All Options Are On The Table
Anyone who has seen 5 minutes of almost any politician’s press conference has probably heard the title phrase used but, with regard to healthcare in the US, the statement rings amazingly hollow. The reason is that regardless of the issue, some options are just seen as outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse.
In our often bipolar political system it’s almost as if the opposite sides predetermine the bounds of argument - narrowing the scope of possible outcomes from any debate. No serious national politician (or at least not one who wanted to be taken seriously) would, for instance, advocate debate for making the $3 billion in annual aid provided to Israel by the US contingent upon their adherence to a US-backed peace plan. If such an option were truly untenable for any legitimate reason, shouldn’t it die by its merits in a rigorous debate rather than being brushed off and labeled unserious?
I have to accept that there may be a place for a “legitimacy test” to spare federal resources being spent judging the merits of truly ridiculous positions, but surely a politician can’t ignore the legitimacy of a position for which he himself once advocated. Some of the best politicians are famous for their flip-flops evolving positions. Not to excuse lying, but I note that facetiously because we all learn and adapt with new information and experiences. Concern over the impact transitioning to a single-payer healthcare system would cause in terms of job loss in the health insurance industry in particular but in the wider economy more broadly are valid; however just because fast food may be cheaper and closer than a healthy alternative it doesn’t make us refuse to consider the benefits of the expense.
I would like to hear what you think about the appropriateness of a political “out-of-bounds” and more specifically, whether you favor it or not, if something like a National Health Program deserves to be part of our national healthcare debate.
