Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy Is Universal Health Care ‘Un-American’?
Last week supporters of health-care reform gathered around the country, including in Austin, TX, where 2,000 people crowded into a downtown church to hear speakers talk about different aspects of the issue. Asked to speak about the ethical dimensions of health care, I tried to go beyond short-term political strategizing and ask more basic questions. This is an edited version of what I said.
Is anyone else here having trouble with the fact that we are even having this conversation? Is anyone else having trouble believing this topic is really controversial? I have been asked to talk about the ethical dimension of health care. Here's one way to frame such a discussion:
If an infant is born to poor parents, would we be more ethical to give medicine to that child so he or she does not die prematurely of preventable diseases, or would we be more ethical if we let the child die screaming in his or her parent's arms so we can keep more of our money?
Or, let's say someone who worked for Enron, and now is penniless, contracted bone cancer. I've been asked to discuss whether we are more ethical if we provide such people medicine that lessens their pain. Or would we be more ethical to let them scream through the night in unbearable agony so we can pay lower taxes?
I can't believe I am standing today in a Christian church defending the proposition that we should lessen the suffering of those who cannot afford health care in an economic system that often treats the poor as prey for the rich. I cannot believe there are Christians around this nation who are shouting that message down and waving guns in the air because they don't want to hear it. But I learned along time ago that churches are strange places; charity is fine, but speaking of justice is heresy in many churches. The late Brazilian bishop Dom Hélder Câmara said it well: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Too often today in the United States, if you talk about helping the poor, they call you Christian, but if you actually try to do something to help the poor, they call you a socialist.
Some of the other speakers today have been asked to address what is possible in the current political climate. I have been asked to speak of our dreams. Let me ask a question. How many of you get really excited about tweaking the insurance system so we just get robbed a little less? (silence) How many of you want universal health care? (sustained applause) I realize that insurance reform is all that's on the table right now, and it can be important to choose the lesser of evils when that alone is within our power in the moment. But we also need to remember our dream. I believe the American dream is not about material success, not about being having the strongest military. The American dream is that every person might have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It's amazing to hear Christians who talk about the right to life as though it ends at birth. They believe every egg has a right to hatch, but as soon as you're born, it's dog eat dog. We may disagree on when life begins, but if the right to life means anything it means that every person (anyone who has finished the gestation period) has a right to life. And if there is a right to life there must be a right to the necessities of life. Like health care.
I believe the American dream was not about property rights, but human rights. Consider the words of this national hymn:
"O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years. Thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears."
Doesn't that sound like someone cared about the poor? There are those who consider paying taxes an affront, but listen to these words:
"O Beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life."
"Mercy more than life" -- have you ever noticed those words before? Supporting universal health care does not make you socialist or even a liberal, it makes you a human being. And it makes you an ambassador for the American dream which, in the mind of Thomas Paine, was a dream for every human being, not just Americans. As we struggle to get health care to all people, we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils, but remember your dream -- the true American dream, a human dream. Whatever we win through reform is just first step toward a day when every human being has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
154 Comments so far
Show AllIt's good to see that my estimations of America's REAL moral standards haven't changed all that much. There are thousands dying for lack of care. No words exist that justify that. Period.
We would do better not to attack each other or accomodate the division the media invented to sell their products though. United. That's the ticket.
Fact is there is no health care system in America.
We must vote out the corporate lap dogs in Congress, it US that bear the guilt and responsibility for change.
We don't need health insurance. We need affordable health care. Volume buying and elimination of the middle man are key. Let's join forces with our doctors (most of them) and demand it.
Unite. Feel the power.
It's ten o'clock. Do you know how your Congressperson and Senator REALLY vote?
Stick together and stick it out. The devil's newest tool is to overwhelm us before we've begun.
If you want to see a list of some of the worst Senate and House offenders, checkout http://thepoliticalstray.com. It's unfunded and a little angry, but it's for Political Independents and Strays of all parties.
Or don't check the page. That's fine too. Just educate yourself and vote, vote, vote!!
Reverand Jim Rigby, I have never read, or heard, anyone say it better. This article is superb.
I am an American and consider myself patriotic. It angers me, and I mean IT REALLY ANGERS ME, that so many Americans are downright mean.
Yes, I emphasize this.... a high percentage of Americans are mean "blankety blanks" (insert profanity in the blank).
Anyone who is not a political, economic Liberal is, to put it bluntly, MEAN.
Logically there is no other conclusion.
When I was growing up, in high school in the early 1970s, I would often hear "America, home of the brave."
Today, the Right-Wingers often say or write about "fear", "danger", "we need to be afraid of 'fill in the blank'", etc.
Right Wing people are cowards. "America, home of the brave" does not include them.
The Right-Wingers are not happy unless we spend as much on the military as all other countries put together, as we are now. Yet, they hate it if our government spends a small fraction of the military budget on the poor, for welfare or subsidized housing, etc. The Right-Wingers are bullies and have primitive caveman-like thinking.
Shame on them.
After reading Rev. Rigby's article, I started to read some of the comments on it, and, wouldn't you know it, the black bile of disgust started up my throat with several right off the top, including the first comment I read, by Cathy Titchenal. This person takes the piss out of Rigby, calls him an intellectual idiot, and backs up nothing she says or accuses with well-reasoned argument or evidence. Well, Cathy, this shows that it is you who is the intellectual idiot. You are yet more proof that a vast number of Americans - I'm assuming you are one - appear to cherish their ignorance above all else, including their own children, and certainly above the collective welfare of the population of the country.
Let's see if a little COMMON FUCKING SENSE registers with you. And with you too, 'Darko'.
I am no Christian, and certainly no 'Christian' of the type and variety of psychopathic born-again McChristian that America is so fond of breeding like flies. I am however, spiritual, like anyone, and respectful of those Christians and religious folk who are worthy of the name and do not behave like the mob of radical fundamentalist extremist assholes that infect the United States, and are mind-controlled by the Haggards, the Robertsons, et. al. Rev. Rigby sounds like he's perhaps a sensible fellow who doesn't go around killing abortion providers and screaming at other people about his Jesus being better than your Jesus, with bumper stickers on his car reading garbage like 'Real men love Jesus', and all the rest of the vile and contemptible shit those people get up to.
I'll defend the man here simply because, after a careful reading of what he haad to say, INCLUDING HOW HE PREFACED IT, he made eminently good sense on the errthical dimension of the issue, which, AS HE STATED, WAS WHAT HE'D BEEN ASKED TO DO. Now perhaps all you clowns who keep foaming at the mouth about socialism and why should you be expected to pay for someone else's health care don't want to hear about the ethical dimension because maybe you're just ignorant, mean-spirited greed-heads who are poorly educated and still believe the myth about America that it's everyone for him or herself.
Got news for you: YOU HAVE A SOCIALIZED MILITARY, POLICE AND FIRE SERVICES, PUBLIC LIBRARIES, AND, DID I MENTION THE MILITARY?
Darko, it isn't really about morality, it is about saving the population of the country and having compassion for others, which has a moral dimension, but in the instance of the situation in America, THE COUNTRY IS ROTTING, GOING DOWN THE TOILET. UNLESS HEALTH CARE IS SOCIALIZED, KISS THIS FUCKED UP IMPERIAL, EGOTISTICAL EXCUSE OF A COUNTRY GOODBYE. MARK MY WORDS. THE 22ND CENTURY MAY NOT COME TO THE U.S. IF THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS NOT SOCIALIZED. IT IS NOT A COMMODITY, IT IS A HUMAN RIGHT.
THE GOV'T ALREADY PAYS FANTASTIC SUMS OF MONEY TO KILL FOREIGNERS AND ROB THE WORLD BLIND, BUT IT'S NOT OKAY TO TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE?
Well, I read this posting by Rev. Jim Rigby and I also visited the St. Andrews Presbyterian website and read another one of his "sermons" (on feminism) and I was appalled by the lack of serious reasoning ability and distorted logic in his arguments in both places. He is an intellectual idiot. Not because what he is talking about can't be argued or defended well, but because he's simply just not capable of doing so. He is absolutely doing more harm than good when he speaks or writes about issues. He should just sit down, shut up and listen to others (past and present) with more education, common sense, experience and logical thinking.
Too bad, because healthcare, social justice and pro-life/pro-choice issues are all serious subjects affecting the very fabric of our country. It is indeed unfortunate that so many people, from among the moderates and those politically extreme in both directions, have little or no interest in actually studying and thinking about the issues before they start spewing their thoughts online. If they did, perhaps we could make some progress towards finding the solutions that would improve all American lives and those of the rest of the world as well. Just a thought.
What a lot of absolute BULLSHIT. USA would be the most pathetic country. The Republicans are just so sick in the head.
A pack of greedy pricks. I want mine and yours as well
should be their moto
Any one with any morals would vote Green.
At least global warming will get rid of a lot of you
It is immoral for people in what is the richest nation on Earth to go w/o health care simply because they cannot afford it. It is immoral NOT to tax the richest 1% to pay for social services, especially when they will still be left with much wealth, more than they will ever need. Making health care a premium is one of the highest forms of class contempt. It perpetuates an underclass in part by keeping poor and working people unhealthy and then bankrupts them when they seek care. It also keeps the rich richer.
For all of you commenters claiming this is a moral issue... If you think it is okay for your government to legislate your political opponents' morality when you agree with the cause, then you have no right to complain when your political opponents are in control and they try to legislate your morality, eg. banning gay marriage, outlawing gambling, prostitution, the war on drugs, banning alcohol sales on Sunday, outright prohibition of alcohol, etc.
While I'm not necessarily in favor of any or all of these, I think the government should stay out of the morality business.
We live in a country that functions as a result of a disparity between the "haves" and "have nots."
You would not be able to prosper, would not be able to obtain financial success, if the "have nots" did not exist. You profit from the sweat on their backs--every single one of us does. If you do not take care of them, if you deem them undeserving of healthcare, they will cease to exist. You will have eliminated much of the working class--you will have eliminated much of the middle class. Guess who would NOW become the "undeserving"????
Don't become too proud to realize that you're always just a step away from having nothing. Don't become too ignorant to believe it couldn't happen to you. Chances are, if you're enjoying "success"--it may not be entirely through efforts of your own.
Rev,
you're right, but THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE!!!
The question that the conservatives are debating is very simple. The conservatives don't question whether or not it would be "ideal" for everyone to have healthcare. THAT'S NOT THE DEBATE. The debate is:
Does the government have the right to decide what to do with my money?
or
Does the government have the right to decide for "me" whether or not I wish to devote X% of my paycheck to pay for someone else's healthcare?
The Catholic church is advocating the APPROPRIATE Christian, moral response to this questions:
It should be the activity of the people to fill in where the government SHOULD NOT. We should act with charity rather than vote for socialism. Because ultimately, socialism will hurt all of us far more than having poor healthcare will.
So, Reverend, if you believe so strongly about the "Ethics" of this argument, why can't you and your fellow Christians fill in the gaps? Why must the government do that which the founding fathers--and governments throughout history--dictate it should not?
Of course the government has the right to decide what to do with your money!! My God, Man! Where have you been for the last two hundred years?
Taxation is owed to the Government we have chosen in our Representative Democracy, and if the majority of our elected representatives finally decide to do the moral thing--after all of these years, we must cheer them on and THANK THEM for being honest ...and moral...at long last.
You are clearly one of those folks who wishes to "pick and choose" what you want to label "moral"..and you do so only if you determine if this particular particular issue is deemed by you you to be within your very own short term interest so as to deserve the label "moral." You are not being honest even within yourself to adopt such a position--which must rent your very heart, for what you say represents a terrible conflict within your very own soul. And "soul" is a word that applies regardless of whether you consider yourself to be religious, whether you are one of those simply "professed" Chritians, or whether you are an athiest. For what we are talking about is a spark within the heart and soul of all honest,civilized men.
-Don Switzer
> Does the government have the right to decide what to do with my money?
To which I say.... don't be ridiculous! Of course it does, if you give it the right! Government exists to manage and oversee that which is too large to be left to the public at large. Your government provides infrastructure as in roads, sanitation systems, regulates communication. Universal health care is another part of that infrastructure.
You've already tried publicly-managed healthcare, and you as taxpayers pay more than other countries with universal health care for... health care! It's obvious that you need an overseer -- that's what your government is, so why not let the government manage health care, or at the very least regulate it and let them provide some basic services.
If a poor person breaks their leg or needs an expensive emergency surgery, doctors have taken a hippocratic oath and are required to perform the task. When the poor person can't pay, they declare bankruptcy. Sounds like a great system, doesn't it?
You've spent trillions on a bloody war under false pretenses, if you took just a fraction of that cost and put it toward health care for all you'd probably have the best medical system in the world.
Stop bickering and just do it!
We already do have the best medical system in the world, thank you.
The federal government's limited responsibilities are explicitly defined in the Constitution. Health care is not one of them. Check out the 10th amendment.
One of the greatest triumphs of American propaganda is that the US "has the best medical care in the world." For the rich it does. But for everyone else it sucks. My elderly parents on US Medicare right now are fighting with their medical "providers" (now there's an oxymoron) because they had reimbursement from their auto insurance policy two years ago for a car accident that was not their fault, but caused a trip to the ER. They have now been "denied" Medicare covered treatment because the local clinic is arguing that they have "other" health care coverage. They have had to cancel scheduled treatment until the bureaucratic boneheads straighten it out...absolute idiocy. Like millions of other Americans I have a few of my own health insurance horror stories, but not since I moved to Canada. So grab your coats and come up where the socio-political climate is fine and Big Pharma and the Privateers do NOT rule...
You don't have the best medical system in the world, thank you very much.
Darko, if you want to live in a country that does nothing for the people, but everything for the corporation... Congrats, you already do.
You're exactly right SReynold. If it is the Christian thing to do, then by all means, do it. It is un-Christian to use the power of government to compel everyone to support your cause.
[It is un-Christian to use the power of government ]
Actually, Christ did say that his followers were to 'render unto Caesar what was due to Caesar.' It would be nice if xtians could be counted on to support the poor, but they don't do it consistently. In fact some people who profess to be christian seem to think that the poor should be treated in much the same way that the Roman's treated Christ; by tacking the buggers up on some cross and letting them die in agony.
Good point, Saturnalia.
I still can't figure out where people get this idea that Jesus was against civic responsibility. I'm sure that He was certainly against the use of government force to oppress people.
Even though the Pentagon wastes zillions of tax dollars (and that needs to be fixed), basically, everyone has a duty to fund national defense--so that "self-made" individuals have a safe place to become self-made successes. Closer to home, self responsibility includes paying money to the city for sanitary sewers so that we don't have to empty our chamber pots out of windows. Another example of government restricting our choices. Believe it or not, there were right-wing, conservative types who, about 100 years or so ago, whined about this little bit of Socialism.
It is generally known that it's easier to get donations for a new opera house than for a homeless shelter. To a large extent, the people with the most resources are not as likely to care about the plight of the needy.
It's also much easier to get people to donate money to the spca than it is to the new opera house or the local food bank/homeless shelter. Says a lot about us as humans that we'll care more for our pets - or pets to be - than we do about our fellows.
If the gov't doesn't fund it (healthcare, fire dept, police, national defense) it doesn't get funded at all. That's part of the job of the gov't, to make sure things get done that will benefit the majority of the people. If the gov't doesn't work to benefit the majority of the people of the state, that state will have a violent revolution.
Exactly. I don't know how anyone can make it any clearer than this.
Thanks for an excellent post which I have quoted and linked to in my own blog, http://theliberalspirit.com
"How about food and water? Most people wouldn't survive a week without water, and maybe a month without food. These are absolute necessities of life, and the most critical aspect of health care. Food and water should be included in any discussion."
There are those who argue that people should be guaranteed 3 square meals a day. Or at the very least guarantee everyone a decent-paying job so that they can buy their own food. Besides, food and water are a lot less expensive than health care. As of now anyway.
"The first step should be banning grocery stores from profiting off of food. This is immoral and must be stopped. Food is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Restaurant profits should be limited to a fee for cooking, but they should not be allowed to profit on the actual food. This can be done in a phased approach, starting with fast food and working up to higher-end restaurants."
Ok,ok, I take it you're a Libertarian. Well Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys tried a radical free market in a number of South American countries via the CIA and installed despots like Pinochet. They lifted price controls on basic goods. Prices got so high, people couldn't afford milk. That's what the free market decided.
If you eliminate taxation, roads won't get fixed, our infrastructure will crumble, and there will be no safety nets for people. Privatization and unchaining the free market only creates more poverty. The only people who will become wealthier are the richest 1%. The free market is what decides that 47 million don't have health insurance. You can't rely on charity alone to help.
" I am WAY below the richest 1%. Between my wife and I, we have four jobs, not including being parents."
The free market is what decides that. It's what makes people have to work 2-3 jobs just to get by. It's what decides how much people make. It's not taxation or socialism (and we're far from that). How much would your wages go up if there were no taxation? 25%? Would that be enough to give up one job? Are you really being taxed THAT much?
Who said anything about eliminating taxation? Taxation is a perfectly legitimate function of the federal government. What I disagree with is the use of those taxes to support illegitimate programs, causes, pet projects, and what have you.
And you're dead wrong about the free market. The free market has been responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than any other economic system. Socialism leads to poverty, shortages, and general widespread misery. There are countless examples: USSR, East Germany, etc. Funny how China's economy booms the more capitalistic it gets.
"He received care (and continues to receive care) despite the fact that his parents can't afford to pay for these medical expenses."
And how are they going to pay for it after all the treatment is done? Do you know how many people go bankrupt because of medical bills?
"..if there is a right to life there must be a right to the necessities of life. Like health care."
How about food and water? Most people wouldn't survive a week without water, and maybe a month without food. These are absolute necessities of life, and the most critical aspect of health care. Food and water should be included in any discussion.
The first step should be banning grocery stores from profiting off of food. This is immoral and must be stopped. Food is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Restaurant profits should be limited to a fee for cooking, but they should not be allowed to profit on the actual food. This can be done in a phased approach, starting with fast food and working up to higher-end restaurants.
You know how in a mob movie, there is a nice guy in the neighborhood who is down on his luck, maybe his kid or wife is sick, so he goes to the Don and asks for help and the Don says, "OK, I will help you, but you're gonna owe me, someday I will ask for a favor in return." When the family finds out that they are now indebted to the mob, they are terrified and upset. Well, the politicians and corporate cronies in Washington have a record worse than any mafia family. And it is not ethical to make a deal with crooks and villains even to help the poor and needy. And you really don't want to owe them, because they will get much more in return than they ever gave you.
I have issues with this article. Firstly, I don't know of any American-born infants who have been denied life-saving medical attention because their parents lack the money to pay for it. I do, however, know of an American-born baby who was born recently without his digestive & respiratory systems hooked up to the proper orifices, but he's still alive today because he received numerous life-saving operations. He received care (and continues to receive care) despite the fact that his parents can't afford to pay for these medical expenses. Therefore, the author cannot honestly say that we need Federally-run universal health care to save this baby's life.
Secondly, concerning penniless suffering Enron employees, Americans have been generous in caring for them too. See this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/18/us/funds-aid-ex-workers-of-enron-and-worldcom.html
(A concerned citizen quickly and successfully formed a charity that cares for former employees of Enron and WorldCom.) Therefore, the author cannot honestly say that Federally-run universal health care would be just the trick to ease the suffering of Enron employees.
Lastly, this accusation is arrogant and insulting: "Christians...believe every egg has a right to hatch, but as soon as you're born, it's dog eat dog." The author should read Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. (A scholar of economics and public policy discovered that conservatives earn less money than liberals yet donate more money to charity nonetheless.) Many churches are very generous to the needy. If the author isn't observing that already, then his church is dysfunctional and should either reform itself or be disbanded.
In my opinion, true health care reform would be Congress repealing the mandates that they've imposed since the days of LBJ. I think that over-regulation (plus inflationary monetary policy) is the underlying cause of the skyrocketing cost of health care. (I'm not a doctor, but a doctor-congressman named Paul told me that.) Ideally, Congress would only concern themselves with the health care of our veterans and the residents of D.C., and state and local governments would be responsible for solving their own problems as they arise. Given the current political establishment, this ain't gonna' happen, but maybe it will in 40 years.
