The Great Health Care Debate

WASHINGTON, DC – Would you rather get sick in the United States or in Canada? The answer depends, perhaps, on who you are, and how sick you get. If, for example, you are a third-generation Canadian with a family doctor and the connections to jump hospital queues for treatment, the Great White North might be where you’d prefer to feel under the weather. If, however, you lack inroads and require urgent attention, you may want to head south and pay for health care in the Land of the Free.

On June 7, four celebrity doctors, including former Vermont Governor and US presidential candidate Howard Dean and former US Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, will argue the issue in Toronto as part of the semi-annual Munk Debates. Just prior to this event, four students from high schools in the area will tackle the same resolution. It says here that the students will present more cogent, circumspect cases than their older counterparts, but both debates will be streamed online so viewers across Canada and around the world can decide.

Press bookings have been brisk, especially for the eminently quotable Dean, he of the literal and figurative primal scream. As you might expect, Dean favours a socialized, single-payer system like Canada’s, but he was refreshingly candid in explaining why meaningful tort reform – without which, lawsuits abound in the American system – was absent from the recently passed US health care legislation: “The people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers.”

The fact that Dean is able to concede such a strong point augurs a robust debate. And one can be certain that the new American health regime, dubbed “Obamacare,” will get plenty of airtime on June 7.

Munk Debate moderator Rudyard Griffiths has opined that it was "downright impressive" to see Americans “survive” the overhaul of their health care system over the course of a few months. Well, yes, "impressive" in the sense that an exploding star or massive earthquake might impress a person from a safe distance. As to whether the United States will survive, no one seriously suggested the Republic would crumble the moment President Obama took his Paper-Mate to the bill. Rather, it was the enormous and indefinite expense of the measure, combined with the spectre of rationing and the forcing of citizens to purchase health coverage under penalty of law that brought protests in cities across America.

Indeed, that may be the most "impressive" part of the process – the way in which ordinary Americans rallied, peacefully, against a costly, freedom-squelching initiative for which they did not vote, and which members of Congress did not read.

One of the most eye-catching signs at the health care protests read, “If Obamacare passes, where will Canadians go for their health care?” An interesting point, that. Perhaps a single-payer set-up like Canada’s can exist only in proximity to an open market, as in the US, where folks who have the means and cannot wait for treatment often go – as Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams did recently – thereby reducing strain on the socialized system. Canadians are proud to have universal health coverage – but “coverage” and “care” are rather different things.

Whether Canada's health care system is superior to that of the United States is, at best, debatable – and debated, it shall be.

theo@mcleesedebate.com

Theo Caldwell is the McLeese Chair in Debating.

Less Fear and More Friendliness

Recently, I attended a book launch for my old friend, Dr. John Bowen, who has just published a tome called, “Growing Up Christian.” It’s based on research he did with alumni of a Christian camp in Ontario where I and many other teenagers worked in the 80s and 90s, tracing people’s relationships to the faith after those formative years. Until he delivered his speech at the launch, I had forgotten that I was one of the participants in Dr. Bowen’s surveys about six years ago and my remarks, quoted in the book, read in part as follows:

“My MOST screwed up friends are those who were sequestered in church/Christian families all their lives. It fosters an insecurity and ‘us against them’ mentality, stemming from the repeated belief that the outside or ‘secular’ world is all evil....people lose ANY ability to relate to everyday folks. Whenever I travel to churches, I see that glazed-over look of the lifelong Christian....Less fear and more friendliness is what Christians should have.”

I stand by my comments today, maintaining that, beyond the extreme and tragic cases of abuse in recent news, Christian communities could do a better job of relating to those around them.

Unlike, say, Judaism, which is not particularly given to proselytizing, or Islam, which sometimes does it rather stringently, Christianity is a soft sell. That is, its adherents are called to bring people to the faith by the power of example and compassion. In figurative and literal terms, if you have a Jesus fish on your car, don’t cut anybody off.

Now, there is no shortage of showerless atheists poised to lecture Christians on how they should behave and point out their supposed hypocrisies. Likewise, within political and policy circles, from Howard Dean to Christopher Hitchens, there are plenty of non-churchgoing experts who use the faith to lambaste opponents or recite its history as a litany of crimes. But for my part, having fidgeted awkwardly through Bible songs with actions for more years than I care to recall, I believe I have the bona fides to offer a semi-informed opinion.

Christianity is a faith populated by deeply flawed people, including me. As Dennis Miller said of Watergate convict Charles Colson finding Christ just before he entered prison: “I guess Christ didn’t see him first.” This is precisely the point of the religion. Christ did not come to recruit the best and the brightest, and make them even better. Rather, he came to save sinners.

This is why, whenever some Christian politician, or champion of “family values,” is caught in a compromising position, it makes no sense for folks to cry, “hypocrisy!” The whole gist of Christianity is that people cannot achieve goodness on their own.

The problem arises, in my view as enunciated above, when Christians themselves forget this basis of the faith. When they become smug, convinced that their every action is forgiven in advance, clucking at their fellow man for smoking a cigarette or enjoying a beer, they become insufferable and, more important, do a disservice to the religion they represent (Jesus himself enjoyed a cocktail or two, lest we forget).

Bowen categorizes me as an “Absent Believer,” meaning someone who has not abandoned the faith, but who has departed from organized Christian communities (in fact, I have become a churchgoing Presbyterian, but my fellow congregants could be forgiven for suggesting that I give one of the other major religions a try). This is contrasted with “Loyal Believers,” who never left the fold. In either case, Bowen’s statistical and anecdotal research uncovers vastly disparate life stories as he seeks to determine what drives people from today’s church, and what brings them back.

“Growing Up Christian” gives consideration and voice to those who, for better or for worse, spent adolescent years in Christian communities, providing cogent analysis of the questions that arose from that experience. It is a timely work, by one of the few fellows I met in that milieu for whom I would go to the effort of contributing and reading. Whether Bowen’s subjects have stayed true to the faith, or have left and are contemplating a return, he encourages them to work out their salvation for themselves, advising, “God hopes for a response, but God’s love is a gift.”

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Saint Patrick and the Selfless Life

“I am Patrick, a sinner, the most unlearned of men, the lowliest of all the faithful, utterly worthless in the eyes of many.”
–St. Patrick, Confession

The life of Saint Patrick is celebrated the world over on March 17, when everyone is a little bit Irish. Solemnity and sobriety may be in short supply on Patrick’s feast day, but this great man merits serious contemplation.

Born a Roman citizen on the west coast of Scotland around 400 A.D., Patrick was kidnapped from his home at age 16 by kinsmen of Niall of the Nine Hostages, Ireland’s most powerful ruler, and held as a slave for six years. It was a brutal time, but one for which the Saint would eventually thank God. Only through the misery of bondage, and his miraculous escape, did Patrick find his true calling.

He missed the major portion of his formal schooling and this made him insecure his whole life, causing him to write very little. When he did take up his quill in later years, Patrick apologized profusely for the quality of his prose: “Anyone can see from the style of my writing how little training in the use of words I got.”

What an irony that the Patron Saint of Ireland, a nation of outsized authors, was not, in fact, Irish, and lamented his own lack of skill for the written word. But Patrick was a gifted speaker, able to find the natural tone that resonates with listeners, whether they are learned or not. As scholar Donnchadh O’ Flionn opined of Patrick’s oratory, “How his unbookish common sense must have baffled those suave and contriving learned opponents of his!”

And opponents, he certainly had. Both within the Church and without, Patrick was surrounded by those who doubted his credentials, his motives, his character and his message. Despite his lifelong knowledge of Christianity (his father had been a church deacon), Patrick did not appreciate the value of faith until he lost his freedom. After escaping to England on a ship that was transporting dogs, Patrick embarked on a lightning clerical career that saw him elevated to the rank of Bishop. Over the course of years, he had visions and dreams of his former captors in Ireland, calling him back to teach them about Christ. He knew that his mission would be hard and folks would doubt him. Yet Patrick persevered, stating, “I came to the Irish heathens to preach the Good News and to put up with insults from unbelievers.”

