In the ongoing debate over national healthcare, it is of utmost importance that we reject the speechcraft of politicians and focus instead on the merits of the programs they would impose upon us. The argument put forth by the White House is that America’s current healthcare system is broken. Any opposition to the president’s healthcare agenda may therefore be dismissed as irrational support for the status quo. I reject the premise of this argument for reasons I hope to make plain.

First of all, the current system is not ‘broken’ in the sense that it still provides the best quality of care in the world to those who can afford it. The problem is that the costs are prohibitively high for most working-class Americans. This is (as Democrats have correctly surmised) at least partially attributable to excesses in the insurance industry. Cost overruns in the healthcare industry are also perpetuated by predatory lawsuits and cost overruns from defensive medicine, the practice of ordering excessive tests without medical purpose so as to avoid potential lawsuits. As currently written, Congress’s healthcare reform bill does nothing to address the latter issue. President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress contend that the objective of healthcare reform is to drive down the costs of treatment and make healthcare more affordable for working Americans. Yet the single greatest action our elected representatives could take to drive down healthcare costs, legislative tort reform, is conspicuously absent from their legislation. Why?

Furthermore, I reject the notion that opposition to national healthcare equates to support for the status quo. We are in agreement; changes are necessary to make healthcare more equitable and sustainable for the American people. There is a proper role for government in instituting these changes. However, it is not the role that Obama and his allies in Congress would have for themselves – providing insurance and dictating terms of coverage through a government-run public option in the insurance market. The public option, if instituted, would crowd out the private sector with government-subsidized programs, reducing choice and competition in the healthcare market. Life-saving procedures covered under private insurance may be deemed too costly by government regulators. The result: lower quality of care for millions of Americans. I believe there is a better way to solve this country’s healthcare woes. Question with boldness the assumptions of your politicians. They are often wrong.


8 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.
  1. Lindsay Sharvert,

    The title says it all. This article is a bunch of Shenanigans. Stop being a ridiculous liberal paper and have a little bit of perspective. This article is barley against socialized Healthcare. have someone with a little bit more of an opinion. Your liberal articles are very demonstrative. This barely has any emotion what so ever. Its more about law then the real dangers of healthcare. Come on Perspective, If you wanna be seen as a real publication, step it up!

  2. Glenn Eisenberg,

    We do what can with what we’re given. If you would like to write something, Lindsay, feel free. We will do our best to into our publication. David has been very cooperative and has submitted several articles. Therefore, we published them.

  3. Glenn Eisenberg,

    to put it into our publication*

  4. Gary B,

    “Life-saving procedures covered under private insurance MAY be deemed too costly by government regulators.”

    And this bill MAY lead to the slow degradation of the foundation of capitalism as Glenn Beck says, but unless you provide some evidence or strong logical connection to this outcome, are you any more credible than him?

    Also I don’t see why current legislation is incompatible with the sort of reforms you’re looking for, but Republicans don’t add to their credibility by arguing along the death panels line.

    If there was a more rational and empirically grounded bill under consideration, I think Democrats would be happy to support it. But the Republicans haven’t offered anything the least bit constructive, and to oppose this bill because it does not address ALL the problems in the health care industry seems to equate to subscribing to the fallacy of nirvana, n’est-ce pas?

  5. Richard Succer,

    The government just released a report saying that there is no advantage to getting mammograms at 40, and is now recommending women not start getting them until age 50, against the advice of most doctors. Does anyone think this is not simply an underhanded attempt to control government healthcare costs once the public option passes?

  6. Richard Succer,

    Harry Reid just compared voting for the establishment of a government healthcare system to abolishing slavery; I LOL’d.

Add Your Comments

Your email is never published nor shared.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <ol> <ul> <li> <strong>