Nationalized Healthcare? (Part 5): Better than nothing?

One argument made by those who support the healthcare reform bill currently before Congress- or some variation thereof- is that if this legislation does not pass quickly, the call for healthcare reform will be stifled and NO healthcare reform will take place. The argument is that even if there may be some legitimate disagreements with certain aspects of the proposed legislation, the problems in healthcare are so serious that SOMETHING must be done, and that passing something like H.R. 3200 is certainly batter than doing nothing.

But is such a bill 'better than nothing'? I would argue "no" for 4 main reasons: 1. Such legislation would make the government too involved in providing healthcare, and such a function is not proper to the role of government; 2. The bill currently before Congress has no provision forbidding tax dollars being used for abortion, and based on precedent, this would mean that the bill would make it so that taxpayers would end up funding abortions; 3. Statements made by the Obama administration about how healthcare would be rationed under the current proposals are extremely troubling, especially for me, as my step-father-in-law was recently cured of leukemia through medical intervention- I have doubts as to whether such treatment would have been available to him in a nationalized healthcare system; 4. Current proposals before Congress are fiscally irresponsible and would lead to skyrocketing national debt, which would have dire consequences for the future of our country.

But we should not settle for the false dichotomy of "Obama's plan" [or the plan of any one government official] or "nothing." There are better options being discussed, and it is the duty of every responsible voter not only to let our Congress-people know that we oppose bills like H.R. 3200, but that we also will not settle for the status quo- that in the name of justice, the government must see that RESPONSIBLE health care reform does take place.