As a Republican, I think the GOP is way off track with health care -- of course, the Democrats aren't getting it right either.

First, I think the Republicans are making a mistake by always turning the discussion into a debate over "whether health care is a right" or, worse, "socialism."  Health care doesn't have to be a right in order to pass legislation that will provide coverage to more Americans.  Clearly, there is no Constitutional right to health care, but the fact is that in today's world health care is a necessity!  I say it is necessary for two reasons: (1) the cost of medical care is beyond the average American today.  Even with some insurance plans, most Americans really have to rely on never getting seriously ill.  More than 60% of all bankruptcies are related to medical costs (think of the toll that takes on the economy), and many of those people have insurance.  And (2), those without heath insurance are driving up the cost of medical care for all of us.  When they have a serious illness, they aren't turned away - they get their treatment and the medical community has to charge us more to make up the difference.

The argument that we are becoming a socialist state because the government wants to help us with health care is just laughable.  At least it would be if so many didn't take it seriously.  I don't think I want to be a part of a "free country" that believes that health care is only a privilege for the wealthy.  The government wastes so much money that doesn't benefit many of us - I don't see anything wrong with spending some of it on something as important as health care that will benefit the majority of Americans.

And, second, not to leave out the Democrats in my rant - they are clearly using scare tactics and rhetoric to pass one of the biggest shifts in power from the states to the federal government in our history.  I do believe that we need to do something to provide health coverage to more Americans - BUT, we do not need a full scale take over of the insurance industry to do it.  And that leads into Kevin's question about the public option...

Personally, I have no fear of a public option, but I don't really like it.  If the government is as bad at running everything as the right-wing fanatics say they are, what would the harm be so long as it remains an option?  As an employer who pays 100% of the health insurance premiums for my employees, I wouldn't switch to a public option.  I am happy with our health insurance, except for the price.  If those people without health care could get coverage, even under a public option, perhaps premiums would drop for the rest of us.  That wouldn't be all bad.

However, I don't think it is necessary to institute a public option, at least at the federal level.  I'd much prefer to see several states work on their own health insurance reform to accomplish the goal of getting more people covered.  See what works on the state level and let the states gravitate toward the plan that works best.   

The biggest problem I see with regulating health care at the federal level is that not every state has the same problems.  In some states, it may be a large population of aging citizens (Florida and Arizona), it may be illegal immigrants (California, Texas, New Mexico), or it might just be loss of jobs from a change in our economy (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania).  A one-size-fits-all federal approach isn't going to be efficient at addressing all of the concerns equally well, and it could turn out to do them all poorly. 

And, I quite agree with Slade (on at least one issue), that "the bottom line on health-care reform is this:  right now our country is too cash-poor, too infused with corruption, and too ill-informed to make meaningful comprehensive health care reform even possible right now."  We simply cannot afford it.  We really need to focus on the economy first and then see what we really need (and can afford) to do.

Good topic for debate, Kevin.

Best,
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE