Americans Had Better Prepare for the Consequences of a Public Option

It's laughable to hear Blakemore, Deputy Assistant to George Bush, concerned that if health care reform passes, Americans may not be able to hold medical providers liable for negligence. It was President Bush who tried to pass medical malpractice "reform" that would have effectively taken away our right to sue negligent hospitals and physicians in court. He failed in his attempt, but even now Republicans want to cap medical malpractice awards as part of health care reform.

yale yarboro of AL 12:27AM October 09, 2009

Notice Blakeman's use of the phrases "Some of the likely results of a national healthcare system" and "the government will surely list a whole host of disclaimers." Blakeman provides no reason to believe that any of his list of terrible consequences will "likely," let alone "surely," come to pass, and I see no reason he may have failed to mention that suggests his warnings might come true.

More importantly, he fails to mention that a public option that millions of Americans have opted into would result in an enormous power shift in Washington. Every subsequent election would become a referendum on our health care system such that for any legislator to have any hope of re-election, his or her first concern would have to be "are my constituents happy with their health care?" The politicians would no longer have the option of serving the health insurance industry rather than the American people and, consequently, there would be no more effective system for allowing the American public to exert control of the cost and quality of the health care they receive. It sounds like a great idea to me.

Larry of MN 1:26PM October 07, 2009

"This finding has become known as the "public-duty doctrine" and it specifically shields the government from liability for the failure to provide services to individual citizens.

This is a very important distinction that should be considered as Congress debates the 'public option'. "That's what Blakeman wrote.

This is typical oxymoronic reasoning. Take any subject and fit it into any argument that appears to support a belief, regardless of fact or sanity.

The definition of 'public -duty doctrine' applies to public benefits of all citizens.

The key word, ignored for the convenience of the author, is 'option', as in freedom to choose.

It borders on insanity that the conservatives will shoot themselves in the mouth for the sake of dissent when they should support the freedom of choice that 'option' means..

Let me remind the extremists that they interpret the Constitution as a guarantee of freedom of choice, The first Amendment secures the right to speak, think, believe, and print anything, no matter how stupid, coarse, or false it may be. It also allows the right of rebuttal. At least tha option is still open.

Morton Kurzweil of FL 2:58PM October 06, 2009