urbpan: (Default)
urbpan ([personal profile] urbpan) wrote2009-09-16 05:44 am
Entry tags:

Wait wait, that's not funny

It must be hard for Peter Sagal to maintain a neutral yet funny tone about the health care debate, when someone he loves is and going broke while suffering from cancer because of the American system. Frankly I don't know how anyone reasonable can oppose reforming the system. Yup, it's going to cost money. That's kind of the point, the U.S. is a rich country, it can afford to provide health care for all its citizens--we already pay more than all the other rich countries, and we don't even have universal health care.

What Sagal is asking for, that lots of people chip in a little so his friend's very expensive treatments are covered, hints at the only way health care reform can work. Everyone must be taxed a little more, so that everyone, including poor people and self-employed people and UNemployed people, EVERYONE can get adequate health care. Again, why anyone is against this, why a "single-payer" (socialist) system is thought to be somehow un-American, is completely beyond me.

Edited to Add: I can remember going to countless benefit rock and roll shows, like the one for Brian Wright of Slughog, where somehow a bunch of underemployed rock fans paying twelve bucks a pop were going to defray the cost of chemotherapy and radiation treatments. This should be the content of the health care debate: should sick people rely on charity to receive the treatment they need? What is this, the 18th century?

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting