AN ETHICAL PRESIDENT? OBAMA, LINCOLN AND THE HEALTH CARE VICTORY

AN ESSAY

While the moment is fresh, I must write a few words about the monumental health care reform bill that passed Congress this week. It is really quite a surprising--and inspiring--development. I had to temper my usual cynicism when I realized that the United States actually took a serious step toward reforming its health insurance system. Although President Obama always said he wanted to change health care, I gradually lost faith that he could penetrate furious Republican resistance. But against all prognostications, he did penetrate the resistance. He may have won only by a small margin. Nonetheless, Obama's principled win over private health insurance companies is unprecedented in modern American history.

Still, I am not writing about the health care bill today per se. I am not going to exhaustively discuss its intricacies, loopholes or missed opportunities. True, it is not fundamental reform. It does not create a European-style "single-payer" government-run health insurance program that guarantees coverage to every citizen as a matter of right. Nonetheless, as President Obama noted, it is "major" reform. It regulates private health insurance companies in significant ways. It prevents them from refusing to cover people with "pre-existing medical conditions" (ie, "most people"). And it mandates that everyone obtain health insurance. Uninsured Americans (including me) will benefit because the legislation provides extremely low-priced coverage from a "high-risk, government-supported" insurance company. In other words, health care won't be free for uninsured people. But it will be close to it.

For almost a century, no President has achieved such meaningful reform to American health care. And it is not just the legislation's substance that bears mention. In my view, the most memorable thing about Obama's health care victory is the ethical manner in which he conducted himself throughout the debate.

Public faith in American politicians is virtually nonexistent. People expect them to lie, hoodwink, steal, gladhand and enrich themselves at public expense. They expect politicians to sacrifice all their principles to save their jobs. When a politician says something, the natural response is to assume that he will do the opposite. In short, most people think that ethics is completely foreign to Washington politics. Promises mean nothing. People expect politicians to break them as soon as the water gets hot. In a word, people are extremely cynical about politicians in America.

But then along came Obama. In 2008, he won a landslide victory by promising "change we can believe in." He seemed a breath of fresh air in the noxious political marshland, a man who did not seem ready to engage in backroom dealing or pork barreling. He talked about principles and truth. He was a "white knight;" he was an uncorrupted soul. Although cynical Americans always have a hard time dropping their natural suspicion about politicians, they did when they elected Obama. They really thought that Obama meant what he said. They thought he would hold to his promises. He promised to reform health care.

In 2009, President Obama began the push for health care reform. Despite his good intentions, mean-spirited Republican resistance undermined his popularity. As the year wore on--and as the economy continued to falter--even Democrats began to question whether Obama could get anything done. They wondered whether all his campaign promises had just been rhetorical fluff. Republicans caricatured Obama as a "law professor," a man who thought too much and did too little. Critics castigated him for being "too polite for Washington." They blamed him for giving too much deference to opposing arguments. In other words, he was too weak to survive Washington's ruthless, dog-eat-dog political atmosphere.

Yet President Obama stayed true to his heart. He did not turn into a conniving Washington technocrat. No, he stood by his promises. He swore to push through health reform no matter the political cost. He did not care whether his commitment to his word would cost him a second term. He said he would fight for health reform. So he kept fighting. And he did not become an ogre in the process, either. He retained his composed decorum, even as Republicans hyperventilated around him and spread outrageous horror stories about "Obamacare."

Obama's fidelity to his own word paid off this week. Despite all the tempests and scares in Congress over the past few months, both the House and Senate passed a substantial reform bill. Although every vote along the way split sharply down party lines, the reform effort pressed forward. Something larger was at work beyond mere politics. Obama's commitment to his word seemed to vault Congress past its stifling political slavishness. What was it? It was the power of ethics.

It is no surprise that Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln the day before the House voted on health care reform. Obama quoted: "I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have." Put another way, it is always more important to do right than it is to worry about your political future. And there are deeper rewards to be gained from ethical fulfillment than mere reelection. No words could have encapsulated Obama's extraordinary commitment to ethics in Washington more poignantly.

Abraham Lincoln is the most inspiring President in American history because he was the most ethical President. He took office as the Nation faced its single worst crisis. He then transformed a War for Union into a crusade to end slavery in the United States. He did this because slavery was simply "wrong" as an ethical matter. His decision was politically unpopular. Someone assassinated him for it. But he did it because it was the ethically right thing to do. Lincoln had no personal interest in freeing the slaves. Politically, it was unnecessary. Yet he did it because he did not just care about "winning." He cared about being "true" and "living up to the light he had." That meant following ethics in his heart, not the politics that raged outside him.

Almost no President has dared to jeopardize his political future to "do the right thing." While health reform may not be as significant as ending slavery in America, President Obama nonetheless followed in Lincoln's footsteps by committing himself to an unpopular cause and risking everything to realize it. That is inspiring. And it is almost shocking, because it contradicts the comfortable cynicism most people adopt when thinking about Washington politicians. After all, can you believe what you just heard? A President is willing to risk everything to reform health care because he promised to risk everything to reform health care? You mean he actually takes his word that seriously? Can't be!

