euphemisms are for unethical acts: public option is a moral obligation.

The use of the euphemism “public option” has added to the confusion in the health care reform debate. Let us call it what it is; plan to cover the millions of uninsured and underinsured.
I include the large numbers of Medicaid recipients among the under insured. Because of poor reimbursement there are major swaths of the country, suburban and rural areas, where primary physicians do not accept Medicaid and an even a larger number who limit the number of these patients in their practices. These numbers are even higher among subspecialists and the problem of inability to get necessary subspecialist help has reached epidemic proportions.
Many others who have private insurance are partially covered because of the rampant abuse of the pre-existing clause by insurance companies. Still others because of job losses are on the way to join the ranks of the under insured and uninsured.
AT ITS VERY ESSENCE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS AN ETHICAL QUESTION. Do we as a society believe that health care is a basic human right that all of inhabitants of the US should have or do we consider it a luxury. Are we in line with the 12th century Muslim scholar al-Ghazali who asserted that “Profession of medicine is a duty on the society that some of its members can carry in lieu of the whole.” Or do we agree with John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods who basically said “health care is a commodity that only the rich deserve.”
Americans are compassionate group of people with an admirable history of caring for their neighbors and regardless of party affiliation would support the idea that basic health care it is a right not a privilege. They have seen too many horror stories of friends and family whose lives have fallen apart because of a serious or chronic illness. Most would agree that there should be basic, including catastrophic, coverage for all.
Let us also be honest that we cannot cover millions of new individuals and fund Medicaid and Medicare properly without spending money. Reform, including malpractice reform, may save substantial amounts but not enough for the new expenses. They would have to come from either new taxes, or redistribution of funds in the budget or both.
But if as a nation we agree with the basic goal of leaving no citizen behind in health care coverage then we can discuss the best option or options that are available to accomplish it. We would only be joining the Brits and Canadian and many others who already do so.
The choices include the government run insurance company, the “public option”, but who would want a new bureaucracy; look at all the bureaucracies we already have, look at the post office. Insurance companies could be mandated to offer a simple, economical basic plan for all comers. This would provide for catastrophic coverage, hospitalizations and routine preventive care. The premiums for this frill free plan may be subsidized. Another option, which the administration is already considering, would be to change the Medicare into a hybrid plan where some who qualify might buy into. Medicare has been around and its administrators have done a decent job administering healthcare compared to the private insurance companies; without question they like the private insurers need better oversight.
But the administration has to be honest and up front and President Obama should follow his own advice that we should speak in public what we say in private and stop using euphemisms that only confuse; that is the best antidote to the smear of socialism that the reform is being subjected to. What makes a nation great is not its wealth and might but its ideals and compassion; I believe we live in a great nation
Javeed Akhter, a physician practicing in the Chicago area, is a free lance writer.