I'm safe on board. Pull up the life rope

It's so typical that a right-winger would focus on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and forget the first half of the sentence: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."

The founding fathers understood that there is a balance between equality and liberty, and expressed that balance in that very sentence. It's easy to increase equality by decreasing liberty, or to increase liberty at the expense of equality. The hard work of democracy is to find a way to increase one without decreasing the other.

Providing universal health care is a form of increasing equality. The hard part is finding a way to do that while minimizing the impact on our liberties (such as taking my money away in taxes, decreasing my ability to choose doctors and treatment plans, etc).

There is a chapter in Mark Hertsgaard's "Earth Odyssey" called "Is Your Stomach Too Full?" Poor Chinese locals ask that question of Americans and other wealthy visitors who decry China's environmental problems or advocate for pet projects like protecting endangered birds while millions of children starve every day. In other words, are you so comfortable and well-off that you value the life of an obscure rain forest bird over a child?

And so it seems that question could be asked of the many people who, like you write, defend Free Market Capitalism and Individualism and personal liberty until they're red in the face while millions of Americans worry about their next sickness, if they have to get surgery and how on earth they will pay for it.

And the Bible quote was an interesting touch. As a Christian, I find it hard to reconcile these hard-line views of "every man for himself" when Jesus was the ultimate socialist.

You are absolutely right, Roger, for reducing this to a moral question. The doctrine of human rights similarly comes down to such a leap of faith. There is no way to "prove" the universal value of human life. One believes it or not.

I am personally fascinated with the "death panels" nonsense. Could anyone actually believe that the government's goal is to kill its own citizens through health care? I think we might look deeper at this phrase, and one of the key figures who coined it.

Freud talks about a "death drive" that I think might be in play in not just the "death panels" rumor but the aggression on display at the town halls in general. In essence, what was the spectacle of the disrupted town halls? (White) people, generally 60 and up, furiously fighting against health care that would probably benefit them.

How curious that these are the same people obsessed with the obviously ludicrous notion of "death panels." One could argue that by refusing universal health care many of these same people might be condemning THEMSELVES to bankruptcy or even death. There is a strangely destructive desire operating here, a mad joy in kicking over the sand castle.

And then there is Sarah Palin, one of the key purveyors of the rumor. Has she not herself already suffered a kind of death at the hands of the government? Are her destructive words and actions not those of the politically deceased? The ultimate "death drive," of course, would be a kind of "living dead," an authority who refuses to die, menacing us from beyond the grave.

Even on the level of the unconscious, then, this present debate is truly over stakes of life and death.

Ebert: Strangest thing. As I was reading this, into my mind came the image from "The Seventh Seal" of the knight playing chess with Death. A wicked political cartoonist could provide Death with the face of Mrs. Palin.

Roger, like all the other Canadians who have written to you, I totally agree. It is a moral obligation to guarantee health care to all.

But if you do pass major reforms and provide universal coverage, you might then be tempted to deal with those zany gun laws of yours. Now that would be something.

I think the issue of morality has been kept out of the discussion for too long, so thank you for discussing it here. People cling so desperately it seems to these notions of what it means to be American. It's an important part of my identity as well but it's not the only part. I consider myself above all a human being. I know that may sound a little corny but I think that that difference in perspective really affects what side you fall on in this debate. Is denying treatment to the sick really an acceptable price to pay to defend a concept of 'America' that only some of its citizens share?

Best stay on the sidelines, fellow Canadians, this online debate is best carried out by our American cousins. Not to sound condescending, but we know that socialized medicine works, and we don't have to qoute a constitution, declaration of rights, or religious text to justify it. Its merely a universal, moral obligation that spins like any other cogwheel in the social machine.
Good luck making up your collective conscience, we can't do much else now...

Reply to: 31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him,

Well, that's an interesting quote. some background first. Jesus isn't talking about himself. Jesus is talking about a character that he read about in a comic book called The Book of Enoch, circa 20 AD.

Matthew 10: 23 but when they persecute you in this city, flee to another. You will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the son of man comes."

Standard End of the World Stuff. The world will end within the next 40 years, while his disciples are still alive and preaching, close enough to be urgent, but far enough away that we can finish passing the collection plate before running outside to see the angels appear.

Mark 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the stars will fall... Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds, ... (3) this generation will not pass away before all of these things take place.

WIKI: 1 Enoch: a Messiah called "Son of Man", with divine attributes, generated before the creation, who will act directly in the final judgment and sit on a throne of glory (1 Enoch 46:1-4, 48:2-7, 69:26-29)

In "The Book of the Parables" found in Enoch chapters 37 to 71, Enoch receives heavenly visions, which are interpreted by angels. The primary character of these revelations is the "son of man." Other titles employed to name this Messiah figure are "the Righteous One, the Chosen One, and God's Anointed One." This heavenly being is God's agent for the final judgment of fallen angels and wicked humanity and He is the vindication of the righteous servants of God.

(ie, the righteous will go into life eternal. that's their reward for being righteous on the Day of Judgment)

After everyone who actually knew Jesus died, they added some new quotes, so Jesus appeared to be claiming the title for himself.

(2) According to chapters 1 to 36 of this book, Enoch is a righteous man who has received heavenly visions. The fallen angels, called "Watchers," father a hybrid race of nefarious giants. God sends a global flood, wherein the giants were destroyed. When their physical bodies were destroyed by the flood, they became

** disembodied spirits, which are called demons today. ***

When a man or woman become demonically possess by one or more of these demons, they usually display the characteristic of these giants such as incredible physical strength, extreme violent behavior, ability to endure excessive physical pain... These demons will wreak havoc throughout world until judgment day. (end)

I'm always puzzled at how you can post the verses about the Day of Judgment, the End of the World, the son of man appearing with angels... and not understand that it's talking about the End of the World, and it missed the deadline of 100 AD.

But it does give an interesting back story for the demons that Jesus cast out. They're strong because they're the disembodied spirits of giants.

(2) Is it fair that failing to visit a sick relative in prison should be punished by... EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT?

Reply to: 43 I was.. sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 45 Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Just a little nonsense to get the attention of gullible folks... in 50 AD.

(3) There's a constant theme running through the gospel stories. Rich people should give away their money to help the poor. And, of course, guess who is standing there, willing to take the cursed money off their hands?

Roger,

Sometimes I think you simply write & express yourself too sanely & rationally to be heard by those ears that have been deafened by the incessant ramblings of Rush, Glenn, Bill, Shawn, etc.

As you mentioned re: the man who didn't know his Medicare was a government program, & didn't WANT to know, so I think it is with many when it comes to this debate. Some people might have genuine philosophical differences with the practicalities involved, but others simply don't want to know the truth or face reality.

As many conservatives are fond of pointing out, truth is true whether someone wants it to be or not. The truth is: Death Panels aren't real simply because someone SAYS they are. Perception might be 90% of reality, but that other 10% still has the last word...at least in principle, anyway.

Here's hoping the chorus of rational, sane voices attempting to speak truth can drown out the raucous, inane shouting of those who mistakenly believe they're doing so...

Thanks for adding your voice to the discussion, Roger. Whether written or spoken, it's a valuable contribution, for which many of us are extremely grateful.

Respectfully,

Deacon Godsey
Omaha, NE

I just started reading this blog after the Armond White incident and I have to say...Roger puts as much thought into his politics as he does his movies. On this topic I agree 100%.

and as an added bonus I got picture roger sitting at home reading somethingawful.com. God how I love the internet.

I have often wondered if more Americans would be inclined to become entrepreneurs if they didn't have to worry about paying for healthcare.

I have often wondered why employers don't actively support socialized healthcare so that they could free themselves from the obligation to cover their employees. Doesn't the added cost of healthcare make the US a less attractive place to set up industry?

Are these not "conservative" justifications for socialized medicine?

Ultimately, I think the best argument for socialized medicine is the fact that we no longer enjoy job security the way we did when our current insurance program was first introduced. We can all expect to change employers many times in our lives, and with each new job, we must adopt a new insurance provider. What happens if you develop a "pre-existing condition" in the interim between two insurance policies?

Roger Ebert. Jeez, You are an amazing human being.

I'm glad you can be so analytical despite you having been so clobbered by health concerns and despite people YELLING at you to not think about those health concerns, but just adore whatever was done to you medically.

The anti-health-care people are playing a mug's game, but sometimes mug's games win.

You are not playing their game. Thanks for that.

I'm from Guyana, and our we do have a socialist health care system as they would call. Although the hospital is often crowded, the cost for surgeries even those that are very invasive is usually nothing. The only disadvantage is that to some extent because of the lack of competition some staff members are disinclined to perform their utmost. I'm only 18, but I follow American politics to an extent. I remember how Hillary Clinton was essentially blackballed for wanting that Universal Health Care Plan &etc. However you look at it, and I don't mean this negatively, there's a reason that America is one of the richest countries in the world. Being run a mostly business oriented economy they must stick to the status quo so to speak, and having a Universal Health Care plan would seriously put a wrench in that.

