Some Healthy Debate

September 20, 2007 by patrick.

Sticks and stones
may break our bones,
but words alone
will never help us.

Having read the Lowell Sun’s article “War of Words,” I am struck by the aptness of the title. The real debate on health care should not be about words, but substantive ideas that can create positive change in the lives of our people.

Jim Ogonowski states in the article that he opposes renewing S-CHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) because of what he claims to be “another form of amnesty” for illegal immigrants. This is, of course, another form of demagoguery, of appealing to the worst in us with false arguments. Any student of law learns quite quickly that a crime requires two elements: actus reus, the “guilty act” itself and mens rea, the “guilty mind,” or knowing intent to commit a crime. It cannot be said that immigrant children or children of immigrants meet these criteria, and to call them criminal or illegal is as ridiculous as the non-policy which Jim offers to solve the problem of health care in this country. After all, on the question of quality health care and how we ensure that all Americans have access to it, Jim still has no answer.

Niki Tsongas, on the other hand, defines the choice “for voters who want to see change and progress in Washington” not in terms of the health care plan she proposes, but in terms of her Republican counterpart. Also short on details, she has said that she would support a Massachusetts style system of mandated coverage nationally. As a candidate who touts her membership on the board of a health care plan—one which will benefit from the state’s new law—and as a recipient of significant contributions from the health care industry, Niki naturally believes that the industry should play a role in determining, on the basis of profits, who receives care in this country. This is precisely what is wrong with the system and why there is not a system of universal health insurance. Moreover, it is disingenuous to claim the Massachusetts plan is “universal” when at least 60,000 people in the state will remain uncovered because they do not qualify for government subsidies and find that the costs of mandated plans are prohibitive.

I am the only candidate in this race who has proposed a truly universal system of health care which would cover not only the current uninsured, but also raise the level and quality of care for the millions of underinsured. In this improvement and expansion of Medicare for all, the government would simply become the insurer—the “single-payer”—replacing the fragmented system of for-profit insurance companies, but preserving the current delivery system of private health care. In other words, patients would be free to choose their own doctors and hospitals. Gone would be denial of payment because of “pre-existing conditions” or less extensive coverage, and the hassle and complexity of a patient’s bills, which would be paid by the government rather than insurance companies. Using the bargaining leverage of the government, easing health risks among the entire population, and focusing on the long-term wellness of patients, the system would keep costs down more effectively and simply than any other. From the profit-making insurance industry which may raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles as they have each year and deny or limit coverage to patients without appeal, power will shift back to individual citizens themselves who may now hold our insurer—the government—accountable to our will as a people.

Posted in Race for Congress | Print | No Comments »