If there's one GOP talking point against the public health care option that seems to stick, it's the 'Washington bureaucrats will make your health care decisions' myth. From the recent GOP letter to President Obama about a public health care plan:
"The end result would be a federal government takeover of our healthcare system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy..."
Then I read this on Think Progress a minute ago:
As Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) prepares to unveil the Senate Finance Committee’s bipartisan health care reform legislation later this week, several blogs are reporting that Republicans on the Committee are pushing legislation that would require insurers operating within the new Exchange to to [sic] deny coverage for abortion services.
You might say that Republicans are "taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy".
Also in the TP post, from Raising Women's voices:
Chairman Max Baucus considered several compromises to win Republican support, so they can claim it is bipartisan legislation. One of these potential compromises comes in the form of an abortion exclusion, which would prevent abortion services from being covered by some or all insurance plans in the Health Insurance Exchange.
Now, I don't seriously think that GOP Senators are going to realize the irony here. After all, the situation is doubly ironic. We already have obstructionist bureaucracies that are getting between doctors and patients. We call them health insurance companies.
Yet there is something even more cynical about this move. Regardless of how you feel toward the morality of abortion, it is a medical procedure that a doctor and patient may find necessary. In fact, it doesn't strain the imagination to think of scenarios where abortion may be required to save a life. And none of this addresses the real issue, which is that abortion is legal and protected by the Constitution.
Deeper still, this shows that the GOP's principled stand on government interference in the public option is actually devoid of principle. Or perhaps only Republicans are allowed to make choices about which medical procedures should be allowed? What other lines should we draw in the health care sand that might appease the GOP base? Stem cell research has been held back for years, despite being our best hope for diseases that are as yet incurable. In 2007, Pew found that 23% of Americans agree with the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior". Should we deny treatment for AIDS because a small minority believes such a thing? Organ transplants, the HPV vaccine, in vitro fertilization: all medically sound treatments that have been opposed on similar grounds. Hell, two thirds of Americans believe nanotechnology is immoral.
So what of the self-fulfilling dire prophecy in which Republicans warned us of heinous government interference and then committed it themselves? In effect, their actions have validated their concerns. It is a problem when politics interfere with what doctors and patients determine is the best treatment for a disease. By all means, let them choose. If you find abortion immoral, don't have one. If you're fine with your daughter getting the HPV vaccine, give it to her.
It's just another day in Washington when Republicans, and also many Democrats, are guilty of hypocrisy; however, when it comes to health care, lives are literally in the balance. Sen. Baucus should be less concerned with gaining bipartisan support, and more concerned about doing what's best for the American people. He should actually follow the Republican's advice from the letter and stay clear of legislation that takes "decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients", legislation that the Republicans now want.