Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Healthcare, Obama, and the Constitution...oh my!

As the tension mounts across the country and the plot thickens in Washington, I find myself, once again, in the midst of the controversy. I am talking about the health care debate and my stance on the issue. I am standing on conservative ground and my left-wing friends don't like it. Shocking, I am sure. I faced criticism back in late winter/early spring when I began to seriously doubt the current administration. I was, admittedly, on the fence in the beginning of the 2008 election cycle. I wanted so badly to be able to have faith in the future of our country under the leadership of Barack Obama, but I was quickly slapped in the face with the harsh reality that that was not to be the case. So, once more, I am critical, and this time, adamantly opposed to another one of Obama's plans and my fearlessness to be vocal on the issue is causing a stir.

Obama is proposing a health care plan that will socialize medicine in this country and allow the government more, unfettered, access into our lives. Government controlled healthcare is the last thing this country needs. It is unconstitutional. No where in our constitution does it say anything about our government providing anything for the citizens of our country other than protection from those who seek to harm us and the basic rights given to all men and women by the God who created us. Note that healthcare is not one of those items. Our founding fathers never meant for our country to be ruled by anything other than a democracy. There is a chain of command in this country. It starts with God, then the individual, then the states, and then the federal government. Note that the federal government is at the bottom of the list. Small government and personal responsibility was the foundation in the making of this country. I refuse to let that go. The government has no business telling me how to go about getting healthcare. It is my responsibility to take care of that and I have no intention of giving up that job.

There are a million arguments for socialized health care. And there are some that I might be able to halfway agree on. But don't tell me that people shouldn't have to work for healthcare. Don't tell me that the government should hand it out on a silver platter. I work to be able to pay for my healthcare and so does the vast majority of America's everyday Joe Shmoe. There may be times when it is hard to pay for it and there may be times when folks go on a payment plan to get the health care that they need, but if it comes down to dying or incurring some debt to keep from dying, I am going to choose the debt.

Now, while I am one hundred and ten percent against Obamacare, hear me say this. I do not think that our healthcare system is perfect. I do believe that we have the best system in the world, but it is by no means perfect. And there is certainly room for reform. However, I do not in any way, shape, or form, believe that the solution to our problems are in socialized healthcare. "Free" healthcare is not free, my friends. It will come out of your pocket and mine. Not only will it come out of our pockets, but it will come out of our checking accounts and Big Brother will know our account numbers. It will be up to a committee of folks out of Washington telling you if you can or cannot have the treatment that you need and your personal physician, the one that you have known for years, the one that is your neighbor, friend, and former school chum, will be forced to look you in the eye and tell you that there is nothing that he can do. Not for lack of available treatments and not for lack of his not knowing what to do, but because the government may or may not think that you are worth it. I'm sorry, but I thought this was America? What America is it that we live in where the government is deciding who gets healthcare and who doesn't. The truth is, we all have the option to have healthcare and there are ways to go about getting it at little to no cost due to the generosity of doctors, dentists, nurses, P.A.'s, etc, who give of their own personal time and resources and volunteer them to communities all over the country. My own father is a part of a program here in my home town that provides free dentistry to those who cannot afford it at the regular price. So, don't tell me that you can't get healthcare at affordable prices in America.

My friends, this is no small thing. This is serious. There are other options, there is another way. If we continue down this road, the America that we know and love will cease to exist. She will fade into a memory and one day our children will look at us and ask us why we didn't fight to keep our country from going to the pits. I for one am not willing to let it go that easily. I want to be able to look my children in the eye and tell them I fought for the constitution, that I fought for them and their children.

I will continue to be vocal about my opposition to the proposed healthcare bill. I will continue to fight this issue. I will not let my America, my father's America, and my Grandfather's America go down the drain. We fought too hard for the freedoms we currently enjoy to allow this to go any further.

28 comments:

Bill said...

Very well said.

The critical argument is that federal health care is plain & simply un-Constitutional.

This should be the one and only "talking point".

No one, except Walter E. Williams, stays on this message. Conservatives are blowing it big time on this one. NO extra-Constitutional spending bills should even be presented because they are illegal.

Read your Constitution folks. If it isn't crystal clear to you, then read the writers' & founders' comments. The emphasis is on very limited, clearly defined powers for the federal government. The "catch-all" clause, if their is one, is the 10th Amendment, NOT "promote the general welfare" or "Regulate inter-State commerce".

As a side note: State health plans, such as Oregon's, are OK by me. I personally don't think government sponsored health care is a good idea in any form, but individual States are clearly within their rights to establish such plans, unless prevented by their respective constitutions.

Theresa Garcia said...

You are absolutely right on every front, Bill. Thanks for adding your thoughts.

Louly said...

Wow, T! You really got people going.
Try and keep 'em civil though, so I don't have to break some one's nose for you, kay?

The whole time I was reading this I pictured you up on a platform in front of a big cheering crowd, making everyone excited. It could happen...Love you!~Louly

Kimberly said...

The constitution according to Theresa Garcia...interesting.

"...if it comes down to dying or incurring some debt to keep from dying, I am going to choose the debt."

This is a very interesting choice of words, considering you wrote this blog AFTER friends of Rea reacted to your Chick-Fil-A post. Why don't you tell all of his friends who know that his lack of insurance was a factor in his death? Better yet, why not call his family and tell them your "words of wisdom"? I'm sure they would love to hear it.

Anonymous said...

Kim, do you really think T meant to preach to Rea's friends and family? You know she loves him as much as you do. Stop using Rea as a shield with which to lodge dirt clods from behind. Tell us how you feel about health care, pros and cons. ~Hey Baby!

Theresa Garcia said...

I believe it is the constitution according to the Founding Fathers, but I'm just reading the original, so maybe Jefferson and the rest of them were wrong.

As far as Rea goes, I am sick of that being thrown in my face. He was my friend too. I loved him and miss him to this day. We have no idea why he did not get into the ambulance on that night. All we know is that he didn't. Everything else is merely assumptions.

What I do know is this, I have said again and again that I DO NOT believe that our healthcare system is perfect. I simply believe that socialized medicine is not the way to go. And I stand by that.

Josh said...

Just a couple of thoughts:

I don't know who this person is that is under discussion, but I wonder if his family would want someone using his particular situation to attempt to advance a political argument. Seems to me that they would not. It also seems to me from the vague discussion here that no one can state with any particularity how "his lack of insurance was a factor in his death". If you insist on using some individual example, how about some actual facts that can be discussed rather than a vague reference to not having insurance?

That said, you should know that EMTALA, a federal law enacted in 1986 (this was when Reagan was President btw) REQUIRES hospitals to provide treatment to any patient with an emergency medical condition. So anyone with a life threatening condition is ENTITLED under federal law to treatment. Now does that mean that every patient under every circumstance that might at some point lead to a life threatening condition is covered by insurance? No. Are there gaps that exist in the current system? Undoubtedly. But to make a blanket accusation that someone died as a result of no insurance with no facts is irresponsible and frankly without the permission of those involved is obscene.

Every federal government insurance program fails to function. What do I mean by that? Medicare, which covers everyone over the age of 65, pays under the best of circumstances about 90% of the COST of providing care. Medicaid provides about 70% of the COST of providing care. Now if doctors relied solely on Medicare and Medicaid to earn a living they would have to CLOSE THEIR DOORS because the federal programs do not even cover their costs. So how do hospitals and doctors make up for taking massive losses on the existing federal insurance programs? By making a margin of 20% on patients with commercial (private) health insurance.

Those of you on here that want a government takeover of health care would eliminate the private insurance which pays for the patients that use that insurance AND subsidizes ALL the patients on the existing federal programs.

What would this mean? First, health care costs would have to be reduced which would mean rationing of care. Who would decide who gets what care? Some kind of government bureaucrat. People would still be denied coverage, probably more often than under the current system. Doctors and other medical professionals who would expect to see their compensation drop substantially under a government run system would abandon medical practice and our best science students would look for other more lucrative fields of study (probably pharmaceutical R&D) and never enter medicine. The result? Less proficient medical professionals and as a result care that is not as good as we have now. The removal of all incentive to innovate (read: the PROFIT MOTIVE) will lead to the same lack of medical technology here that plagues Canada and the U.K. (like having no OPEN MRI machines, etc.).

So federalize health care? Not only unconstitutional, but will make a system that works now though imperfect much worse and will provide a much lower standard of care for a larger population.

No thanks Kim.

Kimberly said...

I'm not doubting Theresa's love for Rea. Only she knows how she feels about him. But for the group of us who were spending a lot of time and working with Rea the weeks and months before he passed, we know a lot more details than others. Considering it was his private life, we're not going to list all of his personal business online, but we all do know for sure that his lack of insurance was a factor. There are no assumptions being made about that.

But since Theresa considered him her friend, shouldn't there be a little more sensitivity to how we choose our words? Should jokes or "spoofs" be made about this issue? I don't think so. Theresa and myself (and Anonymous...perhaps you're in on this too. Maybe you know both of us, and just didn't list your name) have several mutual friends without health insurance or who have been denied coverage for various reasons. Don't they have a right to have access to health care? I'm not "lodging dirt clods." I'm just wondering if Theresa or anyone else would be able to look our uninsured / denied friends in the face and tell them no?

As for my thoughts on health care? I think it's pretty clear. Every human being deserves it. And whatever plan gives EVERYONE access, that is what I support. We do not have that at the moment. If you listened to Obama's speech, he listed examples of other people who have died b/c of being denied by insurance. Whether or not you get health care shouldn't be measured by "how hard you've worked" or "who has to pay for it." Guess what? All the currently uninsured...we're already paying for them. And whatever plan you and I may currently already be on...you get to keep it. It's an OPTION. And what's great about options is that you have a choice.

In conclusion, Rea is not a shield. He is the motivation for many of us who are having daily discussions about his death and lack of access to health care. I'm not going to make assumptions about people and what kind of loss they may have experienced, but Rea's life and death touched my life (as well as others) in so many ways. This is just one more...

Jens said...

I too, know far more than I wish about the details of our friends passing. And you are deluding yourself to think he turned down going to the hospital for anything other than financial reasons.

But let's discuss the pro's and con's:

There seem to be few confusions here about universal health care systems. I've had personal experience with three (Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal - which have not fallen into communism or fascism btw)

On the issue of quality of care:
The US comes in at the bottom of the heap by all major indexes. Countries with universal coverage have populations that live longer and have lower infant mortality rates, for example.

On the issue of cost:
We as individuals and our government (on a per capita basis) are spending much more than ANY nationalized program on earth. The fiscally conservative thing to do is to have a universal program.

On the issue of constitutionality:
My copy of the constitution says "The congress shall... promote the general welfare." But let's say it IS unconstitutional.
Germany, Japan, Netherlands, and Switzerland all have national programs that cover everyone using PRIVATE DOCTORS, IN PRIVATE HOSPITALS, WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE.
So, if this is primarily a constitutional issue - we have several examples of how to get around that using the private sector - but I suspect that's not the real issue for the people here. . .

What's the dark truth? Why aren't you working together with us?

After being silent through the torturing of prisoners, the suspension of habeas corpus, and domestic spying programs - I know it feels good to finally be speaking out, but your moral compasses have failed you.

Jesus said "What so ever you do unto the least of my brothers you do unto me." You couldn't recognize wrong, then. You can't recognize right, now.

For myself, I'm with Jesus on this one. I hope you'll join us.

Josh said...

