Editorial Comment
I posted below on the general excellence of last night’s health care forum sponsored by Over the Mountain Democrats. It’s unfortunate that my strongest negative response was invoked by the Democratic politician on the panel.
I was not terribly surprised to hear Congressman Artur Davis advocating improvements and expansion of our existing system for health care coverage. He quoted polls that show a plurality of people who currently have health coverage are satisfied with it. He pointed out that people want choice and that anything short of abolishing private insurance would result in some percentage of the population opting out of a public plan, likely taking wealthier and healthier people out of the pool. And he said, quite realistically, that providing universal coverage will be expensive and we must incorporate effective cost containment measures. I would have preferred to hear him talk about some more innovative approaches, but I was glad to hear him advocate, forcefully and repeatedly, for universal coverage.
Well, almost universal.
Here’s where Artur Davis really disappointed me. He said it’s a moral imperative that anyone who gets sick in this country should get the care they need. And he said that “we”, meaning Democratic politicians, shouldn’t have any trouble persuading the American people that this is the right thing to do. Then he turned around and excluded gay people from this moral imperative.
Last night, a questioner asked Blue Cross of Alabama CFO Terry Kellogg if his company offers domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples (it doesn’t). Mr. Kellogg gave an explanation based on economics, saying BCBS doesn’t offer it because most of his customers don’t want to pay for additional coverage for any domestic partners, whether same or opposite sex.1 Only married couples need apply. And, of course, in Alabama marriage is restricted to straight couples.
Then Davis picked up with the argument that Baptist preachers don’t support domestic partner coverage and told us we can’t look to Montgomery or Washington for any leadership on changing that. He’s all about universal coverage, he wants to prohibit insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or cancelling policies for the chronically ill, and he wants to introduce cost containment measures. But somehow his leadership just fails him when it comes to recognizing that all families need health coverage.
Best I can tell, he wants to pass legislation that expands existing government programs for the uninsured, requires large employers to provide health coverage, and offers smaller businesses subsidies to do the same. But somehow, for him, mandating, or even encouraging, insurance companies and employers to offer coverage for same-sex couples is off limits. He neatly put that issue back on the audience and told us that we have to change the mindset of Alabama clergy, reiterating his claim that we can’t look to politicians for assistance. At that point, my friend John looked at me and said, “Leaders are supposed to lead, motherfucker!” which summed up my reaction quite well.
Davis seems to think any support for LGBT equality is the third rail for him. He voted against the 2007 Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which included protection for the LGB portion of the population, even though it had the overwhelming support of his fellow party members and the Congressional Black Caucus (he was the only CBC member to vote no). He doesn’t understand, or won’t acknowledge, that LGBT people suffer economic harm when they face discrimination in the workplace, housing, access to health coverage, or marriage. He insists that the LGBT equality movement is purely a social one, and I guess he thinks that absolves him of any responsibility to advocate for all of his consituents. He knows perfectly well that clergy in Alabama were instrumental in whipping up support for the 2006 re-ban of gay marriage. And he’s apparently forgotten that the US has a secular government. Clergy support, or lack thereof, shouldn’t determine public policy.
So, Congressman Davis, I’d like to ask a couple of follow-up questions. Which government program is going to provide coverage for partners and dependents of LGBT employees who are excluded from family coverage? Or should they just do without until that mythical day when every Southern Baptist preacher in Alabama decides that gay people are human too?
****
1 (I’m not sure that’s strictly true, given other big-name providers in the state do offer domestic partner coverage, and Blue Cross offers different plans to different customers. Seems to me it could include the option for the employers that do want it.)
ADDENDUM: Joe weighs in on Artur Davis.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Well, Artur supports Obama - and maybe that’s what Bill Clinton was referring to when he mentioned a “Fairytale” or was it “Fairy tail”?
January 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Ouch!
January 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
“…we have to change the mindset of Alabama clergy…”
What? Did the Dominionists win big while I was in the Outer Circle of Hell Winn-Dixie this afternoon, and now the clergy make the laws? Well, that’s fine. Thank goodness I’m a card-carrying Christian. Or Episcopalian, at any rate.
So under his “universal” plan, non-working-outside-the-home partners of LGBT folks would remain without coverage, at least as far as the LGBT worker’s employer’s plan is concerned. What about that fallback government plan (which, I take it, would also be there for the self- or unemployed straight folk among us)? Or would the government get to take a by on gays too?
Do GAY criminals get lawyers when they commit a crime? Well, maybe they shouldn’t. Let’s ask our pastors, just to be sure.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“Do GAY criminals get lawyers when they commit a crime? Well, maybe they shouldn’t. Let’s ask our pastors, just to be sure.”
January 16th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
You see, THIS is what irks me about the whole not allowing gay marriage thing. It has NOTHING to do with the word “marriage” as opposed to “civil union” or “domestic partnership.” It has NOTHING to do with the sanctity of “marriage.” It has NOTHING to do with “marriage” being a religious ceremony. When it comes down to it, it has EVERYTHING to do with dehumanizing the LGBT community and making ABSOLUTELY SURE that they are NOT treated with equal rights in this country. If that were not the case, then this would not be an issue.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
the husband was watching one of the many Comcast xtian channels last night—it’s his hobby, what can I say—and there was some show on about coping with a homo in the family. The main guy, who was touting his recovery program or whatever it was, was lisping for goodness’ sake, he was like a caricature of a gay man (but of course he’s straight now!!) and various folks kept sharing their personal experiences and so on, and they kept coming back to LOVE, we must LOVE them, because GOD loves them, and because we LOVE them we must help HEAL them. I guess this is the new tack they’re taking: the disease model. Although abandoned by the medical community (and not all that long ago IIRC) it is now being adopted by xtians who are aware that JC did in fact say a lot of stuff about loving your neighbor, so in order to be credible to outsiders, they have to at least pay lip service to it. I found that even scarier than the hate-spewing stuff on one of the other channels. I can easily envision a healthcare program where gays can be covered…as long as they agree to go into some wacko therapy.
I don’t know if their attitude was dehumanizing so much as less-than-humanizing. It was like Mrs. Keller recounting the moment she realized Helen wasn’t like the other children.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
The Southern Poverty Law Center had a 10 page article on these “Exodus/Love Won Out” programs in their last quarterly magazine. These groups don’t really exist to “change” GLBTs to become straight people. The programs exist to provide the Christian right “cover” to continue arguing against any equality for GLBT. If it’s a “choice” it’s easier to discrminate against a group of people.
Polling shows that Americans who believe people are born gay also believe in GLBT equality. Those who believe it’s a choice are against GLBT equality. The Christian right learned this, and since the science is mounting that people don’t choose to be gay, the Christian right has to promote the “choice” theory to support their agenda. (sort of like big oil and gas paid junk scientists to argue there’s no proof of global warming).
Why does the religious right even care about GLBT equality? Well, they use homophobia to raise LOTS of cash. You can read Mel White ’s book Stranger at the Gate. Mel worked for Falwell, Roberston etc.. for years. Mel writes that whenever funds were low, those guys cranked up the anti-homo rhetoric to bring in the dough.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:27 am
David, Stranger at the Gate is a powerful book! It’s too bad the rank and file on the religious right doesn’t realize how it’s being used.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Artur Davis is a gayphobeocrit.
January 17th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I don’t blame Barrack Obama in way shape or form for Artur Davis’ actions. Artur Davis has shown he will pander to the lowest common denominator regardless of how stupid he will sound. Davis has shown he has lost my vote come next election because he really needs to open his eyes and realize that many if not most of his constituents lack access to efficient healthcare that only universal healthcare will provide.