In general, I will not make a habit of arguing for or against a President because of his or her political party affiliation. I am neither a committed Democrat or Republican. I will support ideas that seem good to me and oppose ideas that seem bad to me.
And I do tend to like an underdog. So if someone’s voice seems to be falling on deaf ears and their ideas are being misrepresented, I’ll be inclined to side with the person who is in need of some respect.
The current hot topic is healthcare reform. There are a babillion things that need reform, but the headline getter at the moment is healthcare. Apparently, tens of millions of people do not have insurance and among the folks who do have insurance, there is a great deal of unrest about the cost of it and the lack of good service. People who need medical attention are either going without the needed attention or creating a burden on the system by receiving care and not paying for it. I am only scratching the surface of a summary here, but I am sufficiently convinced that there is a real problem in need of a real solution.
It seems that most if not all congressional delegates, regardless of party affiliation, agree that there is a real problem in need of a real solution. However, the tension lies in the fact that decision makers on different sides of the aisle can’t agree on how to get there from here.
If you have an interest or opinion on this matter at all, I encourage you to review President Obama’s speech from Wednesday night (and actually pay attention). His ideas seem good to me, while the primary and loudest criticisms seem unfounded. The bottom line is that a lot of people really do need help and the government can help. While I generally favor the notion that government should not unnecessarily grow larger, and people should help one another voluntarily, it is an unavoidable fact that people don’t voluntarily help one another enough.
I made this comment yesterday on Facebook and it fits here: There is a real problem that needs a real solution. Being opposed to solutions is not a solution. Saying citizens should be left to themselves to figure out a solution is not a solution, since "we" are absolute deadbeats when it comes to helping one another in times of need. It's easy to say, "I'd rather help someone out of my pocket directly than through taxes," but then actually helping someone doesn't happen...at least not 46 million times. I think Obama's point to the congressmen who represent your point of view was, "Okay, you agree something needs to happen and you have an issue with the way I propose to get there, so come forward with an actual, thoughtful point on how to move forward. Let's be done with the boo and hiss." I certainly don't have a plan. But I agree with the President that leaving it at "I disagree" is not constructive.
2 comments:
I have ideas about this subject. I have been unable to buy health insurance in America since 1979. Picture this, you go to Wal-Mart, because you need to buy groceries and, but, or in spite of that need, Wal-Mart refuses to sell food to you. You decide to try a another store, and another and much to your dismay, no store will sell you food. And as strange as it may seem in The United States of America, it is perfectly legal for all stores to refuse to sell you groceries for no other reason than you might need them! Health insurance operates like this.
Yes, insurance is pooling and it is in the insurance companies interest to exclude the most costly individuals from the pool. I'm sure that a whole lot of sick people could bankrupt an insurance company but that will never happen because they can drop your coverage, re-write your coverage or refuse to cover you all together-just when you need it most. And this is perfectly legal in the United States!
Yes, it is a great and noble wonder that we help out each other in our times of need, and especially sickness. But it is also a wonder that it will most likely cost a person $10,000 and up for a mality of any sort. And I cannot imagine with all the desire in my heart that I could help my neighbor with this expense. It is my Christian duty to do so and I will do all that I can to help them.
In the early 1900's, before all these expensive inovations and high salaries, Olivetan Benedictine Sisters working out of the goodness of their hearts, for God, founded the St. Bernard's Hospital. There was no health insurance, health beauracracy, or 6figure salaries. The bill was settled at the time of service--no fuss, no muss. And yes, I can imagine neighbors were able to help each other. One could afford to go to the hospital and pay for their own children's birth. All things were improving over the place we'd been without hospitals and sterile environments.
While I know we can't go back to simpler times, we have a system that is in many ways based on the days of the Pony Express.
Do we really want our Live and Death issues decided by a bottom line? A profit for the investors? Somehow I think that life is much more important and serious than the dollar bill. Did live (or the tree fall in the forrest) exist before the dollar bill?
Yes, it will be very expensive to pay for everyone to have health insurance but does it really make you feel better the think that I've got mine and I don't care if anyone else has theirs? Is that really what America is about?
The BBC reports that England's Health Care System covers every man, woman, and child for 8% of gross domestic product, while in the United States spends 16% of GDP on healthcare and 40 million people are excluded! I know we claim to be capitalist in this world but, come on folks, that's just plain bad business.
My friend, Shona, tells me that in England, one doesn't worry about money and how to pay the bills if your child gets sick, you just go to the doctor and take care of your child. My friend does admit that there are waiting lines in England for surgery but "surgery insurance" can be obtained separately if one chooses to buy this.
Part 2: My Canadian friends used to drive from Arkansas to Toronto for every sickness that they had. One time they even drove to Toronto to have a baby. I thought surely they would want to have their baby in the United States where the baby would be a citizen here and have all the rights of an American? I thought this was a reasonable thought, as Mexicans seem to want to come here to have babies for that reason. My Canadian friends seemed to think that they had better provisions in Canada than here. Hmmm, maybe I'm not hearing the full story in America. The commercials and radio-hosts seemed to be saying that there really is no 'life' or 'world' outside of the United States. Surely noone believes this! And the United States continues to slip in worldwide polls concerning education, health care--1st world kind of stuff.
In the 30 years, since 1979, when I became "uninsurable" and the insurance companies would not cover me, I almost died in 1984, and was billed $10,000 which I made payments on for 10 years. I was covered by Medicaid and Medicare for 10 years for which I was greatful to God and all Mankind for. And went back to work about 15 years ago and have been able to have health insurance through my work, thank you God!!!
I did have hernia surgery while I had health insurance coverage and was dismayed to find out that the hospital was prepared to bill me $8000 if I did not have insurance but only charged the health insurance company $3,500. How is that fair to the uninsured to charge them double?
The perils that I've suffered in my life over the health insurance companies are too numerous for this forum. I do know, though, that there is a huge problem with health care and how it is administered in this country and it needs to be corrected.
The problem is similar to slavery.
You have the Big House where all the people with insurance live and you have the slave quarters where those who need care will take whatever falls from the table in the Big House.
I don't ever recall those in the Big House seeing much wrong with the way things were. Thank God there were people that were able to see.
Post a Comment