Monday, March 22, 2010

Reform = Humanity

The health-care bill was passed! Amazing. Why do so many people oppose it? Yes, it's socialist. Insurance by its very nature is socialist: many contribute to provide for the the people who need it. School is socialized in the U.S. Why don't anti-reformers raise their arms up about that? How can they support so many tax dollars going to that ludicrous war in Iraq and not support health care access for their fellow human beings?

I watched some disturbing footage the other day of an anti-reform demonstration where demonstrators were throwing fake currency at a man in a wheelchair, telling him to pay for his own health care. What?! This is beyond inhumane. I cannot conceive why anyone would think another person deserves to go bankrupt because of health costs or deserves to be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It happens all of the time in the U.S. -- even to children. It easily could have happened to me.

How would my parents have provided my medical care throughout my entire life -- all of the CT and MRI scans, hospital stays, surgeries, doctors visits, medications, etc.? I really can't fathom it. Thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. As if sick people don't have enough to deal with.

Yeah, Michael Moore's presentation of Canada's healthcare in "Sicko" was biased. Our system isn't perfect. The government doesn't cover prescriptions, leaving many without adequate insurance to pay thousands of dollars in drugs. Wait times are huge. Many people don't even have family doctors. Still, we must be doing something right because I'm still here. I was never denied anything. Then there's other government run programs like ODSP that provides income to people who cannot work due to profound illness or disability. They only get about $500 a month to live on.

Of course anti-reformers aren't interested in higher taxes. There's also a strong perception that the quality of health will go to *#&% once the government gets involved. Well, insurance companies will have no cap to charge. Perhaps access will be limited. At least some of the insurance companies' power will be reduced: from what I've heard, people like me will no longer be allowed to be denied health insurance. That's at least a start, right? Changes will take years to take effect anyway. My thoughts will remain with those who don't have access.

6 comments :

  1. I agree! There's a real sense in which those opposed to compulsory Health Insurance should also be opposed to compulsory motor insurance. Health insurance helps us all to look after each other . . and if we can't do that . . what are we here for?

    In the last three months I have had cataract operations on both eyes. My eyesight is transformed! Having paid into our NHS via my "national insurance" contributions, these operations including pre-and post op examinations cost me nothing . . not a cent.

    Thank you for following my Sill Blog. But remember . . it's mostly written with tongue wedged in cheek.
    Take care. Hugs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No problem, Doctor! Thanks for reading mine!

    You summed it up beautifully: "Health insurance helps us all to look after each other.. and if we can't do that.. what are we here for?" I love this.

    I'm glad your eyesight is better! Wouldn't it be awful to be sick and not have the means to help yourself? And to think it is a "developed" country...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not really up to speed on health care in the US but I do agree with your sentiments. We are social creatures by nature, not loners. In times long past, we lived in villages; children were raised by the village and the village took care of its own. Isn't that precisely what national health care is? The country is like a really big village; the government has a responsibility as the population's representative to take care of the children, the sick, the elderly on behalf of all the 'villagers'. That's what taxes are there for - everyone contributes to the wellbeing of the 'village' as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah I think most who oppose socialism do not feel they should have to pay for other people. A ridiculous notion, if you ask me. How else would the western world work? It's "Me" culture I guess, but if you're already impoverished, obviously a hike in taxes could really hurt you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You know I come from Europe but I find that in the USA they are a lot more class conscious than in “old” Europe. The “richistans” the people with money want to keep the poor “poor.” Then they all go to church and declare that the American are the most “giving.” I heard some Tea baggers screaming that Obama’s health care was even communism, but they also said they did not want Social Security to end. I mean it, they don’t even realize that Social Security is socialism, just like the Fire Department or the Police. France may have social health care but it was voted the best in the world and people are living a lot longer than in the US, with way less Alzheimer, heart disease, and death in childbirth. It is pure politics here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think it's probably based on the so-called "American Dream," where those who work hard in the country will apparently flourish. Good point! "Giving" indeed. Maybe those Americans who oppose socialized healthcare believe that people can get health care if they work hard enough for it? Bogus, I know. Just a thought. Many of the lower-class object to taxes, I know. Higher class too! You're right, though. So much of their lives are socialized, but American anti-reformers don't seem to be conscious of that at all. It just highlights their ignorance if you ask me. It makes sense that greater access to health care, among other socialized benefits in France and other European countries, make for a healthier people.

    ReplyDelete