Ten days ago in the Michigan Daily, Chris Koslowski politicized the death of Ted Kennedy. But not in a way you might think:
Obama has said again and again that a major factor behind the failure of the current health care system is the execution of needless or futile medical procedures. Among these procedures, Obama specifically mentioned surgeries for terminally ill patients. During a primetime ABC broadcast from the White House this summer, he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”...
Obama, and everyone who is in favor of public health insurance, needs to ask themselves... Would Kennedy, if he were a private citizen of average income under Obama’s public plan, have been able to pursue these life-extending procedures, given his age and condition?
Koslowski makes the point of all opponents of reform: "Obamacare is bad." But that doesn't fully address the relevant point: whether health-care reform will be better than what we have now. The fact that Koslowski doesn't ask whether his hypothetical, average-income Ted Kennedy would have been covered under a current, private plan (Answer: Probably not) shows that he hasn't done this cost-benefit analysis.
The problem is Democrats and proponents of health-care reform have not been making this argument effectively. Yes, whatever plan that comes out of Congress probably won't cover everything. But it will be better than what we have now.
No comments:
Post a Comment