2 thumbs, way up
Richard over at Honest Hypocrite tweeted this gem from Roger Ebert. Ebert had previously blogged on the rational reasons for universal health care, and used his platform to lay out the moral imperative for it, as well as respond to some commenters. A few good quotes:
Many of my readers opposed the Obama plan… here, in broad outline, are some of their most common statements, and my responses:
It is “socialized medicine.” Yes, it is. The entire society shares the cost. It does not replace private medicine. Just as in the UK and Canada, for example, we would remain free to choose our own insurance policies and private physicians. But it is the safety net for everyone… The word socialism, however, has lost its usefulness in this debate. It has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the malevolent Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who succeeded somehow in linking it with the godless Commies. America is the only nation in the free world in which “socialism” is generally thought of in negative terms.
A quick dig:
One reader said that the only things the Constitution guarantees us are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and Congress should enact no laws about anything else. Actually, it’s the Declaration of independence that mentions “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” but never mind. Some might believe universal health care would be of great assistance in enjoying life and the pursuit of happiness. It is a peculiarity that some of those happiest to cite the Constitution are the least interested in its Bill of Rights.
And the real zinger:
The nearest thing we have to a death panel in the United States is an insurance company claims adjuster.
