Last night at the Symposium, some of the sharpest minds and most articulate voices on health policy squared off over one of the most controversial questions of the day: Does the new health reform law give the federal government too much control over Americans’ health care?
In the Colorado Health Symposium’s first-ever interactive debate, Dr. Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative think tank, and Colorado's Attorney General John Suthers faced off with former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm and journalist/author T.R. Reid. Audience members were part of the action -- questioning the debaters and weighing in on the arguments using interactive keypads.
Regina Kilkenny is the senior medical education officer at the Colorado Health Foundation, where she works closely with a team of graduate medical education programs to increase the primary care workforce in Colorado. She blogs about the Symposium's inaugural "Oxford-style" debate below.
Last night’s interactive debate was a first for the Colorado Health Symposium. Imagine having experts on both sides of the issue engage in a civilized, yet controversial debate and then asking the 300+ person standing-room crowd for their reactions through polling keypads.
The Oxford-style debate panelists reacted to the provocative resolution: “ObamaCare gives the federal government too much control over Americans’ health care.” All four debaters were granted seven minutes each to make their best case for or against the resolution.
We all agree on neighbor helping neighbor, Butler began on the side in favor of the resolution, but, he says, it’s the road we’re traveling on that’s the question. ObamaCare seeks to run American health care -- which, if costs were considered by themselves, would be the equivalent of the 6th largest economy in the world -- from Washington, D.C. Butler argues that we should decentralize health care and leave it to the states just as with welfare and education. What level of government should determine how physicians are paid? Do we need the creation of the 183 new federal programs, councils and advisory boards that are contained in the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Butler argues that no, we do not.
By contrast, on the side opposing the resolution, former Colorado Governor Lamm contended that Congress decided on an individual mandate to reach universal health care -- a Republican idea, he points out -- in an attempt to get consumers health care with minimal federal control. He reminded the audience that it doesn’t seek to replace private or public health insurance and expands the market-based system. Don’t forget that the states run the health exchanges, he says -- an important component to keeping them closer to the people. As long as we don’t want people dying in the streets, we need to set up some type of system.
But back on the side in favor of the resolution, Suthers called those who support the new health care reform law “coercive utopians.” He touts the importance of federalism, in which federal government can only exercise express powers given to it. As Suthers argued it, this bill represents the first time the feds have said “we will punish [citizens] economic inactivity.” Suthers says, Congress can, and does tax our economic activity -- but it has never before exercised control over your economic inactivity.
Turns out that TR. Reid has actually debated at the real Oxford Union Hall, and he showed the group how it’s done! He argued that United States law gives most of the power to the states. But, he said, keep in mind: no public option was included in this. If that public option had passed, everyone in the U.S. would pay less, Reid contended. He argued that “ObamaCare” gives too little control to the feds in multiple ways. Control over the exchanges is handed to the states. But as Reid puts it, mandates for responsible behavior -- like requiring citizens to buy health insurance -- are part and parcel of being in a civilized society.
So what did the audience think? When polled about their concerns about the new law, nearly half indicated that they worry most about the new law’s effectiveness, and nearly a quarter have concerns about the costs involved with implementation.
The final post-debate polling numbers that demonstrated that 157 opposed the resolution, 57 supported it and 15 were undecided. At the end of the debate, the audience was asked, “Which debater are you most surprised to find yourself agreeing with?” Suthers won out with 38 percent of the crowd finding themselves surprised to have nodded along with his arguments.
Discussion questions:
- Are we rationing health care through centralizing health care?
- We are all paying somehow, some way, for those who have no health insurance. How do we pay for health care for all?
- Are we concerned about limiting our constitutional rights?
- What about civil rights and other appropriate federal roles to ensure we don’t do our own thing, state by state?
What do you think? Share your thoughts by leaving a comment below.
Comments