You cannot be serious: "Firstly, I don't know of any American-born infants who have been denied life-saving medical attention because their parents lack the money to pay for it."
This happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. Only, we're not necessarily talking about emergency treatment--which is the most expensive. How about being able to afford regular check-ups and preventative medicine? This saves us all money, and it's something that is denied to a huge "American-born" population. If a few of my health issues had arisen 3 years ago--when I was fresh out of college and without health insurance--I'd be dead right now, because of something preventable. If I had the health insurance I have now, but couldn't afford to cover all of the tests that my insurance company deems "unnecessary", I'd be dead. No exaggeration.
The child's care you are referring to is being funded by what is called Medicaid--a national healthcare program. I work in the healthcare industry as a pediatric RN and can tell you that if it were not for mdcd, these children would not receive quality healthcare.
jmarshmallow wrote:
Firstly, I don't know of any American-born infants who have been denied life-saving medical attention because their parents lack the money to pay for it.
My response:
This may be your experience but it isn't mine. I know of a 4-year-old boy in my area whose parents took him to a large suburban emergency room when he was sick with a high fever. The emergency room turned him away because his parents didn't have medical insurance and couldn't pay for the emergency room visit up front.
Yeah, I know, that's illegal. But it happens all the time. The door to the local emergency room has been shut in my face in a true emergency more than once, and when I had medical insurance. I just couldn't pay 100% of the co-pay right then and there.
On the way home, the 4-year-old boy went into convulsions. Paramedics were called, but he died there on the street. I can't even imagine the agony that little boy and his parents must have gone through.
I am luckier. I am 48 years old, and am being denied health care for a serious, life-threatening chronic illness. At 48 years of age, I can deal with dying a lot better than a 4-year-old. And die I probably will, within the next 5 years or so. This illness and lack of the FDA-approved, non-experimental medical treatment that is available to treat me has caused me to have to stop working and has damaged almost every major organ in my body, including even my bones, my brain and my central nervous system causing me to be in horrific, and totally preventable pain 24/7.
Charity is great, a church group is helping me with my yard work, but charity won't pay the $1,500 per month necessary for my IV's. The irony is that if I had received treatment years ago and had not had to stop working, I would be able to pay for the treatment myself out of the high-paying salary I used to earn. The irony is that it costs more to support me on disability than to pay for the treatment I need. The irony is that the treatment I need is very effective, people on this treatment lead a largely normal life, and if I had received treatment before every organ in my body became damaged, I would be able to go back to work.
Unfortunately, I didn't understand years ago that one of the main reasons I didn't receive treatment is that the doctor I was seeing at that time was afraid insurance wouldn't cover it, meaning he would get stuck with the bill. If I had been more medically-savvy I would have offered to pay for it out-of-pocket before my body became so horribly broken.
The doctor I saw last week said he would gladly prescribe the treatment I need if I could come up with the $1,500 per month to pay for the IV I need. Sure, I'll just do that with the money tree that grew in my backyard after I became sick and spent all of my 401k on medical expenses. Or maybe with the other money tree that grew when I had to claim bankruptcy for medical expenses.
And as for the state? I applied for Medicaid, which I most likely qualify for, and called the social worker almost every single day for 3 solid months, sometimes staying on the phone for several hours attempting to get through to her. In the end, I wasn't denied, I never got them to even look at, or evaluate my application. They just wouldn't do it. I've been told I can apply again. Why? I'm not a masochist.
As for the 4 year old, that is unfortunate. Most 4 year olds do not suffer from febrile seizures if they are treated with tylenol or motrin. If the ER treated every child that came in with fever, they would be bankrupt. Secondly, when I refer to mdcd, it was regarding children, not adults. Adults are treated differently and there is no current affordable program out there to provide treatment to people in your situation. I have seen mdcd work and provide literally millions of dollars worth of care to a single child time and time again.
Check out what George Carlin thinks about the "health care Debacle" here:
http://blameblakeart.wordpress.com
He gives his opinion from beyond!
~ WHEN THE LAUGH OF $ATAN WA$ HEARD IN THE PEOPLE$ HALLS OF U$ CONGRE$$ ~
THIS OLD WORLD ORDER OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF OUR POORER AMERICANS NEEDS ENLIGHTENED POLITICAL MINDS AND HEARTS TO VIEW GOD DIFFERENTLY THEN $$$…. NO MATTER WHAT THEIR POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION ???
WHEN WILL OUR WEALTHY ELITE AMERICANS ABATE THEIR ASSAULT ON POORER AMERICANS WITH THEIR MONETARY CONTROL OF OUR IVORY TOWER U.S. CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER ???
THERE ARE NOT MANY MORE DISTRACTIONS LEFT WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FOR OUR WEALTHY ELITE AMERICANS TO HIDE BEHIND IN NOT TAKING PROPER CARE OF ALL OUR AMERICANS IN A HUMANE FASHION !!!
RALPH NADER ATTEMPTED TO EDUCATE AMERICAN VOTERS ABOUT U.S. CORPORATE POWER IN AMERICA AND HOW THEY CONTROL OUR CONGRESSIONAL PEOPLE THROUGH THEIR POCKET BOOK (POLITICAL DONATIONS). * WITHOUT THE DOUGH $$$ THESE U.S. CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD DO NOT GET RE~ELECTED TO CONGRESS.*TO STAY IN POLITICAL OFFICE IN AMERICA,ONE HAS TO BARTER YOUR VOTES IN CONGRESS AND REPRESENT POWER INTERESTS IN RETURN FOR THE BUCK$.
POORER AMERICANS HAVE NEVER HAD THE $$$ LOBBY TO INFLUENCE THIS CORRUPT POLITICAL CONCEPT (of horse trading political votes for political contributions) TO ACHIEVE PROPER HEALTH ~CARE OR LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR ALL OUR MIDDLE ~ CLASS AND WORKING POOR AMERICANS.
AMERICAN IVORY TOWER U.S.CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD HAVE PASSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION IN WASHINGTON DC TO SPEND 50 BILLION AMERICAN TAX $$$ ON THE INTERNATIONAL FIGHT AGAINST AIDS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHILE THEIR OWN AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE BEING TOLD BY THIS SAME U.S.CONGRESS THAT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE AND PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING POOR CITIZENS IS UNAFFORDABLE.
*** WEALTHY ELITE AMERICANS (WHO ARE ONLY 1% OF OUR USA POPULATION) SADLY ALSO CONTROL HOW OUR U.S.CONGRESS SPENDS THEIR BUDGET TRILLION$ AND HAVE OBVIOUSLY FOUND MORE WORTHY INTERNATIONAL CITIZENS THEN OUR OWN DESPERATE AND NEEDY POOR TO ASSIST !!!
