Earlier today, an important Senate committee dealt proponents of the public health care option a stinging setback. The Senate Finance Committee voted against including a government funded plan in the eventual bill.
The fight for such an option has become a pivotal battle ground in the fight for health care reform. I've yet to make up my own mind on the merits of a public option. Sifting through the lies, exaggerations and misinformation has become an almost herculean task.
My support of health insurance reform is rooted, not in any altruistic desire to cover the uninsured, but in the knowledge that our current system is completely unsustainable. While wages have remained virtually the same over the last ten years, insurance premiums have risen like clockwork. Consequently, profits for the insurance industry have risen an astounding 450% over the same period of time.
While resolute in my support for broad industry reforms, I remain unconvinced of the necessity of a heavily subsided government option. I am, however, open to the possibility of changing my mind. There may be valid reasons for including a public option and even if not, I'd still like to hear the other side of the argument. I feel nothing but disdain for those willing to take to the streets in opposition to something they know little about.
Let's put the outrage on hold until all the facts are known, shall we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I unfortunately don't know enough hard statistical and policy-pertinent information about health care to have taken any firm opinion.
I've avoided pretending as if I know the answer, although the vast majority of people that I've encountered have no such caution.
I'm aware of the dangers of letting reform languish, especially the long-term financial ramifications for the United States. I'm also disgusted by the reaction to reform that can best be defined as obscurantism.
I'm not entirely convinced that government involvement with health insurance equates to socialism, and the other nations of the developed world have long since adopted some manner of government commitment in that area. The percentages of GDP that make up expenditures towards health care have all generally decreased in those nations, while the United States suffers an unsustainable and persistent increase. Then there are the unethical antics of insurance companies, which I just recently experienced. Then of course there is the humanitarian aspect, although such considerations should not lead to bankruptcy or a culture of excessive dependence.
There is a terrible irony in watching David Cameron underline his support for the NHS in Britain, or the same for other politicians of the same stripe across the western world.
I really don't know enough yet, and I've been too busy with other studies to academically examine the health care issue. I've rejected the media and pundits as a viable source of real information.
Then again, I'm always resistant to the 'dog pile' mentality that so many people have towards issues of the day.
I completely agree with your indecision Nathan. It's so easy to get lost in as issue such as this, especially when radical criticisms are being shouted from left to right. I feel like we don't have any data to look at, just hearsay. I agree that regulation and reform of our current system is necessary, but doubt that the impact will be as powerful and beneficial as a public option has the potential to be. I guess we will continue to referee both sides until a valid and substantial argument can be made.
I completely agree with you. Why does it have to be so tough to figure out what is actually going on. The reporters talk about the issue like they know but im not sure if they have a clue. Maybe that is why it is so difficult to get any useful information out of them. Good work keep it up.
Post a Comment