Patrick understood that, through him and others, God would embrace a new country. In his Confession, he quoted Romans 9:25: “I shall say to a people that was not mine, ‘You are my people,’ and to a nation I never pitied, ‘I pity you.’” To be sure, Patrick believed he was helping to fulfill this prophesy in Ireland.

But discard any idea that Patrick strode onto the Emerald Isle, plucked up a shamrock (derived from the Irish word seamrog, meaning “summer plant”), explained the Holy Trinity to the pagans using its three leaves, then everyone settled into a chorus of Danny Boy (the non-Irish derivations of that song being another discussion entirely). It was a far harder slog. Patrick was imprisoned and robbed repeatedly, attacked, vilified, and he lived in constant expectation of murder.

Gradually, throughout his eventful life, Patrick became aware of his place, if not in history, in God’s plan. He did not think of himself as special; rather, he took pains to point out that his faith, mission, and even his suffering were gifts from God and, perhaps to prove a point, the Almighty had chosen an unlearned former slave, rather than a brilliant scholar, to spread His message.

It is often observed that Patrick led the only bloodless revolution in the whole troubled history of Ireland. Author and Irish Bishop Joseph Duffy notes, “The later compilers of saints’ lives, who were by no means given to understatement, tell of only one martyr in his entire missionary career.” The pen may be mightier than the sword, but Patrick used neither. Instead, his simple faith and plain speaking changed the course of his adopted country.

Writers largely ignored Patrick for more than 100 years after his death around 480, but he was rediscovered in the 7th Century. It was not until 1681 that we find the first reference to wearing the shamrock on St. Patrick’s Day, and this was the same century wherein “Patrick” became the most common Christian name in Ireland. Like any number of ancient tales, the facts of Patrick’s life are disputable but the larger point remains. To wit, a selfless life is worth living.

Patrick had a special relationship with young people, and some suppose he strove to give them a hope and happiness his own childhood had lacked. But were it not for his early suffering, could Patrick have become such a seminal figure of faith? How many people, afflicted as Patrick was, might decide they deserve a comfortable dotage? What, then, urged him on? As he put it, “Surely it was not without God or for worldly purposes that I came to Ireland. Who compelled me?...I sold my birthright without shame or regret for the benefit of others...Thus I am a servant of Christ in a far-off nation on account of the indescribable glory of eternal life which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”


theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Willing to See, Ready to Believe

Kids will ask. When it comes to faith, they have the same questions we all do: Where did we come from? Where are we going? What is the point of this life? To be sure, they will include the kind of queries only children could come up with – Does God have feet? Could Jesus lift the car? – and teaching them about religion is our way of saying, “Here’s what we’ve come up with so far.”

This is a delicate proposition, and you want to find the tools that will serve them in later life. Trying to rush, trick or terrorize kids into a particular belief system is counterproductive. To quote Lady Macbeth, pace Hieronymus Bosch, “'Tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil.” Many of my contemporaries are still recovering from early religious instruction, which prioritized that doing one thing or another would land them in Hell. Besides turning people off, this tack misses the point. Fear might keep you from sin, but it makes you too timid to be much use.

Does Hell exist? Is it anything like Cleveland? Perhaps, but damnation is only one part of God’s story. For me, the handiest definition of Hell is existence without God. If you’re going to teach kids about our relation to God, why get hung up on that unpleasant bit?

A preferable approach is to let kids know they matter. “Let the little children come to me,” a good fellow said, adding that anyone who harmed a child was in for a world of trouble. You can never be too small for God to use, but you can certainly be too big. This message matters to kids and, imparted properly, will stay with them when they grow up.

So, how to do this? Religion, like life, is one big best guess. Some folks think they have the answers, including believers and non-believers alike. Whenever one writes a column like this, one hears from doctrinaire adherents, as well as angry atheists (who, it seems, not only don't believe in God, they also don't believe in spell-check). Ironclad certainty in the face of the infinite cosmos is absurd, even with the Scriptures or Richard Dawkins on your side.

But if you give kids the rudiments, explaining what you believe and why, they have the tools to make choices and adapt. As the adage goes, “A scholar is always made alone.” Eventually, a child will have to make his or her own decisions. They must attune to that compass we all possess, which points toward what is right, and not deny it exists. Shine your light, be an example, and if people want a piece of what you’ve got, more the better.

For my part, I am Presbyterian – which is very much like being Christian, only Scottish – and my faith is based on sacrifice for others and the suppression of self. In particular, I believe each of us is so important that God came to live among us, and to die, in order to reunite us with Him. Come to think of it, those are just about the only things I can tell you with any conviction about my religion.

Where, exactly, Jesus was born, what he looked like, etc., are unknowable, and even the Gospels are at odds on such things. Details aside, I choose to believe the larger truth. That is not so simple as it sounds. Lest we forget, it was Jesus' message that got him killed. Then, as now, people had very definite ideas about how God should be. When Jesus was not as they expected, unpleasantness ensued.

Whatever your religious faith (or lack thereof), how many of your most cherished assumptions could you stand to see overturned?

Jesus said, "Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." That is an enchanting yet foreboding remark, but what does it mean? If I had to give my best guess at an interpretation, I’d say: Be open.

We are all someone's children, and we are not in charge. That, in itself, is an encouraging thought. I have seen too many of us wearing socks with sandals to suppose humankind has all the answers.

Fortunate children preserve their sense of wonder and openness into adulthood. The best thing to teach them is to be willing to see and ready to believe.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The Power to Persuade

Willis McLeese has accomplished a lot in his first 96 years. From his WWII service in the Navy, to his legendary and lucrative careers in refrigeration and power, to the resort community he is building at Cobble Beach, Ontario, he has made the most of every moment.

Along the way, he developed a myriad of skills, from thermodynamics to time management (a must, for someone who runs several companies). But a key lesson McLeese learned through his many experiences is: The power to persuade is essential to success.

For all his philanthropic efforts, the cause to which McLeese has been most devoted is helping young people learn the craft of persuasive speaking. He has laboured at this for almost 40 years, particularly in support of the Canadian Student Debating Federation (CSDF). Most recently, he endowed the Willis S. McLeese Chair in Canadian Debating, based at Upper Canada College in Toronto and working with the CSDF, to bring young people across the country into this activity. The program is outlined at mcleesedebate.com.

McLeese’s belief is that if students are given the skills and confidence to speak publicly and advocate positions, it will serve them well later in life.

“Debating is a way to extend your influence,” he avers, adding, “Canada will always need great leaders.” He notes that being a leader doesn’t require your name on a ballot. Leaders come in all sorts, in every profession. What they share is the power to convince and inspire.

A small percentage of student debaters will grow up to be politicians or trial lawyers (at least, one hopes it’s a small percentage). But whatever careers kids pursue, someday they will have to answer questions like: What makes you different? Why should we do it your way? Why should I buy what you’re offering?

So much of life, and success, is about selling ideas. From Clarence Darrow to Don Cherry, if you can make a case, you can make a living. Teaching young people this craft is practical education at its best.

Personifying McLeese’s faith in this philosophy is Chantal Jauvin. While a high school student in the mid-1980s, she approached McLeese at a national debating event and told him what the activity meant to her. The two have been close friends since and Jauvin credits her debating experience for her intercontinental legal career. When I spoke to her from Thailand, she pointed out, “The most important skill that I learned was to listen to what others were saying.”

Indeed, debating isn’t just about saying what you think; it requires hearing what other people are telling you. McLeese echoes this, insisting debaters should argue every resolution from both sides: “They learn respect and tolerance for each other.”