In an arena clouded by nonsense, you've remained admirably clearheaded about all this. I do think, though, that there's a lot of clarification of terms that needs to happen whenever a health care argument flares up. Am I in favor of socialized medicine? Depends on what you mean by "socialized." Am I in favor of universal health care? Depends on what you mean by "universal." Am I in favor of the free market? Depends on what you mean by "free." If we could all just step back a moment and define our terms, we could make real intellectual progress. I bet folding money many arguers would discover that, at bottom, they don't really disagree.

That said, it also does seem as if many ask the wrong questions. As someone who thinks the U.S. system works poorly in the U.S. -- though sometimes not quite as poorly as is claimed -- and the Canadian system works well in Canada -- though sometimes not quite as well as is claimed -- I imagine the real meat of the issue lies in the question of what will work best for the U.S., specifically. In a purely technical sense, it doesn't seem as if we know if modeling U.S. health care after another country's can be done, and even if it could, so many qualities distance the U.S. from other countries -- size, population, diversity, low citizen-state trust (which might come as a result of the preceding three qualities) -- that I'm wary about... well, pretty much everything that could be done to U.S. health care. Especially leaving it as-is.

Excellent second post Roger.

From my Canadian perspective there is this huge hurdle in front of many Americans whenever there is anything to do with government. Maybe it extends itself all the way back to the revolution, I don't know. But I would say that most global citizens in developed nations expect to be protected by their governments, Americans always want to be protected from their governments. Well, the revolution is over now and by the way, you won.

We all trust police, fire departments, courts of law, food and drug inspectors. We trust our militaries, we trust building inspectors and city planners. We trust our public schools. There is a whole host of jobs that we assign to government, because a government of the people and for the people is the only institution that can handle the responsibility. Do they need to be watch closely? Of course they do! Do you want to borrow Sheila Fraser for a while?

The United States are far from becoming a socialist state. I agree with the mass apprehension towards Socialism...It is inseparable from totalitarianism and the abject worship of state, and tends to break down under scrutiny and any sort of checks and balances system...It cannot survive without some sort of political policing...But to assume that universal health care would be impinging on any sort of freedom, be it political or moral, is just silly. As Mr. Ebert says, it would just signify a much needed safety net for those millions of Americans who cannot afford private insurance...Nobody can deny that the number one motivation these days in our health care system is profit, not health. I'm a firm believer in Capitalism (not implying it's perfect, but it works) we have to realize though, that certain aspects of our society cannot be allowed to be motivated by profit...Health and Education come to mind right away...We provide murderers with free legal council, why? Because any rational society understands that it is necessary for the well being of the whole.

Dear Roger,
Thank you for pointing out the incredible expense at having a serious illness. The interesting thing is that for some people, like myself, getting over the disease is just the beginning. After having my kidney transplant at 17, I've had to take anti-rejection medication to prevent immune system from attacking my kidney. I'll have to take these medications for the rest of my life, which without health insurance, would cost over 1000 dollars per month. I'm not complaining. It's been 10 years now, I'm still doing great, and taking these pills is a small price to pay to keep on living. Yet, I'm also aware that I literally cannot live without these medications, and therefore, cannot live without some kind of health insurance. Luckily I do, but I cannot imagine how people who live in a similar situation to myself and don't have insurance must feel. It must be a nightmare.

But who is to dictate what is moral? Some things but not other things? Everyone should have the exact same morals?

Yes, universal health care is RIGHT. So is universal housing, universal food, universal vacations in Hawaii and universal happiness. And what makes you think the government is capable of efficiently running such a program? Is there ANY entitlement program that hasn't ballooned in size and expense exponentially from it's initial estimated cost? Is that ANY entitlement program that isn't on the verge of bankruptcy? If you want to live in Heaven, I suggest you start packing your spiritual baggage and get right with the guy who runs the place, because there's no such thing as heaven on earth.

There ya GO, Rodge! Will think.

PS Funny coincidence, I was thinking of a cartoon too, but the caption is "Nobody understands me, nor can they endure my tuba."
THAT'd show those New Yorker snobs.

Possibly President Obama should have chosen a longer time frame to consider this. Rather than assume he had super majority in the senate and house and could pass it easily, he should have gotten a reasonable Republican spokesperson such as Kathleen Sebelius, his secretary of Health and Human Services, to do a media tour and series of town halls to feel out the idea and gather feedback and adjust appropriately prior to proposing it to Congress. Instead, in his ambition he just went for it. This strategy may ultimately cause it to fail. Perhaps he should have learned something from George Bush's rush to war without consensus of the other countries. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that he overestimated the ease of the victory without minority backing.

"Some might believe universal health care would be of great assistance in enjoying life and the pursuit of happiness."

