"Only the wealthy should live, and the sick ought to be punished financially."

On Facebook today, many of my friends' status updates read the same:

"No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."

Seeing it the first time (without the second sentence), I commented, agreeing, and saw the posts of various other like-minded people.  Over the course of the day, I saw more and more such status updates.  In the context of the current health care reform debate, it's a fair statement to make.  It tries to do what Bill Moyers (on Real Time with Bill Maher) so eloquently argued President Obama must do regarding public coverage: frame the debate as the moral issue it is.

I didn't change my own status, despite my agreement.  Among my circle of friends, I would be preaching to the choir with regards to policy, and for those few in my network who take issue with semi-nationalized health care, this assertion is hardly an argument.  Honestly, who's going to rebut, "only the wealthy should live, and the sick ought to be punished financially"?  I question whether anyone's mind has ever been changed by a picket sign, bumper sticker or status update.  Opponents, at least the sane ones who speak in public, attack issues of policy, and cite the relative inefficiency of publicly-run programs in comparison to privately-run ones, or the effects of government interference on health care quality and availability.  In a pinch, they'll make up policy points to attack, like the infamous and fraudulent "death panels."  But most of the objections are things that ought to be addressed, and are amenable to serious debate.  Debatable points invite discussion; attacks on straw men create ideological silos.

My old friend Andy offered me a different interpretation of the status update.  "I believe in solidarity as solace more than solidarity as change agent.  Knowing there are many like you is a great comfort in trying times."  It's a fair point, with an undeniable emotional resonance.  But on this issue, I feel that solidarity, manifesting as partisanship, has done a great deal to stymie real progress on this issue.  Using these new technologies, I hope that copy/paste activism among like-minded folk isn't mistaken for real engagement.  That's not to say that social media can't be used to argue a point.  My wife circulated the Bill Moyers clip on Facebook, which -- though preaching to the choir of Bill Maher viewers -- offers an articulate declaration of the moral basis to the policy that ought to be proposed.  Moyers stated the value proposition, gave its historical context, and made a call to action.

But perhaps I'm committing the same sin I'm criticizing by attacking the sound bite, out of context of the message.  My wife, experienced in social activism, pointed out that political change requires a rallying cry, dissemination of information, and action.  It requires an engagement with your allies as well as your opponents.  If this shared Facebook update is the opening salvo to getting our message straight on this very important issue, then my criticism is misplaced.  I'd go so far as to say, I "Like" this.