The contradiction in health-care debate

We have watched more than our share of the "town meetings" regarding the ongoing health-care debate.

While one can draw several conclusions from the give-and-take, a glaring contradiction has emerged in the position of the group which generally can be described as the moaners and hecklers.

The recurring theme is they don't "trust" the government and are fearful of how terrible any "public option" health-care plan would be.

The elected official facing the crowd then usually points out the overall plan has been to offer citizens the choice of either maintaining their current private insurance coverage or signing up with the public option.

The hecklers then claim the private plans would be doomed because too many people would choose the public option -- the inference being the insurance companies couldn't compete.

Therein lies the most obvious contradiction in this entire public debate -- if the public option would be so bad since "the government can't run anything," then why would multitudes of people choose it?

Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts asked that very question to the crowd assembled at his town hall meeting -- there was no specific response, other than additional hooting and hollering.

It was at that same town meeting where one of the questioners appeared (she was actually one among several) holding a picture of President Barack Obama with a Hitler-style mustache painted on his face. She made several references to the Nazi-style health plan that was being promoted by the president.

Frank, who generally maintained his composure and tried to keep the discussion on track with facts and figures, understandably (in this case) asked the woman, "on what planet do you normally live?"

When one sees examples such as this woman appearing in the public forum, it casts a strong doubt on how long our democracy can survive, assuming one believes it is important to have an informed and reasonable electorate.

Our faith in the future of American democracy was elevated significantly several nights later when we watched part of a town hall meeting in Wisconsin. There was clear disagreement among the participants, but the tone of the gathering was far more civil and those participating actually seemed to listen to others and have a genuine interest in the facts related to the debate.

A veteran nurse raised an interesting point right off the bat, noting her early career consisted of observing real doctor-patient communications -- now, she said, the dominant relationship is between patient and insurance company.

It is our continuing view that most of the "hard-core" rhetoric in these meetings is political in nature, as opposed to health-care related. There is no way these people can in reality be so vehemently proud of the current system with its skyrocketing premiums, soaring deductibles, pre-existing condition issues and mounds of paperwork.

We don't have all the answers, but the main track seems obvious to us -- a basic health insurance program for all (as all other industrialized nations in the world possess) and a system for allowing those who can afford it to purchase what could perhaps be called "Cadillac" coverage.

The basic coverage on the low end would have this major benefit -- it would emphasize preventive care, and save the current costs (which we all end up paying in one form or another) of expensive after-the-fact treatment.

--REK