Why the public option...or a single-payer system...matters...

The biggest problem with the health care reform effort involves three words: "Rich people legislating."

We know that most of Congress, specifically the Senate, is made up of people who are way more wealthy than we are. We also know that they get great health care plans through the choice of the federal system or can afford the greatest private plans because they are wealthy. Most of them, like the American people generally, also have two incomes for one family, whereas some of us, which can mean single people or also the particularly vulnerable group of single women with children, rely on just one family income. We know that most, if not all, of the other industrial democracies in the world have universal health care coverage for their citizens. In Canada, England, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Singapore, Australia, and many others. And, while some of those systems are different, there are two features they all have in common: They cover ALL of their citizens, providing national health care. And those governments pay less in comparison to the very high costs of health care in the United States. A third common aspect for most of them is that the health and medical rates (such as infant mortality and life longevity) are better there, as compared to the United States. And the social qualities are better in those other nations as well, as no one goes bankrupt or loses their homes or businesses because of medical expenses and no one dies because they can't afford to go to a doctor or hospital. Conclusion: Those countries have found a way and do it better than the United States does. You might think then that "rich people legislating" in the United States would have the "smarts" to look at those other systems and model the American system after them, selecting the very best parts. However, are "rich people legislating" concerned with "smarts" or other matters? Some would say that many in Congress are concerned about money first (though they waste so much of it on endless wars, unlike other democracies) and then they are less concerned about universal health care cost for citizens. Some people in Congress--they are called Republicans--are opposed to any governmental program, though they and others in their immediate families have individually benefited from many governmental programs. Those Republicans and what we now know as Blue Dogs, meaning Democrats who like to think like Republicans, are against a public option plan. A public option plan would allow the government to set up a health care program to accommodate people who can't afford the rates charged by the private-sector insurance companies. Who can't afford insurance? Well, millions of Americans. But, of course, not the "rich people legislating." Without a public option plan, the health care reform would mean some improvements, such as requiring insurance companies to not heartlessly refuse to cover the health care costs of people who the insurance companies have diagnosed as having pre-existing health conditions. But mainly, without a public option plan, the health care reform would mean: 1). A sweet deal for the drug industry; 2). A gold mine for the insurance companies; and 3). A mandate for everyone in America that requires them to get health care insurance...from private insurance companies, because there would be no public option. Some people argue--well, it is good that everyone has to purchase insurance and that it is a person's responsibility to have health care insurance in case they get sick. "Rich people legislating" particularly say that. The reality is, of course, that some people can't afford one more bill, or else they probably would have gotten health insurance already. Some people, but not the "rich people legislating" might prefer to put food on their table than to have one more monthly bill that blows the rest of their already small paycheck. The reality also is that for people who have health care insurance now, they may have reduced it to practically no coverage in order to just keep the monthly payment low. I can speak to that because that is exactly what I have done. I have insurance through my employer that I pay for on a monthly basis, but mainly it is aimed at the occurrence of catastrophic medical attention, such as the arrival of cancer or being suddenly hit by a car. I don't have dental insurance. I don't have vision insurance. I have trimmed my insurance coverage to the barest of bones in order to keep up with my other monthly bills--as a single person with a single income, unlike most "rich people legislating." So, as people like me or plenty who are far more worse off, with lower incomes or even jobless, look at the health care reform plan without a public option aspect, we are horrified that insurance companies will continue to control most everything about national health and most likely raise costs at their will, like they do with mandated car insurance. Thus, people like me, I hope, are drawing a line in the sand. If the public option plan isn't in the health care reform, then not only will Obama be a "liar" for supporting a public option before but accepting an absence of it later, but also I will not again vote for Obama or other Democrats (and had no intention anyway of ever voting for a Republican or Blue Dog). So, it is crucial to the future of the Obama presidency and the Democratic majority that people like me, on the progressive left, don't abandon them. Heed this, "rich people legislating": If you intend to provide an American future that only accommodates the wealthy and, in essence, says that the poor and lower middle class can make no real gains in the American system, then you will lose in upcoming elections...and deserve to lose. Line in the sand: Public option plan.