50 million Americans don't have access to affordable health care. One need not be a liberal or a 'socialist' to think this is a problem, for humanitarian and public safety reasons. Democrats have been trying to provide coverage for all Americans since at least the days of Truman and all the Republicans have ever said was 'no.' I would prefer a free-market solution but in lieu of that I will support 'socialized medicine.'
First, “50 million” adds 3 million to the usual bogus number thrown around. It is usually 47 million, which has been repeated time and time in the manner of Hitler’s “big lie” and has been shown time and time again to be misleading. The 2006 Census reported that 46.6 million people had no health insurance, which is not the same has having no access to “affordable health care.” Of this number 9.5 million were not U.S. citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, afford health care coverage. 18 million were between the ages of 18 and 34, most in good health and either not in need of health care coverage or chose not to purchase it. Further, only 30% of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given month remained so for 12 months. Almost 50% regained their health coverage within 4 months. Therefore, simply reporting a figure of 46.6 million who have no health insurance is not the same as saying they lack access to it.
Second, apart from the above, the “humanitarians” who founded his country apparently did not find it a problem because a health care right or requirement is found neither in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. The right to pursue happiness is not the same as someone awarding it to you. One can make a case for a great deal of government control not found in those documents, either, in the name of “public safety.”
I too prefer a free market solution; in fact, I do more than prefer it; as a true conservative, I demand it because it is the lack of a true free market and government interference in the market in this area that has produced the contortions leading to the cry for more of the same. But I guess I’m just not as “practical” as you.
John has four degrees, including his Bachelor's of Arts degree from Washington Bible College in Religious Education his Master of Divinity degree from Reformed Episcopal Seminary, a Master of Arts in Linguistics from Temple, and a law degree from Temple. John serves on the Antietam School Board and is Vice-Chairman of the Berks County Housing Authority board. John is also Vice-President of the Board of the National Reform Association and the the Mercy Community Crisis Pregnancy Center in Reading, PA.
2 comments:
50 million Americans don't have access to affordable health care. One need not be a liberal or a 'socialist' to think this is a problem, for humanitarian and public safety reasons. Democrats have been trying to provide coverage for all Americans since at least the days of Truman and all the Republicans have ever said was 'no.' I would prefer a free-market solution but in lieu of that I will support 'socialized medicine.'
First, “50 million” adds 3 million to the usual bogus number thrown around. It is usually 47 million, which has been repeated time and time in the manner of Hitler’s “big lie” and has been shown time and time again to be misleading. The 2006 Census reported that 46.6 million people had no health insurance, which is not the same has having no access to “affordable health care.” Of this number 9.5 million were not U.S. citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, afford health care coverage. 18 million were between the ages of 18 and 34, most in good health and either not in need of health care coverage or chose not to purchase it. Further, only 30% of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given month remained so for 12 months. Almost 50% regained their health coverage within 4 months. Therefore, simply reporting a figure of 46.6 million who have no health insurance is not the same as saying they lack access to it.
Second, apart from the above, the “humanitarians” who founded his country apparently did not find it a problem because a health care right or requirement is found neither in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. The right to pursue happiness is not the same as someone awarding it to you. One can make a case for a great deal of government control not found in those documents, either, in the name of “public safety.”
I too prefer a free market solution; in fact, I do more than prefer it; as a true conservative, I demand it because it is the lack of a true free market and government interference in the market in this area that has produced the contortions leading to the cry for more of the same. But I guess I’m just not as “practical” as you.
Post a Comment