Self-Determination: The Crux of the Healthcare Debate

It has occured to me rather recently that the crux of the healthcare debate has been lost. Popular media regarding this issue has been faught with distractions of the most ingenius and disingenuous variety. The word 'death panels' invokes visions of jackbooted Nazis and mentioning the word 'socialism' in mixed company is likely to result in a lot of culturally conditioned anger. People talk about the US as if it were built on Capitalism, but nothing in the Constitution specifically protects this oft misappropriated economic philosophy. If anything, the Constitution simply determines the separation of powers between the federal and state level governments in regulating commerce, but makes no direct assertion as to just what sort of commerce shall take place. Capitalism is no more American than nationalsim, racism or any of the other isms that have been tossed about recently like verbal apples of Eris.

Ultimately the central Crux of the healthcare debate, aside from the reforms and regulations proposed for the established institution, is the Public Option. Nothing has polarized the public quite as much as this one piece of the legislation. And what is it really? I'm sure you've heard all the arguments about it being the first step in a government takeover of healthcare. I won't say it's an impossibility, but that argument is based on the assumption that a Public Option would have the same motivations as private insurers, and that's just not the case.

Let us consider a bill without the Public Option. By themselves, reforms which force private companies to insure all comers would probably have a detrimental effect on health insurance as an industry. Take as an example New Jersey's "take all comers" auto insurance law. That legislation was originally enacted with the intent of combating discriminatory insurance pricing and forcing private insurers to extend insurance to all but the worst drivers. It ultimately had the effect of financially damaging many NJ insurance companies. When the law expired at the beginning of this year several NJ insurers stopped taking new business and petitioned to leave the state. In this case, a public Auto Insurance option might be a better answer. I don't believe health insurance is any different.

Ultimately it boils down to self-determination -- a freedom which this country _was_ in fact founded on. Right now poor people in the United States have two choices: pay an exorbitant price for health insurance and suffer, or go without and suffer. The idea of a Public Option merely takes the latter choice and replaces it with something more humanitarian by far. The idea that a Public and Private companies can't find an economic equillibrium strikes me a ridiculous. They don't compete for the same demographic assets, nor do they have the same basic motivations.

Is it Socialism? Yes. But what is Socialism other than Politics with a Conscience? Of the people, by the people, and for the people.