In a rare deviation from the shrewd judgment that made him a success, McLeese has asked me to take up the Chair that bears his name. My early debating made it possible for me to opine in the public square (for better or for worse), and one hopes I can help offer today’s students the same opportunity. Our first step is a partnership with Rudyard Griffiths and his famed Munk Debates, commencing this spring. But whatever contribution I might provide, it could never compare with that of Willis McLeese, an extraordinary patron of the art of argument.

theo@mcleesedebate.com

Theo Caldwell is the McLeese Chair in Debating.

The Super Bowl and the Contest of Life

Sunday’s Super Bowl is not just a contest between two football teams. This year, there is an undercard, featuring a clash of beliefs about life and choice.

Tim Tebow, the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida, is set to appear in a pro-life commercial during the game, along with his mother, Pam. The ad tells the story of Pam’s difficult pregnancy, in which she contracted an infection and was advised to abort Tim. Pro-choice activists claim that the ad, paid for by the Christian group Focus on the Family, could lead to violence and have been pressuring CBS to keep it off the air. The broadcaster has said the commercial will be shown, but the imbroglio begs the question: Can the abortion fight ever be resolved?


In Canada and the United States, folks are fond of saying the issue of abortion is “settled,” pointing to rulings by each country’s Supreme Court, in 1988 and 1973, respectively. But the decades of turbulence over this matter have taught us that something so emotional and elemental is not “settled” by a few lawyers.

Other news from recent days proves the point. In Kansas, the trial of the man accused of killing late-term abortion provider George Tiller began on January 22, the 37th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling (Scott Roeder was convicted of Tiller’s murder one week later). At the same time, a new Marist poll shows a majority of Americans, and nearly 6 in 10 young adults, see abortion as morally wrong.

Meanwhile in this country, a recent Angus Reid poll finds, “Only one-in-five Canadians (20%) are aware of the current status-quo of abortion in Canada: a woman can have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, with no restrictions whatsoever.” In addition, “Respondents are almost evenly divided on whether the health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested.”

To be sure, whenever the topic of abortion is broached, people become angry almost at once. But before everyone gets their sticks up (to expand the sporting analogy), let’s suppose for a moment that there is, in fact, common ground on this issue. One finding of the Reid poll gives us a starting point:

"A large majority of Canadians (79%) would back an initiative in their own province that would make it mandatory for health care workers to offer information to pregnant women about alternatives to abortion."

It is often said that it is more effective to change hearts than to change legislation. In this case, while the finding speaks of a “mandatory” initiative, the underlying sentiment may, in fact, be most helpful. To wit, while abortion may never again be illegal, it is broadly undesirable.


Common parlance bears this out. Politicians who believe abortion should be available any time, for any reason, rarely speak in plain terms. They talk of “choice” and “reproductive freedom” and “women’s rights.” Indeed, it would take a hard person to say that abortion, as an act, is a good thing. If we can agree on that, it means most of our hearts are in the same place.

So, what if we agreed that, as long as public money subsidizes abortion, an equal or greater amount should go toward a mechanism to find homes for unwanted babies? If you really wanted to be controversial, you could add a bit about preventing unplanned pregnancies in the first place – that is, letting young people know that abstinence isn’t only about Bible-thumping and promise bracelets – but that might be too big a leap right away. For now, let’s just suppose that citizens made it a priority that every little person gets a chance at life and no young woman goes through the misery of abortion.


This is less a function of writing laws than of changing priorities. Nothing gets banned in this scenario, but possibilities are opened. If we shift our default response to an unwanted pregnancy from contemplating abortion to offering support, great things could happen.


Add incentives for religious and private-sector organizations to provide money and means for young mothers who want to raise their babies themselves, and we’re starting to get somewhere. Again, if we stipulate that abortion itself is a tragic act, wouldn’t a robust and ubiquitous network of alternatives be helpful? When you offer people good choices, bad laws become irrelevant.

