It is a money issue, $1.2 trillion is a lot of money. Obama likes to say that health spending is unsustainable, and it may be, but the fed govt spending is far more unsustainable. In addition to the money, I also think in the long run everyone will be worse off, I could explain that all but it would be wuite a long post.
But something like a public option, in conjunction with a number of other reforms, would fix a system that everyone agrees is heading towards an iceberg. There are cost issues that just cannot be solved without universal healthcare - however we get there. I see public option as the most expedient way of getting to that point, but one way or another we have to get there. And that is going to cost money.
What is it business people say? You have to spend money to make money. Right?
This is a loaded question, of course a few million people who get the public option will be better off, as any coverage is better than no coverage. The problem is the bill will affect 97% of the country in the long run. How will the pubic option which will cover those who either have very high medical costs or who can't afford insurance be able to sustain itself? HR3962 plans to make the public option the only option available starting in 2013.
The thing is, I look at other countries, and I see what they have and it strikes me as infinitely better - for everyone - then what we currently have.
I mean looking at england, with their NHS, everyone has some form of coverage. It's not always the best, certainly (for instance) I have quicker access to care here in the US than I would if I were just covered by the NHS in England. But I'm hardly typical. Take someone in a lower economic bracket (my family is middle class) and you can see that lots of people hvae it much worse off...no coverage for check ups, just emergency care (which, by the way, is far more expensive than check up care).
And a friend of mine, in England, HAS private insurance on top of his NHS. And he still pays less than one would have to if they went in and bought insurance here, without an employer. They've created a system with basic universal healthcare for everyone (anything that you need, but perhaps with long waiting periods) and reasonably affordable private health insurance (gold plated, people have taken to calling it these days) for those who can afford it/want the extra comfort (shorter waiting periods, nicer facilities, etc).
And I know the dynamics of England and the US are different, but it doesn't seem so impossible to create something roughly analogous in this country.
It is very sad that humans die, but not every death can be prevented. When you become a physician do you plan to spend every penny you earn to prevent others from dying? Why not, why is $200,000/ year more important for you to have than to save several peoples lives?
I'd really rather not be one of those people who promises to do this or that when they become a doctor, but I can tell you that I don't plan on making much money over the course of my career. If that was my chief concern, I could have easily done so in a business environment.
Charity is a very important thing, but charity is not the job of the govt and people cannot be forced to be charitable or it is not charity at all. But this really sums up the entire liberal philosophy, lets look like we are doing good but we'll do it by spending other peoples money.
I think the government is supposed to have the best interests of it's citizens at heart, and I think a fully insured and healthy public is a benefit to ALL of us. It's the responsibility of the wealthy to support those (the lower income and the poor) who support the system through which we have made our money and built our success.
Everyone is responsible for everyone else. That's not communism, that's humanism.
