I recently read a provocative editorial by Neal Gabler, published in the Boston Globe on November 26, 2009. It was called “Constant Information and Nothing Remembered.” Gabler suggests that our reaction to the constant inflow of information received from the media has created what he calls “willful amnesia.” We have developed the reaction of instant forgetting. This reaction may be driven in part by the speed with which we receive information. Information comes at us constantly through cable news and the internet. The cycle of breaking news bombards us and may interfere with our ability to assimilate new material and commit it to memory.

So what happens when we lose the ability to assimilate new material? We become entranced by the importance of the immediate and forget to connect it to history. We then are in danger of becoming addicted to the novel and the immediate. According to Gabler we disrupt the continuity that comes from connecting cause and effect. He suggests that this detaches “memory from action, and heightens the moment at the expense of history.” We have removed ourselves from the consequences of cause and effect and all the important lessons that can be learned from past experience. He reminds us that the philosopher George Santayana noted that “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

We need to place more value on the process of assimilation, for it is the way we evaluate and store experience. This takes time and is necessary in order to create a memory pool. It is memory that allows us to benefit from experience. Memory is a necessary part of the learning process. Memory that is shared with others within society allows the opportunity to develop wise shared decisions that will creatively shape the future. This is how we benefit from shared memory. When we disconnect from this process by becoming addicted to the next new and novel moment we have sacrificed our capacity to learn from the past. We then become truly vulnerable to repeating past mistakes.

I have never forgotten a statement that I encountered years ago about the criteria that should be used to judge the values of a society. It made sense then, and it makes sense now. The statement was this. You can always tell where the true values of a society lie by the way it treats its poor and disenfranchised.

So where do our true values lie? I think that I can safely say that our values appear to be most often found in the way we consume the things of this world. We truly are a society based on consumption. We do it well. We have all the bells and whistles to show for it. Of course, that is not all that we do, but it surely is what shows to the rest of the world. Yet, this political and economic era is showing some very promising signs that our values run far deeper. The major sign is the new attempt to make health care affordable and available to all. Believe me when I say that the rest of the world is watching.

So why is this so important? It is important because we could easily become a split society where the rich and poor are so separated that their different life experiences can never be reconciled. When that happens true empathy is almost always lost and people retreat into their own experiential worlds. We simply don’t want to know about the situation of the other. In this atmosphere true compassion is easily lost. So we should be proud that we are addressing the health issue, as difficult as that may be. We truly need to honestly keep in the back of our mind the answer to the question. How are we treating our poor and disenfranchised?

Like most people in the country I have been watching the health care debate and feeling confusion. Opposing camps are deeply entrenched. Lobbying is rampant. In the midst of this I have been trying to discover the core issue, and have concluded that it all seems to boil down to one question. Does an individual in our country have a right to receive health care, or is it a privilege that only money can buy? To push this a bit further one could then ask if health care should even be a moneymaking endeavor. The way we answer these questions has a clear effect on the ‘product’ we design and ‘sell’ to the consumer.

If health care is a privilege we should be much more open about the fact that those with financial resources are the ones who will receive care. As it is, this reality shows up only when people are denied care or lose coverage when they are ill and unable to cope with it. If privilege is truly linked to the ability to pay then we should justify reasons why those who can’t afford it do not ‘deserve’ to be treated. People do have the right to know in advance rather than finding out at the eleventh hour. In the real world we prefer not to hear stories of those who get left out and this becomes a hidden reality until it strikes someone close to us. The bottom line is that we need to clarify who is not going to receive care.

If health care is seen as a basic human right, then we will have to ensure that it becomes available. This means a shift in our sense of responsibility to and for all people in the wider community. It may prove to be a daunting task in a culture that is oriented to the individual and immediate family. We also need to address the affordability issue. This also may prove to be difficult in this economic climate. If it is a right then we need to redesign the structures for delivery so that they are able to reach all levels of society. This might mean keeping hospitals open, reversing the trend toward merging and closing.

After weighing these issues I have concluded that we want health care to be a right, but we are unwilling to pay for it. As a society we are based on individualism and really do not want to be responsible to the larger community. The real issue then comes down to the age-old question. Am I my brother’s keeper?