It is interesting to read the responses here. I think you really should abandon further conversation of this mutual friend of yours since you are unwilling to explain exactly how the current health care system failed him. It seems opportunistic to me to take a personal example and waving it like a bloody shirt for people to rally around and then when someone says, "ok well explain how this is a problem" say that you are going to respect his personal privacy. But it is interesting to note that one of you said "you are deluding yourself to think he turned down going to the hospital for anything other than financial reasons." I read that as saying he could have received treatment, but refused to do so because of the expense involved. There are plenty of people every day who qualify for indigent care at Columbus Regional and if he had a large medical bill, the hospital would work with him on getting it paid over time. So here is what I think. I don't think anyone on this site knows the details about this person's condition, but it is a handy way to try to advance the debate without having to make an argument. Who can respond to "our friend died because of your evil, private insurance system" ? You cannot because there is no explanation.

As has been stated elsewhere, I do not think anyone is arguing that the U.S. system is perfect.

You are deluding yourself if you believe a public "option" will allow you to keep private insurance. A quick example:

You and I each own a gas station. I have to make enough money to pay my employees, utilities, taxes, other overhead and then make a profit. You have the "public option" gas station. You do not have to make any money at all, because you can print whatever money you need to finance your operation. You offer gas to people for "free" (meaning everyone is paying taxes, which incidentally are nearing 50% of income), but you only offer low grade gas. Eventually private business will lose to the government not because private business isn't competitive but because private business has to pay for itself and make a little money to survive while the government does not.

So in short the public "option" is a rhetorical trick being used to fool the public into thinking they can have their cake and eat it too when in fact we will all wind up on an equivalent of Medicare which again does not even pay the COST of care.

That leads me back to another point you made which is everyone deserves care. Well, based on the research I have done, it looks to me like FEWER people will get QUALITY care in a government run system. So wouldn't your proposal to socialize medicine actually be less compassionate than the system we have now since fewer people would get the care they need?

Now--let's talk Danish health care. The Danes spend about 10% of GDP on the PUBLIC portion of their health care system. For the last date I can find information, in 1999, an additional 17.8% of GDP was spent on private insurance, together accounting for almost a third of the entire Danish economy eaten up by health care (that compares with about 18% in the US btw). Why, if they have this great public system? The answer is "voluntary health insurance" allows wealthy Danes to jump the WAITING LISTS for treatment that exist in their system. I wonder, would your friend qualified and been able to pay for VHI in Denmark?

Josh said...

To discuss European style health care more broadly, take a look at this article by the hardly conservative TheMonitor: http://www.themonitor.com/news/health-28252-care-europe.html

Let's start with cost:

When you factor in the innovative and new treatments developed in our system, both pharmaceuticals and otherwise, yes the overall cost is high. That is because of how much money is spent on R&D which yes results in new life saving treatments being developed that otherwise would not happen. So per capita we spend more than other countries to get more.

Quality of Care:

This is an often used trick by the left-wing. Michael Moore and others have cited the World Health Organization's ranking of health care systems in an attempt to state the U.S. system is poor. But as you can read about here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf, the system is flawed and skewed to push up systems that at least on paper can be claimed to be "free" nationalized systems. It does little to determine how good the care one receives within a given system is.

Your statement about other countries utilizing private hospitals, physicians, etc. is simply not true. The only private element is the private insurance that has come out on top of government programs to allow those with means to get ahead of those without money to purchase such insurance for themselves. I thought that was what you were hoping to eliminate with government health care but sadly you will not.

The Constitution does not provide for health care. If I thought it "promoted the general welfare" to waterboard people who planned the murder of 3,000 Americans 8 years ago today, I imagine you would cry foul. And while you are wrong on torture (a whole different issue), I could understand your problem with me citing the general welfare clause to justify it under the Constitution. That is why our Founders created a Constitution with ENUMERATED powers that EXPLICITLY state what the government is authorized to do. That said the states can do whatever they wish within their constitutions, so if you want to get Oregon or Massachusetts style plans in Georgia, go for it my friend.

All those buzzwords you are throwing around, "torturing of prisoners, suspension of habeas corpus and domestic spying", have you written President Obama to ask why he has done nothing to amend FISA, the Patriot Act or other laws that provided a legal basis for waterboarding, holding terrorists who wanted to kill Americans at Guantanomo Bay in Cuba and listening in on calls made by such terrorists to people in this country? I hope you have. Democrats used those things to get elected but in the 3 years they have had the Congress and the year President Obama has been in the White House they have done nothing to change the standing policies of the U.S. government, other than for Obama to declare waterboarding is wrong.