But it is, and that's what is so moving about Obama's victory. It was not just a technical victory over unfairness in health care. It was a victory of ethics over politics. It was a victory of principle over expediency. Obama pushed health care because he said he would. That is almost unprecedented in modern American political history. And it is even more inspiring that he did not let the "turkeys get him down" along the way. He kept his composure. He maintained his respect and dignity. He remained a "law professor," no matter how much people ridiculed him for it.

He didn't just care about winning. Rather, he was "bound to be true." And suddenly I find myself with an anomaly: Ethics just prevailed in Washington. That makes it harder for me to scowl and wax cynical about America.

Now, I'm actually inclined to smile. I feel strangely justified today. I love it when ethical people prevail, even if just for a day.

As I have always said, there is more to life than winning games.

WE CAN SOLVE AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS WITH EDUCATION AND PRIVATE LENDING

ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS FROM GREAT MINDS

By : Dr. T. Everett Branwell, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.O.G., D.V.M., M.B.A., C.P.A., President and Charter Member, Paying Customers United for Quality Health Care; Chairman and CEO, Gastro-Tech Intestinal Scanning Instruments LLC (a Delaware Limited Liability Company); Married; Hospital Cost-Control Consultant; Amateur Dog Breeder.

America hungers for a miraculous solution to the health care mess. For more than a year now, we have watched President Obama struggle to balance the myriad forces bearing upon this issue. For more than a year now, we have seen little improvement: Millions remain uninsured; malpractice lawyers game the system with frivolous suits; surgery still costs an arm and leg (in more ways than one); and health care costs are still driving this country to financial ruin. Although Congress wisely avoided committing America to a wasteful European-style "public option" in its recent health care legislation, the bill leaves many questions unanswered. In a word, it is no solution.

We will not rescue healthcare without solutions that reinforce American virtues. Handouts and subsidies will not get the job done. Neither will government programs that interfere with private decisionmaking. Rather, we must attack the problem directly while cultivating self-reliance and respect for private enterprise. Government can do no job that a private person cannot do better. I trust the American people. And I know that an ambitious American can achieve anything he sets out to accomplish.

We must start from square one. Health care fails in America primarily because there are not enough doctors. Costs rose to astronomical levels because doctors are in limited supply, yet demand for their services is higher than ever. As any economics student can tell you, that's a recipe for runaway prices. The bottom line is this: You need doctors to provide healthcare; and there aren't enough doctors to provide it to everyone who needs it. Add the facts that Americans live longer, weigh more and exercise less and you soon discover how grave this crisis really is.

In a typical scenario, an American gets sick. He spends days waiting for the right doctor to see him. He cannot work during that time. He worries whether he will recover. In essence, he must be passive; he must wait for the doctor to help him. This is not good for the economy or the Nation. We need more doctors so that sick people can recover faster. If there were a doctor right around the corner, this poor man would receive immediate attention and get back to work sooner.

So how do we create more doctors? Simple: By education. Doctors do not grow on trees; they must be trained. But this is not a drawback; it is an opportunity. Education is good for America. Because doctors depend on education, we can address the health care problem through education. I care about America. I care about education. I care about health care. That is why I have devised a foolproof solution that will harmonize all these things.

We can rescue healthcare in America by requiring all Americans to become doctors. If everyone were a doctor, no one would have to go to the hospital or take time off work. Instead, sick people would be able to care for themselves. If a man breaks his leg, he could set the bone himself, administer anesthesia to himself, keep a detailed treatment log for himself, administer physical therapy to himself, write his own prescriptions and be back on his feet in no time. And he could do all this without depending on others: No wait times, no insurance forms, no missed work. If he encountered a problem in treatment, he could always call on his wife, children or parents, all of whom, too, would have the medical expertise needed to heal him. Put simply, mandatory medical education would render virtually every health care dilemma moot.

We understand that it takes a long time to become a doctor. Many people shy away from careers in medicine because they do not want to stay in school until they are 40 and stay awake for 24 hours several nights a week. But we have seen what happens when our society does not have enough doctors. Our health care system fails because doctors cannot handle all the sick people in an expeditious manner. If everyone becomes a doctor, however, these problems will instantly disappear. Yes, it is a significant investment. But in the end, it will solve the health care mess.

Still, we can only achieve this happy result through a complete educational overhaul. We must finance every American's medical education, and that will cost a lot of money. Yet we must never underestimate the strength of American private enterprise. As long as we provide sufficient incentives to private enterprise in America, we can expect miracles. By the same token, if we leave substantial questions in government hands, we can expect disasters. In that light, we must put our faith in the free market to deliver quality medical education to every American. Just as mandatory medical education will breed self-reliance in the population, so too will private educational financing teach fiscal responsibility to every American.

