Health reformation
Nick Olson
Issue date: 11/17/09 Section: Commentary
With the passing of the health care overhaul through the U.S. House of Representatives, the only thing standing between the 46 million uninsured Americans and a public option is 100 senators.
Actually, assuming voting goes more or less down party lines, as it did in the house, where all but one Republican congressman voted against the bill, and the vast majority of Democrats voted for the bill, the only thing standing between America and health care that isn't consistently ranked below Slovenia due to stingy private insurance plans are not 100 senators but 40 Republican senators and one or two Independent senators willing to filibuster and dawdle into the new year and beyond.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, who, along with the liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, has made himself the epicenter of the Senate's battle over health reform, has claimed that if a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote." His objections are standard: "I believe the debt [from the public option] could break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today."
There is nothing wrong with fiscal responsibility. It's difficult for anyone to gauge a health care plan that would cost up to $100 billion (or more) per year. So, to gauge the costs, let's compare it with something of a similar cost.
The war in Afghanistan has gone on now for over eight years (that's longer than the Civil War and American involvement in World War II combined), and we currently have 68,000 troops stationed over there. And should President Obama choose to dispatch another 30,000 or 40,000 troops over there, annual costs would be pushed up to about $100 billion (or more) per year - just as much as universal health care.
Granted, it's something of an unfair comparison. We can't simply suspend our operations in Afghanistan. Not to mention that health care costs will continue indefinitely, while the war in Afghanistan will end … eventually.
Actually, assuming voting goes more or less down party lines, as it did in the house, where all but one Republican congressman voted against the bill, and the vast majority of Democrats voted for the bill, the only thing standing between America and health care that isn't consistently ranked below Slovenia due to stingy private insurance plans are not 100 senators but 40 Republican senators and one or two Independent senators willing to filibuster and dawdle into the new year and beyond.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, who, along with the liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, has made himself the epicenter of the Senate's battle over health reform, has claimed that if a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote." His objections are standard: "I believe the debt [from the public option] could break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today."
There is nothing wrong with fiscal responsibility. It's difficult for anyone to gauge a health care plan that would cost up to $100 billion (or more) per year. So, to gauge the costs, let's compare it with something of a similar cost.
The war in Afghanistan has gone on now for over eight years (that's longer than the Civil War and American involvement in World War II combined), and we currently have 68,000 troops stationed over there. And should President Obama choose to dispatch another 30,000 or 40,000 troops over there, annual costs would be pushed up to about $100 billion (or more) per year - just as much as universal health care.
Granted, it's something of an unfair comparison. We can't simply suspend our operations in Afghanistan. Not to mention that health care costs will continue indefinitely, while the war in Afghanistan will end … eventually.
Be the first to comment on this story