Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Health
  4. / Health Care System
  5. / US Health Care Reform

by Wynper on September 9th, 2009

Wynper

Question

Help answer this question below.

Bush tax cuts to the richest Americans amounted to twice as much as the proposed health care spending. Where were the protesters then? Is it alright to support the super rich but let working people die due to lack of health care?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 2 helpful answers below.

  • by Alex P. Keaton on September 9th, 2009

    Alex P. Keaton

    It's not a question of dollars. It's a question of service. People don't care about government. They care about themselves. The average Joe honestly doesn't care where his government's revenue comes from, just as he doesn't care how bills are crafted and negotiated. If average Joe were to come to understand either "sausage-making process", he would likely be disgusted. Average Joe got a tax break in those bills, anyhow. Average Joe cares about Number 1.

    However, tell someone that their health care will change, that the government will have more say than them in health care, that government is taking over health care, that Obama will personally sit on the death panel that orders Nana to be gassed instead of treatment (all false, and the last one for effect, of course)... and a much different reaction happens. Don't get me wrong, it's for the same reasons, pure selfishness. Since it involves a change in the life of Number 1, Joe gets angry. The nasty game of telephone continues. And there are so many aspects of the bill that conservatives and liberals alike will be able to cherry pick bits and pieces to complain about. The public option is likely to serve less than 12 million US citizens (out of slightly more than 300 million total), less than 5%, but it comprises 95% of the opposition's discussion and is the standard the opponents carry into battle.

    I heard things tonight that, as a moderate-to-liberal voter, a conservative until I was a college graduate, that I didn't really like or agree with, or think will work... but the main points need to be done and that framework is there. Too many long-term problems with this country have been punted to successive Congresses because long-term results don't get you reelected, and often require the tough choices that get you booted out of office.

    Consider this: When the US Constitution was drafted and presented in Convention and signed (on Sept. 17, 1787) by delegates who participated... not all members signed. And it is well documented even by those considered to draft much of the document... that people all walked away from the convention feeling that the Constitution was inadequate in some way or another. But, yet, it has stood as a pillar and a model of good government for two and a half centuries, having only been slightly amended despite the major changes that the world has undergone. The US government stands the test of time, despite what changes in this world our forefathers could never even dreamed possible.

    And yet, nearly all of the delegates walked away from Philadelphia in 1787 with some sense of being unfulfilled.

    The best laws are those where a compromise is established, which gives it the best chance of long-term success. Otherwise it can simply become a standard for the other party to repeal.

    Health care reform, is needed, is a real problem, and has been needed for generations, and the only reason we don't have it is because our Congressmen are afraid of the political consequences or their funding from special interests in their next election.

    The president was right tonight. The men and women of congress did not go to Washington to play games. They came to make a difference. And with the value the overall bill will bring to this country, to uninsured Americans, to the unemployed, the sick, there needs to be an end to the games and a beginning to real dialogue.

    Sorry to go way beyond your question there...

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by BrandyBrandy on September 9th, 2009

    BrandyBrandy

    I think this question (and questions in this category) are obnoxious, because it implies that a persons value is based on net worth (your side saying that "working people" are more valuable, and the other side saying that rich people are more valuable, in essence).

    The problem with this universal health care nonsense is that people with anything less than fatal health problems get wait-listed, and many times you are assigned a health care provider by the government and cannot freely choose your own.

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Bush tax cuts to the richest Americans amounted to twice as much as the proposed health care spending. Where were the protesters then? Is it alright to support the super rich but let working people die due to lack of health care?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Series 60 oil presurre regulator valve open
Proposed tax on richest americans

Answerbag

a Demand Media company