I wonder if Jesus meant that the Church should step into the breach to help those who cannot help themselves. I wonder if that is why the Catholic Church and the Baptists among others have founded hospitals all over the world that provide free health care to those in need.

I guess your final comment that "I'm with Jesus on this one" is to suggest those that disagree with you are not only wrong but are not following the teachings of Christianity. Wow.

Off to work...

Kimberly said...

You're right Josh. We crazy liberals who have first hand experience with all of these topics don't know anything. But this is a moral issue. I know in my heart that I'm doing the right thing...fighting to get the uninsured / denied a fair shot. And you can all keep telling yourselves you are too.
But Jesus never asked for a co-pay.

Theresa Garcia said...

It is almost laughable and is absolutely ridiculous how you have used Jesus as an example for this healthcare bill. "But Jesus never asked for a co-pay"...really? Medical attention as a general rule was not awesome in Jesus' day and it was payed for in practical ways; goats, sheep, milk, clothing. Jesus was also performing miracles and using the healing of His people to further His kingdom and bring Himself glory. And, just as a side note, there wasn't insurance in those days, so of course Jesus wasn't asking for co-pay.

You cannot use Jesus as an example of how healthcare should be run, fiscally, in our country. It just doesn't translate. You can however use Him for how doctors and nurses treat their patients and how these same doctors and nurses give of their time and resources to help those less fortunate have access to affordable healthcare. You can also use Jesus as an example when encouraging a community to pour their resources into religious and non-profit organizations so that the community as a whole can better help those less fortunate and work together for a common good. (Another option for public and not private healthcare.)

But you cannot use Jesus to talk about co-pays because, frankly, it just sounds silly.

Jens said...

Theresa you poor girl. . .

Your heart must be trying to find it's way out of the maze you've put yourself in.

You make Kim's point exactly. Jesus IS the example of how health care should be run. He never asked for payment in goats or milk, or anything else. Like you say - he is the "example for encouraging communities pour resources together so that the least fortunate have access to affordable health care - for the common good. That is what a universal health care system IS.

You say that Jesus can't be used as a fiscal example, and Josh is concerned about the Danish dealth are system (the happiest people on the planet according to a recent study btw) costing more than what we spend. Actually no non-partisan assessment suggest any country spends more than we do - even the Monitor article Josh provided the link for says WE spend the most. But, does it matter? Because, there is an ethical dimension to health care. For example:

If an infant, born to poor parents, becomes ill, would we be more ethical to give medicine to that child so she does not die prematurely of preventable diseases, or is it more ethical to let the child die screaming in her parent's arms so we can keep more of our money?

Or, let's say someone who worked for Enron, and now is penniless, contracts bone cancer. Is it more ethical to provide such a person medicine that lessens their pain. Or would we be more ethical to let them scream through the night in unbearable agony so we can pay lower taxes?

I can't believe I'm having this discussion with "Christians" - and have to defend the idea that we should lessen the suffering of those who cannot afford health care in an economic system that treats the poor as prey for the rich. I cannot believe there are "Christians" around this nation who are shouting that idea down and waving guns in the air because they don't want to hear it. But I'm learning that Gandhi was right when he said "Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

We should be working together to create the health care system you describe - so no one ever again calls an ambulance, scared in the middle of the night, then chooses not to go because they're worried about paying for the ER visit the day before, only to die within hours of the EMT's leaving.

Josh said...

Kim,

I don't think anyone would disagree with your sentiment that the uninsured should have a "fair shot". As I have amply demonstrated in the previous posts that no one has responded to so far, the system you are advocating would do a far POORER job than the current system in providing treatment. As for this business about having "first hand experience", I am all for discussing it if you want to provide factual details that provide the basis for rational discussion and not simply state something to the effect of I know the deep dark secrets of American health care and how bad it is but its just too terrible to discuss in a public forum.

Josh said...

Jens,

For centuries, Western societies founded on Judeo-Christian principles had hospitals run by churches. In this country and elsewhere, it has been various denominations of Christianity that have built large portions of our health care system, including considerations for those who do not have the ability to pay. Are you suggesting that doctors, nurses and other medical professionals not charge for their services? If so, how would you expect those people to provide for their families?

To anticipate one response from you, that if we turn everything over to the government like the Danes have then we will solve for that problem, then explain to me WHY a national health care system run by the federal government will improve upon reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid, which run at 90% and 70% respectively? How can we keep hospitals open if 100% of their patients cannot pay even the cost of providing the care?

Also, as I stated we spend more per capita in this country on research and development that results in new life saving treatments and medications and that is the hidden cost factor that no one wants to discuss.

The Danes, despite having this wonderful socialized health care system that you would import to this country, have created a two tier system. The average person waits in line for critical treatment. The rich can jump the line by paying more. How is that not treating "the poor as prey"?

The same people you are so quick to criticize for raising their voices to question a) the constitutionality, b) the cost and c) the effectiveness of a government run health care system are many of the same people who are trying to offer real solutions for the poor you claim to care so much about. My good friend Dr. Tom Gore in LaGrange and a group of other physicians have started a program called TroupCares that offers FREE health care services to those who cannot afford it. They didn't need a government bureaucrat to order them around to do it. They volunteer their time to help others in their community. So many medical professionals in this area do the same.

The real tragedy of your friend's situation, if that is who you are referring to in your final paragraph, is that the ER visit and other medical treatment would likely have been written off as part of the MILLIONS of dollars written off every year by Columbus Regional to "indigent care". But as I have said before, we have a much different debate if we are agreeing that everyone has access to care, but there is just a problem with cost.

Josh said...

You can continue to characterize those with whom you disagree politically as "bad" Christians if you want. I do not think it helps your argument and I think you have decided to focus on the more emotional parts of this discussion because you realize that a government run system cannot work for all of the reasons I posted earlier to which, so far, no one has provided a response. It is far easier to rail against the unfairness of this world we live in, that poor people suffer (by the way is the pain/disease death of a poor person more tragic than a wealthy person--do you calibrate your response to a sad story by first learning the person's income?--) than to engage in real dialogue over the policy issue here.

Also your use of the "false choice" logical fallacy that we can choose to pay more taxes or have some hypothetical person suffer, whether that is a newborn or middle aged cancer patient. In fact, in the case of a newborn they will receive state of the art care in Columbus, including a neo-natal ICU facility. That has largely been paid for by private money contributed by the community because Medicaid pays 70% of the COST of delivering and caring for children born to low income parents. But I digress. The system you are proposing will provide less care of lower quality than the one you want to replace. So paying more taxes will not quiet the screams of your hypothetical person, but rather implementation of this program would multiply the number of people that find themselves in that position.

Off to church....

Kimberly said...

You have been responded to. It's just not in the way you think it should be done.

But here is a list of examples of "the deep dark secrets of American health care" for you:

Friend - diagnosed with a large ovarian cyst. The insurance she does have won't pay for having tests run to find out whether or not it's cancerous.

Friend - a victim of random assault walking home from the laundromat carrying his laundry. He is uninsured, despite the fact that he works 2 jobs (which he's lucky to have in this economy).

Friend - autoimmune disease that requires close watch and medication. His insurance runs out, and he has no way to pay for regular treatment.

Friend - 13 year old girl. Her single mother makes too much for her to qualify for "Peachcare insurance", but not enough to add the child to a family account where she gets her own insurance.

These are friends that have shared information in the last few months. Now that we know of your friend Dr. Tom Gore, I will send as many patients to him as I can.

Theresa Garcia said...

Jens,

I am not making/proving Kim's point. Jesus' miracles and mercy did not fiscally run a country into the ground.

I am all for individuals being responsible and for our community working together to provide affordable healthcare for those less fortunate. I am not for the government doing it for us. That takes away individual responsibility and gives "Big Brother" all the control. So much for the personal responsibility, eh, Mr. President?

