Inalienable Right

The pro-health care reformers' inability to counter even the most obviously irrational arguments is absolutely infuriating.

I have no problem with Republicans and the insurance industry being against health care reform – it's their duty. Politicians have donors and constituents to appease, and corporations have employees with families to feed along with share holders who expect a return on their investments – to not whole-heartedly fight to maintain the status quo would be irresponsible. But the most popular anti-health care reform arguments are so remedial that it is the equivalent of fighting an uphill battle without ammunition, yet they are winning; and even the most competent of journalists and political analysts are missing the lyrics for the music.

Lately, the most ire arousing is the failure to instantly shoot down the "Obama says 'if you like your coverage then you can keep it,' but if there is a government option available then employers are going to stop providing that coverage" argument.

So let me get this straight, the fact that businesses will jump at not providing their workers with health insurance the second that they are given the opportunity to do so is why we DON'T need reform?

This argument is ludicrous and proves the opposite of what the arguer is claiming, yet I still have not heard one person with a microphone immediately call "bullshit!"

Yes, because providing employees with health insurance is so financially straining, businesses would welcome the chance to stop paying for coverage, but that is a major reason why we need health care reform. And if the existence of public health care leads to a company discontinuing health coverage for its employees, the money that that business used to allot for workers' insurance is not going to evaporate – It would just mean that instead of letting an insurance company put that money into a pool that the workers disproportionately, or may never, have access to, those dollars will be directly passed on to the employees in the form of a wage or salary increase, thus giving the workers the power to spend the money that they earned instead of some corporate bureaucrat.

Also, a public plan would give businesses AND employees more leverage when it comes to negotiating health care benefits. It's basic economics – supply versus demand. If companies en masse start dropping health care coverage, then insurance companies are going to start losing business. If insurance companies start losing business, then they are going to have to try harder in order to entice companies into purchasing coverage. Those enticements would most likely be providing better coverage at a lesser price which would benefit both business owners AND employees. And if not all businesses offered medical insurance to their employees, then health care benefits would become a greater tool for both a company to use when trying to attract the most talented workforce, AND for the employee to use when deciding where to work.

Another blatantly contradictory statement is the "government can't run anything, and a public option would put the private sector out of business" argument.

Ugggh! I'm sure it is not their intent but what these people are basically saying is either "the government plan would be so terrible that everybody would choose it over private insurance" or "the government program would be so good that we shouldn't have it."

There are a number of ways to expose the stupidity of this claim with the first being to merely repeat what was just said.

Either the government CAN run an organization or it can't – Which is it? Either the government is NASA and our Armed Forces, or it's the line at the DMV.

Now, obviously, Republicans know first hand that the government can't run anything, (e.g. the past 8 years), but an inept government health care program would simply mean that the private sector would flourish. And the private sector flourishing is supposedly what Republicans are for, correct? Yes, a failed public program would cost the federal government billions, (kind of like the war in Iraq), and "How are we going to pay for it?" is a legitimate concern, (more on that later), but, being that our country is a popular democracy, I guarantee if a government program doesn't work, then we won't keep it, (e.g. slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote, etc.).

The truth is that the VA and Medicare programs offer strong evidence that the government CAN run a health care system; and the existence of the US Postal Service and FedEx, and the proximity of UC Berkeley to Stanford are proof that a public system CAN coexist with the private sector.

The "socialized-medicine would stop innovation" argument is usually made by people without an understanding of basic human psychology. We are "America" – Our culture is to strive to be the best, and we are always going to be at the forefront of science and technology. We are not going to stop being "America" just because everybody can afford to go to a doctor. And if a highly qualified individual doesn't pursue a career in medicine just because the paycheck isn't as big as it used to be then that is a good thing – I don't want a guy who is purely motivated by money to be treating my child, anyways.

The "death panels" argument is plain stupid, and shouldn't even be justified with a rebuttal, but financially, I'm against "death panels" because it doesn't make sense for the government to spend billions of dollars on making sure all our citizens can live to a ripe old age to then just kill them when they get to that ripe old age. Our current system is much more cost efficient when it comes to killing people. And politically it doesn't make sense for politicians to pass a law that kills the people who voted for them, (do you realize how easy it will be to run for office against "the guy who killed Grandma"?). Besides, Saint Peter is the only "death panel" that I need, dag gummit!

The "rationing" argument: Rationing is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "rationing" should be FOR health care reform. To think that a not-for-profit government program would "ration" care more than a profit-motivated private corporation does, is idiotic.

The "bureaucracy" argument: Bureaucracy is what we have now, and a reason why we need reform – Anyone who is against "bureaucracy" should be FOR health care reform. A fun health care bureaucracy game that I like to play is called: "call the insurance company when they are wrong." It's a rather simple game – all one needs is to be billed for a service that the insurance company was supposed to cover. First, call the insurance company and explain the reason for the call, then simply multiply the number of times that the call is transferred by the number of minutes that are spent on hold, and then pull out an encyclopedia to see if that number is greater than the age of the universe.

The "Obama is Hitler!" argument: Hmmm, the guy pushing for inclusiveness and "bi-partisanship" is like Adolf Hitler? What's really pissing off these white supremacists is that now we a have a Black president and the only way that they can put him down is by denouncing their idol. President Obama is not comparable to Hitler and a government health care program has nothing to do with Nazism – I have yet to see one World War II-set movie in which there is a plot to kill Hitler because he was FOR socialized medicine!

The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument: Yes, frivolous lawsuits and malpractice coverage are a major reason for the exorbitant price of health care, but the need for tort reform has been a problem for decades, and it is not just a coincidence that the "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument only surfaces whenever there is a push for actual health care reform. The "tort reform/medical malpractice" argument is a distraction technique. If the people who are bringing it up now were honestly concerned with the strain that malpractice claims place on our health care system, then they would have been passionately lobbying for reform throughout the Bush presidency.

The "When has the government ever taken away power and given it back?" argument: I would love to address this whiny/paranoid argument but I have to go remove a micro-chip that some dudes who repelled from a black helicopter inserted into me.
Again, the United States of America is a popular democracy which means WE are the government. When have WE ever taken power and given it back – Other than slavery, prohibition, women's and Blacks' right to vote? How about school desegregation, internment camps, and recently, Mohammed Jawad?

The "How are we going to pay for it?" argument is a legitimate dispute, but it usually takes having all of their other absurd statements shot down before the anti-health care reformers make this claim.

Being concerned with our nation's rising debt is a major reason to be FOR healthcare reform because not reforming our healthcare system will be much more costly. Yes, health care reform will be expensive, but THAT IS WHY WE NEED IT! Health care spending is nearing 20% of our GDP and to not address this problem will be fiscally devastating. Health care reform will reduce bankruptcies, reduce economic strain on small-business owners, reduce the financial burden that the uninsured place on private insurance companies, and reduce the overall cost of health care. Not having health care reform will be much more expensive.

But if cost were truly a concern for these people, they would have been protesting throughout the Bush administration and they would oppose national parks, all foreign aid for disaster relief, and the war in Iraq.

Yes, there are some anti-health care reformers who are against all government spending, but these people, like Ron Paul, are not practical and most likely have Asperger's syndrome. Most people who are making the "How are we going to pay for it?" argument are hypocrites who had no problem with Dubya running up the deficit. They are "us versus themmers," and are simply obstructionists who think our government is merely a team sport. Yes, these "town hallers" are honestly pissed off, but they are not angry for the reasons that they say they are. They are either, by definition, "conservatives" which means they want to conserve the way things are regardless of the alternative, or they are just mad because they are sore losers, stupid, crazy, and/or racist. And they are without credibility because the past 8 years were an experiment that unequivocally proved, (with the culmination of "bailouts" and being on the verge of a global economic collapse), that conservatives' economic policies do not work. (Thankfully, when it comes to governing our nation, Republicans are currently irrelevant.)


I have always been a free market capitalist, but I am also a realist. I, like the conservatives, do not want the United States to turn into France, but unlike many conservatives, I am actually aware of history and would prefer avoiding a class-warfare, French-style, revolution. Yes, public health care is a form of socialism, but so are farm subsidies, interstate highways, and the local fire department.

The current health care debate is really about "unalienable rights" and whether medicine is necessary for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Should the citizenry's access to health care be a stipulation in the social contract from which our Government derives its power?

Health care is increasingly becoming something that the poor, unemployed, working/middle class, small business owners, and everybody with "pre-existing" conditions cannot attain on their own, and since the government footing the bill for our federal court system, public education, and national defense, are not causing these "town hallers" to weep, "I want my country back," then neither should the government providing health care.

I have faith in President Obama, and I am sure we will have meaningful health care reform soon but, unfortunately, due to the media's inability to present a logical debate, America will most likely have to wait until a health care bill can be passed in memory of Ted Kennedy.


(...And to this lady at Arlen Specter's town hall the other day who shouted about awakening "a sleeping giant": Really? Now that the federal government is attempting to stabilize medical costs, provide health care coverage to the poor and uninsured, and make corporate illness profiteers more accountable to their customers, now you've become interested in our government? The Supreme Court deciding a presidential election with a 5-4, "burn after reading" decision didn't do it, 9/11 didn't do it, being lied into an unnecessary war didn't do it, the Valerie Plame scandal, the handling of Katrina, the firing of US attorneys for strictly political reasons, waterboarding, wiretapping, deregulation nearly causing another great depression didn't do it, but trying to make sure that citizens with a "pre-existing condition" can have access to affordable health care did it? You're stupid, crazy, and/or lying! Please shut up and let the adults with consciences do the decision making!)