|
|
|
Americans are horribly divided over whether we have a right to health care.
To examine these differences, we can start with our legislators. I posed this question to local members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and their responses varied as much as those from the general public.
United States Representative Bill Foster, D-14th District, of Geneva voted for the reform bill that was signed into law last month, saying access to health care is a right. United States Representative Judy Biggert, R-13th District, of Hinsdale voted against it and said health care is not a right.
United States Representative Peter Roskam, R-6th District, of Wheaton said access to health care is a right but voted against the bill. United States Representative Dan Lipinski, D-3rd District, of Western Springs also voted against the bill but never directly answered my question.
(To read their comments in full, click here.)
Contrary to what’s being said by opponents, Congress can justify approving this plan. Our nation has an established precedent of allowing welfare spending for the collective good.
Some political theorists believe the government should take resources from taxpayers, based on their ability to contribute, and use them on those who demonstrate a need. This is even exemplified in the Bible. A nation that promotes human dignity, safeguards civil rights and rejects social injustice will create productive citizens.
And, frankly, it doesn’t hurt that many legal decisions rest in the hands of a select group of elites. This makes passing something like a health care bill possible.
But opponents to such radical rule-making want to reduce the size of government until nothing is left. Can a self-sustaining culture really be achieved with no centralized authority? Wow, talk about turning every state red.
If the government must protect our freedom of expression and defend us from foreign threats, why shouldn’t it subsidize our medical needs? There’s a case to be made that we have a right to health care, but many people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.
They won’t abandon their preconceived biases about how a progressive agenda will bring about a revolutionary spirit of solidarity, perhaps sparking a novel global structure. Seeing only what they want to see, they’ll miss the forest for the trees.
And then, who will they call if they get a splinter and don’t have health insurance?
Jerry Moore is the opinions editor for Suburban Life Publications. Contact him at (630) 368-8930 or jmoore@mysuburbanlife.com. His blog, Suburban Shoutout, can be found at blogs.mysuburbanlife.com/jerry-moore.
Americans are horribly divided over whether we have a right to health care.
To examine these differences, we can start with our legislators. I posed this question to local members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and their responses varied as much as those from the general public.
United States Representative Bill Foster, D-14th District, of Geneva voted for the reform bill that was signed into law last month, saying access to health care is a right. United States Representative Judy Biggert, R-13th District, of Hinsdale voted against it and said health care is not a right.
United States Representative Peter Roskam, R-6th District, of Wheaton said access to health care is a right but voted against the bill. United States Representative Dan Lipinski, D-3rd District, of Western Springs also voted against the bill but never directly answered my question.
(To read their comments in full, click here.)
Contrary to what’s being said by opponents, Congress can justify approving this plan. Our nation has an established precedent of allowing welfare spending for the collective good.
Some political theorists believe the government should take resources from taxpayers, based on their ability to contribute, and use them on those who demonstrate a need. This is even exemplified in the Bible. A nation that promotes human dignity, safeguards civil rights and rejects social injustice will create productive citizens.
And, frankly, it doesn’t hurt that many legal decisions rest in the hands of a select group of elites. This makes passing something like a health care bill possible.
But opponents to such radical rule-making want to reduce the size of government until nothing is left. Can a self-sustaining culture really be achieved with no centralized authority? Wow, talk about turning every state red.
If the government must protect our freedom of expression and defend us from foreign threats, why shouldn’t it subsidize our medical needs? There’s a case to be made that we have a right to health care, but many people stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it.
They won’t abandon their preconceived biases about how a progressive agenda will bring about a revolutionary spirit of solidarity, perhaps sparking a novel global structure. Seeing only what they want to see, they’ll miss the forest for the trees.
And then, who will they call if they get a splinter and don’t have health insurance?
Jerry Moore is the opinions editor for Suburban Life Publications. Contact him at (630) 368-8930 or jmoore@mysuburbanlife.com. His blog, Suburban Shoutout, can be found at blogs.mysuburbanlife.com/jerry-moore.
