Constructive gadfly


With Gephardt out of the race and Kucinich going nowhere, universal, single payer health care is buried once again: its point to maintain a healthy nation as part and parcel of maintaining the nation's well-being as per existing social security for those sent out to pasture or for the millions of the ill-luck who are handicapped, or widowed with children did not need Harry and Louise this time to dump it. Once more in not espousing this principle, we defy the natural process, for the most part, of an enlightened nation. Further, the nation falls through the cracks in competing within a global economy because the morale and health of the worker and family are essential, but apparently only other developed nations are willing to pay for the precious entitlement to insure a highly motivated work force.


Before being hired by a large company or government, one must take a physical. The armed services want only the healthy: gays who do not falsify the psychology examination are rejected. There was a time the disabled were perceived as unhealthy and denied access to the work field until anti-discrimination law applied. Until the enactment of Medicaid and Medicare, the ill among the needy and the elderly were perceived as lepers. Most parents and all grandparents of senior citizens today had no such comfort as offered today — what short memories we have — but now it is perceived as an inalienable right. But God forbid that today's younger generations, oppressively taxed 14% of their gross income apart from income tax itself, should expect the protection of health care now, not just in their old age. No such financial obligation for today's golden oldies. Good old Lyndon handed it to them on a silver platter to insure against suffering and financial disaster in old age. True, since its inception the cost to seniors has risen, but in contrast to private insurance, modestly.


Every interest group that is already secure with plans — seniors, unions, government employees, and others lucky enough to be blest with good-will employers — ignobly failed to support Hillary's health care package, lest she tamper with existing plans in order to successfully obtain universal access to the 40 million Have-nots. The doomed outcome indicated that few who are comfortably in place with plans gained by choice employment or Uncle Sam are willing to pay more for their existing security to insure the same security for others.


Yet in a state of emergency like 9/11, hurricanes or floods, the sick and injured are cared for without regard to costs. Whether extracted from a mangled Lexus at the scene of an accident or rushed to the hospital from the bloody, drug-infested streets of L. A., one is suddenly perceived as equal. In the Fifties when Eisenhower had a heart attack, no taxpayer resented the medical bills. George, Barbara, Ronald and Nancy each was hospitalized and magnanimously America rose above pettiness. Then why be so resentful of others less fortunate? Many of the comfortable revel in nastiness, in self-righteousness. So what if universal access includes the pimp and prostitute, the child abandoned by parents, gay or straight with AIDS? — that's what universal means! When there is a shoot-out and the bloody drug criminals are rushed to emergency the county pays.


The frenzied pack against access defines national health as socialized medicine. One of our greatest presidents called it by that name — what's in a name if it gets the job done? But the problem is much deeper. The existing system — Hillary, Gephardt, Kucinich heroics notwithstanding — will ineluctably collapse and our children and their children will be without the primary act of Audrey Hepburn decency. How ironic, in an ostensibly enlightened nation that heard the cries of children across the seas and rebuilt Japan, Europe and later bestowed health care for the Somalians, Haitians, Bosnians, Kosovars, and now Iraqis, should turn deaf ear to its own. Be not holier than those of our own kind who are without, lest Audrey Hepburn rain tears from heaven.

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 11, 2004
The basic question is: Is it the FEDERAL government's job to pay for health care?

And if so, how much? Should doctor's visits be paid for by the government? Every doctor's visit? People already wait days to get an appointment with a doctor now, imagine if it cost people nothing to do it. How about paying for child birth? Should we be encouraging those who can't afford children to have more? Where do you want to draw the line?

At what point is the federal government basically playing mom? Taking care of your food, clothes, shelter, health care, medicine, what have you.

The reason why so many people, such as myself, oppose it is on the basic princple - the federal government was not designed to act as mommy to everyone.
on Feb 11, 2004
quuestionof mommy of humanity... Letting people dying,(because that what you talking about with health insurance) because you don't want the system to pay for it is inhuman. If you looked inother country, welfare system managed by state are usually cheaper and more efficient that private system.

I'm sure that american poors are happy to die in a rich country...
on Feb 11, 2004
If you are someone unfortunate enough to be working hard in a minimum wage job without health insurance, and you become "unlucky" enough to get, for example, appendicitis, and have to have your appendix removed, you are probably looking at something like a $10,000 bill (and that's barring any "complications"). Most hospitals will take "payments", though.....so you could probably scrape enough money together to pay $20 a month or so, provided that you still have your minimum wage job after you have been laid up in the hospital for a week or more. OR, you could ignore the symptoms altogether, because the cost of an emergency room visit + any testing that they'll do is also very expensive, in which case, your appendix may rupture and then YOU WILL DIE..... "the federal government was not designed to act as mommy to everyone"....what an extraordinarily ignorant and infuriating statement!!!....maybe some people need to walk a mile in some other people's shoes, like YOU, Brad WARdeII!!!
on Feb 11, 2004
Brad, no one is proposing mommyism, nevertheless, a mommy does care. Of course, single payer is going to involve a co-pay and probably based on ability to pay. The advice debidoll gives is sound; if nothing else, the government should handle major medical bills.
on Feb 11, 2004
Jep, you're right plus the fact that medicare is more efficient than insurance. In light of the other industrial nations not finding this an issue, I wonder why we are not ashamed of ourselves.
on Feb 11, 2004
I don't know steven, I guess that a lot of the 43.6 m americans without healthcare are also in difficulties regarding their votes...
I think that a "mommy" state will not let people going down in a vicious circle, it will always happen that some people need to be helped. You can judge a society by the way it treats its weakest members.
on Feb 11, 2004

There are alternatives to having the government play the role of mommy. What of charities? What of NGOs?

Throwing up ones arms and saying "If you don't agree with me that the federal government should provide health care then you are in favor of letting people die in the streets."

There are many problems with that such as the fact providing bunches of money towards healthcare is not going to affect people dying in the streets very much.

Right now, about 90% of Americans are covered by insurance. Of the 10% not covered by insurance, most of them are children.

Do you see what I am getting at? Rather than just saying "Let's have the government take it over" perhaps another solution can be found to solve the actual problem rather than handing over a huge chunk of our economy to the federal government. Or maybe voters should ask their state legislatures to get involved instead.

If you happen to want someone to play mommy to the masses, why do you favor the federal government? Why universal healthcare?

on Feb 11, 2004
Another great article stevendedalus!
Brad Wardell- on one of your blogs I offered to bring kids to people's houses for supper to prove that there ARE hungry children in our country. I agree with debidoll about walking a mile. And now, I'd like to make another offer. I'd like for you to trade places for one day with a lovely young woman that would probably not be here if it weren't for the fact that she got on medicaid. One day.
As a citizen of the United States, I expect programs to be in place where if this lovely young woman needs help getting medical care and medicine, she gets that help and is treated with the care and dignity that she deserves. How is this asking my government to be my mommy?
This is why I answered Wahkonta Anathema's question of if this country could ever be under socialism control with a NO.
Does it not make sense that if a country's people have housing, food and healthcare, they will be better citizens? That if they are out of survival mode, they will be free to be? And does it not make sense that if you are walking along a journey with others, and one falls, that you reach out and help the fallen one up?
on Feb 11, 2004
well brad, I don't see any positive point in having children uncovered by health care. In any health problem, old and young are always the first victims...
Why the state? The state is supposed to consider anybody equal, so if you are rich or poor you'll get the access to the same quality of care. The society as a whole wil profit for helping people out of the survival mode.
on Feb 11, 2004

The state is supposed to consider everyone equal. It is supposed to work to ensure equal opportunity.

But it doesn't mean that the state will gaurantee equal results. I'm not poor. But I probably would be poor if I had had children before I was ready to have them.

Do not parents have some responsibility to care for their own children? My wife and I waited until we were in our late 20s to have children. Ever seen the demograhpics on uninsured children (if you haven't, google it, good reading). Overwhelmingly it's children born to single parents < 21 years of age. 

I agree it's not fair that children should potentially suffer. But as a practical matter, there hasn't been much evidence showing that children are dying in any measurable number due to not having health insurance. A child who gets hurt still goes to the emergency room like everyone else and the state covers it.

It's a sticky issue for sure. But if people want to give up personal responsibility they should also have to give up some personal freedom. The rest of us, thorugh taxes, would be forced to give up a little freedom to take care of those who were too irresponsible to wait until they coudl afford to have children.

I'd be content with a law that simply said: You may not have children until you are 21 years old or married. If you do, you will not receive health insurance.  Or conversely require birth control on those unmarried and under 21 and then provide insurance for all children whose parents are poor.

So that we're clear: I am not suggesting that people shouldn't be able to have children simply because they are poor. If a married couple is 23 years old and is still poor I'd be perfectly okay with state government (not federal, that's a waste) providing basic health care for the child for the first 18 years. Their first child anyway. Not additional children.

Do you see the slippery slope though even with this scenario?

I don't want to subsidize irresponsible behavior.  Having children out of wedlock at 16 years old is irresponsible. So if we're going to play mommy, we need to go all the way -- force people to be on birth control until they get married.

Personally I consider that a radical solution. But at the same time, I consider simply writing a blank check for people who want to crank out out-of-wedlock children to pay for their healthcare a radical idea. Babies don't just happen.

But there you have it: There are about 40 million uninsured Americans. Most of them children. Out of them, most of them come from single parents who had children >21. So one practical solution is to try to find a way to stop that from happening.