To realize the dream of universal American medical education, we must require every American to take out private educational loans. At the same time, we must abolish government-backed educational loans in order to maximize private competition in lending. We will not achieve our educational goals by stifling healthy free market activity; banks cannot do their work if they are not free to charge as much interest as they wish on student loans. In that light, we also must insist that every American pay only interest on their student loans in perpetuity. This will allow banks to constantly increase their outstanding balances, thereby increasing their income and maximizing their shareholder revenues. When banks prosper, so does America. Thus, mandatory private financing for mandatory medical education will kill two birds with one stone: It will solve the health care crisis by making everyone a doctor; and it will also reward healthy private banking.

The solution is obvious.

Critics will inevitably counter that America requires employment diversity to survive in the 21st Century. Specifically, they say that doctors are not the only profession that Americans need. According to these critics, Americans need mechanics, lawyers, steelworkers, coffee shop baristas, taxi drivers, cashiers, plumbers, nude dancers, ditch diggers, soldiers, politicians, toilet cleaners, peddlers and stockbrokers, too.

We do not disagree. Our critics do not understand what we mean when we say "universal medical education." We do not mean that everyone must stop their educational pursuits as soon as they become doctors. We simply mean that everyone must at least be a doctor before undertaking another profession. This is the only way that Americans can truly achieve medical self-sufficiency. In other words, once a man becomes a doctor, he is free to learn donutmaking or some other craft. We understand that Americans need donutmakers as much as they need doctors. But under our plan, a medically-educated donutmaker will have the knowledge to care for his own medical problems, rather than depend on someone else if his health fails. We agree that America needs other professions. We simply insist that everyone must at least be a doctor.

We actually encourage Americans to pursue educational goals beyond medicine. After all, when everyone is a doctor, salaries for doctors will inevitably decrease. That will require enterprising Americans to find novel new ways to make money. Once again, private enterprise will light the way: Banks stand ready to provide private loans to any doctor who wishes to learn another trade.

Mandatory medical education is right for America in many ways. It will not only solve the intractable financial problems associated with health care. It will also teach virtue. This country rose to preeminence because Americans are self-sufficient. The health care mess developed because too many Americans were not self-sufficient. But those days will end as soon as every American becomes a doctor. On that day, Americans will treat their own diseases; they will not need anyone else to help them. In our view, this will reinforce the gritty determination that made America great in the first place.

Sickness and injury will no longer signal desperation and worry. To the contrary, a medically-educated American will confront them with defiance. "I have HIV? Pah, I can treat myself for it," he will say. And he won't owe anyone else a dime for things he can handle himself.

We must implement mandatory medical education at once. It is the only way to extricate ourselves from the health care money pit in which we now find ourselves. It is the best possible way to overcome this crisis. It offers nothing but benefits. It fosters respect for education; that's good for America. It teaches self-reliance; that's good for America. It teaches fiscal responsibility; that's good for America. It supports private enterprise; that's good for America. And it does all these things without government interference; and that's definitely good for America.

Americans are individuals. They can do anything as long as they know what they are doing. It's time to harness that spirit to solve health care. It's time to make everyone a doctor.

True, every new doctor will emerge into the world saddled with debt. But that will just be an incentive to work harder and better. Debt is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a very good thing for banks. And when banks prosper, so does America.

Tell your Congressman that you can handle your own medical problems. You can be your own surgeon. You don't need Congress or President Obama to bail you out.

Mandatory medical education. It's the only way. The American way.®

OESTERHOUDT REVIEWS THE DECADE--AND HIMSELF

A REFLECTION

I've always seen life through the lens of history, including my own existence. I have always been able to remember dates with uncanny accuracy. Over the past week, I took the time to reflect on the decade that just ended. It's worth doing: You don't move into a new decade every day. And memories fade fast.

What a perplexing decade. The first decade of the 21st Century was my first full decade as an adult. On January 1, 2000, I was a wild, mop-haired 22-year-old sapling who knew virtually nothing about life. At the time, of course, I thought I knew everything. On December 31, 2009, I was 32 and had been in a committed relationship for more than nine years. My father had died, I had graduated from law school and no matter how much I learned, I found out how little I really understood about life.

Every year brought a new crisis--and a new crisis in values. I learned to take absolutely nothing for granted. In my first full decade as an adult on this planet, I saw that life is precarious. And I learned you need to savor it. I determined never to let myself forget that.

But today I want to talk about more than myself. I was not the only person (or thing) who changed over the past ten years. No, the world, too, changed immensely between 2000 and 2009. Put simply, these were bleak times. We endured stolen elections, mass murder on American soil, foreign wars, government fear-mongering, out-of-control corporate excess, lending abuses and ultimately the worst economic crisis since 1929. These were the Bush years. These were the years when the world learned to hate the United States more than it ever has in the past.

I am an amateur historian. So today I will try to sum up the decade as briefly as I can. In the process, I will try to encapsulate the spirit of these profoundly difficult times. To that end, I will write a few words about geopolitical developments that occurred during each year in the decade. Then, for perspective's sake, I will write a few words about things that happened in my own life during the same time.

