What the Public Option Really Means to Us
The public option has been debated by MSNBC and Fox News, Democrats and Republicans, "patriots" and "socialists" but it is fair to say that it is more than just a talking point or a potential policy disagreement. To many people across this country, roughly 216 million if we apply the recent New York Times poll to the general population, see this as something much greater than the significance of the Democratic or Republican parties, greater even than the labels of liberal orconservative; it is something more along the lines of, but not nearly as meaningful as, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without the metaphor, in plain terms, it is phrased thusly: does the system work?
Yes, the public option will force health insurance companies to lower prices because they will be competing with a company that isn't out to make a profit but who's primary concern is the well being of those it serves but few, if any, of these private insurers will go out of business because of it.
Some see it as a "government takeover of healthcare" and refuse to recognize that it is the government providing exactly what the name suggests: a public option. The most obvious public option that competes with private companies is the United States Postal Service and while it hasn't faired well in recent years with UPS and Fedex having expanded their infrastructure, the point of the USPS isn't to compete with UPS or Fedex but to offer a lower-cost alternative to the average American citizen. (Fedex even uses the United States Postal Service in areas where they do not operate.) So the public health insurance option, in essence, is founded on the same principle as the Postal Service: low-cost, acceptable-quality service for the average citizen who cannot afford what is offered by the private sector.
Do we let children, who could otherwise not afford to attend private school, not receive an education? Do we let Americans, who could otherwise not afford food, go without the money to buy it? The answer to both of these questions is no and it only requires one to follow simple logic to see that we cannot allow Americans who cannot afford health care to go without it as well.
Having said that, the debate over health care reform, as well as the coming cap and trade legislation, has once again revealed a more somber side to our government.
It is the very thing that begets doubt in our system of government, particularly doubt in the of faith we instill in our legislative branch.
It has shown us that our representatives are often more concerned with re-election than with making tough decisions that may put their careers in peril but that in turn will benefit the people which they serve; that playing chess with the issues at hand will crown them the victor in the next election year even if they lose some pieces during the game.
I feel confident in saying that they have underestimated the newly rekindled Progressive nature of the American people. The passage of a public option, which is necessitated by the need for liberal support in the House (and what I am sure will be much strong arming by the White House), will signify a cultural shift in Washington. That the change that dominated President Obama's campaign may very well be on its way. While Senator Baucus may not realize it, those who vote nay on the public option have little chance of being re-elected by their Democratic constituencies. (Senator Baucus actually supports the public option. Its the people that give him money to run for re-election that don't.)"Putting politics before the people..." will be the phrase uttered on television ads and radio stations across congressional districts from sea to shining sea. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few progressive Republicans winning primaries with similar expressions. However, Americans have seen political turmoil like this before.
I referenced civil rights legislation to health care reform not because I am trying to downplay the importance of a law that has insured the Constitution's application to all ethnicities and women. Legislation as monumental as that could have only come from the Great Society. However, if we see the legislation abstractly, without noting its specific intent, we will see that the dilemma that faced the United States government of 1964 is very much the dilemma faced by the United States government of 2009: what am I willing to risk for the sake of the people? The thoughts are the same: This legislation is long overdue and people are suffering for lack of it. Am I willing to step up to the plate and perform the duties that the people have entrusted me with or will I indulge my ego and hope to preserve this lifestyle?
So what will it mean when healthcare reform, including a public option, is passed?
It will be proof that the system actually works. That the people Americans have elected into office aren't just employed by health insurance companies and energy conglomerates but that they care. That they, like their constituents, have a stake in the future of this country and the prosperity of its people. That they can see into the generations ahead, as the Founding Fathers did, and make decisions that may not favor their party line and may not get them re-elected but will ultimately prove beneficial to our nation.
Yes, the public option will force health insurance companies to lower prices because they will be competing with a company that isn't out to make a profit but who's primary concern is the well being of those it serves but few, if any, of these private insurers will go out of business because of it.
Some see it as a "government takeover of healthcare" and refuse to recognize that it is the government providing exactly what the name suggests: a public option. The most obvious public option that competes with private companies is the United States Postal Service and while it hasn't faired well in recent years with UPS and Fedex having expanded their infrastructure, the point of the USPS isn't to compete with UPS or Fedex but to offer a lower-cost alternative to the average American citizen. (Fedex even uses the United States Postal Service in areas where they do not operate.) So the public health insurance option, in essence, is founded on the same principle as the Postal Service: low-cost, acceptable-quality service for the average citizen who cannot afford what is offered by the private sector.
Do we let children, who could otherwise not afford to attend private school, not receive an education? Do we let Americans, who could otherwise not afford food, go without the money to buy it? The answer to both of these questions is no and it only requires one to follow simple logic to see that we cannot allow Americans who cannot afford health care to go without it as well.
Having said that, the debate over health care reform, as well as the coming cap and trade legislation, has once again revealed a more somber side to our government.
It is the very thing that begets doubt in our system of government, particularly doubt in the of faith we instill in our legislative branch.
It has shown us that our representatives are often more concerned with re-election than with making tough decisions that may put their careers in peril but that in turn will benefit the people which they serve; that playing chess with the issues at hand will crown them the victor in the next election year even if they lose some pieces during the game.
I feel confident in saying that they have underestimated the newly rekindled Progressive nature of the American people. The passage of a public option, which is necessitated by the need for liberal support in the House (and what I am sure will be much strong arming by the White House), will signify a cultural shift in Washington. That the change that dominated President Obama's campaign may very well be on its way. While Senator Baucus may not realize it, those who vote nay on the public option have little chance of being re-elected by their Democratic constituencies. (Senator Baucus actually supports the public option. Its the people that give him money to run for re-election that don't.)"Putting politics before the people..." will be the phrase uttered on television ads and radio stations across congressional districts from sea to shining sea. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few progressive Republicans winning primaries with similar expressions. However, Americans have seen political turmoil like this before.
I referenced civil rights legislation to health care reform not because I am trying to downplay the importance of a law that has insured the Constitution's application to all ethnicities and women. Legislation as monumental as that could have only come from the Great Society. However, if we see the legislation abstractly, without noting its specific intent, we will see that the dilemma that faced the United States government of 1964 is very much the dilemma faced by the United States government of 2009: what am I willing to risk for the sake of the people? The thoughts are the same: This legislation is long overdue and people are suffering for lack of it. Am I willing to step up to the plate and perform the duties that the people have entrusted me with or will I indulge my ego and hope to preserve this lifestyle?
So what will it mean when healthcare reform, including a public option, is passed?
It will be proof that the system actually works. That the people Americans have elected into office aren't just employed by health insurance companies and energy conglomerates but that they care. That they, like their constituents, have a stake in the future of this country and the prosperity of its people. That they can see into the generations ahead, as the Founding Fathers did, and make decisions that may not favor their party line and may not get them re-elected but will ultimately prove beneficial to our nation.
