Health Care Negotiations Should be Opened to Public View

In the long-running debate over health care, it is worth noting that a government-run plan is not the only 'public option' which has potentially met its demise. The other has been the public's option to be well informed about the development of the legislation and to weigh-in on what is sure to be a bill with far-ranging and incredibly long-term consequences. Despite numerous promises of transparency, the current leadership of the Democratic party has shut out the public. And, as noted in this Washington Times editorial, that is not only alienating the public, but is swelling the ranks of those who count themselves against the bill.

In an era when mistrust of elected officials runs rampant, and where any final deal will be scrutinized thoroughly despite its purposefully intimidating length, it only makes sense for Democratic leadership to open talks up to the public view. Particularly when one considers that liberals have enough votes to ensure passage of a final bill without Republican support, and considering the levels of protest when the bills were coming through their respective houses, more openness should be embraced by the Democrats as a method of bringing independents and whatever Conservatives they can into their fold. This would result in provisions more acceptable to the general public as well as greater pre-passage consensus on what appears to be an inevitable law. It would also be a means to diffuse the criticisms of the bill that seem to be so stinging to Democratic leadership and open them up to the most abuse.

For example, if there are no 'death panels,' don't simply claim they don't exist, explain what panels are intended to do. If the public isn't funding abortions, explain how abortions are impacted by the bill. If there is no longer a public option, show us what the alternative is. As has been seen in many Supreme Court cases, the intent of lawmakers, made known via the eventual printing of committee and floor reports, matters. Therefore, Congress should let the public know what that intent is before it demands public fealty or expects dissent to decline.

However, instead of using numerical superiority as a means to embrace outside views and even, at the bare minimum, pay lip service to transparency, Democrats are using their strength as a wall to shut out opposition and outsiders in a game of politics as usual. It appears that the party is resting so many hopes on health care reform (and perhaps with the reality of polls setting in) that it seems to be willing to strategically give up seats in the House and Senate to ensure passage. One analogy this brings to mind is that of a wounded and cornered animal with nothing to lose; it will do whatever it can to get what it wants, whether survive, or in this case, pass a bill that, despite its potential to solve a real problem, has become weighed down by rumors, secrecy and misinterpretation in a bog of unpopularity.

No issue in recent memory, not even the Iraq war, was as divisive even in nascent stages as this health care reform bill has proven to be. Shutting the public out is not the solution to this, but is more fuel to the fire of an already vocal opposition. Whatever law the current congressional negotiations result in will represent a historic moment for the US. What side of history Democrats come out on is yet to be determined. With rare control over, yet a fading opportunity, to determine its fate, the party should do what it can to earn its desired status as a majority party of consensus rather than of secrecy and divisiveness.