Countering Legitimate Points Against Health Reform

Whether the recently passed health reform bill will create positive results on the national economy and premiums has yet to be determined. But a few things that won’t happen are all the catastrophic predictions from the right about death panels, socialism, government takeovers and generally the argument that our freedom is being taken away.  

Or how about that its passage is unconstitutional—that states have the right to repeal it, as a number of them have? These claims run contrary to the actual constitution, specifically the supremacy clause that gives the federal government ultimate authority over states. Article 1, Section 8 also cites that the government can "regulate Commerce...among the several States."

In other words, good luck getting that repealed.

Beyond the exaggerated claims, those opposed to the bill have largely attacked it based on legislative process, not what the bill actually does. These are arguments against the political system, not of policy.

One legitimate point about the process is all the hoops Democrats had to jump through to get the bill passed. But there is a clear distinction between a problem with our politics and a bill's policies. Our politics need reforming too, but that is another matter entirely. After the bill passed, New York Times Columnist Thomas Friedman called for the rise of the radical center to finally have a chance at governing the country.

This would prevent problems that exist in the two-party political system we currently have; for example, when one party would rather distort the truth and thwart political progress than work on the problems our country faces—or when another party is clearly divided on just how much change should happen that they either never compromise for a vote or run for the hills entirely. A political transformation that enables a voice for the average American would help curb the extremely polar partisanship this country has seen as of late.

Another legitimate point against reform is that it burdens us with more debt and changes too much in an already challenging time.

While passing reform involves several degrees of uncertainties and risks, not passing it also faces the risks of the status quo—projections of which foresee an unsustainable drag on the economy and premiums. Think passing reform means less freedom? How about the fewer choices that come with bankrupting premiums?  The choice that Washington has made is that the risk of not passing the bill is greater than the risk of reforming the status quo.

Surely, there are issues that need working out; take, for example, the higher taxes on those earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for couples). The government seems to be categorizing those who earn this figure as well off, and while this may be an accurate assessment for those that live in certain suburbs, $200,000 a year would hardly be considered wealthy in urban cities with a high cost of living.

That's just it, though. By passing health reform, at least we are headed in a direction that attempts to reign in on a national problem. There's no doubt that the kinks need to be figured out. But at least we're at a point where it’s the course of national discussion.