Health care in America

For decades the choice to socialize health care has been debated in the United States.  Those for socialized health care often argue that in a country like America we should not leave nearly 50 million Americans uninsured, and even more Americans underinsured.  They argue that America is the only westernized country in the world that does not have free (taxed) public health care.  They will argue that roughly 20 thousand Americans die every year simply because they do not have health insurance.  They will argue that health insurance is a business that strives to make a profit, and that saving someone's life should not coincide with making money off of an ill person.  They will argue that health insurance isn't a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, but rather a moral issue.  They will argue that not only do countries with public health care spend less, but they actually do better with respect to quality and availability.  They will argue that our mail, police, public schools, libraries, and many other things in America are all socialized, so why not socialize something that will save lives.

People against socialized health care will argue that many people who have health care are satisfied with their privatized health care system.  They will argue that socialized health care means that people will start going to the doctor an unnecessary amount of times because it's free, and we will all have to pay for it out of our own pockets.  They will argue that the government rarely does anything right, and health care is certainly something that they don't want in the government's hands.  They will argue that socialized health care means waiting in long lines.  They will argue that socialized health care means less attention from doctors.  And perhaps most importantly they will argue that if health care becomes socialized the quality of our health care will decrease.

Both sides bring up great points.  One thing that everybody should be able to agree on however is that now is certainly one of the best times to put this issue on the table, and have people with strong opinions from both sides dispute their views.  Tell the American people the truth about the benefits and weaknesses of each system, let the public know the facts, and let them decide.

If the U.S. Government is going to hold conferences and committees to discuss the issue of health care in America it is only fair to discuss the issue with people who hold a variety of perspectives.  This past week some doctors, nurses, and concerned citizens interrupted a Senate Committee hearing one after another (watch video below), raising their concerns that not one single person on the committee was in support of "Single Payer" health care, a health care system that many people believe to be the only solution for public health care in America (read up on Single Payer at http://singlepayernow.net/).  Those who interrupted the hearing were escorted out of the committee by police and arrested.  I urge everybody to get the facts on the issue, talk to your local politicians (http://www.house.gov/), and stand up for what you personally believe in, whether it be private health care, public health care, or something in between.  If you support "Single Payer," support HR676.

Another day of Senate Committee hearings brings more protesters...perhaps it is time to put Single Payer on the table, at least for the purpose of debate and discussion.  SINGLE PAYER ON THE TABLE NOW?

Democrats: almost unstoppable

Senator Arien Specter has been the Senator of Pennsylvania for the past 29 years as a devout Republican. On April 28th, Specter decided to switch playing fields, taking a step towards the left, miraculously overnight turning himself into a Democrat.  Specter was stated saying, "As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party."  The reason this is such a big deal is due to the fact that the Democrats are extremely close to reaching the 60 necessary senators needed to create a "fillibuster proof majority" with which President Obama will be able to pass any piece of legislature he wishes; a truly dreadful thought for any right winger.

The other reason this move has been making such big news is because Specter, acting as Pennsylvania's Senator for the past 29 years, has been in charge of some major committees due to his seniority.  While making the switch from right to left, Specter wanted to be assured that he would retain his seniority.  To no surprise of the dirty game of politics, Specter was stripped of his seniority after he made his big move.  Now Specter will have the last word on almost every committee on which he sits, going from first in line to back of the line behind some men who have been in the Senate for just four months.  This was a very ugly vote in my opinion, which was cast by none other than his newfound fellow Democrats.  We can all but hope that Specter is given back his seniority, and that 29 years is not stripped away because a difference in philosophies.