| It is clear in the fight for health care reform that a deal will need to be made. Don't get me wrong, I am still fighting for a strong public option and won't stand down from that position. I believe that without a strong public option, any "deal" is a failure and won't represent true reform. This is why we should should have started with single-payer as the proposal and that way, we could have moved to the middle on a public option. But now we are stuck with the public option being labeled as the "left-wing" proposal and the moderates and conservatives are standing in the way.
According to reports this morning, President Barack Obama will back a strong public option, but he will not make it a mandatory part of legislation. He also will appeal to Republicans who argue that tort reform (or malpractice reform) is needed by saying that there is a problem that is worth addressing.
So here's my proposal: As part of any legislation, a strong public option is included. And included in that legislation will be strong tort reform to address the concerns that doctors engage in "defensive medicine" (to borrow a line from my congressman, Chris Lee) that leads to high costs of providing care. While I see the point the Republicans are making, I don't think any medical liability reform should lead to patients receive less care because doctors are then shielded by such laws.
Put in simpler terms, if we get the public option, then we'll give the Republicans tort reform. That way, we all get a key piece to the puzzle. The public option, after all, is the moderate position here. We could have proposed single-payer, which would certainly have brought out Republicans (and the conservative Democrats) who oppose a single-payer system. Single-payer is a progressive idea. Most progressives I know support it, but realize that the chance of single-payer passing is slim to none.
That makes the public option a moderate concept. It isn't a government-run health care system. It keeps the best of the private health insurance system while giving those an opportunity at better health insurance (for the underinsured) or just health insurance in general (for the uninsured).
So why do I support tort reform, as a progressive? Because I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea. I am opposed to the belief (and position that some Republicans have shared) that it is the main problem with our health care system. It is not. That said, it is a problem. I am willing to work with conservatives on the issue and promote tort reform as long as it is within reason. Any reform that leads to substandard care by doctors who think they can get away with anything is not reform. But if we want to shield doctors from frivolous lawsuits, I am in favor of such reform.
There has to be some give and take, however. This doesn't mean that Democrats and Republicans or progressives and conservatives forfeit their positions in favor of the other side's. What it means is coming to the middle.
Let's take the best of both worlds. We, as progressives, want a public option. We believe it is necessary and required in any health care reform legislation. On the other side, while conservatives and Republicans might oppose a public option, they do support medical liability reform. They have advocated for this over and over again. So we should be strong enough to say that, as part of health care reform legislation, we will include medical liability reform.
The Democrats can't have it their way. The Republicans can't have it their way. So we need to take the best of both plans and push it as bipartisan reform. |
