An anecdote related by the Slovenian Marxist writer Slavoj Zizek tells of a witch who visits a peasant and offers him two alternatives: either she will give him one cow and his neighbor two, or she will take one cow from him and two from his neighbor. Without hesitation the peasant chooses the latter.
— From “Buddhist Christianity” by Ross Thompson
Like many people, I am grieving and terrified right now about the Senate Republicans midnight votes to gut the ACA and reject amendments that would retain some of its provisions (such as protection for those with pre-existing conditions). Given Monkey’s extensive medical history and conditions, this all hits very close and feels extremely personal. (And I will be at my local rally this Sunday, the 15th, to protest.)
I don’t understand how politicians can be so perfectly callous and indifferent to people’s lives; I presume they are so caught up in their world of corporate greed that they can’t remember the definition of the word “conscience.” But there is something else that bothers me, maybe even more, and that is the attitudes of many ordinary people who are not politicians.
These people do not like the ACA. They don’t like that their premiums and deductibles have gone up, and that’s totally understandable. I don’t like that their premiums and deductibles have gone up, either. But they don’t want a solution that would improve their own health costs and coverage while continuing to provide health care for the many people who have benefited from ACA’s provisions. (Such a solution might be, for instance, an integrated non-profit public system financed with higher taxes on capital gains and a progressive income tax that we would pay instead of premiums.) No, for this subset of the population, this solution is absolutely not OK. Only a complete repeal of the ACA with all its benefits and protections will satisfy them.
I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth: this is based on other people’s statements that I have heard in person (in a hospital, among other places) and read online.
Reading these comments, listening to the angry declamations, what I notice is that the lament about their own higher premiums/deductibles is inevitably accompanied by a lament that someone else isn’t paying anything, that someone else has expensive medical needs which have forced their own costs higher, that someone else is benefiting from this law which has made things worse for them. That’s the real sticking point. They hate that they are paying more for insurance than the single mom who works at Walmart and gets Medicaid. They hate that even though their own children are healthy, they are contributing to the pool of money that funds my two year old’s expensive surgeries, hospitalizations, and oxygen rentals. Why should my son affect their budget? Why should they pay a copay when the Walmart cashier doesn’t?
Their discontent is shaped by these comparisons. They don’t consider that maybe they are fortunate to have a job that pays higher than what Walmart pays or a partner with a job who’s not abusive or a child who doesn’t have a life-threatening illness. Those are other people’s needs, and yet these needs are touching their lives, making demands on them. Not demands that they can choose to attend or ignore in the form of voluntary charity, which would make them feel good and superior, but an inexorable claim enforced by the government.
The solution, then, cannot be a single payer system, because that means some form of income redistribution, and redistribution from the healthy to the sick according to need. Even if their own health care were better under such a system, it would be intolerable because of this redistribution, because others would be benefiting more. As in the parable above, they would rather have terrible health insurance as long as the single mom is uninsured, than have good health insurance that they pay into while the single mom is insured without paying.
Another parable that comes to mind here is Jesus’ parable of the workers in the vineyard.
And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last.” (Matthew 20:8-16)
If you read the full parable (not quoted here), you see that the men who worked less weren’t idling away the day in drunkenness (although if they had, I suspect the parable would be much the same). They were waiting around for someone to hire them. There was an element of chance in their being hired last, rather than of will or deserving – which actually characterizes much of our lives, from circumstances of birth and genetics onward. In any case, the owner has not taken anything from those who worked longest; he has paid them their full wages. They are not upset because they have been deprived, but because others who (in their eyes) worked less, received the same as they.
Isn’t this a sad state of mind? It’s precisely the opposite of compassion, which is an identification with the other, especially in the other’s need.
I try to keep religion out of this blog, but this is my prayer that across America, hearts and minds will be opened to the needs of others, touched with humility and gratitude, instead of this selfish pettiness. That each of us, if we have enough, can be happy to see others who have the same – or more – than we do. That we can aspire to solutions in which everyone has enough, instead of solutions in which women, children, the low-income, the disabled, and veterans are punished so that less vulnerable populations can feel better about themselves.