Obama's Health

Barack Obama’s main problem is that he won the election twice. It was a double strike, which voters who stayed at home or voted against him and some of those who simply could not exercise the right to vote — they were too young — have yet to digest. The mirage of global figures conceals that not even two-thirds of potential voters took the trouble to turn up at the polls. Of those who did, half flatly rejected him and favored McCain or Romney. This resulted in almost a quarter opting for Obama. As a reward for this double victory, those who favored his opponents, including those who abstained, denied him not only forgiveness, but also recognition. Their historical outline still does not include such a spectacular ascent by a black candidate.

This is the same sector that listened to the outrageous siren calls of Sarah Palin when she described the senator from Illinois as a “socialist” for having dared propose some threatening government programs in his campaign. The jewel on the crown was — and continues to be today — a moderate reform of the health care system, which seems to be like a revolution.

The plan has withstood in cobbled together form until now but risks being annihilated if Republicans and their followers get their way with their systematic attacks.

Evidently, some things have changed in the U.S. since the middle of the last century when the flames of World War II faded — Washington’s last “just war.” Some rules of conduct have not totally moved forward. When I arrived in America, on the eve of the Johnson administration, the father of my colleague in an elegant, excellent and expensive private high school was generous enough to put forward some predictions so I could get to know the country. As a doctor, he warned me that in a few years the country would adopt a “socialized” health care system, similar to Europe’s. As soon as I had recovered from this emphatic calculation, he livened up and, with near admiration for my European origins, assured me that in the same time frame, the U.S. would adopt the metric system.

Curious to confirm if such drastic predictions would become reality, I decided to stay in this intriguing country: My family continues going to the market, filling the gas tank, calculating distances of trips by car and plane in miles, measuring weight and height in a combination of ways that still echo old England. And almost half a century later — each year, I examine with particular care the conditions of the medical insurance my university provides, with an obligatory and generous contribution from my salary, of course. I feel lucky, especially because millions of Americans do not have this privilege. They play with life and toy with financial ruin by not relying on any insurance, and they still cannot benefit from the protection of medical coverage of full retirement.

More than a financial interpretation of the expenses and benefits of the implementation of the proposed mixed system, the system’s stubbornness in not giving reason to my friend’s father is due to some internal historical reasons, firmly established in the American psyche and stirred up by a dominant group of politicians with economic interests. The majority of the Republican Party and its affiliates — not just tea party activists — systematically manage to deepen a double feeling in the average American: on the one hand, of being suspicious of the government and on the other, having an atrocious panic, seeing oneself identified as a member of an inferior class that has to get to the end of the month with the help of food stamps.

This sector, an ample majority, lives in permanent ideological and sociological contradiction. It is fundamentally “anarchist” and would prefer to survive without the help of the government. Therefore, it should protect itself from lack of governance through laws and courts that it ends up tolerating religiously with enthusiasm. For this reason, whatever exudes the taste of “socialism” makes them nervous. From birth, its members are fed with the awareness of a false dichotomy between “democracy” (capitalism to the death) and “socialism” (a synonym of communism).

But the same citizens who lack faith in Obama’s plans would not even dream of opposing other facets of U.S. life. Their existence would be inconceivable without elementary and high school — free, universal and obligatory, designed like a factory for citizens. The mere mention of having to pay for a textbook causes a riot. Those who want a different or more expensive education must pay for it: no mention of “charter schools” for the Spanish, with religious connections, or moderating “vouchers.”

It is not necessary to remind Americans that a few dozen European countries and Canada have many indicators of better health than the United States and life expectancy is higher for a lower cost. Furthermore, if it is Obama — who is of mixed race — who dares propose a system that defies the oligopoly of the private insurance industry and pressure of the medical profession with the announcement of medical and research companies that make use of public funds, the drama is served. The change will be more difficult than the universal adoption of the metric system.