The Health Care Debate Redux

I'm proud to say that I'm a Bobby Kennedy Democrat: socially Progressive; semi-Fiscally Conservative.

By that, I mean I'm all for investing the US Treasury in programs that improve the lives of people so long as we have the long-term capacity to support them.

Notice, please, that I choose to use the word "capacity" here instead of the word "ability." And therein lay the fuel for arguments between me and my Conservative friends (believe it or not I have several of them) concerning whether or not it is the proper role of government to get involved with matters such as health care reform.

Here are a few points regarding health care reform that we agree upon:

• Medical care should be available to every American regardless of socio-economic status.
• Pre-existing conditions should be covered by insurance.
• There should never be monetary caps imposed by insurers on costs for treatment.
• We all like the fact that kids can now stay on their parents' policies until they turn 26.

And here are a few points where we completely disagree:

• "Obama Care" will bankrupt the country.
• "Death Panels" will determine the ultimate fate of people with serious illness.
• Trial lawyers are ones responsible for skyrocketing health costs.

Fact-check time.

Regarding Point-Of-Contention (POC#1), most economists -- including those who work for the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office -- calculate that health care reform legislation, once it kicks in fully in 2014, will actually reduce the national debt by over $200 billion over 10 years.

Concerning POC#2, there are no such things as "Death Panels" established by health care reform. The term is a pure invention of lobbyists working with the insurance industry, one designed to scare the beejeezus out of us. The matter at-hand concerns a provision in health care reform that sets up a process whereby a patient can, at his or her option, issue an advance directive stipulating exactly what measures, and how much, may be employed by doctors and hospitals to keep a person alive. Most of us have an advance directive, so what's the Big Deal?

On POC#3, 'twas ever thus. The battle between the medical community and the legal profession regarding damage awards granted by the courts for medical malpractice have been raging for 30 years. I agree that any doctor who employs the full range of his or her competent, medical skill in order to make a patient well should not have to worry about being sued. Problem is, this debate, over medical malpractice, has been lumped into the much-wider debate over so-called "Tort Reform."

By the way, I can't find any fault with an attorney who uses all of his or her arts and skills in the courtroom to secure a hefty award on behalf of his injured client.

I don't mind that the Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives will want to re-visit health care reform sometime next week. Bring It On!

The debate ought to give President Obama and the Democrats the capacity to tell America just how important these reforms are, and how they will improve the lives of Americans over time.