Issue date: 9/10/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion

[Click to enlarge]

[Click to enlarge]

This summer has seen its fair share of fantastically heated political debates, specifically on the topic of health care. At this point, the topic has become a dirty, unmentionable word - something that most people refrain from even discussing unless a) extremely well-versed, b) extremely opinionated or c) among the dearest of friends.

Similarly, countless people who do not meet the three aforementioned criteria turn the healthcare debate into a sideshow of sorts, screaming down opponents of their cause at forums and spreading blatant mistruths to further their point. Republicans, instead, have made it a goal to demonize any attempt at reform, yet continuously fail to offer any real alternative of their own.

The truth is that nationalizing healthcare is not only a step we, as a civilized nation, must take, but it is also a moral imperative we owe to every person in the United States.

Opponents of reform claim nationalizing healthcare would strip us of one of our base freedoms, which, apparently, is the right to be denied healthcare by insurance companies. The argument against a government-run option fails to acknowledge a basic truth of the healthcare system: the American people are already controlled by a collective body that is essentially paid to deny us healthcare. In fact, a study released on Sept. 2 by the California Nurses' Association says that the six largest insurance companies in California have denied 21% of all claims in the first half of 2009. That's 47.7 million denials of people with insurance in California alone.

In our for-profit private industry, the CEOs are basically paid not by the volume of patients they cover, but by how many they can deny, thus increasing their profit margin. Until this year's state budget passed, insurance companies could claim autism as a preexisting condition, despite it being something a child is born with. According to Lisa Jo Rudy, Senior Writer for the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, treatment for autism can cost up to $70,000 a year. Insurance companies left 3,669 families in Wisconsin in 2003 (fightingautism.org) alone to foot a bill that can easily force even an upper-middle class family into an unexpected poverty. Though this law has (thankfully) been changed, this shows the nonchalant manner in which insurance companies regard the quality of life that they claim to uphold.

Unlike other western countries where doctors are paid based on health improvements - for instance, losing weight or quitting smoking - our doctors are paid on sheer volume of patients seen. In this for-profit system, your health improvements are actually a detriment to the healthcare industry. Improved health budgets less medical services, which means less income. While, obviously, every doctor does not view a human being as a paycheck, one would be na've to claim the possibility of abuse isn't great. Why shouldn't we, as one of the most powerful nations in the world, expect our medical staff to be paid based on our improved health rather than continued sickness? Altogether, to say this system of providing healthcare is counterproductive is an understatement.

The term "public option" has been wholly demonized by right-wing pundits and elected officials alike. Recently, there has been talk of taking the public option off the table in order to garner more bipartisan support. Republican leaders claim that the public option somehow infringes on a personal liberty, and is thus another piece of "socialist propaganda." In reality, there is no stronger bipartisan idea than the public option because it is, in fact, an option. The public option is intended to provide a baseline method of healthcare for those who may not be able to afford it. If people are so inclined, they can get their own insurance plans privately - through employment or otherwise - and receive coverage more geared to their specific needs. The public option is not there to force insurance companies out of business, despite what Republican talking heads would have you believe.

The public option is there to give a single mother of three who is hit by a car the ability to pay for physical therapy without having to sacrifice food for her children. The public option is there for the elderly man with heart disease who has been continuously turned down by insurance companies who consider his chronic condition a liability. The public is there for the new college graduate with diabetes, no longer on his/her parent's insurance plan, who needs to find a way to pay for

insulin.

This idea of healthcare reform being "socialism" means that well-maintained highways, law enforcement, public libraries and public universities are all government-run socialist programs. Outside of the occasional drinking ticket, library fine or speed bump, one doesn't generally consider these programs to be abominations that infringe on our basic liberties.

Take, for example, the fire department. Simply put, if your house is on fire, the fire department will come and put out said fire. The firemen will not stop halfway through putting out the fire because you can only pay for half. The firemen will not refuse to put out the fire because you have declared bankruptcy. The firemen will not refuse to put out the fire because you had a "pre-existing" gas fireplace that may be a risk for a fire. The fire department also does not check to see if this was a preapproved measure before it can send its trucks out. The fire department does not redirect you to the fire department on the other side of town because it doesn't work with your firecare plan.

These are all qualities that we have not only come to expect, but demand of our fire department. Yet, if you imagine your house as your body and the fire as cancer, why have we not come to expect the same of our own health care providers in our own crucial times of need?

Consider a statement heard at Congressman Ron Kind's (D-La Crosse) town hall meeting in Whitehall. A man shouted at the top of his lungs, "Healthcare is a privilege! Not a right!" If we don't demand healthcare reform now, healthcare may be just that: a privilege that only the luckiest can afford; the rest are left to pay skyrocketing health care costs because the government helping its citizens with their medical bills is somehow un-American.

In what civilized country is the idea of looking out for your fellow man treasonous?

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools