The opponents of health care reform are doubling down, going for broke, thinking they can get Pres. Obama over a barrel, just as they did to Pres. Clinton 15 years ago. They think they have a winner in obstructing and killing legislation that would make health care affordable and accessible to the tens of millions of Americans currently uninsured. Whether its the lie that legislation currently under consideration would outlaw private insurance or the hyperbole that "government-run health care will kill people", they are pulling out every possible scare-tactic in order to make sure this particular Hercules is strangled in its crib by the giant snake of fear and power.
Considering a national health plan was first part of Democratic policy initiatives in the 1948 Presidential campaign, I would hardly think that considering legislation on the matter 61 years later is "ramming" the issue down the throats of the American people. One matter that is never mentioned in polite - by which I mean televised - discussions concerns the oft-touted question of "cost". While it may be true that there are initial costs that seem prohibitive to such a venture, part of that is due to the simple reality that, per capita, we in the US pay roughly twice what those in many other industrialized countries pay for health care. Think about that. Smaller countries with fewer people utilizing nationalized health care actually control the cost better than we do. Furthermore, the quality of care is roughly the same. The oft-repeated myth that the United States has "the best health care system in the world" is not only factually inaccurate, but by sheer repetition induces a kind of inertia. "If it isn't broke, why tinker with it," right? Except, it is broken. Not only are our per capita outlays far more than those of other nations; we have to cover the cost of the uninsured at higher rates. When an uninsured individual shows up at an emergency room with a serious condition, if that person receives treatment, we taxpayers end up footing the bill in some manner. Wouldn't it be preferable to pay that bill at a lower rate?
We currently ration our health care based on an individual's ability to pay for it. The uninsured put off seeing a doctor until an emergent situation, which is far more costly, and usually limits treatment because of high cost, than if they saw a physician they knew and trusted in an office visit. Examples of people being denied treatment in Euro-style national health centers and hospitals, while certainly unfortunate, ignore the uncomfortable fact that far more Americans are either denied treatment because the insurance company refuses to cover it (or have their coverage yanked, and end up in bankruptcy thanks to out-of-sight medical bills), or are limited in treatment options due to insurance company restrictions. Whenever I hear an opponent of health care reform talk about "some government bureaucrat getting between you and your doctor", I wonder if they realize that private health insurance industry bureaucrats do this kind of thing all the time, resulting in all kinds of suffering, restricted care, and even death.
As far as the bugaboo named "socialism" is concerned, except for a few for whom this seems to mean, "The United States is becoming the Soviet Union!!", no one seems to care. The vast majority of the American people (73% in one recent survey) support health care reform including a public option, and we have reached a point, politically, where it is feasible. Since various countries have national health care plans that are less expensive, offer similar or even better quality care than ours for less money, and free up money for other socially worthy endeavors through these savings, it seems to me this should be a no-brainer, especially to the fiscally prudent. Except, of course, "no-brain" seems to be the way opponents are going with their opposition.
One was some on the right think they can torpedo health care reform is by raising the specter of abortion. Since Medicare currently covers the cost of Viagra, yet Medicaid does not pay for birth control for women, I do believe this opens the door to a whole subject the right wouldn't want to go down, but since they are beginning to do so, let us go there. Under current federal law, Medicaid does not pay for abortions. I can envisage all sorts of treatments that a national health care plan would not cover, from rhinoplasty to tonsil/adenoid removal without some emergent condition threatening the life or long-term health of the patient. Yet, when pregnancy does threaten the life or long-term health (including reproductive health) of a woman - whether it's an ectopic pregnancy, or some kind of acute emergent condition in which a decision to save one or the other (mother or fetus) but not both becomes paramount - it seems to me that covering the cost of an emergency abortion should be a pretty easy decision to make. Most private insurance plans don't cover things like a nose-job or other plastic surgery. Abortions, like-wise, aren't covered. I can envisage all sorts of restrictions placed on various medical procedures, conditions set as cost-control. Yet, if a woman, in consultation with her physician, decides that an abortion is necessary to save her life or long-term health, where's the controversy, unless the holy fetus and its existence trumps even the life and health of the mother? Since the Supreme Court of the US says that abortion is legal; that third-trimester abortions can be regulated except in cases where the life or health of the mother is threatened, legally, I'm not sure where abortion opponents have a leg to stand on.
Now, does this mean that, say, a Catholic hospital will be forced to perform abortions? Of course not! Since they wouldn't be considered as a treatment option anyway, this isn't a serious claim. My advice, as always, to all those who scream about abortion is simple - don't have one. If, in consultation with her physician, a woman understands the option as necessary, and she so chooses - don't become that meddling bureaucrat that stands between an individual and her physician!
I understand that health care reform is a bruising battle right now. The opponents of such reform are going to get more and more shrill the closer any measure comes to consideration for a vote. Yet, if we Americans are going to get through the next century, not get left behind, burdened with spiraling costs and diminished care, a new national caste system based on an individual's ability to receive quality medical care at low cost, and free up our national wealth for other equally worthy social needs, the time is now.
Let's just get it done.
Virtual Tin Cup
