Why I Support Universal Healthcare Coverage

[Magnetic Poles]

All sorts of charges get tossed around on this forum. Accusations of Communist, Fascist, or "why do you hate America" get slung like mud at a monster truck rally. But does anyone really try to stop the shouting and inflammatory language long enough to try to understand WHY someone may disagree with you?

Case in point. When I see stories LIKE THIS ONE, indicating that up to 45,000 Americans die each year for lack of health insurance, it points out why I believe universal coverage is a moral imperative. This is a "pro-life" position. People who are already born also deserve to not needlessly die.

If you stop and think about how fervently you are against abortion, then maybe you can also understand the passion with which those of us who believe that universal coverage is an imperative for our nation. Just as it is easy to say those who are pro-choice on abortion have blood on their hands; the same could be said about those against national, universal health care.

As for so-called "death panels", they exist already...in the accounting offices of companies like United Healthcare which looks for every reason to deny coverage, and gives its CEO a billion dollar bonus...money that could be used to save many lives. Should an executive receive a bonus? Fine, but when people get denied basic procedures that can save lives, such an extreme amount outweighs that CEOs value. Bean counters at companies like United Healthcare, Aetna, Cigna, Humana, and others are making the life and death decisions...not the patients and their doctors.

Even if you don't buy the number of 45,000 per year, it is immaterial. The fact is, it is a widespread problem. If it is your wife, your husband, your child, your parent, it could be the most important person in the world.

Do I expect to persuade anyone here? No. But I hope it gives you pause to think.

 

[Revmitchell]

All sorts of charges get tossed around on this forum. Accusations of Communist, Fascist, or "why do you hate America" get slung like mud at a monster truck rally. But does anyone really try to stop the shouting and inflammatory language long enough to try to understand WHY someone may disagree with you?

The principles that lead to this type of governing is founded in communist ideology. It is a fact. Obama has surrounded himself with marxist after marxist. That is another fact.

Case in point. When I see stories LIKE THIS ONE, indicating that up to 45,000 Americans die each year for lack of health insurance, it points out why I believe universal coverage is a moral imperative. This is a "pro-life" position. People who are already born also deserve to not needlessly die.

Because the word "associated" gets abused to tie one thing to another when it in fact does not determine cause and effect. You were wanting preciseness over the number of people attending the Tea Party in D.C. over the weekend but overlook such preciseness when it suits your purposes. This is a clear example.

If you stop and think about how fervently you are against abortion, then maybe you can also understand the passion with which those of us who believe that universal coverage is an imperative for our nation. Just as it is easy to say those who are pro-choice on abortion have blood on their hands; the same could be said about those against national, universal health care.

Because it is clear to us that you would be just as passionate with or without this excuse and no evidence supports your claim.

As for so-called "death panels", they exist already...in the accounting offices of companies like United Healthcare which looks for every reason to deny coverage, and gives its CEO a billion dollar bonus...money that could be used to save many lives. Should an executive receive a bonus? Fine, but when people get denied basic procedures that can save lives, such an extreme amount outweighs that CEOs value. Bean counters at companies like United Healthcare, Aetna, Cigna, Humana, and others are making the life and death decisions...not the patients and their doctors.

You need to research this issue before speaking on it. You seem to be following the strawman the liberal media has created around this. What you have stated has nothing to do with "death panels"

Even if you don't buy the number of 45,000 per year, it is immaterial. The fact is, it is a widespread problem. If it is your wife, your husband, your child, your parent, it could be the most important person in the world.

You nor anyone else has not presented any facts on this.

Do I expect to persuade anyone here? No. But I hope it gives you pause to think.

No pause because the entire argument is disingenuous. It presents falsities as facts and makes sophomoric arguments that cannot be supported. But regardless of any problems government control can never fix it.

Here is where the real argument lies......one wants government to provide the solutions for Americans Problems the other side is no government solutions because government always makes it worse, and is not what this country was founded on. Having said that regardless of what the problem is and no matter how extensive it is conservative will always oppose government solutions. That is the root disagreement and all other debates are founded on that issue alone. We will not compromise on this even if the center of the earth is caving in. There is always a solution outside of government that maintains the very freedom form government this country was founded on.

 

[Salty]

After health care, do we have universal food care?, how about universal auto insurance? If an uninsured person causes damage to me (self and auto) I may end up in quite a bit of debt.
Then there is universal rent care,....


I'm sure you may have answered this but what about providing universal health care for illegals?

My bottom line -Governments job is to protect us form others,otherwise each person is responsible for himself.

