That is the essential question of this healthcare debate.
Everyone agrees that the healthcare system in its current incarnation is not perfect. Anyone who has had to deal with an insurance company rejecting a claim, or forcing a certain hospital over another, or who has looked with horror at the cost of an MRI (or some prescription drugs), and been grateful that they have insurance, understands this. The problem, however, is not the revolving 40 million uninsured (if you have an appendicitis, you will get treatment in an ER. You will not, unlike this woman, have to call your insurance company to see if you can get an ambulance while you are in major pain. )
The problem is one of out-of-control costs promoted by trial lawyers, government meddling in the market, and lack of choice. Clearly, more meddling from the government — and on a MASSIVE scale — is not the answer.
That is, it’s clear to people who understand that regular human beings are able to make decisions for themselves. Yes, even decisions about whether or not to carry health insurance, and how much. The problem for many uninsured is that the COSTS of private insurance are too high, and they are often unaware that they can even GET private insurance if they aren’t employed. There are ways in the free market to communicate about health insurance programs, and bring costs down without spending trillions of taxpayer dollars (not to mention risking all the many problems of government advisory committees checking on your health and habits).
We need more choice, not less. And one of those choices should not be the federal government, which cannot even attempt to stimulate the economy without putting us into major debt, thus killing all chance of real stimulus. A government “option” would not be an option at all, and would indirectly force other options out of business.
So who will decide whether this passes? Let us hope it is people, through their elected representatives, as God and the Constitution intended, rather than the ghost of Ted Kennedy.