A few days ago, I wrote a diary about a column by movie critic Roger Ebert, in which he laid out the case for health insurance reform. Well, today he's back, and he's badder than ever.
Mr. Ebert is a cancer survivor. He has battled thyroid cancer for a while now, losing part of his jaw and his ability to speak. But he hasn't lost his ability to communicate.
He starts out powerfully:
It is a moral imperative. I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn't deserve it. A nation is a mutual undertaking. In a democracy, we set out together to do what we believe is good for the commonwealth. That means voluntarily subjecting ourselves to the rule of law, taxation, military service, the guaranteeing of rights to minorities, and so on. That is a cheap price to pay.
This is a magnificent restatement of the commitment we all make to each other when we choose to live in, if you'll pardon the term, a free republic. But he doesn't stop there, instead choosing to go all-in in a defense of "socialized" risk:
¶ It is "socialism." Again, yes. The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which "socialism" is generally thought of in negative terms. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close.
He makes our lack of concern for our neighbor a matter of national shame. Socialism with a small "s" -- something inherent to a modern democracy but warped by reactionary elements in the conservative part of the country. Let me be very clear: I am a capitalist. I believe in the market ... but not for everything. We don't leave national defense to the market, we don't leave fire protection to the market. We have made a cultural decision to spread the risk for these critical services among all citizens, and that is right and just.
Continuing:
It seems to me that universal health care is a win-win proposition. It provides an umbrella of protection for those who cannot afford or qualify for health insurance. This helps us all. Every time you learn from the news about our latest jobless statistics, consider this: A newly jobless person who was insured through an employee health plan is about to become a newly uninsured person. It's for our mutual good that we live in a healthier society. To provide universal coverage is the moral thing to do.
A moral thing to do. Indeed.
But that's not it. He closes with a long quotation from Matthew 25. I am not a practicing Christian, but even as an agnostic, I celebrate Matthew 25 as a powerful call to live a moral life, to bring one's morals into action.
Once again, Ebert distills this conflict into startlingly clear terms. He is a treasure.