Are you one of the four to nine percent of Americans who is still undecided about the current health reform proposal? Perhaps you've heard the Republican and Democratic talking points and you believe that both sides have good points and legitimate concerns. Or, more likely, perhaps you believe that neither side has any credibility and that both are incapable of bringing about real reform.

Well, you've been ripped off. Yes, you have been denied the benefit of an actual debate on health reform.

For the past twelve months, the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have been telling us how open they are to new ideas. At the 2009 March healthcare summit held at the White House, the President stipulated that "every voice has to be heard" and "every idea must be considered." In September, he told a joint session of Congress that "we should remain open to other ideas." Last month at the Blair House summit, he reiterated: "[I]f we've got an open mind, if we're listening to each other... we might be able to make some progress."

All that listening, and nary a component of health reform that doesn't entail a massive expansion of government power or control. Not a single free-market reform. Not even a half-hearted attempt at malpractice reform. To whom are the Democrats listening—each other?

The left does not want to listen to free-market arguments, and the right does not want to offer them—not in any principled manner. After all, how can you when just seven years ago your party was responsible for passing Medicare Part D, the largest Medicare expansion since the inception of the program. Sure, some Republicans have argued in favor of deregulating the insurance industry to allow interstate competition. But they justify their position on the basis of economic benefit of increasing competition, not the much stronger and more fundamental case of protecting the rights of producers and consumers.

Last summer when President Obama was pushing the public option, did the Republicans respond by defending property rights (which would have been good) or by challenging the moral notion that one ought to be one's brother's healthcare financier (which would have been better)? Of course not. Instead, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) presented a "trigger option" that would merely delay the public option and make it contingent upon a future government determination of "coverage affordability" in each region.

Some Republicans have done better than others in defending individuals against the leviathan, but this has only been possible with the moral courage on loan from the Tea Party movement and select activist organizations. What little genuine debate there is on fundamental ideas has come almost exclusively from American citizens, not our political leaders.

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."—Henry David Thoreau¹

In the history of ideas, one such individual was writer and philosopher Ayn Rand. She brought down the tree of political collectivism by striking at its root, the doctrine of self-sacrifice. She questioned those who taught that individuals exist for the benefit of the group. She provided a rational defense for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and exposed the incompatibility between freedom and force. Democrats and Republicans: if you are ever ready to start a real debate on health reform, start with her.

____

¹ Thoreau, Walden, 1854. Chapter one, Economy.

©2005-2010 The Lucidicus Project, all content unless otherwise noted.