The hardship of anyone contemplating an abortion is something that cannot be denied. Pam Tebow knew this fear all too well. And the perspective from which the decision is undertaken makes all the difference.

Ironically, one of the world’s foremost experts on death, the late Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, provides a quotation applicable to this fundamental question of life: “Mankind's greatest gift, also its greatest curse, is that we have free choice. We can make our choices built from love or from fear.”

Folks can always choose, but with love and support, it becomes easier to choose wisely. What a wonderful thing that would be for women and families. And, not for nothing, millions of little people would get a chance at life, with all the choices it has to offer.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

State of the Union: A Chance to be Wise

“Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” – Otto von Bismarck

Tonight, U.S. President Barack Obama has an opportunity to be wise. As he makes his first State of the Union address before a Congress that is controlled by his fellow Democrats, Obama can decide whether to learn the lesson of the last president from his party, or doom himself to defeat.

In the 1994 mid-term elections, President Bill Clinton saw his Democrats lose both houses of Congress in what became known as the “Republican Revolution.” Clinton had been elected two years earlier as a centrist, tax-cutting “New Democrat.” Once in office, however, Clinton announced the largest middle-class tax hike in history and embarked on a national health care plan that was expected to cost one trillion dollars (of course, this was back when a trillion dollars was considered a lot of money).

The parallels are potent. In 2008, Obama was elected to quell an economic crisis, including a record budget deficit, while ushering in an era of bipartisan comity. Since then, he has quadrupled the deficit, adding trillions to the national debt, and tried to enact purely partisan, widely unpopular health care reform. The voters have rendered their opinion on these policies, first by electing Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey – states Obama carried in 2008 – and last week, the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown to the United States Senate.

So where to from here? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who led the Republican takeover in 1994, explains the binary choice Obama faces thusly: “He either has to double down, or he’s got to say, as Bill Clinton did, ‘the era of big government is over.’”

Massachusetts was the canary in the coal mine, and Obama should be grateful for it. Bill Clinton got no such warning.

If Obama does not shift his agenda, he can expect a 1994-style shellacking in November, en route to a single-term presidency that makes Jimmy Carter’s tenure seem like the Golden Age. Obama has stated he would rather be a spectacular one-term president than a mediocre one for eight years. One has to go back to James Polk to find a one-termer who is generally considered to have been successful, and the most common scenario is that presidents get retired after a single term when voters do not care for their work.

Tonight, will Obama show he has absorbed the lessons of Bill Clinton in 1994 and Massachusetts in 2010? The auguries are not good. Of the Republican senate victory, Obama says, “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.”

This is either false bravado or a sincere belief. One hopes it is the former, because if Obama truly believes this, it reveals delusion that is unsettling in someone who has access to the nuclear football. As Hamlet’s uncle opined, “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.”

Let us assume and hope that the president is not insane. He must therefore believe he can benefit by claiming solidarity with voters who have just handed him the most explicit repudiation that the election calendar allows. Obama amplifies his rationale, saying, “People are angry and frustrated.”

We heard this in 1994 as well, when the late Peter Jennings summarized the GOP victory by saying the electorate, “had a temper tantrum.” This is a common spin: When voters pull the lever for a Democrat, they do so while adjusting their pince-nez with their free hands as they study the intricacies of current accounts and marginal rates. But when they vote for a Republican, they’re just “angry.”

Warming to his “angry” theme, we can expect that tonight, Obama will promise to “fight.” He’s fighting for Americans, against bankers, insurance companies, special interests and corporations. Unfortunately, if those Americans pay bank fees, require credit, purchase health insurance, or work for a company, they will be caught in the crossfire.

A better choice for Obama would be to rediscover that compromising coolness that helped get him elected, while adding a dash of regret – not heated, but hopeful; not combative but contrite. This is a lot to expect from a man who has a harder time than The Fonz saying he was “wrong,” but it is still the president’s strongest option.

If Obama were to say to Americans tonight, “I have heard you, and we will change course,” the nation, and his presidency, would benefit. One hopes he has that wisdom.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.