Health care must be left to individuals
I feel compelled to write a response to the op-ed article "America must deliver universal health care" in the Sept. 15 issue of The Miami Student. The author (when writing about conservatives hating universal health) asserts, "Jon Stewart proved the ridiculousness of this claim when he compared it to education."
The author claims since Americans are fine with providing education to everyone, why wouldn't they provide health care on a national basis as well, as it is "a life or death situation." Let's consider why this may be. Education is a necessity for young Americans who cannot provide it for themselves. If education were not public, it would not be possible for a 10-year-old to pay for education on his own if his parents can't afford it. If they can't provide it for themselves, it is extremely difficult to improve their standard of living. However, universal health care would be provided to adults who are currently able to or could have provided it for themselves in the past. Much different than school children, they are old enough to take care of themselves. The author also cites that "in the college student age group alone (19 to 29) one out of three went without health care last year." Why would this be? Perhaps it is because these adults don't want health care simply because they are young and less likely to get sick. They are choosing not to do this. Why would you force them to get coverage?
Next, the author states that insurance companies will have to lower their premiums and will lose money from the public option offered. I am assuming the author is stating that the public option will compete with the private options. Perhaps this is because the government doesn't have to make any money to cover this option. Look at Medicare, the costs for that were estimated to be 10 percent of what they actually were. The government will be able to undercut companies because companies can go out of business. The government has unlimited power to tax.
Finally and most importantly, in the final paragraph the author states, "It is time to take responsibility for our entire nation, not just the privileged few." This brings me back to President Obama's speech last week when he said "A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise." This is completely wrong! This states we are entitled to some security and hard work and responsibility lead to success. While those, along with luck, are the best tools for success and I very much advocate them, they do not guarantee anything, and it is not the government's job to support this ideology. I will teach my children this until the day I die.
I do not come from a wealthy family; I have averaged up to 70 hours a week for a complete summer. I even worked a 97.5-hour week once. However, I do not feel anyone needs to give me anything. Unfortunately, it seems many Americans do not believe in this. What has happened to personal responsibility? Are Americans unable to provide for themselves now? It's insulting to me that the government thinks it needs to provide me health care. Do you have such a low opinion of people you think they can't provide it for themselves? I am not interested in your help because who am I taking money from? This is why I disagree with the premise of Robin Hood. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor. It's nice Obama wants to help the poor, but who is he to say others have to give. If they don't want to, they don't have to. This is America! I will end with a creed spoken in Atlas Shrugged, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another, nor ask another man to live for mine." Who is John Galt?
Mark Hutchinson hutchimd @muohio. edu