~Poorer Americans Nationwide only get 400 million $$$ per year for legal representation allocated them by CONGRESS~
Middle Class and Working Poor Americans are unable to afford proper legal representation in their Civil, Criminal and Family Courts of law all across America causing tremendous hardships nationwide,but these great minds and callous hearts in our American Congress have found others Worldwide more needy then their own citizens who are being falsely incarcerated,wrongfuly executed,losing their homes or apartments,losing child custody or visitation with their children etc�
Not being afforded proper legal representation by our U.S. Congress has created a total breakdown of the American judicial system for our poorer Americans because the our U.S. Courts punish all of us little people if we are not assisted with proprer legal counsel.*It is a known fact that our average Middle Class and Working Poor Americans without proper legal representation in all of our American Courts of law lose their legal cases to the better financed who are able to afford lawyers.
Lawyers For Poor Americans is now actively in the hunt for International Countries and Leaders Worldwide to help raise 5 Billion Dollar$ for our slighted poorer Americans who have had their own American Congress turn their backs on their desperate needs in not affording them proper legal representation.
Troy Davis and Mumia Abu ~ Jamal are 2 perfect examples of American citizens who never had proper legal representation or defense investigations afforded them by our U.S. Congressional Leaders Of The Free World in their initial criminal trials in (Georgia and Pennsylvania) who might very well have to pay the ultimate price of possibly being completely innocent and falsely executed in the near future.
These two poorer Americans are among tens of thousands of legal cases nationwide that never were afforded proper legal representation or proper defense investigations at their initial trials……**We the public really have no idea if these men are innocent or guilty until they both are given fair legal representation at their new future trials.
Improper murder trials take place in Third World Countries all the time. *** Why should average Middle~Class and Working Poor Americans in the Wealthiest Country Of The World be treated as if they are living a Third World Life Style ??
This is the first of many www International pleas by Lawyers For Poor Americans for other leaders and countries to help raise the needed monie$ to correct these blatant injustices that have been inflicted on poorer Americans for the last few decades.
Lawyers For Poor Americans has many other written articles that can be viewed with any www search engine by our name or our telephone number.
Lawyers For Poor Americans is a www lobby group of volunteers that sing out about the decades old neglect,abuse and injustices being inflicted on our poorer Americans that have become Crimes Against Humanity issues for the International World Court to investigate.
lawyersforpooreramericans@yahoo.com
(424-247-2013)
I (born and raised in the USA) used to be proud to be a "Murkan." But in the last few years, I've been checking out other countries' immigration rules. Because of my age, not having a job lined up in another country, not having enough assets ($800,000 to get into Canada), etc., I'm stuck here.
By the way, Gladtobeincanada, how did you escape?
'Un-American': such a funny expression, since Americans have committed, just like a lot of other nations, atrocious acts. Using Agent Orange, carpet-bombing and napalm in S-E Asia was the obvious thing to do once upon a time, as was slavery, segregation, lynching etc. And only recently a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, with devastating effects. So dear Americans: contrary to what many of you believe, you're no better or worse than the rest of mankind and you're not the Disneyland of the planet Earth.
The late Brazilian bishop Dom Hélder Câmara said it well: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."
He should have added: "And when I refuse to do anything because it might offend the elected leaders, they call me a Catholic."
"Too often today in the United States, if you talk about helping the poor, they call you Christian, but if you actually try to do something to help the poor, they call you a socialist"
The force of that confusion is the Protestant Work Ethic. It's embedded in the culture, and it's embraced not only by pasty white anglo-saxon protestant males but by USans of all stripes.
The PWE was part of the scam the pasty white euros needed to confuse and enslave the people, to detach them from reality and set them adrift. The Protestants and their followers and partners in the USA had to detach economics from nature and attach economics to their false god.
We on the far left entertain no such nonsense. We maintain the connection between economics and nature as permanent. All the answers are in nature.
When people call me a socialist after I state my solutions to poverty, I bark back, "Hell YEAH I'm a socialist! Got a problem with that?"
Why is Universal Health Care Un-American? Because this is a free country. You have the freedom to live your life as you please as long as you don't infringe on someone else's life, liberty, or property. If you claim a right to force someone else to pay for your health care, you are infringing on that person's rights to their property. It's really pretty simple.
I have a personal example. My son was diagnosed autistic several years ago. My wife had to give up being a stay-at-home mom, just so we could afford to pay for his therapy. It continues to be a financial struggle. Why should my wife and I be forced to give up our hard-earned money, that could be used for the well-being of our family, just to pay for someone else's health care? That is unjust and un-American.
Freedom? Where is my freedom to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? I studied on the floor of the university book store when I didn't have money to buy books so I could get my college degree. Now, however, I can't work because I can't get health care. What good is an education, if you're too sick to work? Where is my freedom to use my education and to pursue the career that I poured 15 years of my blood, sweat and tears into developing?
If you saw a burning house on the street would you just walk by? Would you say, "Don't call the fire department unless they can pay for it?"
Why do Americans think it's OK to kick someone who is sick out in the cold with no medical care?
Denying sensible medical care to someone who is ill in a society that has the means to provide medical care that would greatly reduce that person's pain and suffering is torture and a Crime against Humanity. A parent who ignored a sick child in that manner would quickly be placed in jail.
And how is your freedom being limited? I need my money to take care of my family. If you are going to force me to pay for your healthcare, your are robbing me of part of my freedom, and harming my family.
If your house was burning down, would you ask passersby for help? Or would you point a gun at them and force them to help you? Which approach would work best?
Ag man
Just shut up
Nobody here is really listening to you anyway
More of your money is going to support me on disability than it would cost to give me the medical treatment I need and get me back to work.
What an odd argument. If there were universal 'socialized' healthcare, you woldn't have to pay for the therapy for your autistic son (in fact, your combined taxes/insurance/out-of pocket would be LOWER, as it is in every other developed country), and his mother could stay home to help care for him. That would be your idea of unjust and un-American?
I value Liberty above all else. I have no right to compel others to pay for my health care. If I wasn't forced by my government to pay for so many other socialist causes, my wife could still be a stay-at-home mom. And I'm not just talking about Universal Health Care. You can throw in food stamps, low-income housing, aid to tsunami victims, rebuilding New Orleans, cash for clunkers, and the list goes on. The government is forcing me at gunpoint to support all of these noble charitable causes, at the expense of my own family. Throw in other unconstitutional causes like the war on drugs, and you have a runaway federal government that is a huge burden on every working citizen.
If you think its okay for the government to impose itself on you, because you deem the cause to be noble, you should be prepared to lose all of your freedoms. And you probably won't think all of the causes are noble.
Darko-How do you feel about being forced to pay for corporate bailouts? More of your tax money has been going to that and to two wars than anything else.
