The moral case: establish the principle

Jonathan Alter of Newsweek has been excellent lately, on the teevee and in print, about the moral argument for reform. The liberal-left hang-up about the public option, he writes, is misguided, because the public option is secondary to the main moral reason to reform American healthcare:

Sure, it's important to fight for a public option (or a souped-up cooperative that can be made nearly as good). And we need to stand against a secret deal with Big Pharma, tighten insurance regulation, and assure that the bill includes language establishing clearly that doctors and patients—not bureaucrats, who are no better than insurers—make medical decisions. But these worthy goals have overshadowed the moral principle of nondiscrimination.

Jon is a cancer survivor, so he speaks with added insight into what happens when something like that hits a person.
Nondiscrimination means here the denial of benefits to people because of their medical histories, and the cancellation of their coverage because they develop catastrophic illnesses. My longer-suffering readers will recall that I've banged on about this as well. And this is the point. Nondiscrimination based on health condition. Period. Of course, to the extent that a government-run insurance provider would facilitate more nondiscrimination, as ideally it would, it becomes an important piece of the puzzle. But it's a means. A co-op is also a means. Probably an inferior one. But as we discussed last week vis-a-vis that Paul Begala column about how Social Security was improved over the years, it would seem that big legislation like this has to be done in phases. Phase one is Establish the Principle. The original Social Security act established the principle of the government pension. It proved popular and was expanded. This reform, if it happens, and I still think on balance that it will, will establish the principle of nondiscrimination. However mad liberals are, they just shouldn't lose sight of how important that will be.