Friday, January 14, 2011

Healthcare

With congress back in session it is bound to be the same old divided political crap as usual. And you can bet that one party will dominate this session yet again with healthcare.

Personal life and death decisions shouldn’t be made by our elected officials. And yet, as the debate over the constitutionality of enacting a mandatory healthcare law come into effect over the next few years it seems that is all anybody wants to talk about. Well, at least from one of the major political parties anyway who vow to overturn the law. I say let them. The law is flawed from many angles because of all the crap that had to be placed in or taken out just to get the damn thing passed and honestly I’m sick of this being a dominant issue in America right now when we have so many other problems to conquer.

Allow me to explain my position on this before I get too many people pissed from my friends on the left, which, don’t worry, I’m still 94% Democrat according to a survey which means I’m pretty left leaning. I don’t think the debate over someone having to make a decision on whether they should live or die be based solely on if they can afford to do so. I don’t think that a person’s life should be attached to the profit motive of another. Allowing a human being to die simply so another person can make money is wrong, both morally and ethically. As long as we have a for-profit healthcare system dominating our country we will have this stigma attached to it.

I say overturn the law and have a real conversation about that small phrase we like to quote, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Do not all three of these rights directly correlate with having to make a decision on whether to get the treatment you need to survive or becoming homeless in the process of trying to pay for the costs associated with those treatments? This isn’t a game and yet those in power don’t seem to understand just how basic being able to see a doctor when you are sick really is. Well, except for, perhaps, Maryland Representative Andy Harris who, after winning the election was shocked to learn he’d have to wait 28 days for his government healthcare plan to kick in. His hypocrisy over running an anti-Healthcare Reform platform and then complaining over not getting his own government funded healthcare would be laughable if it wasn’t a familiar tune sung by many in the Republican party.

This debate over whether it truly is a government takeover of healthcare or if the government should truly be responsible for taking care of its people needs to continue, just not in the current form of attack and retreat. This is a conversation we need to have as a nation. Too many people have had to make the decision to simply end their lives early rather than go into debt or leave that debt to loved ones after they pass away.

I’m putting a lot of blame on the Religious “Right” for the current fear-mongering over Obamacare, many of whom love to tout that they are Christians but whose actions are anything but Christ-like. You want to have a conversation about What Would Jesus Do? He certainly didn’t ask the lame man for his health insurance card before healing him. This goes for the Tea Party too. You want to take this country back? Don’t forget you aren’t the only ones living in it. Putting dangerous ideas into people’s heads and touting it as their patriotic duty to act on it will only result in the loss of innocent lives as we’ve seen with the recent tragedy in Arizona.

This debate needs to happen, but it needs to go further than only a few seem to want to push it. Basic Health should be a Basic Right for every citizen of this country. You want another plan? Fine, buy into one. But please don’t threaten those of us who wish our taxes served our needs better.

1 comment:

  1. Great post, Cory. I wouldn't want to go so far as scraping the entire law. That would put too many people back into the abyss of the uninsured. However, there is no question some significant changes should be made to correct the obvious flaws. That seems to be the case with the enactment of any significant social change legislation.

    Ed Evans

    ReplyDelete