Are you a member of the richest 1%? Those are the people who should pay for all of it. They have the money, and they didn't get it from working hard. They got it from the sweat of the people they exploit.
I am against corporate bailouts. This is just another form of welfare. I am WAY below the richest 1%. Between my wife and I, we have four jobs, not including being parents.
Demanding my government provide some value for my tax money is "Un-American?? I'll tell you whats un-American. Taking my hard earned tax money against my wishes and using it to run around the world and murder brown people so corporations can steal their natural resources, that's un-American. Allowing a bunch of crooks to steal control on my monetary system choking my money supply when it suits them and then loaning to me at usury what costs them nothing to produce, that's un-American.
violating at will the bill of rights and many other sections of the Constitution,
that's Un-American. Allowing a foreign government to violate our laws at will and run our foreign policy, that's Un-American. Allowing 47 million people to be denied basic healthcare simply because they can’t afford it is Un-American. We offshore their jobs, steal their savings with inflation, under fund their schools, mislead them into debt obligations they can’t afford and then call them indolent if they can’t pay for the most expensive private healthcare system in the world. What we call a healthcare system here is arguably one of the most egregious violations of basic human rights perpetrated by a government of a developed country anywhere on the planet. It isn’t just an embarrassment, it’s a crime. Providing Americans, EVERY American with healthcare isn't Un-American is good and just governance, something that Americans haven't had much experience with lately. Paying for it would take just a fraction of the Pentagon budget BTW...
Sioux Rose
FRED 54: Bravo! Your response should be broadcast and played as rebuttal every time another right wing "free trade/free enterprise" authoritarian touts their limited view of reality and the "American way."
This type of situation brings what could be an appealing satire to life: A spoof on a right wing Superman. He flies over, owns all these powers, but has to determine who's been naughty and who's been nice before deciding whether to intercede and direct his considerably therapeutic abilities toward the problem(s) underway.
Amen, Fred54! This is why I became an EX-American!
I agree with some of your points. The federal government has extended itself way beyond its Constitutional authority. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do you feel the same about our socialized education system? Did you or your family benefit from it? Do you feel that society benefits as a whole because we ensure that every American can go to school?
I don't want to go into it again, but we (America) pay more (a higher % of our GDP) for healthcare than Great Britain, France and Singapore (and apparently Canada according to a fellow poster)and more per capita, while those countries cover everyone's health care. We have a higher infant mortality and live is expectancy is less. THAT is UnAmerican, my friend. See my post below for my citation. I cited the bbc/World Health Org.
Yes, Yes, and No for your three questions. I should not force you to pay for my education, and I would prefer not to pay for yours.
Are you unable to research?
If an infant is born to poor parents: CHIP, Texas Headstart, etc...
Or, let's say someone who worked for Enron, and now is penniless, contracted bone cancer: Texas still requires state funded hospitals to provide care regardless of ability to pay.
Currently 40MM people are provided healthcare by the US government at a cost of $682BB in 2008. 300MM people would be cost prohibitive.
It's not that people don't care, it's that our economy can't support a federal healthcare program.
Your accounting need a bit of factual mathematics.
Currently, health insurance companies take 20-35% off the top. This means that every dollar put into one of these for-profit insurance companies is reduced to between 65-80 cents. Putting an additional 20-35% to work will cover a large number of the un-insured.
Medicare manages to keep administration costs low enough that it is able to devote over 95 cents of each dollar collected to actual healthcare, not CEO bonuses of over $100 Million.
We (health-care consumers/taxpayers) already pay ALL the costs of un-insured patients. And at emergency room rates!
The US currently spends twice as much (per insured health care patient) as any other industrialized nation. And our outcomes are worse that 37 other countries.
Sixty-two percent of all personal bankruptcies are caused by health care costs. Eighty percent of those people ruined financially have health insurance.
What our economy can't afford is to continue making a few people rich (and by and large, these folks really don't need our money, they're filthy rich already) by denying health care to people who pay their premiums....and to continue to pay for health care for the un-insured and the social costs of large numbers of people without adequate access to health care.
Let's discuss fiscal feasibility. There is a difference in philosophy between socialized medicine and for-profit medicine. Socialized medicine's goal is to **provide effective health care** for people at the lowest possible cost. They realize that if their population doesn't get effective care, the system will pay for it in the long run. Private medicine's goal is to **make money**. Insurance companies and doctors make more money the more they skimp on medical care. A doctor's time is money in a private system. There is no sense of responsibility, unless it is enforced by law, in which case the insurance companies will always find a loophole because their goal is to make money, not provide medical care.
My insurance company denied me FDA-approved, effective treatment for my illness. Their doctor overrode my doctor's orders for treatment, despite the fact that I met their written, published criteria for treatment. I appealed and lost. I appealed to the state insurance board and was told they had no power over the company because of ERISA. How is this not fraud?
Another doctor's office business manager refused to order the medication the doctor had prescribed for me because "it's not good business to order medication that would be used by only one patient". Why are our medical providers so "sanctified" that they can get away with things that other industries would be strung up for? If I lived in almost any other country in the world, except the poorest-of-poor third-world countries, I would have been provided this treatment without question.
I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation, just the medical expenses I could remember off the top of my head that were related to the condition I was denied treatment for. I then took 75% of that figure, allowing a generous 25% cost due to break-though problems. I didn't include any disability payments in that figure. The cost amounted to three times the cost of providing me the medical treatment I need for my condition for my entire life. This cost is now born by the federal government, because I have become too sick to work and am on Medicare, all preventable. The cost also grows with each passing day because of the damage to all of my internal organs due to lack of treatment. So much for saving money by privatizing medical care.
You know what we can't afford? Military bases all around the world to protect CORPORATE USA...that's what we can't afford. There's plenty of money to have an excellent education system, healthcare, alternative transportation systems, energy innovation, top-notch infrastructure, and on and on. BUT, we can't "afford" any of those things if all of our tax dollars are being used to support the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE CONGRESSIONAL COMPLEX!
THAT'S WHAT WE CAN'T A.F.F.O.R.D!!
i8theworm "It's not that people don't care, it's that our economy can't support a federal healthcare program"
What a crock! Using your logic, Canada, European and Nordic countries could not afford universal healthcare since they are not as rich as America.
You pay twice as much as the rest of the world to get somewhere in the 30 plus placing in world healthcare comparisons. Take your blinkers off and think about that -or do you perhaps work directly or indirectly for an insurance corporation ?
Come now. Yours is the greatest, freest wealthiest most poerful country in the world and they can not afford health care for all?
Maybe you can ask Cuba for advice?