WiseFawn: I enjoy your writings but you can't make policy based on anedotal examples. Solutions come from understanding a given problem in its entirety.

on Feb 11, 2004
Brad Wardell- Why thank you, I enjoy your writings too, that comment you made on a blog that you ARE watching all the time made me almost choke on my sandwich with laughter!
I may come from a personal point of view, because I'm a firm believer that if you have the actual experiences personally, you are very well equipped to talk on the subject, but I'm still not sure how I gave the impression I don't understand the problem in it's entirety. Decisions are made and policies are changed quite often by people coming forth and telling their stories.
We now know your position about children, what about senior citizens and the disabled?
on Feb 11, 2004
Brad, for a right winger, you're on dangerous soil proposing birth control or planned parenthood. Some religions consider planned parenthood a subsidiary of abortion. The conservatives are illogical on this point because they abhor single mothers, yet they are against contraception! I agree that many unwed mothers are either irresponsible or come from an environment that is not helpful, but why, then, are you against giving them a helping hand, or at least make proposals to head off this plight in the future? Most of whom you speak are not on your intellectual plane and in many cases are children who need you as a mommy.

Thanks, WiseFawn.
on Feb 12, 2004
The way I see it there is a solution to every problem, finding it is another story. Getting people to see past their wallets would be a start. There are quite a few solutions to this problem that come to mind. For an example the State Government where I live taxes everything you purchase, gas, food, cigarettes, etc. Why not add 1 cent to the tax on every purchase made by the public and allocate that 1 cent paid from every purchase to a healthcare system run by the State for those who do not have any insurance. Even they would be helping themselves, because everyone has to purchase commodities to survive. Who in their right mind could complain about giving up one penny to help someone? A lot of States also run lotteries and scratch off sales, have casinos, race tracks and lots of other things to make money, why not take a bite sized chunk of that income to help people.

Another solution would be to stop spending billions on other countrys and their problems. We should take care of our own people first before handing over the cash to other nation that we know will not bother to pay it back. Plus I get a liitle tired of seeing television commercials begging for money for people in another continent. Please! Another thing that gets me is the cost of said healthcare, but thats another story unto itself. I'll shut up now, thanks for reading:)
on Feb 12, 2004
Ok you don't want to subsidize irresposible behaviour, so you will give health benefit that are not irresponsible, so you would probably help people that are the less in needing it. I'm not sure it's going to help anything.
Back to the exemple of teenage/very young adult pregnancy, mother can be irresponsible, I would probably call that ignorance. What about the case of a teen get raped, doesn't want abortion due to her religion and so keep a baby she didn't want and has to live 15 years of unwilling parenthood without any help from the state.
If you want to fight against teenage pregnancy, you'll have to developp some program to inform them and give them a real idea about contraception, cost of educating (money, time, etc..). Doing that you will put them in a state were they can make a real choice and go through the consequences of their actions.
on Feb 12, 2004

Steven - just because you claim I'm a right winger doesn't make it so.  This "right winger" is pro-choice, agnostic, pro-civil unions for gays, pro-environment.

WiseFawn - My father left us when I was 4. I was raised by my mom who worked 2 jobs at minimum wage. We grew up in around drug addicts, welfare mothers, and even a drug dealer. I also grew up with out any insurance whatsoever.  My mom and I never had medical insurance when I was a kid. Somehow we survived. Amazing.

You will find that there are two groups of people: People talk about problems and people who want to actually solve the problem.  I like to try to solve problems. And part of solving a problem is to understand the big picture. So one first step would be to identify who most of the alleged 40 million people who have no health insurance are and why they don't have insurance. Once you do that, then you either propose a program that provides for them or helps stop the condition that made them uninsured from happening in the first place.

All I did was propose a few suggestions on how this problem might be solved.  Personally speaking, I have zero problem with 40 million people being uninsured. A system in which 89% of the people are doing okay is working, as a system, is doing pretty okay I think.  I don't particularly care why the teen became pregnant. I don't see the federal government having a responsibility to take care of that child. The United States is supposed to be the land of the free.  That means freedom to succeed and fail.

If someone wants to remove the freedom to fail and have government play the role of mommy then it needs to come with strings attached such as teens being forced to be on birth control. Say starting at age 13 every minor in the US would be required to be on birth control.  That would solve the biggest chunk of uninsured people - children of single mothers.

But that's just a proposed solution. Not one I would necessarily advocate. I just don't think it's a bad thing for society for there to be uninsured. I don't have dental insurance or eye insurance even today. Big deal. And like I said, I was one of those uninsured statistics until about 10 years ago.

Healthcare isn't a right.  See my post on the two Americas if you want to better understand teh general views of conservatives and liberals on these kinds of issues.

3 Pages1 2 3