On the evening of July 4, 2009, Eric De La Cruz died, killed by the patchwork U.S. "healthcare" system and its infuriating inability to provide a working system of healthcare for all Americans. This young man had a congenital heart defect which was quite solvable by a heart transplant, but because he was uninsured and Nevada Medicaid won't pay for transplants, he died.
233 years before Eric De La Cruz was killed by our "healthcare" system, some guys in Philadelphia wrote these words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...
Over 18,000 Eric De La Cruz's are killed by our "healthcare" system every year because of its refusal to pay for needed care for all Americans who need care. This is a slaughter of innocents, over six times the death toll of the 9/11 attacks PER YEAR. Clearly our "healthcare" industry is killing, slaughtering, tens of thousands of innocents per year guilty of nothing except being born poor or maybe not the brightest bulb in the chandelier or just plain unlucky, and has no intention to stop doing so. Whenever any industry infringes so baldly upon our inherent human right to life, it is completely within the realm of our founders' intents to have our government secure these rights, and if it does not do so, to change our government if necessary -- which we did, in November 2008, when we elected President Obama on a platform of healthcare reform and withdrawal from Iraq.
There are some people who say that the right to life is conditional -- that you have a right to life only if you have the ability to pay cash for your health care. There are others who say there is no such right because it is not listed in the Constitution of the United States of America, 9th Amendment of the Constitution nonwithstanding. This is utter nonsense. Rights are granted to us by our Creator, not by a piece of paper, and are absolute, not conditional, and the right to life is the most fundamental right without which all other rights are meaningless. When any entity infringes upon this most fundamental of our human rights, it is well within the provence of government as envisioned by our founding fathers to deal with this threat to our most fundamental human rights via whatever means are necessary -- which, in the case of our corrupt murderous health insurance industry, should with all fairness be the death penalty just as much as for any other mass murderer, but I'll settle for Medicare For All single-payer health insurance and let those bastards spend the rest of their lives begging for alms on streetcorners.
-- Badtux the Human Rights Penguin
We love you for this essay!
ReplyDeleteYou should be quoted everywhere.
I will at my place.
Suzan
Whenever any industry infringes so baldly upon our inherent human right to life, it is completely within the realm of our founders' intents to have our government secure these rights, and if it does not do so, to change our government if necessary - which we did, in November 2008, when we elected President Obama on a platform of healthcare reform and withdrawal from Iraq.
There are some people who say that the right to life is conditional - that you have a right to life only if you have the ability to pay cash for your health care. There are others who say there is no such right because it is not listed in the Constitution of the United States of America, 9th Amendment of the Constitution nonwithstanding. This is utter nonsense.
I don't understand why you advocate government run healthcare when you simultanously evoke the memory of Eric De La Cruz? I hope you realize that entities like Britain's NHS and Canada's Single-payer system are known to deny procedures that private insurance carriers commonly approve. In other words, government healthcare has more exclusions and limitations than private insurance.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, in a single payer system, you cant turn anywhere else after a denial. At least in a private healthcare industry there is redundancy and overlap, which reduces the amount of people who "fall through the cracks."
My concern is that you equate government run healthcare with GUARANTEED healthcare, and this is sadly not the case. Not by a longshot. When nations collectivize food production, people get hungier, not fatter. When nations collectivize transportation, more people have to walk or bike to work. When nations collectivize housing, more people end up homeless. And when nations collectivize healthcare, more people will die of medical conditions.
Aaron:
ReplyDeleteEric would have gotten his heart transplant under the Canadian system. The Canadian system does *not* ration healthcare. There are waiting lists for voluntary procedures, but critical procedures are done immediately -- indeed, 50% of ALL procedures are done immediately. See BC health service website for example of the reality.
Eric would have also gotten his heart transplant under Medicare For All. Heart transplants are covered by Medicare. So once again he would have been saved by Medicare For All.
My preferred system is the French system, which is roughly Medicare For All plus Medigap. That is, Medicare covers all critical/expensive procedures, and you can buy Medigap to cover anything not covered by Medicare. This both gives you health care choices and assures that there are no more Erics. And they do this WHILE providing all the same advanced treatments as the US system, for 40% LESS MONEY!
As for the British, nobody proposes the British system for America. In the British system, all doctors are salaried employees of the state, and all hospitals are owned by the state, and private insurance is illegal. It is cheap -- 1/3rd the cost of the U.S. health care system -- but that is all that can be said for it.
As for your assertion that government-run healthcare will impoverish the people and result in more deaths, that has not happened in any of the other 19 OECD states that have adopted universal healthcare systems. Indeed, they pay much less of their GDP in healthcare costs -- see the OECD statistics. I fail to see how paying less for health care can IMPOVERISH a people. It just makes no sense.
- Badtux the "Facts are facts" Penguin
" deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ... "
ReplyDeleteFocus on that phrase a moment. We decide. There is nothing subversive about health care for all if it is the will of the people. The wingnut argument is that the clear will of the people is trumped by the Constitution, if the service we demand is not explicitly listed as a power granted in the Constitution.
Nobody outsnarks the Penguin, I know. But the idea that we established a constitutional democracy to prevent government from meeting the needs & will of the electorage is preposterous.
Badtux, if you have a better word than 'preposterous' - let me in on it.
BTW, your posts on health care are the best I have read - concise & factual. I wish the MSM was tuned in and using you as a source. Mostly they wring their hands and moan, "It's really hard to understand."
Bravo, Badtux! I've copied this to my blog.
ReplyDeleteWhile I thought your article was great, your response to Aaron was even better.
ReplyDeleteI've pointed to this article on
my blog and have re-posted Aaron's comment along with your reply.