Issue date: 10/15/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion

The idea of health care reform in America is not a new one. A feature by The New York Times reflects on the history of this currently controversial issue, which stated that the first attempt at reform was when President Theodore Roosevelt "(campaigned) on the Progressive Party ticket promising national health insurance, women's suffrage, safe conditions for industrial workers and other social issues." Though a century later many of these issues have seen amazing progress, it remains that 46 million Americans are without health coverage. And while this country has made amazing leaps in health care reform in the past, it was not until after a year of debate in Congress over this time-sensitive issue that Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) finally proposed legislation.

The debates in Congress have become even more heated over the past few months. Arguably, this began with the president's address to Congress last month. The core of his speech was advocating health care reform and especially the "Public Option" plan. With all of the rhetoric bombarding the ears of the American citizen, it is hard to understand and appreciate the realities of this reform.

The public option is indeed an option; it's an alternative offered to those Americans that lack any form of health coverage. Those who are currently covered can maintain their current private plans.

For example, insurance companies will no longer be able to rescind coverage if it has been purchased. Right now, insurance companies can cancel coverage if any medical condition is omitted, even if it is unrelated or is unknown to the patient. A different reform will limit out-of-pocket expenses. These expenses include co-payments, deductibles and any medical services that are not covered under insurance policies. Included in this plan are free preventive services, such as screenings or vaccines, meant to deter a future medical condition. If anything, this system simply improves the current system and will hold the insurance companies accountable for their indiscretions.

Thus far, this plan might seem essentially perfect, but Republicans are quick to bring up the fiscal concerns. However, the public option gives the choice to those uncovered to accept the public health insurance coverage while remaining completely voluntary, operating like another private insurance company, completely self-sufficient. A more progressive alternative offered by some Democrats is the single-payer option, in which the government would provide care for everyone without going through an HMO.

Conservatives are also quick to provide far-fetched myths about the public plan. Even last Friday, when a group of progressive students rallied with petitions in support of the public option, they were bombarded with claims of "death panels." This rumor - and it is a rumor - began with Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York. She interpreted a small section of the legislation discussing end-of-life consultation as being mandatory, though it is presented only as a choice to be made by a patient. This idea was infamously given the title "death panels" by Sarah Palin. The bill simply states that when a patient is in the state of hospice, the government pays for the end-of-life consultations which include discussions of a legal will and possible actions the patient can take in the last years of their life. To clarify, patients are not subjected to being euthanized based on the decision of their medical caretakers.

Another lie perpetuated by conservative critics of this legislation states that under this reform, illegal aliens will receive the same coverage as the legal American citizen. By believing this, one simply doubts the credibility of the government. As we might recall in President Obama's recent speech to Congress, he was insistent in explaining that the public option would not be extended to illegal aliens, despite the now infamous quote "you lie!" by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-N.C.).

In order to receive such benefits and take the public option, proving citizenship is of course mandatory.

Along with the ongoing myths, a common hyperbole used to describe the option is a "government takeover." This is disproved by the fact that the reform gives the "option" to those who are currently insured. As stated previously, no citizen that is currently covered has to change their coverage. If they decide to keep their current coverage, they will receive a tax credit from the government to be put towards their own insurance. The government's public health care would run just like a private insurance company, competing with the private industry, rather than any kind of "takeover." A government option would force the insurance companies to be honest and work hard to keep their business by offering wider coverage.

Yet other critics like to claim that this new reform would add more money to the current deficit. According to the White House Web site, "the plan fully pays for this investment through health system savings and new revenue including a fee on insurance companies that sell very expensive plans." Yes, taxes will increase. But without reform, the average American will continue to pay outrageous amounts that have continued to skyrocket in the last few years for less than adequate service from insurance companies, while still taking on the risk of being denied coverage at any time.

When considering the importance of health care reform and especially the public option, it's important to take into account the falsehoods that are presented. These are blatant politically charged attempts to destroy any attempt at reform that is so desperately needed in this country. Remember, your representatives must adhere to the will of the majority and are held accountable for the actions.

The issue of a choice is non-partisan and impacts every American in the most profound way. Being a bystander and not forming an opinion, whether for or against this bill, is not an option.

It is up to you to decide what is fact and what is simply a diversion by so-called professionals forced to convey a specific political agenda for ratings and power.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools