• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited

By Patrick Garrett, Boulder

The topic of universal healthcare is certainly becoming important in the coming election, even though this isn’t the first time that the concept of universal healthcare has been discussed as a major issue in the presidential elections. However, I believe the topic will become one of the few center stage issues for 2008. I think this, because the generation of my parents (and in some cases, grandparents), the baby-boom generation, is finally starting to reach the age of retirement. Obviously, without a steady income or health insurance paid as benefits with a company, healthcare is a serious concern. It’s expensive, it’s complicated, but in all reality, it’s essential. You see, if one doesn’t have healthcare, the chances of you being treated for an illness or an injury is significantly lower. The sad fact is, most medical practitioners don’t do their jobs for the betterment and wellbeing of the people they treat — they do it for money. If you don’t have the money, well then, you are out of luck. It is astonishing that even in a society like America today, where there is unprecedented political, religious, and social freedom, you can still have people who are imprisoned by the tyranny of healthcare. How are they imprisoned? Well, they are imprisoned by fear. They are imprisoned by the fear that if they retire, they will no longer be able to afford medical expenses — by the fear that without healthcare, they can never fully enjoy the pleasures of retirement. What’s the point in retiring, if you can’t enjoy it, right? I believe a system of universal healthcare is the answer, the way to free the onslaught of coming baby-boomer retirees from fear. A great man once said "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself," and although the circumstances at the time of that speech were very different, the message can be applied to this — do not fear retirement, because it’s that fear which will keep you from moving forward. Universal healthcare will have its problems, that’s for sure, but we can learn from those who already have tried it, like in Europe.

We can improve the systems they have, in order to better suit it to the needs of this nation. What’s more, I believe it’s possible for private healthcare institutions to exist, for those who choose to privately invest, even with a universal healthcare system — but for those who are not in a position to fund it themselves, we must have a system where they can get the treatment. They are entitled to it, not only because they can’t afford it, and not just beca use it’s the right thing to do, but because our country’s ideals demand it. All Americans are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," an edict demanded by the ones who gave birth to our nation. Universal healthcare will give life to those who may need it, will liberate the American people from fear of retirement, and allow the American people to do what they do best — pursue happiness.

READER COMMENTS

Overnight shipping free pills prescription pharmacy, http://myrxpill.com

"Socialist countries doing better? name one....."
Ok, here's one..

1. Peoples Republic of China (while they have many problems socially...they've seen a 14% economic increase, while the US has only 3%.)

"Do we want the high unemployment and high taxes of the French? naw, I think not."

Percentage of people under poverty line:*
USA: 12%
France: 6.2%
Difference: 5.8%

Public Debt:*
USA: 64.7% of GDP
France: 64.7 of GDP
Difference: 0

External Debt*:
USA: $10.04 Trillion
France: $3.461 Trillion
Difference: $6.579 Trillion

Unemployment:*
USA: 4.8% ( of 301 million)
France: 8.7% ( of 63 million)
Difference: 3.9%

Conclusion: On all factors except unemployment, the French Republic has a stronger or at par economy than the United States of America. As well, unemployment is not a reasonable measure of the health of an economy, since it can fluxuate year to year, or even month to month.

As the child of a Frenchwoman, and having lived in Troville-sur-Mere for 2 years.... trust me when I say: economically, France is just as good and in my opinion better than the US. Don't let your American bias of the French get in the way of facts. After all, the French must be snobby for a reason.

*- Facts provided by the CIA World Fact Book
___________________________

Brian: The former USSR, PRK, and Cuba have MANY MANY factors contributing to the fact that they have poor economies. Incredibly corrupt governments and over spending on the military, for example.
In fact, PRK (North Korea) doesn't have a universal healthcare program, if they did, then the 5 million people who have died since 2003 because of malnutrition and lack of medicine wouldn't have happened.

The PRC has a higher economic growth rate (as mentioned above), but yes, seems poorer due to the fact of the immense overpopulation. But pretend for a moment China only had 300 million people like eher in the US, that kind of economic status would be considered larger than any economic boom America has seen, and the PRC would probably be considered the wealthiest nation on Earth. But since it has so many people to take care of, it isn't.

