In Response

I had advised a friend of mine not to check out this blog because I know he and I will never see eye to eye on the issue of socialist health care. This is the response I received:


"I know:) I'm glad I didn't read it. I would have to point how hideously wrong you are in your reasoning why people don't have health care :) or even go on a long winded rant on how you couldn't possibly use a debunked argument as the "doctor death panel" to possibly do anything other than be yet another scare tactic. Had I bothered to read your... blog I would be greatly disappointed because usually your political rants are somewhat on key and have an actual bit of truth to them. Though I would have to agree with you on one thing. I don't have insurance because I'm too lazy and stupid to get it for myself to protect me from out of pocket expenses for injury or sickness... It obviously could have nothing to do with the fact that I am one of the very 160 million Americans who cannot afford health care or don't even have it offered to them."


First let’s tackle the really big number at the bottom... "160 million Americans who cannot afford health care..." 160 million Americans would be roughly 53% of the total population of the United States according to figures put out by the US Census Bureau. Really? I would love to see the source for that figure! And out of curiosity does that 160M figure include persons who are in this country illegally? If so let’s just toss those numbers out because since when are noncitizens entitled to the same benefits as taxpaying citizens? And what about all these other programs we are told are essential and cannot suffer a single penny of spending cuts? Do we not already spend millions upon millions of tax payer dollars each year to provide medical care for the old and poor? Never mind how unconstitutional those programs are, if we can't cut them they must be working and hence we do not need another or is it that they are not working and the argument is that they need replaced in which case why can't we completely eliminate them and save some money?

Regarding the death panel comment, how else is this huge bureaucracy of ours going to regulate care? Am I supposed to believe that we will suddenly be transported to some magical realm where there is no waiting for care? No limits of any kind on financing and availability? If I assume we won't be shifting dimensions then how else is the regulation of care going to take place? Are we really going to simply pay for any and all procedures? IF I want a nose job or breast implants for my girlfriend is the government simply going to pay for it or will that still be left for me to pay on my own? And if they are not paying for it how is it being regulated? I cited the 'death panel' comment because it is being used so much by the Republicans in various media outlets. Call the regulation system whatever you want, maybe name it Bob or Sue, but either way there will inevitably be some form of rationing taking place.

I now have a question for anyone claiming they cannot afford health coverage... Do you have cable? Do you eat out often? Since you are reading this online I assume you probably have internet access in your home which you pay for... Yes? Then if you can afford cable, eating out, and internet access is it really an issue of affordability or is it one of priorities?

In closing I do want to point out that the person to whom I am responding is a close personal friend to the point I consider them family. Also they do have a medical condition that probably makes it impossible for them to find health insurance. That being said is the help they need really another huge government program that will include even families making over $75K a year? An unconstitutional one I might once again point out. Or would their particular situation be better mended by a (constitutional) state law requiring insurance companies in that state cover people in their situation or not do business in that state?