What about this campaign sign says "Status Quo" to you? Health care reform. It's coming. It's needed. It's time.
Unfortunately the rhetoric and anger has managed to steal the spotlight, as usual. We must be discussing an issue of importance because the usual words are flying around. "Socialist" has made its triumphant return. *Sigh*.
Somehow, in a stroke of unspeakable ignorance, some have managed to convince themselves that the reform will lead to "death panels." Again, *sigh*.
The torches and pitchforks are ready for deployment.
Distraction and ignorance aside, I think this is a crucial issue. I also think that the people of this county have already decided to change our current system. My reading of the extreme opposition is that there is an attempt to restart the debate about whether or not reform should happen at all.
That debate has been decided. To paraphrase the White House spokesman when addressing criticism by Dick Cheney, "the American people debated the issue... it happened in November... we even kept score. We won."
Therefore, the legitimate question is how health care should be reformed. It's a legitimate debate. There is room for discussion, and the details should be hashed out. It's a big decision.
Shouting does not accomplish that.
However, the shouting has reached such a pitch that the hand has officially been overplayed. The party of "the silent majority" and "love it or leave it" has not taken well to being the vocal minority.
I support the proposed plan for a variety of reasons. First, it is very consistent with the message given on the campaign trail. I feel like President Obama is trying to fulfill one of the promises that led to his election. I'm getting what I voted for. Woot!
Second, it makes sense and addresses key specifics. It's not perfect, but its an improvement. After all, politics is the art of the possible. Single-payer won't pass and the status quo is not an option. Despite the charges of socialism, this is another middle-ground proposal by Obama. Again, this is what I voted for.
I like the idea of ridding the world of pre-existing conditions. I like having an affordable option so we won't have 47 million uninsured people (which makes everything more expensive). I like the streamlining of paperwork and the introduction of efficient technology to help cut costs. Standardizing forms should mean less manpower needed to deal with the vast array of forms and procedures that come from each different company.
In spite of the overwhelming news coverage, I have heard some well-reasoned arguments in favor of a different structure for reform. What I have not heard is a legitimate argument to change nothing. Those arguments are being made (you can see them on the news, complete with bulging neck veins).
I have had some discussions with some people about this issue. I am always open to political discussion so long as its reasonable and courteous. I've actually had a few good experiences.
Sometimes the discussion is a one-sentence statement refuting the notion that everyone will be required to have government health care. The most rewarding involved a young person who promised to look into the issue for himself after initially springing the "socialism" cop-out.
I don't care if people disagree with the proposed plan. I just ask that everyone research the specifics so we can strain out the nonsense (seriously, there will not be death panels). I am amazed at how dearly held some of the most outrageous rumors can be (no, we will not be condemning everyone over 74 to death... just not going to happen).
Thank you Internet for transferring crazy further and deeper than any printing press could.
Also, bring a proposal to the discussion. It's easy to be against something, so I will be looking for proposed solutions that work. How will the private market create coverage for 47 million uninsured? How will those with diseases get coverage? There isn't one way to do it, but the proposal must address those issues.
I am happy to have the discussion. I love it. I'm excited that this is (probably) going to happen this year. It's just that I refuse to discuss whether or not change should happen at all. That's not what 60 million Americans voted for.
2 comments:
I'm game. I need a couple ground rules laid out first. One of the serious problems this year is there is a lot of mixing of terms. Heath Care reform or Health Insurance reform? Is it care that needs to be corrected, or insurance? they are not synonymous, and have significant different goals, which I believe are both worthy, but ought not be combined on one bill.
so which do you want to work on first?
Fair enough.
Lets work on Health insurance reform first. Best place to start is a "how does it look to me" kind of thing.
My understanding from an interview with the lead economist on the administration committee is that health insurance companies have formed a de-facto monopoly that has changed the race for efficiency in business away from "who can provide more for less" to "who can find ways to pay out less." The focus of business creativity has changed from efficiency of product to efficiency of denials.
From the egregious to the small and knit-picky, the effect has been a distortion of the market. Couple that with the gaping hole (47 million uninsured) and the companies are not filling the need. The reforms / regulations, I think, should point the energy and creativity of the market toward streamlining product and efficiency of coverage, not denials. It also needs to be steered toward insuring everyone who wants coverage since it has failed to do that and, unlike many markets, health care costs are only controlled by limiting those who cannot pay any of their care.
Without getting into specific proposals (yet), this gives a ground for where to start. It could even be argued that by creating a public option that private companies would be motivated to produce a superior product worthy of the cost. (Fed Ex, not the post office, began next-day delivery).
This leads to the philosophical divide. Mine tends to view the market as amoral and tolerates that the government is sometimes the only thing to keep it bending toward moral, or at least keep it away from immoral behavior. This is the divide because that statement would send some into hysterics because they believe the government has no legitimate function outside of military. These people would also send their 6 year old into a coal mine (I keeed).
That is my attempt at a "how I see the landscape" kind of beginning. It may only be spotlight on the philosophical divide that ends debate, but its a start. Let's hear yours.
Post a Comment