The argument against health care is not about money, socialism or big government.
In truth, congressmen against reform see this as an opportunity to achieve two goals: to pay homage to the health care lobbyists who fill their coffers and to do as much damage to their opposition as they possibly can. These two goals are so all-consuming to them that they will lie, cheat and steal to obtain their goals even at the expense of their constituents.
To anyone who pays attention to the news, this should come as no surprise. Several Republican senators have said as much. Sen. James Inhofe of Okla. made no qualms about his feelings when he said, "I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyway." Possibly more telling is the stances that two of the three Republican senators in the group of senators trying to form a bipartisan bill known as "Gang of Six" took. Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyo. admitted that he was not there to compromise, but to block reform. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa went even further trying to spread Palin's death panel lie. If these are the people that we are looking to for a bipartisan solution, we are looking in the wrong place.
These are the same kind of lies that opponents of reform pushed during the civil rights movement, such as when some proposed that treating our fellow man as equals was just a secret plot to enslave the whites. The purpose of these lies is not to provide a rational debate, but to destroy it.
If the Republicans have a real reason not to support health care reform then why do they insist on lying? These tactics are more appropriate for determining the outcome of schoolyard games than for our nation's capital where our lives and our health are heavily affected. As an engineer and a scientist, I rely every day on hard facts. When I see hyperbolic statements, which compare giving people basic human rights such as health care to Nazism, I am forced to question the intelligence and honesty of the debater - although it is hard to think of people who scream talking points but don't listen to the opposition as debaters.
So let's talk facts. I'll save you, my astute reader, from the regurgitation of the typical points of our pathetic infant mortality rate and life expectancy statistics. Instead, I want to talk about how we provide health care to our citizens. A recent study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund on 19 industrialized nations showed that the United States was 19 out of 19 in amenable deaths per capita. In fact, compared to France, we have nearly double the number of amenable deaths. The amenable death rate is really just a fancy term for the number of people who died because they could not get timely access to effective health care.
This number includes deaths caused by having to wait for care, a problem that we have supposedly solved. In a separate study, however, even waiting times are poor in the U.S. Researchers found that only 33 percent of Americans were able to get a same-day appointment with their doctors when they were sick, compared to 60 percent of New Zealanders. In the same study, researchers also found that 26 percent of Americans had to pay more than $1,000 in health care expenses out of their own pockets compared to UK citizens, only 4 percent of whom paid more than $1,000, as reported by Fox News.
Other countries provide health care not because they are socialist, but because they see it as necessary to guarantee their citizens a right to life. When a nation is fortunate enough to pull itself out of the third world, it has the means to realize its responsibility to its people. This is not some high ideal but basic human compassion. Where is America's responsibility?
From birth I was taught that America can do anything because we are truly the greatest nation on Earth. Why is it that our can-do attitude evaporates when health care opponents talk about something they don't like? When other countries can provide better and cheaper health care, why can't we? The answer is that we can and should provide for our citizens, and we should not bow down to cowards who hide behind lies and disruptive tactics.
Leave a comment 14 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Hey, genius, the Democrats hold overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress and Democrat in the White House. You can blame the Republicans all you want but the bottom line is that the Democrats could have had this signed, sealed and delivered before the August recess if they wanted. So go whine somewhere else.
Reply to this Top
They lied they lied! And everyone else but Patrick is too stupid to see through the lies. Then there is an ass clown in every paper quoting statistics as if the numbers have any real meaning without knowing how the study was done. 84% of all statistics are made up. And human rights...nobody is stopping them from living. They stop living on their own. Blame nature and evolution for their diseases and weak immune system
Reply to this Top
"I'm going to oppose it anyway" is a perfectly reasonable opinion. It goes back to the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The reform bill was brought about when there are still a great deal of people who don't believe there is a major problem with healthcare.
Reply to this Top
Why do you need direct access to MY PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT to 'provide human rights'?!?!?! As already stated, the Democrats have the majorities they need to pass the bill. This goes to show you that this is NOT about Democrats v. Republicans. America is waking up, it's not a two party system anymore. This is about what is American v. statism. If all the other countries have better health care, then by all means please move there! I'll even buy your plane ticket. But when you actually need quality care, I will not pay for your ticket back.
Reply to this Top
As an American, it is my god-given right to be able to pay more for health care that is of lesser quality -- in fact, it is god's (the market's?) will. Liberty is the name of the game. Dislike it? Move to France, you commie.
