Spring Break
Universal health care gives chance for equal society
Jessica DeLisa
Issue date: 5/21/04 Section: Ed-Op
- Page 1 of 3 next >
In response to Aaron Sakulich's commentary last week ("Concept of universal health care relic from communism," The Triangle, May 14. p. 11), much can be said. I was a little angered and puzzled by his commentary. His opposition to the idea is not the problem, but the so called "facts" and "statistics" used to prove them. After reading it, I even considered the idea that it was a sarcastic piece.
In his opening paragraph he points out the main reason why this is a bad idea, money. He uses the words "vain or hypochondriac people" to describe the "huge number" of people that the tax payers would have to pay to insure. The thing that I would like to know and that most of you should have asked yourself is where he got the idea that most people who don't have insurance are hypochondriacs. This is not a fact and it is not fair to categorize uninsured citizens in this way. The truth is that many people work 40 or more hours and still do not receive health insurance or enough money to maintain a family. The economy has created a system in which someone can work over time and still not be able to put food on the table. I would not call this person lazy. Their work may not be as honorable, but if we did not have people to pick up garbage every week, our world wouldn't function properly. We need them to do what we don't want to do; this does not make them any less of a person.
Aaron then begins to assume most uninsured people put themselves at risk through irresponsible actions. The statistics presented, although valid, did not provide a sound argument that one equaled the other. So there are 193,000 emergency room incidents that are related to cocaine; where in the report from the National Center for Health Statistics show that those 193,000 incidents were in any way related to a person who did not have health insurance? Maybe the 509,000 attempted suicide incidents (assuming they were somehow related to the group of people without insurance) could have been prevented. Let's assume those people did not have health insurance; they more than likely were suffering from depression, which with treatment could have prevented suicide attempts. Denying access to health care is the same as ignoring a suicidal person. Most people who know a depressed or suicidal person would try to help. So is the difference in this case that you do not know the person suffering?
In his opening paragraph he points out the main reason why this is a bad idea, money. He uses the words "vain or hypochondriac people" to describe the "huge number" of people that the tax payers would have to pay to insure. The thing that I would like to know and that most of you should have asked yourself is where he got the idea that most people who don't have insurance are hypochondriacs. This is not a fact and it is not fair to categorize uninsured citizens in this way. The truth is that many people work 40 or more hours and still do not receive health insurance or enough money to maintain a family. The economy has created a system in which someone can work over time and still not be able to put food on the table. I would not call this person lazy. Their work may not be as honorable, but if we did not have people to pick up garbage every week, our world wouldn't function properly. We need them to do what we don't want to do; this does not make them any less of a person.
Aaron then begins to assume most uninsured people put themselves at risk through irresponsible actions. The statistics presented, although valid, did not provide a sound argument that one equaled the other. So there are 193,000 emergency room incidents that are related to cocaine; where in the report from the National Center for Health Statistics show that those 193,000 incidents were in any way related to a person who did not have health insurance? Maybe the 509,000 attempted suicide incidents (assuming they were somehow related to the group of people without insurance) could have been prevented. Let's assume those people did not have health insurance; they more than likely were suffering from depression, which with treatment could have prevented suicide attempts. Denying access to health care is the same as ignoring a suicidal person. Most people who know a depressed or suicidal person would try to help. So is the difference in this case that you do not know the person suffering?
Be the first to comment on this story