In 2000, America relished dot-com prosperity. Most Americans had good jobs. There was a budget surplus. Still, many Americans did not like the man whose rule made these things possible: President Bill Clinton. They blamed him for fornicating in the Oval Office. That fall, Americans went to the polls. They had a choice: They could pick Al Gore if they wanted to continue the Democratic policies that led to prosperity in the late 1990s; or they could pick George W. Bush, the Texan challenger who offered a chance to chastise Bill Clinton for his sexual escapades. In the end, Al Gore got more votes, but George W. Bush won the election. The Supreme Court decided who would be President by a 5-4 vote. That maddening result set the tone for the decade: Ruthless division in American society marked by mutual accusations of unfair play and unbridled contempt on both sides. The era of George W. Bush had begun.

I finished college in 2000. I had no idea what to do with myself. I knew nothing about commerce; somehow I thought I would use my German language skills to land translation jobs and pay the rent in New York City. I rented a roach-infested one-bedroom apartment with a collapsing ceiling on 146th Street for $600 a month (hey, at least it was near the 'A' train). I rode around the city on a bike during the summer. Somehow--thanks to the heady economic climate at the time--I managed to make money translating German. It was an exciting time for me. I met the love of my life in June; I have been with him ever since. At one point, I even had the most money I have ever had in my bank account: $10,000. I turned 23.

No one will ever forget 2001. In fact, the government doesn't let us forget it, because that's the year 9/11 happened. Islamic resentment against the United States had been brewing for several decades by the time airliners knocked down the World Trade Center. American involvement in the Gulf War--as well as an intrusive American military presence in the Middle East--had long ruffled Muslim feathers. But Bush and all the pundits had us believe that 9/11 was an unprovoked, totally unanticipated attack. Americans suddenly felt vulnerable; no foreign army had ever attacked American soil in modern times. For a brief moment, the pure shock of the crisis united Americans in an unprecedented way; creditors even gave people breaks on debt. That unity swiftly disappeared, however, as Bush polarized the Nation by committing it to a "wartime" stance against "terror." By December, American troops had invaded and occupied Afghanistan. War had come to America. And we're still living with it.

My fortunes changed in 2001, too. My translation jobs dried up as the economy began to crumble in the months before 9/11. I began to worry about money for the first time in my life, and I made the unnerving discovery that my college education had not prepared me at all for commercial existence. I grudgingly began looking for a "real job." My dissatisfaction grew when I found out that my training in German, Russian and comparative literature did not impress corporate recruiters; they were more interesting in my typing speed. Finally, I settled on pursuing a career in law. It seemed the only thing that accommodated my abilities and offered a salary sufficient to pay New York rent. So I started working as a legal assistant, about four blocks from the World Trade Center. On September 8, my partner and I took a trip to Chicago. From there, we saw the Twin Towers fall. We decided that maybe it was time to leave New York for a while. After all, the law firm where I worked was buried in dust. So we moved to Chicago. I went to work at a law firm there making $31,500. The law firm even gave me a Tiffany ball-point pen on my first day. I turned 24.

President Bush maximized his power in 2002. Using Americans' desperate fear after 9/11 to his advantage, he systematically implemented practices that chipped away at everyone's constitutional liberties. Enforcing the "Patriot Act," government agents began wiretapping phones and spying on Americans' reading habits. The military confined so-called "enemy combatants" at secret installations throughout the world, denying them Due Process and access to counsel. Meanwhile, Americans worried that terrorists were planning yet more attacks. The Federal government fanned their fears with a "five-layer color-coded terror warning system." It has never fallen below yellow, nor has it ever risen above orange. And Americans witnessed the Enron scandal in 2002. They got a glimpse into the culture of greed and excess that marked corporate society during the decade. Sadly, they also learned that these were the folks Bush wanted to protect more than anyone else.

My 2002 was relatively unexciting. I got up every morning and rode the Chicago "El" to the law firm, where I shuffled papers and stapled things for about 10 hours a day. Still, I was very much a careerist in 2002. I wanted to prove that I, too, could make a lot of money. To do that, I was determined to get into a top law school and be a better lawyer than the ones for whom I collated copies at the office. I studied for the LSAT. I filled out applications. I chased down reference letters and made phone calls. I researched schools and their statistics. I thought I would waltz right into the Ivy League thanks to my undergraduate grades. But I am not a standardized test ace, and my lackluster LSAT score led all the top schools to reject me. This was a bitter pill for me. It was the first bad news I ever had in an academic pursuit. Yet I blamed the system for the result. I still loved learning; I did not let a bunch of lowly test-writers discourage me. I turned 25.

