Conservatives in Congress are trying to derail the health reform bill by arguing that it allows people to purchase private insurance that covers abortion. Conservatives are demanding that the bill include language prohibiting even private insurers from paying for an abortion. Many of these conservatives are the same people who have denounced the public option as creeping socialism. Republican House minority leader John Boehner has called the health insurance reform bill, “the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen in the 19 years I’ve been in Washington.”

Why do conservatives who fear the heavy hand of the state interfering with the freedom of insurance companies nevertheless support government restrictions on women who want to use their own money to purchase insurance that covers abortion? There are really two issues raised by that question: First, how “free” is our health care market now? And second, are restrictions on women the fairest and most effective way to reduce the number of abortions?

As to the first issue it is already too late to argue for a free market in health care. We have had socialized medicine in the United States for generations; we just have it done badly.

Forty years ago Republicans were denouncing Medicare as socialism. Most people over 65 are pretty happy with socialized Medicare. We spare no expense taking care of the elderly, but we leave their grandchildren unprotected. That seems irrational.

People who are lucky enough to work for employers that provide health insurance are also the beneficiaries of socialized medicine. In fact, private insurance is a form of socializing risk. The young and healthy workers pay premiums that subsidize older and sicker workers.

But our insurance system is hugely inefficient. It generates windfall profits for insurers and creates perverse incentives for doctors to order unnecessary procedures. That’s why we have the most expensive health care in the world, but the World Health Organization ranks the quality of our health care 37^th – lower than any other western industrialized country and just behind Costa Rica. And the soaring cost of employer-based insurance hurts the competitiveness of our exports. For example, on average the sticker price of an automobile produced by a U.S. manufacturer is inflated by about $1500 to pay health insurance for workers. That burden on U.S. manufacturers is one more reason for our trade deficit, sinking dollar, and the loss of manufacturing jobs.

Everyone who doesn’t get socialized Medicare or socialized health care from their employers relies on community health clinics and emergency rooms for socialized medicine. And the rest of us pay for this through our taxes. The lack of universal health care also reduces the quality of our health care system for everyone. Anyone who has gone to an emergency room knows just how long you may wait while ER doctors are treating uninsured people with bellyaches and colds because they can’t afford their own doctor. When people with infectious diseases don’t get treated, all of us are exposed. And when people wait until they are very sick to see a doctor, it is far more expensive to treat them. All these costs are passed on in the form of higher hospital costs for everyone.

So pretending that we have a free market to defend against the threat of socialism is nonsense. We have the worst form of medical socialism already – bloated, inefficient, and unfair. Right now decisions about our health care are dictated by the vagaries of our employment status, the terms of our insurance, or the dictates of an HMO bureaucrat. Doesn’t it make more sense to allow the government to establish policies to reduce paperwork, guarantee access, and treat all Americans the same regardless of pre-existing illnesses?

The second issue is whether restricting a woman’s right to buy insurance that covers abortion is the fairest and most effective way to reduce the number of abortions? It doesn’t matter whether you oppose abortion or not. It’s hypocritical for conservatives who are concerned with “freedom” in the health care market to argue that women should not be free to purchase private insurance that provides a medical treatment that is constitutionally protected.

Let’s be clear that the proposed law is not providing any subsidies for abortions. The Supreme Court has said that government has a right to discourage women from seeking an abortion by subsidizing childbirth without providing equivalent benefits for abortion. Federal law has long denied women any federal funds for abortion, and there’s no doubt that Congress will continue to ban federal funds for abortion.

The freedom to choose to bring a child into this world is only meaningful if one can afford it. One way to encourage women to carry their fetuses to term would be to provide women with the necessities of life for themselves and their children. Health care is one of the necessities that young mothers require. That’s why abortion opponents should be marching in the street demanding health reform with a government option and loads of subsidies that would reduce the cost of health care.

The critics are right about one thing. The health reform bill is about freedom: freedom from the fear that in America being sick can be a financial catastrophe. The health reform plan will give more American families the freedom to choose a plan that works for them.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.  

BookPage describes it as “an astonishing look at the sometimes seedy side of our country’s founding…a compelling tale with engaging characters, intriguing twists and a surprise ending…Now that’s history!” And the Daily Beast called it “one of the hot books of the week.”

