The healthcare debate has taken so many twists and turns that nobody will truly get what they want. Sure, some Democrats will still talk about how great the bill is and how they are turning a page in history. But in their most honest moments, they will admit that this does not go far enough in either of their two major goals: increased access and decreased costs.
The liberal goal, at the beginning of this debate, was to have a robust public option so that the healthcare system could change its tendency to treat healthcare as a luxury and start to consider it a human right. Conservatives had a different idea; they believe strongly in a free market that self regulates.
However, instead of talking about the merits of a more inclusive system and the limitations of infinite access, we got sidetracked into talking about death panels, abortion, immigration and socialism.
Once the debate became more about scoring political points then solving the healthcare crisis, America lost. Heck, the Republicans even filibustered the Defense Appropriations bill (with funding for the two wars), just to slow down the healthcare bill! Democracy works best when we get people talking honestly about their differences and working together on solutions. That moment never came in the healthcare debate. It is unlikely that 2010 will be any different.
The closest we came to a substantial compromise was when Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) championed the idea of “triggering” the public option. This means that if healthcare costs increase at too high of a rate in a state, the public option takes effect. This will encourage appropriate behavior from healthcare providers, but, as long as they set modest, realistic and affordable prices, they will still compete in an open, capitalistic system.
This idea, of asking healthcare companies to not take advantage of their quasi-monopoly on a basic need and, if they do, allow the government to step in to provide healthcare access from a system based on patient health and not profit margin, is not a radical idea. It’s a fundamental responsibility of government: to balance out the market.
At the end of the day, the Democrats are probably right. If the Republicans response is to not do anything then it probably makes sense to pass something, regardless of its substantial imperfections, and then amend it little by little in subsequent years.
What a shame that members of each party could not put politics aside and come together to pass the best policy for America. I wish I could at least say they tried.
No comments:
Post a Comment