America invaded Iraq in 2003. Capitalizing on lingering fears about terrorism--and by convincing the American people that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction"--President Bush claimed that Iraq posed a "direct threat" to American sovereignty. So in Bush's mind, it was no invasion at all; it was "self-defense." The military even titled it "Operation Iraqi Freedom," as if America actually cared whether Iraqis had a democratic constitution. The war swiftly toppled Saddam Hussein, leading President Bush to declare in May: "We have prevailed." But this was sheer delusion. A civil war broke out in Iraq. Resentment against American occupation made existing tensions even worse. American casualties rose, as did American commitments. The mission was not "accomplished." In fact, it continues to this day--with 6,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead so far.

I got into law school in 2003. I landed a partial scholarship at New York Law School, so I moved back to New York from Chicago. I was overjoyed to be back in school; it was so much better than slaving away at an office for $31,500 a year. For three years, I had not really challenged myself intellectually. But once I started law school, I rediscovered why I always liked being a student. I poured myself into study for twelve hours every day. I did very well in my classes, even if I stressed out about them too much. I felt a real sense of accomplishment. I enjoyed what I studied, even if I could not know at the time that it would not help me in law practice. In 2003, I still thought that the law would make me rich. I had every confidence that my grades would translate into career success. My old law firm in Chicago even said it would hire me the following summer. I also swam a lot in 2003; I went to the gym to counterbalance my studies, and I loved that, too. I liked the way my body looked. I had some difficulties with my parents, but that was about my only challenge in 2003. I turned 26.

America began to understand the Iraq war in 2004. To most people, it became obvious that Iraq had not been "liberated." In fact, more major battles took place in 2004 than in the previous year. Additionally, many people saw that American forces were not as heroic as some sources made them out to be. Americans saw shocking images from the torture chambers at Abu Ghraib prison. In those images, Americans did not appear as noble warriors, but rather torturers and villains. Furthermore, Americans began to appreciate how many civil liberties they had surrendered to advance the "war on terror." They began to see that America was losing serious credibility abroad. Detainee abuse cases became big news in 2004. John Kerry tried to bring these issues to the forefront by challenging Bush for the Presidency. But Bush harped on terror and gay marriage to handedly win the election. Although many Americans began to see how much dignity America was compromising in its open-ended quest to "defeat terror," they could not muster the courage to stop the government's spiral into lawlessness.

I finished my first year in law school in 2004. Relatively speaking, it had been a harrowing experience. I remember feeling overworked and stressed that spring. But my toils had been worth it: I was number 6 in my class of 400. Armed with my grades, I transferred to Loyola Law School in Chicago after my old law firm assured me that they would offer me a job that summer. Unfortunately, after my partner and I had rented an apartment and moved back to Chicago, the law firm told me "they could no longer afford to hire me." This was a serious disappointment. But I made the most of it and attended to my legal studies with the same zeal as ever. In the fall, I contracted a strange infection that damaged my inner ear. I lost my hearing in one ear for several months, and my equilibrium has never been perfect since. I had some troubles with my partner as he struggled with depression and anxiety. I turned 27.

In 2005, America saw who was really important in society. That year, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the gulf coast. President Bush famously did nothing, allowing the poor black people to drown and starve waiting for aid. He did not even tour the disaster site, choosing instead to fly overhead, remarking: "That looks pretty bad." Congress passed a law in 2005 limiting consumer access to bankruptcy, further supporting the big business and banking interests that formed the Republican base. As in 2002, we learned who was really important in George Bush's America: The big corporations and banks. At the same time, lenders and traders began profiting from Republican policies that deregulated the financial industry. A false prosperity began to develop, propelled by predatory loans and fraudulent credit practices.

My law school career neared its end in 2005. During the summer, I took my first real "legal job" working as a law clerk at a Chicago personal injury firm. I enjoyed the work, winning many accolades from my bosses for my writing, theory and research. I dove headlong into the theoretical aspects of the law, and that served me well as I molded strategies for every case that crossed my desk. At the same time, I took a passionate interest in constitutional law, which made sense because it represents the intersection between law, history, policy, politics, ethics and philosophy. I had never been so excited about the law. By 2005, I had developed a real fluency in legal doctrine; and I put that fluency to work for me. I had no reason to think that I would not be happy in the profession. I briefly separated from my partner during the spring, but we reunited stronger than ever a month later. My partner reconciled with my parents in 2005. Things were looking very promising for me. I turned 28.

President Bush's fortunes began to change in 2006. Public dissatisfaction grew as the war in Iraq ground endlessly on. Although Bush declared that his 2004 election victory gave him a "mandate" to broadly legislate on major issues, he suffered a critical setback in 2006 when Republicans lost their congressional majority. Without congressional support, Bush's sweeping conservative rhetoric became toothless. Although the Nation continued to bask in deregulated prosperity in 2006, more and more Americans saw that economic trouble lurked just around the corner. Unemployment inched upward in 2006. Mortgage defaults accelerated as consumers discovered that banks held "adjustable rate" powers that tacked interest onto principal, resulting in permanent, increasing debt. Although Wall Street remained strong, ominous signs about the Nation's financial future began to appear.

