Health Care Legislation

I guess I am joining the Greek chorus on this issue. Including a government sponsored program in the menu of health insurance choices does not mean that you have to give up coverage you already like or that we will become a socialist country. Even if you believe that we actually should become a socialist country, it would take decades. We are too far away from any European notion of a social safety net.

The misinformation about the Obama administration's vision of modifying (yes, "modifying", not throwing the existing system out with the trash) is even worse than it was when Hillary Clinton attempted to take on the issue in the early 1990s. The scare tactics employed to maintain the status quo are shameful. I wonder how many uninsured people could be insured if the advertising budgets of the naysayers were directed at paying for those benefits.

Most people with some knowledge about the existing system know that far too many people rely on emergency room treatment for common non-emergency maladies, especially when the patients lack health insurance. It's the most expensive way to deliver that kind of treatment and accounts for much of the problem. These patients often cannot afford to pay the bill. Those of us who are employed and have insurance already end up paying for unnecessary ER treatment either through income taxes, being unable to recover money lent when the uninsured file for bankruptcy or through depressed house values when the uninsured cannot make mortgage payments and face foreclosure on their houses.

The fact is that most of our current economic problems are tied together in a knot. Getting health insurance to the millions who don't have it is one of the most important first steps in addressing so many other issues.

I was struck by President Obama's remarks at a recent town hall meeting. He mentioned that we needed to listen to each other which is the whole reason I started this blog in the first place. Obviously, I think he's right.