Remember the public option? I do.

As Middle Eastern dictatorships flounder amid popular… Remember the public option? I do.

As Middle Eastern dictatorships flounder amid popular revolutions and Wisconsin unions scramble for their collective bargaining rights, the American health care debate probably seems incredibly unimportant. But as the new health care law continues to receive legislative and judicial attention, now is no time for complacency.

Since it passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, the bill to repeal President Barack Obama’s 2010 Affordable Care Act will likely die in the Democrat-controlled Senate. But hope remains for the repeal-hungry Tea Party. Not too long ago another federal judge struck down the law, saying it was invalidated by the “individual mandate,” a provision that requires almost all Americans to purchase health insurance.

I was ashamed to hear the White House refer to the ruling as judicial activism — I seethed when George W. Bush used to reference activist judges, and I don’t approve of this administration rehashing Bush-era buzzwords. And unlike the White House and many Democrats, I won’t be upset if the mandate is finally invalidated. The idea that the government can force me to buy insurance from a private corporation rubs me the wrong way. But regardless, we cannot allow the intended consumer protections of the mandate to be stripped away.

Weighing consumer safety, individual liberties and the necessity of high health care standards in this country, my mind wandered back to the early days of the health care debate, when liberals still held hope for a public option. Now that the law could make its way to the Supreme Court — to potentially have the mandate struck down — now is the time to reappraise that public option.

The mandate was enacted to spread the costs of treating the sick over the entire population.  But why buy health insurance when you’re healthy? A diffusion of costs is a good way to bring down prices, but I do not believe that requiring everyone to purchase some form of health insurance is the appropriate method. The public option, on the other hand, achieves the desired result, i.e. of affordable healthcare for all, without impinging on any one’s individual rights and liberties.

When we talk about lowering costs and improving access, the principle behind these data is that of the social safety net. Beginning with Social Security in the 1930s, the government established a minimum amount of retirement savings for workers. Lyndon Johnson expanded the safety net with Medicare and Medicaid, establishing a minimum level of health care for the elderly and the poor. The public option would continue this trend by establishing a minimum level of health care for the entire population. If you cannot afford private insurance, you will be able to rely on the government to provide the type of no-frills coverage you need.

I never understood the argument that the public option is a government takeover of health care. I mean, the word “option” is right in the title. And that’s why the public option is superior to the mandate — choice instead of requirement. The government is just entering the market as a competitor to private insurance companies. But that’s another thing that enrages people about the policy.

Those who disagree with the public option say that it will artificially lower costs, making the business of health care unprofitable and eventually leading to the collapse of the industry, and probably Western Civilization as we know it. This is nonsense. According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, over the period of 1999-2008, health care premiums rose by 119 percent. This is 85 percentage points higher than the cumulative inflation rate, meaning that the cost of health care is growing substantially faster than that of other services. Oh, and health insurance provider Aetna reported earnings of $1.8 billion in 2010. CIGNA, another health insurance firm, made $1.3 billion in 2009. These are not companies that are hurting.

Incredibly, many people vociferously decried the public option because would interfere with the health care market. As if the American government doesn’t interfere with markets on a daily basis. Just to pick on someone, look at Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader who also wants to repeal the health care act. He voted in 2007 not to remove government subsidies for oil corporations. Tax breaks allow oil companies to pay an average of 9 percent on capital investments, as opposed to 25 percent for businesses in general. That, my friends, is interfering with a market.

However, those who made these straw-man arguments against the public option were the loudest during the health care debate, and we compromised on the individual mandate. Now that the mandate might be struck down, it is time to revive the debate on the public option, but hold fast to dialogue and not allow it to be hijacked by fearmongers once again. We must speak rationally about the policy. It’s about helping people.

Write Brendan at [email protected].