Reply to this Top
Well along with their right to health care, they have a right for you to pay for it. So their right to your bank account must not be infringed. And they have a right to tell doctors how much they will be paid to enact those rights.
Reply to this Top
I think granting government control over health care would give the Republicans the easiest way to stop abortions. Once a Republican can appoint his own health supreme ruler, it's back to the coat hangers for the ladies
Reply to this Top
Thats what I'm here for man. And they don't provide health care because they're socialist, they are socialist because they provide health care. Interesting that Patrick said it was to "guarantee their citizens a right to life". First there is no guarantee they will live, second Patrick may be coming around to the idea that it is for citizens. Perhaps he means citizens of the world though; I need some clarification on that one. And the statistics he uses is just to make him feel like he's making a rational argument since he fancies himself as an intelligent person despite not even giving a thought about why the numbers are the way they are. He is one of the people lying and distorting facts and using disruptive tactics.
Reply to this Top
The key problem with these amenable death statistics is that they assume every citizen is "part of the system." Naturally, a country that doesn't provide universal health care is going to score lower, since many people have no coverage. I have reformed my own health care by starting a Health Savings Account, which means that I have a high deductible, catastrophic coverage plan. As a result, it behooves me to inform myself and stand up to a doctor when they suggest a battery of tests. Since I'm paying for each of them out-of-pocket, I want to know what the value is of each in treating my symptoms. It also gives me an incentive to live a healthy lifestyle. This leads me to believe that a major part of any reform has to involve incentives for people to use medical resources efficiently, rather than ordering every test just to be sure. When people are insured, they don't have a reason to care how much their procedures cost. We are able to comparison shop for just about everything else, why not health care?
Reply to this Top
No one whines like bleeding-heart, middle-class, privileged liberal. It is so much to ask to expect people to pay to protect the only thing they have? If you go bankrupt in the process, tough luck, sorry. Don't expect me to support you. And I wouldn't have to if the same liberal organizations (American Medical Association, Whaaa-mbulance chasers) didn't actively work to restrict the supply of doctors and services. When these liberals line their pockets it's okay, but a corporation tries to do it, they're evil? You decide.
Reply to this Top
I can not believe the comments I see here. You are supposed to be America's future. All I see are a collection of selfish, short-sided and heartless complainers. I can not believe that you would rather pay more for less care, just because you think you have the "freedom" of choice served up by corporate America. The product is broken and corrupted by the health care industry, whose primary responsibility is to make money for the shareholder and not provide quality health care to Americans.
Reply to this Top
Ah, but profit is a great motivating incentive. Perhaps the greatest motivating incentive, because it affords you the opportunity to increase your reach and potential. DOn't confuse the 'health care industry,' by which I assume you mean insurance companies (which, incidentally, are for-profit companies which have a primary duty to benefit their shareholders), since 'health care practitioners' are the doctors who actually provide you care (and are, in ERs, legally obligated to do so in life-threatening situations regardless of your ability to pay). Remember - you don't ever have a right to demand a service from someone else, even if you intend to compensate him for it. The skills that an individual possesses are his to use or not use as he sees fit. . .
Reply to this Top
So you admit that infant mortality and life expectancy stats aren’t noteworthy, but then feature other statistics that are subject to all the same problems of interpretation? Bottom line: this debate (like any philosophical/sociological/moral debate) cannot be fought with statistics. To your credit Mr. Butler, you begin to touch the subject of rights. However, the issue is nowhere near as simple as you make it seem. I am inclined to believe that I do not have the right to the services of a doctor (or any other professional) simply because he has the ability to save my life. It is as dishonest as the right-wing opposition to state that health care is a human right without any further proof. And if in fact you can formulate a sound argument for health care as a human right, and you have established the government, funded by taxes, as the provider of this right, then how could you in good conscience deny this right to illegal aliens or even every other inhabitant of the world? Because the United States can't possibly fund such an endeavor? If it is indeed selfish and immoral for an individual to oppose universal health care because he would have to pay more taxes, how is it not also selfish and immoral for the American citizens to deny the benefits they receive to the rest of the world simply because it would cost too much? Please Read This: http://mises.org/story/3556
Reply to this Top
sorry, wrong link in last post (although its certainly worth reading as well). If you want to understand the causes of our current health care situation and the only way to fix it, this is the article you want: http://mises.org/story/3613
Reply to this Top