To the Editor:
Re “Senator Unveils Bill to Overhaul U.S. Health Care” (front page, Sept. 17):
When the health care reform debate began, liberal Democrats wanted to replace private insurance companies with a single-payer system similar to those used throughout the civilized world. Republicans, more concerned about insurance companies’ profits than Americans’ health, said no.
Then the Democrats offered a compromise, the “public option.” They hoped this would extend affordable coverage to the estimated 47 million uninsured in America, and that some level of competition would drive down costs. Republicans, more concerned about insurance companies’ profits than Americans’ health, said no.
Now Senator Max Baucus is offering up a weak bill that would establish “nonprofit insurance cooperatives.” It is unclear what these cooperatives would do, and the Congressional Budget Office says they “seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country.” But even this tiny crumb offered to the American people has Republicans still saying no.
Politics is the art of compromise, but you cannot compromise with people whose only goal is to make the sitting president look bad so they can score cheap political points for the next election. Republicans obviously want no part of health insurance reform, so why do the Democrats keep reaching out to them? The same goes for the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
The Democratic leadership (an oxymoron?) should present a bill that creates a government-sponsored “public option” for an open vote in the Senate. If the conservatives filibuster, then it will be clear to all Americans what their priorities really are. After all, if the government is really so bad at running things, what could private insurers possibly have to fear?
Branden Wolner
Auburn, Mass., Sept. 17, 2009
Note from KBJ: According to the letter writer, the so-called public option is a compromise between those who want single-payer health care and those who want private health care. That's like saying that limiting abortion to cases of rape is a compromise between those who want abortion on demand and those who want a prohibition of all abortion. Would the letter writer accept the second compromise? After all, it's a compromise. If he wouldn't, then why should he expect conservatives to accept his compromise? Only an idiot compromises basic principles.
Note 2 from KBJ: Did you notice the sly rhetoric? The letter writer says that civilized countries have single-payer health care. The implication is that the United States is uncivilized. What does it say about him that he continues to reside in an uncivilized place? Is he a mountain man? Does he enjoy living on the edge? Perhaps if he thought it through he would realize that few (if any) of his readers agree with him that the United States is uncivilized. Many of us believe that it is the pinnacle (to date) of human civilization.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 