Despite the fact that my representative is a flaming liberal, I have made an attempt to change her mind on healthcare. I didn’t argue on grounds of cost, economics, or taxation–Democrats either don’t get these concept or care. Instead I tried to use “Liberalspeak” to show her why public health care could be a bad idea. While I’m just one voice, I encourage others in areas with liberal representation do the same. If enough voices oppose Obamacare using language Democrats can relate to we might plant seeds of doubt in the minds of many Blue-Dogs.

Congresswoman DeGette,
I would like to relay to you my concerns over the current Obama health care plan.
1) Currently, as of a re-vote called by Waxman, abortion coverage would be included in all states. This removes the “fig leaf” of conscience that has appeased many pro-life Americans. Now, instead of simply tolerating abortion (some say evil by omission) we all would be subsidizing abortion, as tax money and cost pool shifting help pay for abortions (evil by commission). In other words, pro-lifers would have no outlet left for their conscience and would be forced to partake in a practice many find as abhorrent as slavery, the Trail of Tears, or even religious cleansings. Pro-lifers would be faced with one of four options. a) Limit their income to the point they won’t be paying anything into the system b) Refuse to pay into the system, and be criminalized c) Expatriate d) Radicalism.
The current abortion status-quo which ensures that public funds don’t pay for abortion in many states has been a good compromise and has kept protests (with a few notable exceptions), peaceable, civil, and reasonable. Removal of the right to conscience would be a terrible violation on the part of the government and would be met with harsh push back.

2) Although originally intended to be a tiered system with both private and public options, the Obama plan would likely eventually result in a public plan for most Americans. This would reduce patient autonomy. Currently, American are free to contract with insurance to cover the benefits they may need or desire in the future, whether or not these benefits are cost-efficient. By doing so, a patient can insure they get the treatment that is best for them, rather than the treatment that is nationally cost effective.
To illustrate this point I will refer to England’s system. In England, the majority of heart attacks are treated with TPA (tissue plasminogen activator), a clot buster. In the US we only use TPA if the time to get to the catheter-lab is too excessive. Balloon angioplasty is best for most patients with better outcomes. However, it is not cost effective. So, in a government option open to all, we find that a patient’s autonomy (to provide for the best treatment in case of a heart attack by contracting with an insurer) is limited. An individual is no longer free to protect himself against future illness, but must rely on the government to do so. In some cases they will not do this as well; the patient’s life is worth less to society than it is to that individual.
I know that the answer often given to this question is that in a “public option” people can still contract for their own insurance. Given the history of European healthcare, this is only partly true. As more people move to the public option, private insurance becomes more expensive, until only the extremely wealthy can afford it. The end result is that celebrities and politicians get balloon angioplasty, the rest of us get TPA. Thus, a system intended to be egalitarian, effectively cuts the middle class out of ideal healthcare and furthers the class divide.
Currently there is already a “public option” for some people; it exists in the form of Medicare/Medicaid and children’s programs like CHIP. In most cases, you must be eligible based on disability or income. By having an income requirement for the public option we encourage the private sector, which keeps prices of insurance within the realm of possibility for middle-classers, and allows them to protect their future health as they see fit, allowing them to make investments in insurance that will give them more and better options in the event their health fails.

3) Supply is also a concern with public health care. While America certainly doesn’t have the most cost effective health care in the world, we do have the most rigorous health care education in the world. So rigorous are our qualifications, that many MD’s from other countries have difficulty passing our boards, and often must repeat residency within the US. The converse is usually not true, US doctors can practice anywhere in the world, and any country would be happy to have them. Considering the rigor and excellence of current training, we must consider if our physicians will tolerate slowly becoming government employees. Will they continue to work the same hours? Will they except government interference in their field? We need to ask how we can maintain our current excellence and professionalism.
For example, in Germany, where Medical school is paid for by the government, and is not as lengthily as in the US, there have been physician strikes over patient/physician autonomy and wages. Recently, the doctors in Peru were on strike. To my knowledge, US Doctors have never been on strike. Also they work 80h weeks, while in Germany residents work less than 40 and in England they work 50. So the greater expense of our system does buy us something. We get more patient autonomy, as well as professional, well paid physicians who work longer hours and don’t go on strike. Our private system ensures constant, uninterrupted provision for health care.

I hope you will consider the above concerns. I realize that as a Democrat you feel a strong responsibility to the uninsured and hope to find solutions for them. I definitely think that there are good solutions that can provide for their health. I also think that these solutions can be achieved in a way that does not compromise individual conscience, patient autonomy, or the smooth and uninterrupted provision of care to the rest of us. There are good solutions out there. I highly applaud Colorado’s CHIP program as one of them.
Obamacare is not one of these good answers, and runs the risk reducing an individual’s rights and options for “the good of society”. Please remember that society is no more than a mass of individuals and not a “good” or an entity of itself. Please protect individuals by voting against Obamacare, and give us more good programs like CHIP instead.