Friday, August 28, 2009

Letter to the editor #3

This letter appeared in the local rag this past Monday. The mental midget who wrote it is a frequent contributor in this category. It's funny how liberals have so much time to write so many letters. My job gets in my way. My comments are in black.

Rich Sherlock’s letter proclaiming that health care reform is not a moral decision amply demonstrates the “let them eat cake” moral bankruptcy of right-wing ideologues in the health care debate. No not really Carl. Health care is a commodity, thus cannot be "morally" provided.

Mr. Sherlock proclaims that only those who can afford health care deserve it. He made no such claim. This is ironic. The right has charged that under a system of “socialized medicine,” the elderly will be left to die, a charge that has been completely discredited. Uh, it hasn't been discredited. If you've read the bill the provisions concerning the elderly are quite vague in this regard. But, Obama's Chief-of-Staff's brother who is a Dr. and advising the President, strongly advocates such a system so make your own decisions. However, if Mr. Sherlock’s attitudes are any indication, the right has no problem with people suffering extreme economic hardship or being denied access to medical care simply because they cannot pay for it. Again, nowhere it Sherlock's letter does he advocate denying health care. It would seem that they have no problem either with medical-related bankruptcy or even that someone may die because they cannot pay for the care they desperately need to receive. I grow weary of this paragraph.

Mr. Sherlock claims that having others pay for your health care is wrong. It is if you could have paid for it yourself but made other choices instead. Taken to its logical conclusion, this argument proposes the abolition of even private health insurance, since everyone who pays premiums is “paying for the health care of others.” Could you show some evidence for this dillweed? What's that? You can't unless you count Medicare and Medicaid then yes. You could also make the argument that if you have insurance and never use it your premiums are helping pay for claims of others but that's why its called INSURANCE. However, the private health insurance industry has delivered a bad product. My provider is great and I can recommend you if you would like. There might be a better product in another state but because of guys like Sr. Dead Kennedy and our own stuttering moron of a Senator Max we can't buy products from another state. Contrary to Mr. Sherlock’s opinion, they do not profit by delivering good service, they profit by denying or dropping coverage to the people who need it the most. Again, lets fix that part of the industry. However, I would like to point out that if you get a DUI, your car insurance will go up or you will get dropped. This is because you are a high risk. There are providers though who will continue to insure you. You just pay more in premiums. If you are continually getting sick, your chances of getting dropped increase. However, just like in the auto business, there would probably be an insurance provider who would take on high risk patients if only your beloved government would let them. There is one word for taking people’s money, turning a profit, and failing to deliver — fraud. = Barack Obama

Mr. Sherlock argues governments cannot be moral, only individuals. Does this mean governments are absolved of any moral restraint and are free to murder or steal? Ah, the old liberal tactic of extreme absurdity. Governments don't have feelings thus they cannot be moral. Also, morality is individual. I believe abortion is immoral but I'm sure you don't. Mr. Sherlock's strong objection is to having the government decide what is moral for all of us. Honestly, this guy has to be the product of our public education system. Either that or he went to some Ivy league school where they hand out A's like Halloween candy. This is absurd. Governments, like individuals, have moral obligations, including providing for the general welfare of the people. The general welfare does not include health care, besides that its "promote the general welfare" not provide. Maybe if you read the Constitution once in your fucking life, you'd know what it says.

I call upon our nation and leaders to resist these immoral attitudes and carry out health care reform that truly serves justice. That's what we all want Carl. That's what we all want.

It's funny. I read Carl's letter than I went back and found the letter to which he was referring and reread it. Of the two of us, Carl and me, it would appear that the only one who read the letter is me. Mr. Sherlock said it best in the last line of his letter "There is nothing moral about government forcing people to pay for other people's health care."


Pam said...

THANK YOU for the auto insurance analogy. Why didn't I think of that one? Our state does have a "High Risk Pool" for people who have a need for insurance but are basically otherwise uninsurable. I had to refer someone there recently. And does anyone really think it will "change" that someone who has means has better health care than someone who has no means? I mean, come on. Get real.

kmwthay said...

It seems this Carl feels as though we on the right are Darwin fanatics. He thinks that we, the right, (pun intended) feel health care should be survival of the richest?

Gag me. We're not all social class snobs.