Salty

 

[Magnetic Poles]

All I can say Mitch is you are so hardened in your positions, you are unreachable. You have blood on your hands as surely as any abortionist. It is not for you this is written. You are unable to fathom the point that there are already death panels as sure as those your side imagines under reformed systems of healthcare. Rather than actually address what I wrote, you dismiss them as "sophomoric". Too bad, but ultimately, you are on the wrong side of the issue, and history will bear this out.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

After health care, do we have universal food care?, how about universal auto insurance? If an uninsured person causes damage to me (self and auto) I may end up in quite a bit of debt.
Then there is universal rent care,....


I'm sure you may have answered this but what about providing universal health care for illegals?

My bottom line -Governments job is to protect us form others,otherwise each person is responsible for himself.

Salty

Salty, you engage in a slippery slope fallacy. One cannot pursue food, shelter, et. al. unless one is healthy enough to work. Good health is good for the economy. People do not choose to get brain cancer. People do not choose to develop leukemia. People do not select Alzheimers. If excellent care deemed a privilege, then only the privileged will receive it. Many of you, I predict, will have your minds changed by circumstances when you become victims of the crumbling of the American middle class. When your insurance company denies you after you develop a fatal disease and you cannot buy coverage at any cost, remember what I have said here.

 

[Alcott]

...up to 45,000 Americans die each year for lack of health insurance, it points out why I believe universal coverage is a moral imperative.

It keeps being repeated frequently that hopsitals, ER's, et al, cannot refuse to treat patients without coverage, so that just 'raises the premiums for all of us that have coverage.' So in that way, is there not already 'universal healthcare?' Would the net change even be significant? And frankly, it's easy to see 45,000 dying annually because of ignorance or stubborness about seeking treatment. 'Universal coverage' will not make people smarter or more likely to change their unhealthy habits. And I don't think it will force people to get an annual or semi-annual checkup... but who knows on that one?

 

[Twizzler]

A touching story, MP. I read every word of the linked article. ($5,000.00 a month for medical insurance seems like a typo to me, btw).

You tug at the heart-strings very well with your plea, as does the rest of the left, but the comparison to the Right to Life cause and Universal Health Care is flawed. Mainly because all souls have a RIGHT to life... not a right to a LONG life, in my opinion. They have a right to PURSUE a LONG LIFE, just as everyone else does, but that shouldn't mean that everyone should foot the bill for ALL the medical costs. Abortion is murder, plain and simple, dying from lack of being able to afford a million dollar surgery is tragic, but not murder.

Even folks WITH good health insurance don't go to the doctor for every little ailment they have. (Remember deductibles and co-pays?) When we make it so easy to go to the doctor that no one has to worry about costs, then we're going to have a totally over-loaded system and folks will die because there aren't enough medical staff to go around. Then you'll yell and scream for more doctors and nurses... it won't ever end.

In the long-run, for me anyway, it comes down to the simple question, 'Is medical care a basic human right?' I say 'No. It is not a RIGHT.'

 

[Magnetic Poles]

In the long-run, for me anyway, it comes down to the simple question, 'Is medical care a basic human right?' I say 'No. It is not a RIGHT.'

On that is the fundamental disagreement. I don't believe it is a privilege, per my statement above.

 

[targus]

"The researchers examined government health surveys from more than 9,000 people aged 17 to 64, taken from 1986-1994, and then followed up through 2000. They determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance."

There sample size of 9,000 appears small relative to a population in excess of 350,000,000. And that would be assuming that they did not include illegal aliens.

"The American Cancer Society found that uninsured cancer patients are 1.6 percent more likely to die within five years of their diagnosis than those with private insurance."

It is doubtfull that 1.6% is statisticly significant.

"The National Center for Policy Analysis, which backs "free-market" health care reform, calls the Harvard research flawed. The findings in this research are based on faulty methodology and the death risk is significantly overstated," said John C. Goodman, the president of the NCPA in a statement."

Well, what do you know !!

Suspiciously absent from the article is the reasons why the selected anecdotes don't include the reason why these people had no insurance.. Did one or more of them simply not choose to spend their money on insurance?

All in all not a very convincing article.

 

[OldRegular]

If you stop and think about how fervently you are against abortion, then maybe you can also understand the passion with which those of us who believe that universal coverage is an imperative for our nation. Just as it is easy to say those who are pro-choice on abortion have blood on their hands; the same could be said about those against national, universal health care.

Your conclusion that those who are against Socialized Medicine have blood on their hands is irrational. No rational person would think that the government, who cannot run the postal service, could deliver medical care to 300 million people.

 

[Twizzler]

I would think that the left would just leave Universal Health Care alone anyway as shortened lives just lead to being closer to zero-population-growth. It doesn't make any sense, does it?

When we want to control the population of a deer herd, we allow the taking of does, we don't go out and spay them. (A cruel analogy yes, but relevant as most leftists see us as animals anyway).