You're right. We spend 16% of our GDP on healthcare. But interestingly, Great Britain only spends 8.4% of their GDP on healthcare and they manage to cover all of their citizens very well. Our costs come from the people who don't have insurance and don't go to the doctor, b/c they can't pay for it. They sit on what ails them unti it's so bad they have to go to the ER where they cannot be turned away (Thank God). (I might add that not only are these people making healthcare prices skyrocket, they are also clogging up our ERs.) Or they just go to the ER for minor things that someone like me, who has insurance, would go to the doctor for, b/c they could not afford a regular doctor who can turn them away for no payment. So, the ER bills pile up and then the poor people who couldn't possibly pay for that kind of treatment (if they couldn't afford the doc in the first place, they can't afford ER bills) claim bankruptcy. Who pays for both ER visits and bankruptcies? We do and it costs much more than a tax for health insurance at a rate that would reflect one's income.
We also spend more per capita than Great Britain (France and Singapore too) yet our infant mortality is higher and life expectancy is less. All that according to the World Health Org. Check it out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8201711.stm. Yet Great Britain and France cover ALL of their people. I want to spend less money and have my tax dollars go farther to help our most vulnerable people. That's what America is about. Remember? Give me your tired, your poor, your sick...
It's ashame that The United States is one of the last developed nations, and despite having the healthiest economy in the last thirty years, is without health coverage for all its people. We should have been the first. We should have set the standard but we are sorely lagging behind in this arena.
Going back to cost: National health insurance is paid for with taxes that replace premiums. BUT, the taxes are lower than what most people already spend on health care for a bad system.
Here we go again...
[Texas still requires state funded hospitals to provide care regardless of ability to pay.]
Nice idea, but wouldn't you get the same thing from a single payer system? Yes, you would. Not only that but the hospital wouldn't have to hire quite so many administrators as the funding for services would be there.
Speaking of research, did you miss the stories of people who have been dumped out of ambulances when the hospital found out they weren't insured?
Speaking of cost, by having a single payer system you would save money and have everyone covered. Instead of insurance payments to companies, the payments would be made to the gov't run health insurance system.
Your economy can't afford not to cover everyone. Of course, you'll find that out when we do have a real pandemic.
Awesome. We said the same thing at the same time. Good going Saturnalia. Nice to see that some are well informed.
I'll add some emphasis here. Your economy CAN'T afford NOT to cover everyone. You will SAVE heaps of money with a single payer system.
What are the underlying reasons, the real reasons that the right is fighting against reform tooth and nail when they know their constituents would like to see single payer or universal or whatever healthcare reform is being called at this moment? The same question goes to the left in their fight for nothing more than insurance reform when they know exactly what their constituents are hoping for. Is it nothing more than money and greed? Or is it all a political fire storm to make sure that Obama is not reelected? There is too much smoke and mirrors and red herrings clogging the airwaves, the papers, the boobtube and even the internet. Even people who are seriously interested in knowing what is going on find it difficult to wade through all of the muck so that every discussion is no discussion at all, only fog. This whole scenario must appear to be nothing less than a farce to those in other countries who are wondering why there is such a big stink. It is the one thing we really do do best...smash and mutilate anything resembling a progressive surge into this new century. So far we seem to have a tight grip on the last century that will keep us in a downward spiral until there is no daylight left..
Ouch. So true, Annabelle.
Why Is Universal Health Care Un-American?
Because America is the most backward country in the world, and anything that has the slightest semblance of culture, modernity and progressiveness is inherently Un-American.
But then so what? There's a whole world out there. At least somewhere that's not here, someone else is doing SOMETHING right.
Fantastic article. Too bad it will fall on deaf conservative ears. You can't cure stupid, no matter how intelligent or well-informed you speak or write.
- Insurgent
Of course universal health care is un-American.
We live in a democracy that is based on the free market. Since FDR began his radical assault on our country, our country has been dragged down by an endless parade of freeloaders. The worst, of course, being the elderly. They are useless to our free market economy and typically expect all sorts of unearned consideration. They can't even go to a restaurant or movie without expecting a handout in the form of a "Senior Discount" as if they did anything to earn it.
This sort of chiseling is minor in comparison to the money these socialist bums drain from the treasury for free pensions and free medical care. If we are going to get this country back on track to prosperity, we need to return to the free market. The first step should be the abolition of social security and medicare.
In the end, health care and pensions are commodities like everything else. Everyone might like a Rolls Royce, but you buy what you can afford. If old people want medicine, or want to see a doctor, they need to pay for it like everyone else. If they can't afford to live alone, they should move in with their kids. Any good Christian kid would be happy to take in their parents. If they have no family, they can rely on their church for help. Churchs will never turn down a poor person who needs financial help.
If none of these options are available, then the old and sick need to find work to support themselves. In our free market economy, there is no room for slackers like pensioners or cripples. They need to work or die.
Caleb Abell; good satire (I hope).
I forgot to mention -there is always the Soylent Green option for those parasitic "wrinklies" you allude to.
Now comes the question: Should that Green option be a federal or state plan or should it be a private corporation?
Perhaps Blackwater-Xe could form a subsidiary just for this purpose and of course utilise the by-products created by the mercenary Xe Head Office during the conduct of normal business.
First of all we don't live in a democracy we live in a republic. If this was a
democracy we would have had universal healthcare a long time ago. You think you
have a "free market" do you! Perhaps you can explain to me how Banks and large
industries keep their profits but manage to socialize their losses. Can you
spell "Bail-out"? I knew you could. You ever wonder why after you have already paid for public infrastructure projects like roads and bridges they can be "privatized" read "sold" so you can pay for them all over again. Ever wonder about that?
Ever wonder why we need a military big enough to put bases in 151 countries and cost
about a trillion dollars per year when we haven't had anything close to an actual military threat since the war of 1812?? Hum!!! I think you need a little focus...
Fred54: Quite right. Greed 101.
Private wealthcare is derived from privatising gain while socialising losses.
Whether parody or the real thing, shorter Caleb Abell:
"If they had like to die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
· Yr Obd't Servant
Ok, if we can't appeal to Right-wing mercy, why don't we try a little self-preservation. Ahem...Do you want sick, diseased, poor, desperate people wandering around your streets looking for a chump in a Rolls Royce to rob? Or would you rather that people were *basically* taken care of so that they don't have to go out and kill for food? Or do you really think we can starve/imprison everyone who's not rich?
These are not really problems. They won't be walking around my streets because the poor and diseased can't get into gated communities. Likewise, we don't need to imprison them . . . better to draft them into the military and send them into combat. Their salaries will be just a fraction of the money spent on civilian contractors which will reduce my taxes. In addition, we get another 2 benefits: 1) We can get these unsightly people off the streets so they don't offend our eyes, and 2) we can reduce the surplus population at the same time.
Troll
Except the elites do want a surplus population, to keep labor costs low. Segregated and out of sight, though, for sure.
