There are arguments on both sides of this great debate. Those who are concerned about the future of those Americans who can not afford health care for themselves and their families, and those who are concerned that by having the government regulate health care we will become a socialistic society.
In spite of the fact that there are medical facilities in every city, town and borough, tens of millions of our citizens are going without health care coverage because they just can't afford to pay for it anymore. In one of the richest countries in the world, that should not be happening. There is no doubt that those on both sides of the argument are truly concerned, but those who are going without health coverage while politicians argue, are ready for a resolution.
If a democratic society is one that allows the poorest to die while the richest get richer, then what is the point of it? Our forefathers intended much more, I suspect. In any society, there will always be different economic classes of people, but there also must be systems in place to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.
If society votes in a democratic manner to encourage the government to take care of the needy, then that is democracy in action, not socialism. It is a good thing when the poor are offered comfort in times of need.
The availability of quality health care is something all citizens need. We can not pick and choose who gets to survive while others go without. All Americans need access to the same quality of health coverage that the politicians in Washington receive at taxpayers' expense. Perhaps those politicians who are against a universal plan need to look in their own closets before judging how our money is spent.
In spite of the fact that there are medical facilities in every city, town and borough, tens of millions of our citizens are going without health care coverage because they just can't afford to pay for it anymore. In one of the richest countries in the world, that should not be happening. There is no doubt that those on both sides of the argument are truly concerned, but those who are going without health coverage while politicians argue, are ready for a resolution.
If a democratic society is one that allows the poorest to die while the richest get richer, then what is the point of it? Our forefathers intended much more, I suspect. In any society, there will always be different economic classes of people, but there also must be systems in place to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.
If society votes in a democratic manner to encourage the government to take care of the needy, then that is democracy in action, not socialism. It is a good thing when the poor are offered comfort in times of need.
The availability of quality health care is something all citizens need. We can not pick and choose who gets to survive while others go without. All Americans need access to the same quality of health coverage that the politicians in Washington receive at taxpayers' expense. Perhaps those politicians who are against a universal plan need to look in their own closets before judging how our money is spent.
About the Author:
If you are searching for health insurance, then be sure to visit www.InsureLane.com. The specialists there can quickly provide you with a variety of insurance quotes from the nation's largest carriers, including Aetna, Unicare and Blue Cross. Let them assist you with this confusing task.
No comments:
Post a Comment