My life changed for the worse in 2006. In January, my father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He fought hard, but by June he was dead. This cast a pall over my existence. I lost interest in the career path that had entranced me for the previous five years. If, after all, everything could end as quickly as it did for my father, why should I really stress out about petty things like money and jobs? Yet through all this I managed to finish law school and pass the Bar Exam. In hindsight, I don't know how I managed it. My perspective on life fundamentally changed in 2006. I carried that new perspective with me as I began practicing law in Chicago. I absolutely hated it. Practice was nothing like the happy legal theorizing I did in 2005. No, practice was all about money. My bosses ridiculed me for indecision. They mocked me for caring too much about justice when money was at stake. At the firm Holiday party that year, I saw "successful" lawyers falling all over each other drunk. They yelled, cursed, boasted and acted like children. At that moment, I decided that I could not practice law. I saw that law was a business, and it chafed against my very spirit. I did not know what I would do. I had spent three years pouring my heart into legal doctrine, yet I could not practice it. I didn't care. My father's death forced me to deeply question all the things that people are "supposed to do" in life. I turned 29.

America blundered ever closer to financial collapse in 2007. As the decade entered its later years, Bush lost more and more influence. Still, the war in Iraq droned forward, claiming more and more lives. Unemployment grew in 2007, even though Wall Street continued to report gains. Deregulation seemed to be working; people could still buy homes without putting money down. A deeper and deeper rift grew between rich and poor in 2007. The bubble was growing. And men like Bernie Madoff took full advantage of it.

Life did not get any easier for me in 2007. Having questioned my career in the law, I toyed with the idea of becoming a judge, or at least a judicial law clerk. If I could not practice, perhaps I could find a place for my intellectual passion in government. It was not to be; no one was hiring thanks to a "budget freeze." So I made ends meet by working as a legal consultant. This suited me. I did not have a boss; I was not under pressure to woo clients or make money. I just put in my time without stress and went home with a paycheck. True, it was not very stimulating. But it gave me a chance to meet interesting people and live my life in some peace. In August, however, disaster struck. My partner suffered a freak burn accident that left him in the hospital near death. He stayed there 35 days. His heart stopped twice on the operating table. I was at his side the whole time. He came home in September; our life has never been the same. I had to learn to be a nurse as well as a wage-earner. I dressed his wounds every day, I managed his medications and I held his hand when he was scared. It has been a full-time job, and it has not ended. Once again, I came face to face with death. I almost lost him, just one year after my father died. That experience convinced me yet again that I made the right decision to abandon "careers" and simply focus on living life without unrealistic expectations. Life is precious; and it can end more quickly that you can possibly imagine. There's no time to worry about inconsequential things. I turned 30.

In 2008, America experienced what happens when you deregulate financial markets. In 2008, America suffered the consequences of Bush-era economic policies. Wall Street collapsed in September, necessitating massive governmental intervention to rescue financial institutions that were "too big to fail." By divorcing government from business, Bush spurred artificial growth during his term. But in so doing, he gave free rein to greed, which ultimately destroyed the economy. Unemployment rose to dizzying heights. People could no longer pay their mortgages. Record numbers pled for government aid. For the first time in decades, Americans wanted increased government intervention into economic and social affairs. Seizing the moment, a new political force arose: Barack Obama. At this critical juncture in American history, Obama fascinated the public. He offered a new path to address modern challenges, a path that focused on oversight and socialization rather than deregulation. Critics claimed he would destroy the free market. But in 2008, Americans had had enough of the free market. They elected him in a landslide.

I spent 2008 caring for my partner as he recovered from his accident. I continued working low-stress consulting jobs. After years of study and toil, I finally had a chance to reflect on what I had become. I still loved the law; I simply did not like the business of law. I continued to study law and think about it every day. But I no longer exulted it. Rather, I began to assimilate my legal knowledge with all the other things I had learned to that point. I delved once more into philosophy and language in 2008. I re-read books I had not opened in ten years; and now I could actually understand them. I also rekindled my Wanderlust. I traveled to Berlin for the first time in years and went back three more times. I started speaking German again. And I started writing. I felt I had amassed enough learning and experience to finally express myself with some confidence. I began this blog in September; since then it has reinvigorated my life. I live to write now. I analyze everything with a new respect. Despite all the setbacks, I found something I loved--and it inspired me in a way I had never felt before. I turned 31.

America began traveling a new path in 2009. President Obama assumed a daunting task: Salvaging the United States from financial ruin. Despite vicious opposition from Republicans, he spent huge amounts in an attempt to "stimulate" floundering enterprises and spur job growth. He also committed America to reforming its health care system. Like perhaps no other social issue, health care is a moral symbol for progressive government. Under Bush, health care was just another article in commerce. That led to widespread injustice because many Americans could not obtain medical care for financial reasons. Obama recognized that and put America on a path to increased social activism in government. As laudable as that may be, the battle over health care has turned into a battle for America's soul. Can we become a more progressive people? Or are we so determined to "pay our own way" in life that we refuse to change for the better? In 2009, America struggled to adjust its focus. Plus Michael Jackson died and Tiger Woods cheated on his wife.

