Don't you just love the epic-sounding title?!
This is probably going to be short. I am just going to present what I think of what I have heard about the healthcare plan that is currently being foisted on the American people by an overeager president and his cronies.
1) I do not think our situation is as dire as many people would like us to believe. The frantic "46,000,000 people without healthcare" isn't as bad as Mrs. Clinton likes it to sound. Because, after all, the 46,000,000 are just people without insurance. Counted in that 46,000,000 are illegal immigrants, the rich, and those that just don't need it. Just because one does not have insurance does not mean that one cannot get healthcare- you can, and you will if you need it.
2) I do not think we need coverage for everyday visits. A well visit? No coverage needed. A checkup? No coverage needed. An MRI? Coverage needed. Brain surgery? Coverage needed. It should be subjective to the case. But simple, everyday visits do not need coverage.
3) I do, however, think alternative medicines should be covered. For instance, a midwife should be covered in the same way an OB is covered. A chiropractor should be covered in the same way an intensive therapist is covered. There are many people who like alternative medicine, and they should be covered.
4) The government should have no control over my healthcare. I have no desire to have treatment denied for my foot because I smoke.
I admit that our current system is broken. I concede that the insurance companies are corrupt, and something needs to be done about it. But that something is not that the government get involved yet more. What is needed is that the American people wake up and stop being duped.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I agree.
The strongest reason for government to stay out of the medical industry is that the Constitution all-inclusively enumerates the powers of Congress... regulation of medical issues is not among them.
A case could be made for individual states implementing something, but that is a separate matter entirely.
I heard someone use the argument that the enumeration of rights in the Declaration (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) allows it. If someone has an illness or injury, and is not given care, they could die. Hence, we are not protecting someone's right to life. What do you think of that?
A right, in my opinion, is a certain allowance of power inherent in all individuals, granted by God, which the government cannot regulate or infringe.
The right to life is regulated by oneself, whether it is protected or guaranteed by anyone else or not; morals are important to this right, and it can only really be upheld in a moral society.
The Declaration of Independence is not law, but a resolution, having no executable function other than that of its assertion of the colonies' independence from Britain; the Constitution is law, and its terms have the force of law.
The Constitution allocates all enumerated powers to Congress, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
I might also add that governments, generally, have no place in medicine, as that is purely of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I see what you're saying, and I agree- you just seem to say it better than I could. >.<
Thank you for the compliment, but your writing style, ability, and interest meets or exceeds mine, I assure you.
Post a Comment