I was also told "the health care system in Canada was much better 15 years ago than it is now." Even if that were true it would not be an argument for privately funded health care, since government insurance and universal access came into effect in Saskatchewan 47 years ago, and the rest of Canada has been insuring all their residents for the last 37 years. However, what did happen in the last couple of decades was that those who never wanted publicly-funded health care at all pressed and pressed until health budgets were cut. This was in evidence in Ontario, where ultra-right-wing premier Mike Harris came into power in 1995 and savagely cut government spending while reducing taxes 30%. I was there at the time and I remember general strikes and protests, increases in homeless people freezing to death, and suicides by people cut off of social assistance. The effect of cutbacks was also evident in the middle of my father's tenure in the Ontario hospital, as the nurse-to-patient ratio worsened, and recreational, occupational, and other therapists had their hours reduced. But my father was in and out of intensive care over and over again, on several occasions getting so much care he practically had his own private nurse. And in all my many conversations with his doctors and specialists, there was certainly never any government limitation placed on the kind or extent of care he could receive. He, and I, -- when I had to speak for him -- were the ones making the decisions.
What's extraordinary is how so many of those 'tea-bagger' types at the Alhambra town hall think only Government could possibly cause them harm or limit their health care. Yet insurance companies don't hold town hall meetings and allow you to shout at them hysterically for 2 hours; they don't hold town hall meetings at all. If you try to set up a meeting at your insurance company, they'll laugh in your face, but I've attended meetings at my Congressperson Diane Watson's office with 5 or 6 others, delivered petitions there, and called up many times. (Her aide has even called me back from D.C.) You can't watch insurance companies' shareholders' meetings on C-SPAN like you can the hearings and sessions of Congress, and the media doesn't condense and report the highlights of your insurer's decision-making process for you.
If your insurance company drops you, they no longer have any interest in you, in fact they don't care whether you live or die. The ACLU doesn't sue your insurance company if they infringe on your rights, because there's no Insured's Bill of Rights. They may refuse you coverage because you have a "pre-existing condition", in other words, because you need care. They can reject doctors' requests for the type of treatment you need, even if the person processing the claim is just a bureaucrat with no medical knowledge. You also can't file a Freedom of Information Act request to get memos from your insurance company's board meetings.
Yet several of the anti-reform protesters at the Alhambra town hall were convinced that the Constitution was being violated. I asked "How?" and was told "the Constitution doesn't say anything about health care!!!" When I mentioned that there's an unalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" the senior who feared government 'takeover' snapped "That's the Preamble!" As if somehow that didn't count, then. (It's actually in The Declaration of Independence, but last time I looked that was a founding document too.) Of course Obama isn't forcing anyone to choose the public option to begin with, so there's nothing to insist on being free from, but even overhauling the whole system and instituting government-funded health insurance would not violate the tea-baggers' constitutional rights.
In 1789, there was no UN to declare health care a fundamental human right. That had to wait till 1946, and the World Health Organization's Constitution, and1948, when Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the UN's commission that gave us the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 25, #1. But the Bill of Rights makes a point of trying to prevent the powerful from playing Simon Says with the Constitution in order to restrict Americans' rights and freedoms. When Fox-loving right-wingers wave the Constitution around, do they only read the first two Amendments? The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, part of 'the Bill of Rights', explicitly states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, they realized that they may not have listed every right by name.
Moreover, that afore-mentioned Preamble to the Constitution makes sure we understand the Founders' intent. When I've asked Anti-Government zealots what government is for, they tend to focus on the clause "provide for the common defence." But the Preamble also declares that some of the Constitution's purposes are to "establish Justice" and "promote the general Welfare." It's impossible to see any 'Justice' in insurance company execs getting rich by denying young children vital treatments. (http://sickforprofit.com/) And I'm sure stumped as to how 'the general Welfare' is served by millions of people being unable to get needed care, not only because they suffer as a result, but also because their exclusion may hamper society's ability to fight the spread of swine flu, bird flu, AIDS, ebola, SARS, or others yet unknown.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
