It seems to me that it is perfectly moral to make money selling soap or cars or tickets to the movies. But I think it is unethical to make money on the backs of sick people, that it is wrong to profit from selling them health-care insurance and then to deny them benefits when they get sick. A system that increases the profits of health-insurance companies that charge as much and pay out as little as they can get away with is obscene in my book. Yet this is the system that we have in the U.S. today.
There are those who want to preserve this system (mainly Republicans) and those who want to change it (mainly Democrats). Isn't this country big enough to have two systems, a private health-insurance system for those who want it, and a public health-insurance plan for those who want that? This, to me, would be the appropriate compromise on this subject.
If the Democrats drop the public option, it will be because of the influence of the private health-care insurers, who don't want competition. There is no public, nationwide, nonprofit health-care-insurance industry to influence congressmen and senators with their campaign contributions (our euphemism for bribes).
The only way to really cut medical costs in this country is to get rid of the health-insurance middlemen and have the money go directly to hospitals and doctors from Medicare. A public plan like that will drastically bring down the costs, insure everyone and cut out all the insurance paperwork, not to mention personal bankruptcies resulting from astronomical medical bills. But if we can't accomplish such a single-payer system right now, at least Congress should give us the option of a public, nonprofit plan for those of us who want it.
— Fred Flaxman