The politics of healthcare reform
Kofi Ogbujiagba
Issue date: 9/23/09 Section: News
Healthcare reform has always been a hot button issue in the country. It remains so today. The first serious attempt to address the problem of universal coverage goes back to Theodore Roosevelt, whose defeat in the 1912 election brought the efforts of progressive healthcare reformers to an untimely end. Franklin D. Roosevelt was also unsuccessful in his bid to galvanize sufficient support for the reform.
Today, the fight has taken on an evangelical flavor with both the Democrats and Republicans preaching opposing doctrines of whether or not to go ahead with the reform. Even those who agree that there is need for reform seem not to be able to agree on what shape and form the bill should take. The biggest problem in the battle for comprehensive reform of healthcare is the fact the situation has become so complicated that it is very difficult to separate politics from reality.
The most divisive issue confronting lawmakers in the current debate is what the White House and Democrats call "public option," and the Republicans derisively refer to as "government-controlled" or "socialized" healthcare.
Public option as defined by Democrats is the provision of an alternative that will protect public interest by creating competition and serving as a counterweight to the private insurance companies in the marketplace for health insurance. Supporters of public option claim that apart from ensuring that every American is covered, it has the added advantage of keeping the insurance companies honest by widening the range of choice for patients.
On the other hand, the Republicans describe it as government control of the healthcare industry. They see it as an unwarranted attempt by the government and its agents to interfere in the way that healthcare is provided to the citizenry, by creating another layer of bureaucracy in the management of the industry.
In order to justify their positions on the issue, both parties have taken their concerns to the public through the mass media, internet and other organs of public information and discourse. Expectedly, both parties have been trying to portray the other's position as unrealistic and not in the best interests of the people.
Today, the fight has taken on an evangelical flavor with both the Democrats and Republicans preaching opposing doctrines of whether or not to go ahead with the reform. Even those who agree that there is need for reform seem not to be able to agree on what shape and form the bill should take. The biggest problem in the battle for comprehensive reform of healthcare is the fact the situation has become so complicated that it is very difficult to separate politics from reality.
The most divisive issue confronting lawmakers in the current debate is what the White House and Democrats call "public option," and the Republicans derisively refer to as "government-controlled" or "socialized" healthcare.
Public option as defined by Democrats is the provision of an alternative that will protect public interest by creating competition and serving as a counterweight to the private insurance companies in the marketplace for health insurance. Supporters of public option claim that apart from ensuring that every American is covered, it has the added advantage of keeping the insurance companies honest by widening the range of choice for patients.
On the other hand, the Republicans describe it as government control of the healthcare industry. They see it as an unwarranted attempt by the government and its agents to interfere in the way that healthcare is provided to the citizenry, by creating another layer of bureaucracy in the management of the industry.
In order to justify their positions on the issue, both parties have taken their concerns to the public through the mass media, internet and other organs of public information and discourse. Expectedly, both parties have been trying to portray the other's position as unrealistic and not in the best interests of the people.
Be the first to comment on this story