I continued to care for my partner in 2009. Although his physical condition improved, his mental condition did not. He began to suffer from debilitating depression during the winter, so much so that he could not get out of bed for weeks on end. This required me to stay at home full-time. Thanks to generous friends, I did this all year. But my partner did not get any better. During the summer, his depression swung into mania, turning both our lives upside down. Ultimately, he had to stay in the hospital for almost a month. After he came home, I once again assumed the nurse's role, but in a much more pervasive way. He has never been more dependent on me, now even for basic life necessities. I am happy to help him. Despite all the challenges, I wrote my blog almost every morning in 2009. In February, we moved back to New York in order to be closer to friends who can help us. I am happy to be back in the city I love. I turned 32.

I do not know what the future holds. But I am oddly confident. My writing has saved my life in so many ways. I have a feeling that 2010 will be a great year for me, and that I will apply all the lessons I learned over the past decade in the new one.

Wisdom truly emerges over time. By that standard, I am far richer today than I was in 2000.

DANGEROUS RHETORIC ON HEALTH CARE : OBAMA IS NOT HITLER

AN ESSAY

Public rhetoric about health care reform is getting quite belligerent these days. It seems I can’t read the newspaper without noticing a story about some outraged maniac who disrupts a town hall meeting about health care. Interestingly, these outbursts do not break down along party lines. Both Republicans and Democrats publicly freak out as soon as anyone mentions health care. No one really seems to know all the facts. Misinformation is rampant. Everyone is worried. People think they either will lose their health care or pay away their entire salary in taxes. Seniors think the Federal government will take away their prescription drugs and repeal Medicare. Insurance companies have launched campaigns intended to make Americans reflexively recoil from the words “socialist medicine” and “single-payer system.”

But amid all this confusion, no one knows what will happen. This leaves a lot of room for propaganda, deception, manipulation and even violent rhetoric. So the Nation just blusters along: Shouting, screaming and accusing imaginary enemies of imaginary conspiracies. It is a dangerous climate. When large numbers become desperate and irrational like this, really bad things can happen.

Before Obama won the election last year, I wrote a piece about hatred in the United States. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2008/10/prediction.html. I openly worried that Obama could well face assassination in a country with such a profound legacy of intolerance, hatred and political violence, especially involving racial questions. During Obama’s first few months in office, he seemed to transcend those worries. The Nation was entranced; it could not really believe it just elected a black President. For a few fleeting weeks, Obama’s hopeful rhetoric seemed to have triumphed. In such a confident atmosphere, no one could think to assassinate this man.

But times are changing. Health care is Obama’s first major confrontation with deeply entrenched power structures in American society. To reform health care, hopeful rhetoric is not enough. Rather, reforming health care takes gritty, exhausting political pragmatism. It takes courage and clear vision. At the same time, it takes a fighting spirit. After all, there are too many vested interests with too many profits at stake in the current system. Insurance companies and drug barons will not just roll over and allow reform. Shouting “Yes we can” will not transform a free market bastion into a socialist utopia. In a word, genuine health care reform requires immense social changes. And vested interests resist immense social changes by any means necessary, including subversion, misinformation, propaganda, intimidation and murder.

This is not paranoia. This is history. When reforming Presidents and social leaders genuinely “threaten immense change” in American life, they put themselves in mortal danger. Abraham Lincoln dared to abolish slavery, a vital component in American life up to his time. That effort upset vested interests; he was murdered. John F. Kennedy dared to deconstruct America’s military industrial complex; he was murdered. Robert Kennedy promised to bring “social justice” to American life through civil rights legislation and “big government” spending; he was murdered. Martin Luther King, Jr. dared to propose racial harmony and to condemn inequality in the United States; he was murdered, too. President Obama—a black man, no less—now dares to dismantle private control over health care in the United States. Health care is a multi-trillion dollar business. Powerful people really like the way it is now, unjust or not. His effort has already ruffled vested interests. He is inviting danger.

You can sense the danger simply by following the rhetoric. Just last week, for instance, I saw pictures from a Republican rally somewhere in the Midwest. According to the news source, they were complaining about Democratic efforts to “socialize” medicine and prevent them from seeing doctors they wanted to see. But their complaints were less troubling than their banners. In one picture, a young man carried a placard with Obama’s face on it. The caption: “Hitler gave great speeches, too.”

If this were just another election battle, I might have dismissed this comment as mere imbecility. Whenever anyone doesn’t like a political opponent in the United States, the natural—and stupid—tendency is to label him “Hitler.” Anti-Bush protesters routinely compared Bush to Hitler. But this time the tables are strangely turned. Bush never pledged to reform health care in the United States. Opponents facetiously compared him to Hitler because he expanded government power against the individual, dismantled civil liberties and embarked on foreign war adventures. Bush defended vested interests; he did not threaten them. Those were vaguely “Hitler-like” interventions. Still, Bush was no Hitler—not even close. I think even the most fanatical anti-Bush protesters realized that. Bush may have disrespected the Constitution and trampled a few liberties here and there. But he never systematically exterminated people he considered racially inferior.

