Once again, our fearless elected leaders in Washington are busy playing politics instead of doing their jobs. To wit: The current debate in the U.S. Senate regarding the reform of our health care system.
As politicians see an opportunity to get their names in the news, they start to create roadblocks to reform and trumpet loudly about how they are the only ones with the interests of the "American People" at heart. One such lawmaker is Joseph Lieberman, I-CT. Apparently still angry with the Democratic party, he has no compunction about using the well-being of the masses to force them to see things his way. Of course, not all politicians are acting out in this manner. Ever the optimist, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was recently quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "Democrats aren't going to let the American people down". So far, not so good.
The sticking point is, again, the public option part of the reform bill. Without it, real reform seems close to impossible. But, never mind. Instead, some Democrats have suggested expanding Medicare to cover most, if not all Americans. This idea actually makes sense, and many others have also made this very suggestion. Back in September, I read an editorial piece by George McGovern, who strongly urged this very thing. It makes sense: Medicare is already a thriving concern, and, though reform of the system is necessary for its continued survival, it seems to get the job done. Root out the corruption, and it could actually be a model for other countries to emulate.
Currently, 29% of the U.S. population is covered by public insurance through either Medicare, Medicaid or the military, according to an AP article by Hope Yen and Frank Bass. Another 16 or 17% have no insurance at all. Why has it become so problematic to extend benefits to a little over half of all U.S. citizens? The percentage would probably be much less, if the new system were voluntary, since some of those persons have private insurance they are happy with, others are students covered by their college and still others are covered by various state programs. It would make much more sense, however, to have just one public system in which the rules are uniform and the paperwork less odious. Yet, no real headway has occurred in this respect. Why?
Perhaps when our lawmakers take a break from trading team members, we will find out. In the meantime, pressure from each one of us is necessary to insure that health care reform actually delivers the promise of "health care for all".
As politicians see an opportunity to get their names in the news, they start to create roadblocks to reform and trumpet loudly about how they are the only ones with the interests of the "American People" at heart. One such lawmaker is Joseph Lieberman, I-CT. Apparently still angry with the Democratic party, he has no compunction about using the well-being of the masses to force them to see things his way. Of course, not all politicians are acting out in this manner. Ever the optimist, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was recently quoted by the Associated Press as saying, "Democrats aren't going to let the American people down". So far, not so good.
The sticking point is, again, the public option part of the reform bill. Without it, real reform seems close to impossible. But, never mind. Instead, some Democrats have suggested expanding Medicare to cover most, if not all Americans. This idea actually makes sense, and many others have also made this very suggestion. Back in September, I read an editorial piece by George McGovern, who strongly urged this very thing. It makes sense: Medicare is already a thriving concern, and, though reform of the system is necessary for its continued survival, it seems to get the job done. Root out the corruption, and it could actually be a model for other countries to emulate.
Currently, 29% of the U.S. population is covered by public insurance through either Medicare, Medicaid or the military, according to an AP article by Hope Yen and Frank Bass. Another 16 or 17% have no insurance at all. Why has it become so problematic to extend benefits to a little over half of all U.S. citizens? The percentage would probably be much less, if the new system were voluntary, since some of those persons have private insurance they are happy with, others are students covered by their college and still others are covered by various state programs. It would make much more sense, however, to have just one public system in which the rules are uniform and the paperwork less odious. Yet, no real headway has occurred in this respect. Why?
Perhaps when our lawmakers take a break from trading team members, we will find out. In the meantime, pressure from each one of us is necessary to insure that health care reform actually delivers the promise of "health care for all".
No comments:
Post a Comment