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Your conclusion that those who are against Socialized Medicine have blood on their hands is irrational. No rational person would think that the government, who cannot run the postal service, could deliver medical care to 300 million people.

There is the fallacy. That is not what is proposed. Most people would keep their current plans. Plus it is also fallacious that government cannot run things efficiently. The postal service is a quasi-governmental agency, that all in all, runs pretty well. Its issues have more to do with changing technology than its inefficiency. The government does many things well...protects us from foreign aggressors, builds and maintains great highways, pays social security checks to seniors, etc.

I heard a good analogy...Having a public option doesn't mean you can't have private insurance. We have public universities, yet private colleges and universities thrive right along side them.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I would think that the left would just leave Universal Health Care alone anyway as shortened lives just lead to being closer to zero-population-growth. It doesn't make any sense, does it?

When we want to control the population of a deer herd, we allow the taking of does, we don't go out and spay them. (A cruel analogy yes, but relevant as most leftists see us as animals anyway).

Your strawman is totally inaccurate. Nobody on the left is advocating shorter lifespans. Stick to facts rather than demonizing those who disagree with you please.

 

[Salty]

There is the fallacy. That is not what is proposed. Most people would keep their current plans. ...

Lets say you open a business with 9 employees. You can either buy health insurance for your employees or you could help them be provided by the govt health care program.
Which would you choose?

Salty

ps - and what about universal health care for illegals?

 

[Twizzler]

Your strawman is totally inaccurate. Nobody on the left is advocating shorter lifespans. Stick to facts rather than demonizing those who disagree with you please.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, my friend... You're the one that brought up strawmen with your abortion fallacy. I chose to respond in kind. I have no blood on my hands.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, my friend... You're the one that brought up strawmen with your abortion fallacy. I chose to respond in kind. I have no blood on my hands.

Sorry, but those paws are drenched in red. There is no fallacy stating that a consistent pro life position cares about people post birth as well as pre birth.

 

[carpro]

All sorts of charges get tossed around on this forum. Accusations of Communist, Fascist, or "why do you hate America" get slung like mud at a monster truck rally. But does anyone really try to stop the shouting and inflammatory language long enough to try to understand WHY someone may disagree with you?

Case in point. When I see stories LIKE THIS ONE, indicating that up to 45,000 Americans die each year for lack of health insurance, it points out why I believe universal coverage is a moral imperative. This is a "pro-life" position. People who are already born also deserve to not needlessly die.

In the first place, like the 47 million "ninsured americans"is a lie, so is the 45,000, and for mostly the same reasons.

Secondly, the organization that requested the "study" is a universal healthcare advocate. Polling companies always try to please the people that contract them.

Lastly, and most important, if you think 45,000 is a big number, wait till you see how many die from lack of care when "insurance" is free. The death rates for cancer victims, for instance, is much higher in countries with government run healthcare than it is in the U.S.

The reasons are simple, rationing and rationing.

 

[Twizzler]

Sorry, but those paws are drenched in red. There is no fallacy stating that a consistent pro life position cares about people post birth as well as pre birth.

MP, I think you don't really have any idea of what a strawman fallacy really is. Go here -----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man for a detailed explanation.

Your arguement IS a fallacy (a strawman fallacy at that) simply because you mis-represent MY stance on the matter by stating that I must, by logic, accept Universal Health because I am pro-life or else I am a hypocrite. The fallacy is that you very conveniently choose to leave out the fact that I support protecting 'INNOCENT' life. And before you start spouting off about children being helped by this health care plan, know that for the most part, they already ARE and I agree with -that- just fine.

So stop spouting rhetoric that just doesn't make sense, you're sounding a bit desperate.

 

[Robert Snow]

All I can say Mitch is you are so hardened in your positions, you are unreachable. You have blood on your hands as surely as any abortionist. It is not for you this is written. You are unable to fathom the point that there are already death panels as sure as those your side imagines under reformed systems of healthcare. Rather than actually address what I wrote, you dismiss them as "sophomoric". Too bad, but ultimately, you are on the wrong side of the issue, and history will bear this out.

Thanks MP. I have read this thread and believe it would be easier to teach Algebra to a Chihuahua than convince most right-wingers of the need of universal health care.

I am somewhat disappointed with President Obama and feel that he has moved much to far in trying to bring the republicans on board. Hopefully, the Progressives in Congress will at least get a bill passed that we can build on for future improvement.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Remember folks, M.P. has called Christ a terrorist, and likened the teaching of an eternal hell to an armed rape. Don't let this lefty troll tell you that there's blood on your hands because you are gainst commie care. It does not deserve recognition. Let him and his ilk wallow in their hatred of biblical Christians.