bible (Hebrews 11:1). But I think, in the classroom, it is important to recognize the difference between faith in things like my friend's promise and faith in things like the Rapture. The difference, of course, is that if my friend breaks his or her promise, I will be disappointed and maybe (depending on how close the friend is) I will lose a certain amount of confidence in humanity, but it won't completely alter my world-view. Belief in the Rapture, on the other hand, is a kind of belief that fundamentally structures all other moral and political considerations. If I believe that there will be a Last Judgment in the same way that I believe in the law of gravity, that faith constitutes a world-view that is entirely based on a unverified and unverifiable claim, and is by every standard of philosophical reasoning... well, unreasonable. I can't make an argument for it other than by appeal to myth or revelation, and I can't reasonably expect others who do not already share my faith in that myth or revelation to be compelled by it.

      And so, this is the important difference between Philosophy and Theology: namely, in Philosophy, faith is allowed, but not privileged. One may have compelling and persuasive reasons for believing lots of things that do not permit of sound and valid arguments in their defense, but the burden will always be on the believer to make his or her case to the unbeliever, and not the vice versa. And the believer will be further saddled with the responsibility of making his or her case in spite of the unbeliever's disbelief. The trick, I think, is convincing students that such standards do not constitute a devaluation of their beliefs, but rather a different and rigorous standard of measuring the proper use and efficacy of those beliefs.