Glenn Smith makes a great point–Democrats have not used the language of emotion and morality to argue for health care reform.  Opponents of meaningful reform, like Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, have provided a opening by using what appears to be cold logic.  There is no intrinsic right to health care, says Mackey, just as there is no basic right to food or shelter (it occurred to me that his op-ed might be better if set to lyrics in a Dickensian musical: "please sir, can I have some more medicine?").  How do we know, Mr. Mackey, that there is no right to health care?  It’s simple, dummy–neither the Declaration of Independence or Constitution say so.  End of story.

Mackey’s argument is simplistic, condescending, and lacking in imagination.  It is simplistic because it seems to assume that government need not provide services unless they are expressly described in the nation’s founding documents.  If that were the case, of course, we would have no Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.  Mackey’s argument is condescending because it tries to scare readers about rationing in countries that provide health care to all–ignoring the fact that we already ration health care in the U.S.  His argument lacks imagination because, even assuming his flawed premises were actually correct, he’s asking the wrong questions.

The question shouldn’t be: does anything in our current legal system require us to make sure everyone has access to health care?  The questions ought to be: do we want to live in a society where nearly 2/3 of people who declare bankruptcy do so because of medical expenses?  Do we want to live in a society where people camp out in a parking lot in Los Angeles to receive basic medical care–and hundreds are turned away because the group providing service, an organization set up to help people in the developing world, doesn’t have capacity to treat them all?  Do we want to live in a society where insurance companies can deny critically ill children the treatment they need?

Of course, we have already answered "yes" to each of the questions I posed.  That is the system we live under right now.  The real questions for all of us are: do we want to continue living in a society where people go bankrupt because of medical expenses, where people line up to receive basic medical care as charity, where insurance companies deny people critical care?

I think it is immoral to do each of these things.  The moral action is to choose a society where people are not bankrupted by medical expenses, where everyone gets medical care without having to camp out in a parking lot.  Those who oppose the public option are really saying that they are a-ok with the status quo (Mackey’s pitiful prescription of HSAs, tort reform and a few other patchwork pieces will not address the problems I cite). 

The debate over health care makes me think of Hurricane Katrina.  We were shamed by the pictures of people left to die in an American city.  We ought to be shamed by the photos from the free clinic in Los Angeles.  We can do better than this, and we must do better than this.  It’s a test of our basic morality.