Health Means Life; Health Means Freedom
Tuesday 23 February 2010
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: takomabibelot, mlhradio)
Life and freedom are moral issues. It is time for Democrats to talk about health in those terms, beyond just policy terms such as health insurance reform, bending the cost curve, types of exchanges, etc.
Health means life. If you get a major illness or injury and cannot get it treated adequately, you could die. And tens of thousands do.
Health means freedom. If you have a serious illness or injury and cannot get it treated, your freedom will be limited in many ways. Your physical freedom: You may no longer have the freedom to move around. Your economic freedom: You may not be able to work or your medical bills may impoverish you. Your emotional freedom: You will not be free to live a happy life.
Health is therefore a moral issue of the highest order. And it is a patriotic issue. Health security is a problem for far more Americans than military security. Your security is far more likely to be threatened by the lack of treatment for illness and injury than by any likely terrorist attack.
Real terror is seen in the thousands of letters sent to the White House and Congress by people whose lives have been shattered or threatened by the behavior of the health insurance corporations. Wellpoint, which made $2.7 billion in fourth-quarter profits in 2009, tried to raise its Anthem/Blue Cross premiums 39 percent in California. Wellpoint made its profits by NOT giving health care. It treated 2.2 million fewer people. It found a way NOT to treat people who needed treatment, either by refusing to insure them, or dropping them as clients, or denying authorizations. If you are sick or injured and that happens to you, you face terror - very real terror.
That's when "health maintenance organizations" (HMOs) become health terror organizations.
The Obama administration has been missing the moral arguments in the health care debate, while conservatives always hit their moral targets. Where the conservatives argue loss of freedom ("government takeover") and life ("death panels" and abortion), the administration has been giving policy wonk arguments about economic and pragmatic policy details that the public cannot understand: health exchanges, percentages of the poverty line (133 percent vs. 150 percent), and so on. They are real enough. But they do not communicate the moral issues.
Morality and Policy
Why should Congress move to reconciliation? Because it is moral. It is the right thing to do, because it will enhance life and freedom.
Why should the public option be in the reconciliation bill? Because it is right and practical: It allows the market to police the insurance companies - to keep their greed from overwhelming the life and freedom of tens of millions of Americans. And a public plan - an American Plan! - gives you and your doctor much more freedom to determine your treatment, with no profit incentives for insurance companies to deny you care.
Why should national exchanges, not state exchanges, be in the reconciliation bill? Because they provide greater economic freedom - through bigger pools, which means much more affordable insurance for all. Affordability means economic freedom!
Why cover folks up to 150 percent, not just 133 percent, of the poverty line? To offer life and freedom to many more of our fellow Americans.
Why should antitrust exemptions be ended for health insurance companies? Economic freedom! Antitrust exemptions function like corporate bailouts. They transfer the money from ordinary people into corporate coffers. By reducing or eliminating competition, corporations can charge more for less treatment to fewer people. Those extra charges, plus out-of-pocket costs when we are denied care under the plans, come out of our pockets. Antitrust exemptions take money out of our pockets and put it into corporate profits. They threaten our economic freedom.
And how should we be thinking about the passage of a health plan that makes progress but falls short of what is needed? We should be taking it as a national commitment - a moral commitment - to health for Americans. It is a commitment to doing what is right, to life, freedom and health security, a first step of many steps to come.
It is time to return to the moral fundamentals. Health security is deeply patriotic - perhaps our most important form of security. Health means life. Health means freedom. Everyone can understand that.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.




Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Yes! And a healthy country
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 15:30 β radline9 (not verified)Yes! And a healthy country works harder. For America to forsake the health of it's citizens is suicidal.
F-35s, stryker's n' C-17s -
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 15:53 β Anonymous (not verified)F-35s, stryker's n' C-17s - them is freedom' bleeding heart 'Muricans.
George, it's great to have
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 17:58 β Curt (not verified)George, it's great to have you back in the fight, and with "practical" advice such as this, because most of us don't understand how to modify the framing of issues even if we do understand your work. Keep 'em coming!