We are accustomed to reading histories that deify the Founding Fathers. They, after all, overthrew the world’s greatest military power to establish a republic, and they did it with rhetorical grace that even today stirs the heart. Our idealized view of the Founding Fathers obscures their failings as often as it eclipses other great American political leaders who did not have the good fortune to be alive in 1776.

I’m thinking, of course, of Senator Kennedy whose passing last week finally drew him the bipartisan praise that he had earned but was generally denied in his lifetime. Whatever one may think of his liberalism, he was a fierce and effective advocate, who nevertheless respected his colleagues on both sides and conducted himself with a civility that is as absent today from politics as it was in 1776. Ted Kennedy understood that just because a person has a different opinion about tax policy, health care, or military spending is no reason to question his patriotism, intellect, or character.

What makes Kennedy’s collegiality extraordinary is that he was constantly maligned by conservatives, including those whom he genuinely liked. For nearly a half-century, he bore all of this abuse with quiet dignity and humor.

When you consider Senator Kennedy’s monumental legislative record of accomplishment in health, labor, human rights, economic reform, and education, there are few presidents who got as much done as he did. And he did all this while winning the respect and affection of his adversaries as much as his allies.

By comparison, some of the Founding Fathers were vicious hypocrites who thought nothing of defaming their colleagues with baseless accusations and whose fiery politics alienated even members of their own party. Jefferson, for example, as vice-president arranged for the publication of outrageous lies about President John Adams. Jefferson paid someone to steal the personal papers of Silas Deane, the hero of my book UNLIKELY ALLIES.  Jefferson tried to impeach federal judges who disagreed with him. Jefferson extolled the virtues of the bloody French Revolution, and so alienated the Federalists in Congress that his election in 1800 bitterly divided the young republic.

That’s not to say that Jefferson does not deserve his place as one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the founder of the University of Virginia. But a fair-minded person could conclude that the achievements of Jefferson, like other Founding Fathers, were won despite his mean partisanship. In contrast to Jefferson, Ted Kennedy time and again reached across the aisle to heal the divisions of party.

I met Senator Kennedy only in passing at two dramatic points in his astonishing career. The first time was when I was called to testify as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee to corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations against then-Judge Clarence Thomas. Though some liberals criticized Kennedy for not taking a stronger position against Judge Thomas, they forget Kennedy’s dramatic role in those hearings. At the time, of course, the Senator was facing allegations in the press concerning his own drinking and socializing. He felt constrained by those allegations to lead the attack. But after a panel of four witnesses, myself included, testified in support of Anita Hill’s allegations, Senator Kennedy responded in a booming voice to the defamatory attacks on Anita Hill:

“…I hope, Mr. Chairman, that after this panel we are not going to hear any more comments, unworthy, unsubstantiated comments, unjustified comments about Professor Hill and perjury…I hope we are not going to hear more about fantasy stories picked out of books…I hope we can clear this room of dirt and innuendo, that has been suggested [about] Professor Hill… They are unworthy.”

That was Kennedy at his best: decrying those who used smear tactics to advance a political agenda. Throughout his long career Kennedy stood to uphold the Senate’s tradition of decorum and comity.

I met Senator Kennedy again last year at a breakfast at the home of a friend. It was only days after Senator Kennedy’s dramatic endorsement of Senator Obama for president and only months before his brain tumor was discovered. Kennedy bounded up like a eager puppy to introduce himself to all the guests – as if there were anyone on the planet who would not recognize him. His hand seemed like it was the size of a catcher’s mitt, leathery from a lifetime of sailing and shaking hands. He was excited about the young senator from Illinois whose idealism and eloquence reminded him of his own brothers. And he was determined to help pass Obama’s health insurance reform.

Kennedy spent four decades persistently and patiently working towards health reform. Perhaps he could have succeeded this year with a broad consensus of Democratic and Republican colleagues. If he were unable to win broad support, Kennedy would have pushed for reform with the votes he had, and afterward, he would have embraced his Republican colleagues and defused any hard feelings.

Kennedy’s civility is an exceedingly rare element in the summer of “death panel” Republicans and “birther” conspiracy theorists. We have lost Senator Kennedy at the moment we needed him most to escape the toxic political environment that has engulfed health insurance reform.  We need more like him.

If you like reading this blog, check out my new book, UNLIKELY ALLIES.