Maybe we need a new "ism"

As the health insurance reform debate comes to a climax this week, you've probably heard the word "socialism" used a lot by conservatives who want to kill the bill. This is meant to scare people into thinking that we are about to lose all of our freedoms and liberties.

Let's get real. Without a reasonable measure of government intervention, and some relinquishing of freedoms, we wouldn't have a country. We'd have no military. Planes would be crashing in our skies on a daily basis. Cars would be spewing deadly emissions into the air and drinking water would be polluted by companies dumping toxic waste into rivers. Highways wouldn't be built and the guy sitting in the cubicle next to you would be blowing cigarette smoke in your face all day long. There would be no space program because there would be no taxes to pay for it. Fewer kids would go to college and there would be no public schools. There would be no laws against murder, rape or stealing or any police to enforce whatever "wild-west" laws might exist. Street drugs would be pouring in from Mexico and folks would be screaming "fire" in crowded movie theaters just for kicks. White-collar crime would be off the charts. Discrimination would be the norm. If your bank failed, your money would not be insured. Get the picture?

Most "isms" don't provide the ultimate answer to a better society. And most "isms" aren't that radically different than others. It's really a matter of degree and who is getting screwed the most under whatever governmental system exists. Frankly, I would rather see the insurance companies taken to the woodshed than have Americans needlessly dying of curable diseases. I don't know what "ism" that belief falls under, but whatever it is, sign me up.

I understand the perception that the government (federal, state or local) doesn't run many things very well. Motor vehicle departments are a mess. The Internal Revenue Service is the poster child for inefficiency. Some cities can't even get the streets plowed after a snowstorm. But to deny millions of people affordable medical care is heartless in a society that as a whole is relatively generous. To watch premiums rise 30 percent annually while insurance companies rack in record profits is absurd even for a country that prides itself on capitalism.

I don't know if what conservatives call "Obama-care" is going to solve more than it damages, but I am reasonably certain that the spirit of the effort is just. I don't see what alternatives conservatives are offering that would prevent people from needlessly suffering and dying. Instead of screaming "socialism," it would be better if conservatives came up with a more understandable, feasible plan of their own -- one that is fiscally responsible but also helps return some sense of fairness to a health-care system that seems to shut out more people each year.

I am willing to let the government lean on greedy insurance companies and perhaps offer less expensive health-care alternatives. We don't have absolute freedom and self-reliance anyway. Never have and never will. Nor do we practice a pure form of capitalism. The government is involved in most things in our society, from checking our food to delivering our mail. Why so many folks are drawing the line in the sand over health care is somewhat surprising, particularly when you consider how many Americans have lost their jobs and insurance since the start of the recession.