Okay, so President Obama gave his health care speech last night. And it sounded reasonable to me. I mean, health care for everybody is a good thing, right? Every other civilized nation provides it, so surely we can too, right?
Obviously there are a lot of people who don't see things that way. I mean, look at those town hall meetings, where people got all hysterical over the thought of *gasp* providing health care for everyone!
What's wrong with health care for everybody? Sure, our taxes might go up - hell, they might even go up as much as they will to pay for the stupid f*cking wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But shouldn't everybody be able to go to the doctor when they're sick?
I guess that according to some people, the answer to that is "no". That not everybody "deserves" health care. That people who are unlucky enough, or, let's face it, not "smart" enough to work for an employer who provides health care, are just shit out of luck. Tough on you.
And here's where I really don't get it: People aren't just opposed to health care for everybody; they act like they're afraid of it. Like it's some big boogeyman in the closet that's going to jump out and rip their face off in the middle of the night.
I just don't understand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm with you there! I didn't understand it at all when I saw on the news that there were people opposing this. A quote from a public meeting member went along the lines of it being 'communist' and she was terrified of the US becoming a commie country.
I honestly thought it was a good thing!!
We've got the NHS here; we moan about it being slow and not completely cost effective amongst other stuff, but we ALL get to see a doctor if we need to!
I think the argument is that people are afraid that universal healthcare = socialism/communism. They won't admit that what they're really saying is that this group of people deserves be healthy because they have money and that group deserves to be unhealthy because they haven't done something right with their lives (something to that effect). They just keep saying it's socialist to provide healthcare for everyone. They don't acknowledge the fact that we have plenty of socialized programs that we wouldn't want to do without: emergency services, libraries, DOT, etc. Where do we draw the line and say this is "too socialist for us"?
The other argument is "I don't want to the government controlling my healthcare." So, they'd rather have huge corporations who refuse to pay for claims because it means they can make more money controlling your healthcare? No thanks. they say when healthcare becomes universal the quality of the healthcare will go down. Right now, they say, we offer the highest quality healthcare in the world. Of course, how many people receive this highest quality of healthcare?
Clearly, I'm with you too. If other countries can make this work, surely we can.
Since I guess I'm the token devil around here, I'll try to lay it out.
My disagreement with free healthcare for all:
1) My own healthcare will suffer. I smashed my hand on a Sunday, saw the surgeon Monday, had surgery Wednesday. My wife needed an X-ray for a possible broken foot. Come in today. No lines. No waiting. If it means that deadbeats die, so I can get timely, quality care for me and mine? Tough cookies, deadbeats.
2) There are far better options than overhauling the entire system. Simply removing the state boundaries, to allow competition nationwide, would be a huge boost. Tort reform is desperately needed, but the democrats won't touch it because they are in the trial lawyers' pocket. Allow providers the option of not including useless coverage. Why am I paying for birth control coverage? Drug dependancy counseling? Etc Etc. These simple things will dramatically lower the cost. Allow individuals the same tax deduction for medical costs that are currently only allowed to employers. Allow people to get group coverage for whatever group they want to join, like the way the teachers' unions do it.
3) It will cost tons. That's a given. Also, it will be incredibly wasteful. Read up on the horror stories from England and Canada.
4) There will be no competition, so you are a slave to government. People complain about Healtcare corporations, but at least you can negotiate with them to provide better service. If you don't like it, you can go to someone else. Not so with a government monopoly.
5) There is no way to unlimited supply and unlimited demand. There will, by necessity, be rationing.
Thanks for your input, Ex! Good to hear from you. Sincerely. You have the right to your opinions, same as I have the right to mine.
:)
Now, I could battle you, point by point, but let's leave that to Aunt B.'s blog, okay? I just don't have the energy!
Post a Comment