Enough is Enough

Years ago my mother was convinced that Medicare would turn the USA into a communist country. Now, at 91, she uses it gratefully. My recently deceased father-in-law was the same; swore Medicare would make us all communists, but then swore by it when it helped extend his life to 90.

I, on the other hand, spent one year with minimal health care. Fortunately, I was able to change jobs in 1984 to obtain adequate health insurance for my family. I had a disabled daughter and flimsy medical coverage that paid for little of her care at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Luckily, I was able to find a job with a good private health care plan. Millions, however, are unable to obtain any health care and are sick or dying as a result. They would be well served to have a national health program as an option.

Where are the outcries about deaths caused by a society unwilling to see that everyone has health care? Where is the outrage about the needless suffering of so many fellow Americans?

Why aren’t the radicals out there screaming “murder” when a young uninsured woman dies of cancer? Or when a middle aged uninsured man dies of kidney disease? Where is the hype to stop “murdering” so many of our uninsured citizens? The private sector insurance business has failed these people miserably while some private insurance executives have rolled big time in the money we pay as premiums. It is time to try something different.

We spend more on health care now than any nation in the world, yet rank 37th out of 191 countries in health care according to the World Health Organization. Canadians outlive Americans by two years, despite all of the American criticisms about socialized medicine. True, we are better service providers and insurers for certain specialty diseases than any other country. But then, aren’t we smart enough to overhaul the system so it is accessible to all, yet retain our excellent specialty care? Aren’t we obligated to do just that if we are, as we claim, the most moral country on Earth?

The time is now to act outrageously indignant that any American anywhere would shout out against giving another American a fair chance at life saving health care. I am fed up with ignorant people rudely interrupting health care town hall meetings geared to helping tweak the President’s health care plan. Those of us in favor of the plan, including myself, are screaming back: “Haters, move out of the way. We want good health care now for all Americans. We will not be stopped by your ignorance.”

Reading HR 3200 once again.

Rather than to add on to the long comment stream following Reading HR 3200, I'd like to address the myth of a spontaneous movement behind the disruption of town hall meetings. Rachel Maddow does a good job here of telling you exactly which professional lobbyists are organizing it all using published data. There have been published photographs showing the same faces at these meetings that were at the Republican raid that stopped the Bush V. Gore recount in Miami in 2000 and they are not locals, but professional lobbyists. They were not there to express their opinions but to keep democracy from happening and they are not at the town hall meetings to add to the discussion, but to prevent the discussion and therefore protesting the use of unregistered lobbyists to prevent the democratic process is not an offense against free speech but a defense of it. OK? Can we end this line of discussion?

The argument that the wording of HR3200 is too obscure for the average guy and therefore "alternate" interpretations have a measurable degree of probability is a flimsy version of ad ignorantiam: I don't understand A, therefore B. Anyone should recognize this as a fallacy and recognize that you're not going to fool anyone here with it.

I don't have a lot of trouble reading the bill for what that's worth and I certainly don't have any trouble discerning that a discussion of limiting our of pocket expense for the insured doesn't mean "rationing" and the provision to pay for you doctor's time when discussing living wills isn't a "death panel." I surely don't have any trouble discounting the tirades of someone who insists these lies are true.

The only conclusion one may legitimately make from any difficulty in understanding is that one's opinion is based upon a minimum of information and most likely to reflect prejudice. If you don't understand HR 3200 don't tell me what it means and don't tell me Sarah Palin might have a point because the wording is too complex for you, OK?