No one ever said it was going to be easy to pass healthcare reform in this country, and, like in the past, insurance companies and their Republican allies are fighting tooth and nail to keep the current corrupt system in place.
But at least our president keeps fighting (albeit not as strongly as I think he should), and that's to his credit. Here's the tape of his latest weekly message:
While the president repeats the answers that have been most frequently given to the myths about "death panels" (or the "pulling the plug on Grandma" argument) and how it would lead to a "government takeover" of healthcare, he makes this additional statement about the public option:
Now, the source of a lot of these fears about government-run health care is confusion over what’s called the public option. This is one idea among many to provide more competition and choice, especially in the many places around the country where just one insurer thoroughly dominates the marketplace. This alternative would have to operate as any other insurer, on the basis of the premiums it collects. And let me repeat – it would be just an option; those who prefer their private insurer would be under no obligation to shift to a public plan.
So what kind of a "public plan" are we talking about, a Medicare-style government-run one or a weak "co-op" plan that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) is pushing?
It is disturbing that our president doesn't define this further, and it is even more disturbing that he isn't using any harsher language about those who have been spreading outrageous lies about his proposal.
I wish he would call spades spades and call his Republican, insurance company, and right-wing talk show critics who spread the lies exactly what they are, liars, and do it forcefully and with conviction.
I appreciate that he is using his extensive "political capital" to pass this important measure, and it is also impressive that he has said that he is willing to be just a one-term president if that's what it takes to achieve healthcare reform.
But on this public option, he must define it sharply and specifically, not leave any door open for any weak-kneed substitute like the co-op idea that Conrad and others are advancing.
Is there any room for co-ops in any healthcare reform program? Here's what thebagofhealthandpolitics has said about that:
A co-op that operates under a national framework can be successful. This non-profit model is successful in many western European countries. But it is not the lame, state-based co-ops of Kent Conrad’s dreams; Conrad’s state-base co-ops wouldn’t have a large enough pool to alter the market, reduce costs and increase access. The end game is upon us, but for our side to be successful, we need the House to pass a strong bill with stringent regulations on the insurance industry and a strong public option, administered by the federal government.
So what is the use of dealing with those who want to defeat or weaken any healthcare legislation? I haven't heard our president give an answer to that question.
We need to see much more fight from this president than he's shown, espcially when calling out his lying critics, and pressure must be placed on Democrats, both real and "blue dogs," to pass legislation that has a strong, not weak or in name only, public option that is not watered down by those with stakes in preserving what is wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment