Column: Supporting universal health care
Published April 9, 2010
Due to the placement of spring break, I have not had a column since before the health care reform bill was passed.
For actually having something important to talk about, it's terrible placement; however, I'm hoping the extended time will have given people time to cool down about the issue. I doubt something this important is going to fade out of public discussion soon, so I hope you'll forgive me for bringing it back up.
In fact, it's hard for me to even bring it up. I'm not a confrontational person, and this is something people seem to get very fired up about; however, I couldn't help but notice since it passed a lot of attention has been placed on dissenting opinions on the bill. Although I will acknowledge there are plenty of dissenting opinions, I think I need to step up and say I support the bill.
A lot of the time when things go our way, we're content to just let it happen and let the haters keep on hating, so to speak, but there's too much negativity about this right now.
The negativity and criticism has gone far beyond the usual. Maybe I'm naive, but people to have some grace in losing. Don't get me wrong, I expected the bill to be challenged as unconstitutional. I'm fully expecting as much opposition to this bill as Franklin Roosevelt received for the New Deal.
Now, maybe this is selective history in action, but I'm fairly certain the congressmen who passed the acts of the New Deal weren't treated the way those passing health care have been. I've never heard of bricks being thrown into their offices or someone spitting on Emanuel Cleaver, a representative from the fifth Congressional district of Missouri, which includes Kansas City and Independence, among other large cities.
There is no excuse for that behavior.
From what I can tell, most rational health care debate comes from a core difference of theories about how much the government should provide for the people. Social Darwinism seems to have prevailed into this century in the opposition, which I think is a tired theory.
If the recession has proven anything, it's that unemployed people are not always that way on account of laziness. Not everyone in the world has equal opportunities.
The part of the bill forbidding companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions is what I see as the most vital change.
Although she wouldn't want me to bring it up, my sister's a type 1 diabetic. Type 1 diabetes is completely genetic and unpreventable to those predisposed to acquire it, and when it becomes active, the body requires insulin. By basic genetics, it means I'm likely a carrier for the disease. Part of the bill means if my sister loses her health care for any reason, she can't be denied on account of her diabetes if she applies somewhere else.
As for other specific parts of the bill, I'm not going to get into it. I'm no expert, and I'm not going to try to discuss individual parts for fear of being wrong or misinterpreting the future effects. I've done my own research, and from what I've discovered, I'm satisfied. I encourage everyone to do the same.