The goal of guaranteed healthcare for most on some level is such a loaded one, the mere thought of achieving it is about as easy as reading Dostoevsky’s oeuvre in one day — just doesn’t seem like that animal can be slayed. Although some may proclaim victory on this front as a result of passage of sweeping reform recently in the House, believers of true reform know the game hasn’t even begun. Sure, Senate debate and vote loom, and there are indications that this process could begin sooner rather than later. However, in the overall scope of a finite period of time (say, Obama’s first 10 months as chief executive) it seems that the only progress made in this entire movement is the awareness of health reform as a fundamental political issue — whether it should be politicized or not.
Just as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have defined an era in the realm of foreign policy in this young 21st century, healthcare policy — and all of the associated baggage in shaping it — is possibly becoming the de facto era-defining domestic policy issue for the United States. Never before has this nation been so close to truly revolutionary upheaval on a domestic policy point since the 1960s — when cultural and political clashes born out of era-defining decisions from prior legislation[1] led to social and societal changes whose legacies are so necessary today that any alternative would be seen as inhumane and unconscionable. Racial inequalities, so deeply ingrained for almost a century at that time, began to crumble quite rapidly, as the argument over fairness and equal opportunity between races as a function of morality prevailed against previous laws mandating the separate-but-equal status quo.
Could the same argument be made about the availability of healthcare for all? Is the moral argument enough to empower legislation to close the inequality gap — not among races — but among those who have healthcare coverage or not? It’s the age old argument that perpetuates the healthcare as a right vs. privilege conundrum, and it’s not going to change soon — even with whatever bill comes out of the Senate. To some, the influence of Insurance, for example, is as vexing an interloper with regard to health reform as racial segregation was 50 years ago. To others, a mandate of forced coverage for most, if not all, represents social anarchism in the highest order — a path toward inexorable economic damage to a country which thrives on medical innovation and constant medical technological advancement protected by a free healthcare economy.
The choices made by the legislature may project clear and finite goals based upon current healthcare economic trends, but for a president for whom this one issue represents a clear legacy point, those same choices will have a profound effect on the rest of his term and his ability to convince either side of the reform debate that his healthcare vision is the moral and just one.
Related Posts Within Doctor Pundit:
Originating from Saint Paul, Minnesota, [doctorpundit.com] is a weblog about the policy of healthcare and where it intersects with politics and public opinion; it is edited by Michael Douglas, MD, MBA. Welcome, and please consider my take on what is Healthcare 2.0, complemented by a few of my thoughts on my personal avocations and guilty pleasures: music, prose, and writing. Follow Doctor Pundit via RSS above.
RT @hjluks: Reputation Management - A big driver for engaging in healthcare and social media http://t.co/OFaqw04O #hcsm #hcsmca
The role of low-dose aspirin in the prevention of colorectal cancer: Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targe... http://t.co/lmbq29EZ #pharma
DOCTOR PUNDIT @ ONE YEAR | An occasional DP series from 2010 highlighting healthcare policy trends over the period from 2009-2010 in a compare/contrast format.