It seems from polls that a
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 20:52 β Mg (not verified)It seems from polls that a clear majority of Americans understand the importance of affordable healthcare, it's the politicians in DC who seem not to understand, or worse, their mission is to deliver a win to their campaign contributors, and if by some stroke of luck the bill does something good for the American people, all the better. This article restates all the reasons we've read and heard exhaustively by now- more preaching to the choir-because it relies on the standard Democratic approach of using common sense and rationality to attempt to reframe the message in a way conservatives can understand. It seems the Obama administration will not bend from their corporate-friendly "health insurance reform." It exposes Obama as disingenuous about his request for ideas to reform healthcare, as the arrest of Dr. Margaret Flowers of PNHP attests. It is instead a Democratic strategy to expose Republicans as obstructionist. But everyone knows Republicans are being obstructionist, and many ordinary conservative Americans embrace it as their strategy. What is less evident is that Democrats are using this issue to gain political points with the American people. It's less apparent because they could hardly have gone about reform in a worse way: starting out by talking about provisions with no chance of passage, followed up with leaked news of backroom dealing with special interests that sold Americans out before the process even began, methodically killing the good provisions along the way, replacing them with worthless compromises like the Nelson amendment. And finally, displaying a lack of party unity through fractures that fall along lines corresponding to how much money one took from corporate donors for their campaign. If the final bill has a strong public option in it, perhaps it is worth passing. But this circus spectacle is reminiscent of the very unsuccessful attempt to privatize Social Security, in the tiresomely repetitive sales job of a disguised corporate giveaway.
What is the possiblilty of
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 22:07 β Heidi Reidell (not verified)What is the possiblilty of fuller employment by promoting a health care system that addresses prevention and health education, Costa Rica turned its military into educators, They are the Switzerland of the Caribbean. What if the workers in the insurance industry were retrained to provide paperwork support for real health maintenence organizations?
But like you have the right to refuse treatment, you should have the right to refuse to be part of any system, and take your chances.
Promote the general welfare. The foundation of our country.
Has anyone figured out how
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 22:49 β Anonymous (not verified)Has anyone figured out how many new jobs will be created with health care reform? Talk about a jobs bill--30 million new customers having access to medical care.
Seriously, now, George: does
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 23:01 β Liced-Christ (not verified)Seriously, now, George: does Obama seem like a man of moral principle, when he previously agreed, in closed door meetings, with health insurance CEO's about the final nature of this "health plan" even before it was discussed in the public sphere. Perhaps you've not yet caught on, but Obama is a neoliberal rat of the highest order: corporate domination over social issues is his true and tried trademark.
Germany has Europe's oldest
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 23:18 β Motorod (not verified)Germany has Europe's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. As mandatory health insurance, these bills originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees; their coverage, and that of subsequent legislation gradually expanded to cover virtually the entire population
We SUCK.
Thanks, George, for jumping
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 02:37 β Joe Brewer (not verified)Thanks, George, for jumping back into the frey.
Your old colleagues from the Rockridge Institute are developing a framing workbook on health care that will come out soon.
In the meantime, readers may be interested in this archive of articles about the framing of health care:
Exploring Health Care
Keeping the good work moving forward!
Good work George! We do need
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 13:11 β Phyllis Truran (not verified)Good work George!
We do need to look at health security as the moral issue it is!
You state it so well. I am forwarding the link to all my friends.
I thank my stars that I live
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 15:29 β Ancient LOndoner (not verified)I thank my stars that I live in the UK, not the US!
Health care truly is a moral
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 22:11 β Brian (not verified)Health care truly is a moral issue, but although I do see some Democrats frame it this way, many seem to prefer to frame it from an economic point of view (especially Obama). While it is true that our current system is slowly ruining our economy, it's much easier for most people to understand that a lack of health care directly kills tens of thousands every year, and the current system causes immense suffering for millions.
It would also be good to see more people frame the global warming debate in moral terms. The climate changes caused by global warming are already causing more suffering and death around the world than the broken health care system is causing in the U.S., and it's already causing the extinction of many species. But this is tiny compared with what is coming.