For several months now, there has a been a persistent layer of resistance to health care reform amongst liberals who say that what is now on the table is not enough. There needs to be a single-payer system, they say, or at least a solid public option, in order for it to even be considered real reform. And this is based on logic that is difficult to argue with, since a public insurance option would operate outside the bounds of a for-profit industry. Without focusing on increasing revenues, attention could be focused on saving costs instead. Presumably, this plan would be cheaper than private plans and would be attractive to tens of millions of Americans who either can't afford their current plan or can barely make ends meet. Subsequently, private insurers would be forced to bring their costs down too, in order to compete. If this logic isn't convincing, then there is plenty of evidence showing that this already works. Medicare has already proven it can hold down costs better than private insurers, and "substantially public systems employed by every other industrialized nation cost less and cover more than the American model." So yes, the public option is very attractive and the single-payer system even more so. But the real question in the debate right now isn't what is ideal for the American people - it is what is politically feasible at this moment to improve the lives of millions of Americans that are now suffering under the current system. The plan on the table right now is far from perfect but if one is to just look at the sheer numbers, it simply saves Americans a lot of money. So when progressives like Kucinich say that they oppose the current bill because it doesn't contain a public option, one has to ask, what exactly do they hope to achieve by having the current bill not pass? As Obama likes to say, seven presidents have tried and failed at reforming our health care system. The last attempt was almost two decades ago. Who's to say that it won't be another couple of decades before this issue is taken up again? How many lives will be ruined in the process? I love Kucinich and believe that his heart is in the right place. But it seems that his belief that blocking the bill will help improve the bill is rooted in the same place in his brain that has him believe in UFOs. If the current bill is indicative of jumping into bed with private insurers, as he says, then why are these insurers fighting against it?
Anyone who has been following Washington over the past year knows how ugly and complicated a legislative process of this magnitude can be. Keeping the public option alive is great, but demanding it is another thing altogether. Besides, it isn't as if the public option can't be taken up again once we've locked the current legislation. There are already good ideas being drawn up on how to address it. But not having it shouldn't prevent us from supporting a decent bill that is inches away from being passed. And for Kucinich, who has a vote on the matter, doing so would be irresponsible.