"They need to work or die." Sounds like another infamous Nazi slogan "Arbeit Mach Frei" (Work will make you free) that once adorned the gates of every Nazi Death camp. Ironically that German slogan was once a powerful slogan of the German Socialist party ( not the Nat'l Socialists or Nazis party). The Nazis took the slogan and in a very calculating way twisted into a mockery of itself turning it into poison. The right loves doing this with words. In truth the right has only one agenda GREED. Anyone not with this agenda is a Commie, Socialist or Liberal.
It's not just Christians - virtually all religions share the same fundamental tenants, including the right to life, the need to love each other and help the less fortunate, a renunciation of greed and materialism...
If even half the so-called religious in this country practiced just the basics of what they've been preached (and called-out the other half on their hypocrisy,) we would be the world's leader of peace, compassion and equality...
It's not the suffering of those who cannot afford health care,
it is the suffering of those who cannot afford the blackmail of the Insurance/Pharma Cabal.
Thanks Rev Jim Rigby for refreshing comments from the pulpit. You must feel like shoveling s____ against the tide. But, good luck and hang in there. You are among the courageous few.
Christianity as a whole has become a hollow faith as it continually buys into the dirty rotten system of greedy war mongering corporate capitalism.
My hat is off to you and Fr. John Dear, Fr. Richard Rohr, Rev Jim Wallis, Sister Joan Chittister, Fr. Louie Vitali and a few others that are not on bended knee to the system. ..........May your numbers grow!
"Why Is Universal Health Care ‘Un-American’?"
Because the Party of No, led by Rush Limbaugh, says so.
And they have the guns and God on their side to back it up.
Health insurance premiums are up by 78% in 6 years, health insurance companies profits up by over 400% in the same time frame. We have to feed the beast, can't have an adverse effect on the revenue/profit stream.
My goodness, I can't believe the crap on TV, most of the "protesters" at town halls etc. appear to be the ideal candidates for single payer health care. This is sort of like medieval serfs protesting and rioting on behalf of their masters to ensure these feudal masters maintain their status and way of life and the serfs remain virtual slaves - it is insane.
The lord/serf relationship in the USA is different than in medieval Europe. The 95% of USans who are serfs are proud of their lords because they have a theoretical right to topple their lord and take his place. USans tout examples of this happening and consider the "great" advantage of USan serfdom over foreign types of serfdom. USan serfs place most of their hope in achieving grand zero-sum advantages over their fellow serfs in this way. This is how to achieve dignity/honor in the USA. "Upward mobility"
Very well put. Thank you for that!
Maybe its Stockholm Syndrome (abductees taking the side of their captors). From the signs it seems that even 20,000 deaths a year is a small price to pay to prevent the slide into inevitable Marxism that a public option would entail. We've seen this slide occur in Britain, Canada, Japan, Germany, etc (/sarcasm).
Just about everyone in America wants universal healthcare, Republicans included. And we also don't want our taxes to go up to pay for it. In large part, this is because everyone realizes that we CAN'T pay for it, the country is broke.
Where Progressives need to bean Conservatives is on the subject of PAYING for universal healthcare, since the experience of every other developed nation on earth is that the ONLY way to extend healthcare to the uninsured is by going with a public plan, preferrably fully nationalized 'medicare for all' insurance. Thanks to our privatized insurance scam, Americans pay TWICE as much for healthcare as everybody else. Extending this bankrupt plan to 43 million new people will absolutely break the bank. Doing it with a public plan is the ONLY way to do it with minimal impact to taxpayers, which should be a selling point to Republicans.
Furthermore, I'm not sure why Republicans are even being asked for their opinion. They owned the Federal government for 6 of the last 8 years and did NOTHING to fix this system. Actions speak louder than words, and Republican inaction on this tragedy tells us that they don't think there is a problem. Fine: we do, so go away and we'll solve it.
Mr. Rigby asks, why universal health care is "un-American"?
The answer seems to be obvious: because the corporate minority (and the various organs of the press and the media that are controlled by that minority) that defines what counts as American and as un-American is intent on impeding the institution of universal health care. Universal health care would run counter to its private interests, and what better way is there in America to throw discredit upon anything than to label it 'un-American', and thereby to make it look like what is really at stake is the common America, instead of the private interests of a very few very wealthy individuals?
The word 'un-American' is the trap into which many Americans love to fall. Why that is so, is a long story.
Conservatives' use of the scare word 'socialism' to describe every common endeavor that is not privately owned or that fails to make money for a special interest, is a tactic that could easily be debunked if the Democrats wanted to.
The preamble to the 1789 US Constitution states that the government is established to, among other things, "...provide for the general welfare...." While this phrase in not part of any particular Article that confers specific powers, it is clearly part of the Statement of Intent (the Preamble) that provides an overview of how government powers may be used.
And obviously on this basis, we have socialized public schools, socialized public libraries, socialized public highways, fire, and police; socialized public defense forces (the Armed Services), socialized public environmental protection agencies, etc. etc. etc. The list is as long as the government is big -- big government being no more automatically bad, and often much better than, the alternative de facto big government of privately profiting corporations.
So, it seems like a simple point to make, that, if the people of the US decide they now need to officially socialize a common health insurance pool to make health care affordable, it would be no different in principle than what people have demanded their government do in any of the other areas named above.
Official Democrat spokespersons need to use these examples of functional socialism, and affirm them again and again in public debate with Conservatives; openly and without apology.
Every time they allow themselves to be intimidated by the right's use of the scare word 'socialism,' they not only deny the socialistic realities that enable civilized society, they also help the Social Darwinists deconstruct the arguments on which civilized society is based.
You'd think official Democrats would know all this (which of course they do), and debate the Conservatives accordingly (which they never do.)
The fact that they never do, is proof positive of the fraud the Democrat Party has become, and the reason why progressives must not dawdle any longer among Democrats' ranks.
OH, the old "they're using Socialism to scare you" ruse. Call it what you want. Co-operative finances, Group-pay, theft. In short, it's you paying far more than you need to because your neighbor is an idiot liberal who in a typical American way, abuses any "good deal." I'd rather pay for what I consume and let you pay for what you consume, than see you order steak and lobster, me order a sandwich, and both of us pay the same amount. Kiss off, parasite.
"I'd rather pay for what I consume and let you pay for what you consume"
But, when pressed, most of your GOP brethren don't agree with you. They think universal healthcare is something America needs. The problem is, in paying for it, they promote an expansion of the same private insurance scam that's bleeding America dry. Thus, they are voting to increase their taxes FAR beyond what a public insurance system would cost (that's obvious from the comparison of America's insurance system with public systems elsewhere in the world).
The fact is, if most Americans WANT a universal healthcare system, to promote expansion of private systems is to vote for much higher tax increases than to promote a public system. As a matter of fact, if America were to just adopt Canada's system (to mention just one) enmass, our healthcare costs would get cut in half and you would SAVE $3500 a year on your healthcare costs. Thats $3500 a year right into your pocket. Now, I know you are too ruggedly independent to accept that money, but I'd be perfectly willing to take it on your behalf.