The Time Has Come

What does the recent blockbuster disaster film "2012" say about universal health care?

To no great surprise this movie about finality, futility and impeding doom includes a ludicrous, fantastical and contrived glimmer of hope. I suppose audiences only care about survivors. And these survivors earn their salvation by getting aboard a giant boat when the world is flooding. If some are unsure of the Biblical imagery, it is made more clear with the saving of two giraffes, elephants, rhinos, etc. and a boy named Noah. While this is no Shaggy God story, it does throw the (astute) viewer through a loop as the Arcs do not seat 6.7 billion people. This means that saving animals destined to die is more important than any number of human lives. I find this a pretty hard argument to make, especially when the animals were clearly chosen (by director Roland Emmerich) for their exotic nature rather than any practical motive--ex. saving cattle, pigs, or chickens for a new farming society.

Around this unexamined point, the city-sinking movie runs with its--criminally overlooked--commentary on modern society. Should the species-saving vessels allow more passengers at the cost of endangering everyone, including the ones already "saved"? The universal health care debate asks variations of this same question. If the government lets everyone fight for their own benefit, there will be losers. But is that more fair than artificially leveling the playing field? Millions in America are essentially saved (read: insured) but would be required to pay taxes for those millions who are not insured.

This comes up more specifically in the movie when Chiwetel Ejiofor has his high-minded moralizing thrown back in his face. Ejiofor demands the government save more citizens yet does not give up his own life-saving boat ticket to any blue-collar Chinese worker. Ejiofor is one of the lucky saved and wants to save others but not at the risk of making a personal sacrifice. The same can be said for the highest salary earners in America. They are the ones already insured, yet they'd be the ones footing the majority of any universal system. Personally I'm a believer that it's still beneficial for the richest Americans to help the poorest in any fashion, as I'd pay taxes for a fire department I never need because it doesn't help me to have my neighbor's house burn down.

The movie seems to take a similar stance. Toward the end, John Cusack--and Cusack alone--takes responsibility for his selfish actions that inadvertently endangered the lives of thousands (allegory continued: funding a capitalist health care system). However his persistent nobility is undercut by the realization that he only risks his life to help others when his own life is in danger likewise. Cusack was not safe when he risked all he had. In fact, he is doomed to die with everyone else whether or not he tries to help the situation--it's no real spoiler to say that he does.

Unlike Ejiofor, Cusack was in a position wherein he had nothing to gain by doing nothing and so acted "heroically." Undoubtedly, this is what Emmerich had in mind during the Vatican-crushing, hotel-crumbling, Yellowstone-erupting motion picture; that is, universal health care will only come when, and if, those who have the power feel like they have something personally at stake in the well being of others. In that vein, perhaps the prophecies of "2012" will ring true; whether that means universal health care will save humanity, sun-launched neutrinos will doom humanity, or some unholy combination of both, I can not say, but it is fun to ponder.