And, there is still no response to the fact that the Dane's allow their wealthier citizens to bypass all the poor and gain immediate medical attention because they pay for a supplemental insurance in addition to their oh-so-wonderful socialized healthcare. All these countries that you continue to bring up with socialized medicine have these little loopholes for the rich so that it is still those with money that get the best care and those with little or nothing at all get pushed to the back of the line. Sounds so awesome.

By all means, please send your friends to Dr. Gore and other doctors in our area that provide these services. They are not hard to find if you look. And send your friends to the health clinic downtown that disperses patients to the various dentists (my dad included) who volunteer their services for little to nothing each month.

Beth said...

I am all about debate on any political or religous argument or what was good or bad about a movie. I think debate is healthy and part of what makes this a great country. What I don't like is the drawing of friendship lines based on ones views. Yes we all tend to "hang out" with like-minded folks but it doesn't mean we can't have friends of all stripes. I think Rearcous Smith would be very saddened by what has taken place in this discussion and that his name and situation (which I confess to knowing next to nothing about) is being bandied about in such a manner. The point of agreement in that part of the argument is that you all loved and miss this great friend. I believe any other discussion about this topic should leave him out out of respect for his memory and his family. I also believe we should come together and start a fund to purchase a marker for his grave to honor the friend you all love and as a gesture of kindness to his family. Enough said.

Mama Garcia

Kimberly said...

I think a fund is a nice idea. We can all agree on that for sure. And we all have our beliefs, opinions, and convictions. In the past, universal health care was an idea that I supported, but it wasn't personal to me back then. But as time has gone on, the topic has become more of a debate, and people have become more outspoken about their beliefs and circumstances, and I discovered that many of my own friends were dealing with not having insurance or being denied coverage. The statistics turned into names and faces of people that are close to me, and one of them was Rea. I can't separate those components. And it is out of respect for his memory and the circumstances of my other friends, that I am supporting this policy.

Anonymous said...

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090917/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_deaths

Anonymous said...

Good day !.
might , perhaps curious to know how one can collect a huge starting capital .
There is no initial capital needed You may start to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The firm incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with affiliates everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you desire!

I feel good, I began to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a proper companion utilizes your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://ogibusap.freehostyou.com/vucode.html
and go! Let`s take this option together to become rich

Anonymous said...

Good day !.
You re, I guess , probably very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no initial capital needed You may commense earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
AimTrust represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with affiliates everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your choice That`s what you really need!

I`m happy and lucky, I began to get income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a proper companion who uses your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://bumywezi.kogaryu.com/witose.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to feel the smell of real money

Anonymous said...

Hi !.
might , probably curious to know how one can make real money .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The company represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with offices everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become an affluent person?
That`s your choice That`s what you really need!

I`m happy and lucky, I started to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a proper partner utilizes your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://uqurulixam.kogaryu.com/ywyrudi.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to get rid of nastiness of the life

Anonymous said...

Hello !.
You may , probably very interested to know how one can make real money .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The firm represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with structures everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become an affluent person?
That`s your choice That`s what you really need!

I feel good, I started to get income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to choose a correct partner utilizes your money in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I make 2G daily, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://ravehimo.ibnsites.com/nigufaty.html
and go! Let`s take this option together to become rich

Anonymous said...

Hi !.
You may , probably very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no initial capital needed You may begin to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The company incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with offices everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your chance That`s what you really need!

I feel good, I started to get income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a correct partner who uses your funds in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first deposit was 1 grand only!
It`s easy to join , just click this link http://wowyhumud.greatnow.com/kuhudepi.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to feel the smell of real money

Anonymous said...

Hello!
You may probably be very interested to know how one can make real money on investments.
There is no need to invest much at first.
You may begin earning with a money that usually is spent
on daily food, that's 20-100 dollars.
I have been participating in one project for several years,
and I'm ready to let you know my secrets at my blog.

Please visit my pages and send me private message to get the info.

P.S. I earn 1000-2000 per day now.

http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]