In the midst of everything going on in the politosphere, healthcare reform has been been at the forefront. I've been hesitant to wade into the waters of the debate, but there's absolutely no reason why we can't have a civil discussion about the topic. President Obama, Secretary Sebelius, and members of Congress attempted to do that last week at Blair House, but I'm not sure much good came of it. So, for argument's sake, can we check the death panels at the door?
Achieving serious health care reform is very important to me - but I have yet to come up with a solution of my own. The thing, though, is that it's not necessarily my job to come up with a solution. It's not yours either. This is why we have presidents, cabinets, and legislators. They have policy wonks and economists at their disposal to come up with real solutions. Unfortunately, they seem more intent on winning reelection than enacting serious reform.
The current system is broken. Saying that every American has access to adequate health care simply because they can walk into an ER is a dangerous statement. If we rely on that as 'universal' coverage, those of us with insurance bear the brunt of increased costs because those who utilize the ER as their primary care provider can't pay. When costs go up, employers are forced to subsidize a greater percentage of premiums or pass it on to their employees. For many businesses, that subsidy is just too much of a burden and coverage gets dropped altogether.
Democrats seem to be in bed with the insurance lobby and are incredibly hesitant to push for real tort reform. Republicans prefer to spew talking points made up of their version of the truth. Sarah Palin will tell you that it's socialism at work. John Boehner will tell you that reform will dilute the quality of care. Do we have the best technology and trained medical professionals in this country? Yes. But what good does it do you if you don't have access to those resources? We all know that Derek Shepherds and John Carters don't work in every ER across the US.
The truth is, I can deal with the arguments of Michael Steele and Mitch McConnell. I wholeheartedly disagree with them, but accept that they just have a fundamentally different view of what our government should be doing. What really irks me, though, is that all of these people claim to be pro life. I have no intention of pulling a Stupak and turning this into an abortion debate. But last time I checked, life doesn't end at birth. If you are fundamentally opposed to giving a woman the option to terminate a pregnancy under any circumstance, how can you not support fundamental reform that would help save lives? Common sense tells us that if more people, including children, have access to affordable health care, illnesses are diagnosed earlier. Life-threatening diseases can be treated more aggressively and success rates of treatment are much higher. Don't even get me started on the states that allow insurers to treat domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.
Creating a public option doesn't take away your access to privatized health insurance. I may not always be happy with it, but I do find some satisfaction in my own health insurance (namely, that I have it!) It's not the government trying to control your life. As an aside, I guess people who believe this is a legitimate argument are opposed to public schools, parks, interstate highways, and tax-payer funded public defense. It's not some progressive attempt to turn our healthcare system into that of a third-world country. It's about holding the truth that all men are created equal self-evident. If you're unemployed or suffer from a pre-existing condition, that doesn't make you less of an American than me. So why shouldn't you have the right to affordable health care?
