... ask what your country can do for you. The same country that under its Republican leadership wasted 100s of billions of your dollars on 2 illegal invasions of sovereign nations [even though 1 of them may've been justified], the same country that under the same leadership bailed out greedy-beyond-imagination bankers who had brought the global economy to its knees, the same country that allows it elected officials to blow public funds on bridges to nowhere, the same country that generously gives to the wealthy at the expense of its middle and lower class, the same country, or its conservative segment, would now like to deny uninsured and underinsured citizens access to a service whose sole purpose is to protect the most precious of all valuables, health. Oh, Father, please, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing...
There's a reason why in Europe, when complimenting on somebody's birthday, they wish the person 2 things, health and happiness. One clearly completes the other and having both means enjoying life at its best. European public knows that and so do European leaders. Health, though, seems to be understood as more fundamental out of the 2, for when someone is healthy, they are better equipped on their quest for happiness, especially during the times when things just don't go well. That's why the overseas governments created systems which offer everyone an access to care that protects the value of health. That's why the general public agrees to voluntarily fund such systems thru collected taxes since it is for their and the common good. A healthy nation simply is a happy one. Conservative Americans don't understand such concept. They don't seem to comprehend the idea that the money deducted from their paychecks [and the paychecks of their fellow countrymen and countrywomen] should be spent on services the country provides to its citizens. In their view, the money should be conserved. But such view makes one wonder: what exactly should it be conserved for? The conservative causes of no public interest? Tax, by definition, is a pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government. But are the governments' hands really that free to spend the collected funds on just about anything except for the good of their payers? In conservative America, apparently so. Conservative America worships private ownership and idolizes individual success and understands freedom as an essential path to unlimited wealth. It hates taxes and scorns almost any public project funded by them. Claiming incompetence, it likes to point out how only private sector improves quality of services and products, conveniently ignoring the numerous instances of catastrophic proportions proving otherwise. Any government-run project is considered a waste, and a threat, to private enterprise, to freedom, to democracy, to the country. That's why conservative America always fails when in charge for it doesn't know how to govern in the name of the common good. Therefore, the turns the debate on health care has taken don't come as a surprise. To an independent observer, with IQ higher than a growing plant, it's quite obvious that the proposed reform is not a road to perdition, let alone to socialism, communism, fascism or other jisms. It's a fiscally responsible correction of a system that currently favors profit and death over an expense. Unfortunately, the conservatives fail to realize that the expense their opposing synonymizes a denial of a potentially life-saving treatment. Ironically, the feverish defenders of the lives of the unborn would then like to have the fetus die once it leaves the womb. Ironically, those making so much noise about pulling a plug on grandma advocate a system that allows a coverage to be denied when needed the most. Well, what else can or should a denial of coverage be considered but pulling a plug? How about something more substantive, like an involuntary manslaughter? If a doctor, who fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies, can be sent behind bars, how come an insurer who decides to stop covering a treatment for a patient, who later dies as a consequence of that decision, can do so without any legal ramifications? What is the difference? In the name of what do the conservatives call abortion doctors baby killers but keep silent when insurance companies sentence patients to die? Never underestimate the depth of stupidity!!
Last fall, the majority of this nation said no more to the way of governing that mindlessly disposes of hard-earned public dollars and redistributes them into the hands of the wealthy few. Last fall, the conscientious electorate changed the hell-bound trajectory of its country and delivered a loud and clear message about its disgust with the way the business was being done. This fall, the same crowd has an opportunity of a lifetime to knock the freedom-fries customers out once and for all. This fall, it's time to school the ignorant about what a country should do for its citizens. If for nothing else but for those who lost their lives to insurance companies. For they certainly deserve it...