Obama, by contrast, represents the “little man” against massive private interests. And he is even less “Hitler-like” than Bush. Obama swore to defend constitutional liberty and to curtail American military adventures abroad. He has also pledged to resolve domestic “injustices,” including the health care conundrum. Moreover, Obama is a black man; he is a member of a race that Hitler wanted to exterminate. In that light, it is nonsensical to compare Obama to Hitler. It is almost like calling a Jew a Nazi. If anything, Obama represents everything Hitler was not: Tolerant, liberal, compassionate, hopeful, educated. True, both Hitler and Obama could deliver rousing speeches. But oratory alone does not render an American politician “Hitler.” Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were great orators, too, but no one compared them to Hitler for their speechmaking skill. On the other hand, if great oratory makes you Hitler, I suppose that saves Bush from Hitler comparisons.

Still, the Hitler comments vex me. It really does not matter whether the Hitler analogy is historically accurate. Instead, when Americans call an opponent “Hitler,” it simply means they really detest the person. For Americans, “Hitler” means “evil incarnate.” It is impossible to imagine a “worse man” than Hitler. That is the sense in which Americans use the name “Hitler.” When they call Obama “Hitler,” they are not making a historical analogy. They are simply saying: “We absolutely hate this man because he is evil and must be stopped.” And in such a confused, emotionally charged atmosphere as the health care debate, calling an opponent “Hitler” is no small matter. It indicates a self-righteous willingness to do anything to stop the allegedly “evil man” from realizing his plans. In America, “anything” really means “anything.”

This rhetoric should bother everyone. As I wrote in my earlier essay, America does not have a strong track record on radical reform, especially when it intertwines with vested interests and race. All too often, when reform clashes with vested interests and race, people die. In Obama’s case, all these factors come into play. Health care reform touches deeply on vested interests and it emanates from the Nation’s first black President. In 1993, we saw vehement resistance to health care reform under President Clinton. There was no racial element in those days, yet the public hysteria was so intense that it derailed reform efforts even before they got underway. Against this discouraging background, President Obama has vowed to reform health care “no matter what.” He knows that people get irrational when they talk about health care. In short, he must confront the same public hysteria that broke out in 1993, but now he must contend with smoldering racial resentment, too. He knows that vested interests pulled out all the stops to win in 1993. He knows they lied, deceived, circulated misinformation, bribed and intimidated anyone who got in their way. He probably knows that he is risking his life in this crusade. The fact that intolerant white conservative Republicans sincerely label a tolerant black liberal Democrat Hitler defies rational explanation. He likely already knows there are people ready to pull the trigger on him.

Yet this is the danger all true reformers confront in America. We must wait to see whether Obama will truly follow through on health care. Will he insist on genuine reform? Will he abandon the effort altogether, as Clinton did? Or will he settle, compromise, negotiate, dilute and concede? No matter what happens, we should all ask ourselves whether it is healthy to hate our opponents so much as to label them “Hitler,” even when the label is completely nonsensical. When public rhetoric heats up this much, it threatens to cast the entire Nation into bitter lawlessness. It is just a matter of time before bullets start flying.

Reform tests democracy. Democracy cannot survive when minority opponents cannot abide majority decisions. America has lasted since 1787 precisely because Democrats do not revolt when Republicans win policy fights, and Republicans do not revolt when Democrats win policy fights. In most cases, the losing faction respects constitutional processes and allows the winning faction to pursue its policies, even if they disagree with them. Yet there have been cases in American history in which the losers can’t bear to lose, so they kill the winners. Health care just might be the next example.

Let’s hope it isn’t. But given America’s sad history on reform and race, I am deeply worried. When hopeful-sounding politicians courageously step forward against entrenched injustices, vested interests always neutralize the “problem.” Obama is quintessentially a “hopeful politician” who ran on reform. Those factors alone paint a target on him. The fact that he is black exposes him to even more danger. If he persists in his call for genuine reform against opponents who can call him “Hitler” with a straight face, he is putting his life on the line. Anyone with the twisted intellectual capacity to call Obama Hitler probably also has the misguided capacity to “save America” by killing him. After all, Hitler must be stopped, right?

These are dangerous times. We must merely follow the rhetoric to see where they will lead us. The rhetoric is militant. There is much at stake. Powerful institutions stand to lose. People are calling a liberal Democrat a Nazi. Something is definitely wrong here; and it is not rational. In this muddled, volatile atmosphere, anything can happen.

On the other hand, maybe Obama will just give in, abandon the effort and just leave the insurance companies alone. That would save his skin. In this country, there’s no better way to save your own life than to give insurance companies what they want.