As for our government... why is it it has such low approval ratings? A terrible president, and an even worse congress. What great about America is, in 2-4 years, many if not most of those people will be out. Just because the government sucks today, doesn't mean it will tomorrow.

Your right, in the context you put it into, it is confiscation. However, let me reframe it for you. Do you, Brain, not understand that using your money for the benefit and wellbeing of others is not the morally correct thing to do, as well will produce fewer people under the poverty line? Now, everything is a matter of perspective. I think that’s something we can both agree on.

And you still missed my point... Mr. Garrett was not saying the founding fathers supported universal healthcare, that would be stupid. He is saying that the ideals they advocated can be applied to this situation, and comes out in favor of universal healthcare.
(By the way, using spell check is only slightly better than simply leaving incorrectly spelled words. Besides, what’s more important, the small details, or the overall thought?)

I don't think that I could state my opinions any better than Dravur did. It's too bad that the logic is wasted on a person who chooses to feel rather than think. Killjoy, do you still not understand the difference between pursuing happiness and attaining happiness? Do you not understand that taking money from one person and giving it to another is confiscation, not charity? If taking money from responsible people and giving it to irresponsible people will give us a better economy, then how do you explain our wealth relative to that of the (former) Soviet Union, the PRC, North Korea, and Cuba? Why do we need universal health care when most people already have health insurance? Why do we need universal health care when the poor and elderly already have Medicaid and Medicare? What does the government do well? When our president has about a 30% approval rating and congress has about a 20% approval rating, why would a rational person entrust the government with their life? How can you deduce that our founding fathers would have supported socialized medicine, when their actions show that they supported self-sufficiency? For our nation's first 80 years, the only federal tax that we paid was an occasional levy for self defense. No WIC, no welfare, no government cheese.

By the way: It saddens me how the American school system produces people with such low spelling skills. Try running your posts through Word so you can take advantage of spell check. Your academic skills are not as superior as you think.

What planet do you live on?

Socialist countries doing better? name one.....
What in the world does making a "safer" world have to with health care? Wow, trot out the strawman and beat it with a stick, will you.

By the way, as stated before, you are not entitled to life... you can be killed by numerous things and your right will be taken away. but again, this is a strawman. It has nothing to do with the argument that I should pay for other's health care. And why would I want an inneficient governemnt based system..

a better economy? wow, that is hilarious. Do we want the high unemployment and high taxes of the French? naw, I think not.

"There is a right to pursue happiness... pursue, not attain."

So what of life and liberty? Is not every American entitled to life, or at the very least a quality of life suitable for the pursuit of happiness? Are they not entitled to liberty? Liberty in this sense a liberty from worry of healthcare costs.

"...has to be paid for by me, thereby decreasing my pursuit of happiness."

Please read, so I dont have to quote myself YET AGAIN..... "then we are repaid with a better economy and a safer society."

A better economy and safer society....that is the reward. If you havent noticed, the nations's economy is in the toilet while socialist nations prosper... and crime rates are rising in America, when they are decreasing in Europe. Coincidence? I think not...

--------------------------------------------

"You must be a gifted clairvoyant to be able to determine that when our Founding Fathers recorded our right to pursue happiness, they actually meant that we should be able to receive medical care at public expense."

It saddens me how the American school system produces people with such low interpritive thinking skills. Listen, this guys wasn't trying to litterally say that the founding fathers wanted universal healthcare, he's saying that thier IDEALS can still be applied to a modern concern. I know it requires going a little beneith the surface, but if you do, you may find that when someone says one thing, it may not be what you think.

You're way off of the mark if you think that you've found a constitutional entitlement to socialized health care. You must be a gifted clairvoyant to be able to determine that when our Founding Fathers recorded our right to pursue happiness, they actually meant that we should be able to receive medical care at public expense. For more than 220 years, this has not been the case. Our nation has a long history of being charitable to those who cannot provide for themselves. To say that the entire nation is unable to provide for itself and needs government assistance is utter nonsense.

You are GREATLY mistaken.

There is a right to pursue happiness... pursue, not attain. You are not guaranteed to attain happiness. Now, you are especially not guaranteed life either. You can be hit by a bus, die at birth etc. Sorry, no guarantees on the attainment of Happiness. This is a strawman anyway as the argument has nothing to do with the "Pursuit of happiness" as that definition is different for everyone. I want a Ferrari as my happiness. I cannot afford one, but according to your logic, You should buy me one as that would make me happy. Just like you want me to pay for your health care as that would make you "happy".

Now, you still have not explained how your pursuit of happiness has to be paid for by me, thereby decreasing my pursuit of happiness.

Now, as an american, we do not let people die in the street and people are taken care of on my dime. Now, where do we stop? When gramps wants his viagra or gramma wants a boob job, who pays for that?

See how that "Free" health care can be a double edged sword? Why should I pay for elective or non life saving items for people who are completely capable for paying for it themselves? Should Bill Gates get "Free" health care?

Sorry, I have seen the laughable British and Canadian "Health Care" systems up close and I dont care to ever see them again.

"You still have not come out and explained why I should pay for your health care..
Still waiting...."

It seems you cannot read....let me quote myself....

"every American is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... and if the American people can make it just a little bit easier for everyone to get that...then we are repaid with a better economy and a safer society."

To me, that appears to be a reason why.... or am I mistaken?

That's great that you can find a way "to work on a way to pay for it", but realize that not everyone is as perfect as you. Some people can't do that, for whatever reason it may be. Your really comfortable with advocating that people in this position should just be left to die (metaphorically or realistically)? If you are, shame on you.

Wow, nice strawman..
Yes, I can come up with scenarios where the sky is falling and my butt is in a sling, but so what? It is still my responsibility. It is not yours and yours is not mine.

If I have to, I will get the procedure or whatever done and then work on a way to pay it.

We allready provide quite a bit of "free" medical care in this coutry with medicaid, medicare, et al. There are also people who use the ER and then skip out on the bill, which then gets added into our costs.

You still have not come out and explained why I should pay for your health care..
Still waiting....

sound of crickets....

In responce to the two who commented above:

What about if tomarrow, you lost your job? And becuase of that, you can't afford life insurance. All of a sudden, all that planning and hark work you talk about has gone down the drain. If given the option for your healthcare to be paid for, would you not take it? Just becuase others paid for it? For some reason, I find that hard ot belive....

Your right, we're a capitalist society. But we do not have pure capitalism..... if you ever paid attention in high school government class, you would know that. But even that aside, Mr. Garrett provides a compelling arguement... that our nations ideals demand it. I'm not really a big fan of socialized healthcare, don't really wanna have to pay for it. But I also love America, it's history, and it's ideals. And when he puts it that way, I can't find a way around it...he's right, every American is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... and if the American people can make it just a little bit easier for everyone to get that...then we are repaid with a better economy and a safer society.

This is a capitalist society. You are not "entitled " to anything.

Working to take care of yourself and family is what you should be doing.

I am tired of people thinking they are entitled to something from the government on my tax money.

My husband and I planned our children and planned careers with health insurance.

Why should we pay for someone else?Life is not always easy. Sometimes you have to work twice as hard to get what you need,not want.

You need to to have food. You don't need a big SUV when you can get by with a smaller economical car.

I see so many people that can't figure out what is a need and what is a want.

You are not guaranteed health care. You may pursue happiness. But, and here is the rub... you are not guaranteed to achieve happiness.

Why should I have to pay for your bad decisions? Why should I be asked to pay for someone's health who ruined theirs with drugs or alcohol. Why should I have to pay for David Crosby's new liver?

Answer... I should not. I will take care of myself, and you can take care of yourself.

Your bad planning has no effect on me.

POST A COMMENT

• GUEST COLUMN: Organizing state workers/'Disastrous' scheme
• GUEST COLUMN: Organizing state workers/Partnership best for all
• $2.57 a day buys food, perspective/'Food Stamp Challenge' a catalyst for personal change
• Museum no boon to Civic Center Park
• Six years after 9/11
• David Iglesias: Long on ego but short on ability
• The cost of enforcement
• Helping flawed fathers measure up