|
|
|
Notes on Terminology from our Opposition
|
-
ENTITLEMENT - anything to which you
give someone a right (Oxford American Dictionary). Using this term to
describe the "Right to Health Care" we are demanding adds no further
detail, clearly it is a right we want established for all Americans.
It is used, however, by libertarians and others as code language for
"public welfare", "lazy poor people" and often to hide an
agenda which is against any share of our nation's resources with the ethnic
minorities and people of color who in fact have always contributed so mightily
to our nation's wealth. The fact is that most uninsured people in the USA
are hardworking, often holding down two or more low-paying part-time jobs to
provide for their families. READ
MORE about uninsured.
-
THE KEY FREEDOM - In dozens of conversations with
libertarians there has always been a rapid referral to this supposed "key
American right" which they allege we are demanding be denied them.
Despite what major media and right wing think tanks might be saying, there is no
basis for considering this an American ideal at all. What is definitely an
American ideal with the longest of traditions is the principle of "No
taxation without representation" which was a key demand instilling our
revolutionary war against England. It is exactly this principle that
denial of the "Right to Health Care" violates.
Some two thirds of our annual health care expenditures in the USA derive
from public funds (taxes) at the federal, state or local level. These
taxes are paid by every person who works, lives, buys anything ever in this
country. And yet, we have some 43 million who for a whole year at a time
can not be represented with access to the resources they are providing through
taxes. We have some 3 out of 10 Americans whose need for health care will
not be represented for some period (a year or less) during any given two year
period. These Americans have been forced to play "Russian
Roulette" with their own and their family's health. READ
FACTS on 3 of 10 Americans uninsured.
-
INDIVIDUALISM - The Oxford American
Dictionary gives three definitions: 1) self-centered feeling or conduct, 2)
independence in thought and action and 3) a social theory advocating free and
independent action by individuals. Very few Americans have any problem
with the right of all children to get an education (prominently embraced by such
radicals as George W. Bush for example), so it seems it would have to be a
rather fringe element that is commited to an absolute sort of
individualism. Rather almost everyone agrees that we must restrict our
individual actions (and purchases) so that we can attempt to be a civilized
society of educated individuals.
Therefore, "individualism" contributes nothing to a discussion
of why certain rights are established while others are still resisted by some
influential Americans. READ
MORE about the history of the "Right to Education" in
the USA.
-
OPPOSITION IS TOO WEALTHY - We fully agree on how
far our country seems to have deviated from democracy and how much power is held
by just a few percent of our population through their control of corporate power
and enormous wealth. We do not know when that might change.
What we do know is that democracy is like the muscle system of our
nation's body and only by nourishing it and excercising it is there any chance
that it will ever coordinate the society's action, directions and the force of
moving forward. We do not predict that the struggle for the "Right to
Health Care" will be easy, or attained without sacrifice. We do
predict that it will not come about through benevolent action in Washington DC,
absent popular education and mobilization forcing our legislators to take such
action. If our grandparents had decided that business interests were too
strong against the 40 hour work week, we would still all be working 60+ hours a
week (as a standard work week) in this country. And this would be the case
even if we were the only industrialized nation forcing workers to put in 60+
hours a week (as we see by comparing to our lack of health rights in the US).
-
NEAR UNIVERSAL CARE - not strictly defined
anywhere. The President of the AMA said that insuring 95% of the people
who are without insurance for an entire year at a time (43 million in 2002)
would be sufficiently close to UHC. Prof. Light said that insuring 40
million of the 44 million in this same category would be close enough to
UHC. Having near-Universal care is like being a little pregnant, it is
faulty terminology. Certainly some people might want to strive for cutting
the ranks of uninsured in half or by 80%, but that's still not UHC and so they
invent "near UHC" like being somewhat pregnant. Who is still
going to be without coverage though (certainly not their own family they
imagine)? This none of the "near universalists" venture to say.
Also unmentioned by the "near Universalists" how complete does
any of the coverage have to be? As restricted (or more maybe) than is
Medicare today? Maybe they would allow that all but the sickest 5% of
Americans be covered, or that all but the 10% most expensive treatments be
covered? And will these exclusions wax and wane every with budget
shortfalls, emergency needs, military endeavors? What will keep their
"allowed 5% of Americans uninsured" from expanding one year to
7% (and then to 10 and 14%)?
See? Its exactly like being a "slightly pregnant".
If everyone is not covered for their medical needs, then none of us (well none
of us working Americans, lets exclude the few born into extreme wealth) is
covered. It's only a matter of who has met with misfortune, or multiple
misfortunes (loss of insurance through employer and grave illness in the
family).
|
|
Back to Discussion Central
** Browse the Opponent
Responses
|
|
