CPJ member Dan O'Rourke writes a regular column for the Dunkirk Observer.  The following, "Who Lost China? Who Lost Health Care?," was published January 28, 2010. 

In 1949-50 the political question of the day was “Who lost China?” Mao and the Communists had defeated Chiang Kai-Shek in the Chinese Civil War. Overnight China, an ally in the war against Japan had become a communist enemy. Senator Joseph McCarthy in a finger-pointing crusade blamed communist sympathizers. McCarthy’s demagogic witch-hunts ruined political, academic and journalistic careers and blacklisted many. It was not America’s finest hour.

Historians’ analysis of China’s “loss” has recognized the complexities of Chinese politics, the military weakness and personal arrogance of Chiang Kai-Shek, and the un-American excesses of McCarthyism.  Eventually in 1974, the Senate censured Senator McCarthy. Chiang Kai-Shek retreated to Taiwan, whose economy subsequently -- and ironically -- prospered.  Finally, President Richard Nixon visited China in 1972 and broke down cold war barriers. History had many surprises.

China’s shift to Communism was the convergence of many historical influences. No one “lost” it. The question before us today: “Who lost health care?” is domestic.  Like the “loss” of China, however, the debate is nasty and the answer complex.

The biggest losers in the loss of health care, however, are people like Mark Windsor. Uninsured with life-threatening diseases, Mark was 27 when surgeons removed a chondrosarcoma tumor, a rare bone cancer, from his neck. He thought he was cured.  Years later he left his job with its company-paid health insurance to pursue his dream of becoming a photographer. He never thought the cancer would return. It did. He was uninsurable. He died recently at the age of 53.

Who, however, is responsible that health care reform is not becoming law? No one person is. There is lots of blame to go around. Here’s a partial list.

It’s the fault of President Barack Obama who failed to take leadership on this historic legislation, which was to be his signature achievement.  He waited too long, was too vague on what he wanted, and much too deferential to Congress. 

It’s the fault of the congressional Republicans who saw defeating health care reform as denying Obama a political victory. They were more concerned with scoring political points than in fixing a health system that everyone admits is broken.

It’s the fault of the congressional Democrats who avoided any tort reform that would reduce medical malpractice lawsuits and doctors’ defensive over-prescribing. 

It’s the fault of Majority Leader Harry Reid who to ensure 60 votes and avoid a filibuster negotiated pork-laden deals with Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

It’s the fault of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi whose approach to the house version of the bill was unashamedly partisan.

It’s the fault of Senator Joseph Lieberman who every week had different reasons for opposing the senate version of the bill.  He seemed more interested in being in the spotlight than shedding light on the legislation.

It’s the fault of a deceptive advertising campaign of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries that spent millions to raises fears in the minds of the already insured and the elderly.

Ultimately, however, the failure to reform health care is the fault of the arcane rules of the Senate. Presently, a 41-member minority party can block legislation by filibuster. Why does the Senate need a supermajority on every piece of meaningful legislation? Filibusters are strangling the Senate of the United States.

Even the threat of a filibuster can lead to outlandish bribes like those to Senators Nelson and Landrieu.  Moreover, the filibuster is not in the constitution; it is simply a senate rule. The Senate has modified this rule before.  It is time to do it again.

Opponents of health care reform have criticized public health care as being socialist, totalitarian even communist. At best those claims are a stretch.  At worst they are dishonest. Are our public highways socialist? Are public schools totalitarian?  Is public transportation un-American?

Moreover, doesn’t the government administer Medicare, Medicaid and VA’s health care for veterans?  Are these publicly managed health systems communistic?  Of course not, and in comparison to private insurance companies, they are not inefficient. They do not pay out billions for lobbyists, for PR advertising and in political contributions for election campaigns. There's certainly a valid debate here on cost and coverage, but that debate is not about Marxist communism -- or death panels.

Those disappointed with the limitations of a health care bill should remember some history. Like the debate on the “loss” of China, it is full of surprises. When Social Security first became law in 1935, it had no provisions for farm workers, for government employees, for domestic help, for many teachers and social workers. Even then it was criticized as discriminatory on the basis of race and gender.  Congress, however, passed it and the Supreme Court upheld it. Social Security turned out to be historic legislation.  Over the years Congress would gradually add those segments of the workforce it initially excluded. Inevitably, the same evolution awaits an imperfect health care bill -- if indeed there ever will be one.

But the bottom line on health care is that billions of dollars are involved at every level of the insurance system -- and people and corporations hate losing money.

Many like Mark Windsor and Janell Smith, however, have lost more than money.  Janell was an anorexic to whom, according to her parents’ attorney, her insurance company did not provide adequate treatment. Janell was hospitalized weighing 63 pounds!  She was gaining strength and weight with nourishment from a feeding tube. Her health insurance, however, did not want to continue this treatment. The results were tragic. Janell went home despondent and took her own life -- another needless death that health care reform could have prevented.

If we could put politics aside -- and we can’t -- where is our national compassion for the Janells and Marks in our affluent and prosperous nation?