Public option, consumer option, competitive option no matter what you call it this is the government-run option. If health care were not so important to pre-boomers like me, this debate - which is really finger pointing and posturing rather than a civil exchange of ideas - would be considered a joke. But it's no laughing matter; for the past six months we have been hammered with an endless stream of platitudes, half-baked concepts and ever-shifting plans that don't address the real issues.

Way back when, the headlines talked about the need for health care reform. We were told that 48 million Americans had no coverage, making the US the worst of the industrialized nations in terms of taking care of its people. Of course, this number was grossly overstated. It included those who were young, in good health and chose not to purchase insurance; illegal residents; and those between jobs with short-term insurance lapses. The practical number is less than half this total, but that's still unacceptable.

The key concern is to have children and those with pre-existing conditions covered. However this can be accomplished without tearing down the entire health care system. Remember, those living in other countries where universal health care is available often come here for treatment, if they have the money, because our health care is considered to be better quality than they can get at home. So how do we:
1) cover everyone,
2) maintain quality and
3) not raise taxes?

The answer is simple; we can't. Pick any two, but you can't have all three.

Medicare is already targeted for cuts of more than $500 billion. Proponents claim this will be accomplished through the reduction of waste, fraud and abuse; but most seniors believe it will mean a reduction in benefits. Otherwise, why didn't the government do something about the problems when they discovered them? Or, was this just another political move to take from one group in order to give to another, more deserving, group?

Have our representatives forgotten that there are about 40 million people 65 and over and that the aging boomers will be swelling this numbers in the years ahead? Are they saying to us that we don't deserve quality health care through the doctors we choose and receive the tests, drugs and treatments these medical professionals prescribe -- a portion of which is paid for by the supplemental insurance we buy? Don't they realize we paid our taxes and supported the system all our working lives and therefore earned the right to proper health care as the aging process continues?

The idea of states having the right to opt-out of the government option if they wish is ridiculous. It's doubtful a governor or state assembly will vote to opt-out when the residents know they're being taxed for it whether it's being offered or not. This option is supposed to lower prices by being competitive to private insurers. On the surface this option sounds good, but it will likely reduce competition and everyone will end up paying the price for such insurance through higher taxes as the government option becomes the only option. And that means no options at all.