I'd say that universal health care is of central importance for liberty as well. How free, as in literally autonomous, are you really to be what you want to be if you're physically and mentally crippled or financially ruined by illness? Universal health care done right is a way to help maximize autonomy for a maximum number of individuals in a society -- to ensure that their right to liberty can be excercised in practice, not just enjoyed in theory.

Any libertarian who honestly cared about everyone's right to liberty, not just their own right to private ownership, should be for universal health care.

Looks like it's time for a lot of people hemming and hawing in what should be a no-brainer debate over U.S. health coverage to take another look at Michael Moore's Sicko (2007), which articulates all these arguments so much better than I can, and articulated them before they came up for the degree of national discussion they're enjoying now (and which I think still stands as Moore's most important movie, even apart from current events).

The interviewee that I keep flashing back to through all these debates is that soft-spoken Canadian golfer. When Moore asks him why his fellow citizens would want to pay for someone else's medical treatment that they may never need themselves, the golfer gently explains that it's based on the principle of "we'd do the same for them." If that's not a valid moral basis for universal health care, one that everyone can agree on...man, how selfish have we become? Everyone gets sick, no matter what political party they belong to. Just because you aren't sick now, does that mean you'll somehow avoid it by NOT giving those who are what they need?

It seems like a simple application of the Golden Rule to me, but it's a Rule that never seems to come up for discussion in any of the debates on display. As that Canadian golfer says in Sicko, "there are lots of people who aren't in a position to [pay their medical costs]. And somebody has to look out for them."

Simplistic, maybe. But it bears repeating.

I may be the first Canadian who says something less than 100% awesome about our health care system. The issue isn't one you'd think though. Canada actually doesn't permit people to buy insurance for matters that are covered under the public system. That is, there isn't just public health care, there's only public health care with no option to top up. Don't say this out loud, but the French got the health care thing right: public system, top-up if you want it, etc.

Okay, that's a red herring though. The fact is, there is a remarkable reassurance to having health care covered. When I moved to the USA and went to new employee orientation at my new employer they started the part about benefits and talking about how they value employee freedom of choice so you could choose among the various health plans they offer. I actually got nervous: was I going to have to think about this? I took the job and never once asked about health care benefits because it wasn't even a question on my radar. It's like asking if there will be air in the room. Of course there will be. Fortunately the benefits person started talking about how with one of the plans they would "pass the savings on" to me and I realized that was the crap one. Dodged that bullet.

But one thought to leave you with. I keep seeing people saying that maybe if we couch the discussion of health insurance as a tort reform question that might get some Republicans onside. I think it's backwards: if you have public health care, tort reform naturally follows. Right now people who get injured have to get a jury to determine in advance how much money they will need for care for the rest of their lives. They're not just compensated for an injury, they are also getting an annuity for future costs. But if those costs didn't exist, then the judgments would only be for compensation. Kind of feels like that's the problem solved. What am I missing?

Perhaps it would make more sense to anti-Universals if they just thought of the government as one big insurance company. The difference between this insurance company and a regular insurance company is that this one won't exploit and exhaust every possible avenue in order to deny you coverage. Private insurance companies do not exist to make sure their clients are fully covered; they exist to make as much money as possible, and the most efficient method for doing this is to sell someone a policy which essentially cannot be redeemed. At least not without a fight. If insurers actually had their clients' best interests in mind, then factors such as "pre-existing conditions" would be completely irrelevant.

How it's not a moral issue to UHC opponents is kind of beyond me. The only explanation that makes any sense to me is that such people are Me-Firsts with little to no regard for their neighbors. You pose a question, Roger, which has bothered me for some time: What is an acceptable number of uninsured citizens? When anti-Universals throw out statistics like "80-85% of Americans are happy with their private insurance," I skip right past the dubious nature of this number and instead wonder if they think 15-20% of a country without medical insurance is copacetic. When they then respond that the answer is for the uninsured to just get better jobs, I can only conclude that these people know very very little about life. And as much as their apathy (and in some cases, inexplicable resentment/hatred) toward the least among us bothers me, I can only hope they never find themselves on the other side of the door, for I do not wish the denial of treatment/coverage on anybody. Well, maybe Toby Keith.

As for their argument that the introduction of universal health care would serve only to restrict Americans' freedoms, and that the less government involvement in people's lives, the better, I must ask whether they wish for Private Firefighters, Private Police and Peacekeepers, and of course, a Private Military. These are all government institutions whose sole purpose is to protect the lives of civilians. To protect everybody, not just those with good jobs, not just those who pay "their fair share." Everybody. Do the poor and the homeless not deserve to be protected by these institutions? Do they forfeit the right to be safe? If the answer is no, then I ask what the difference is when it comes to receiving medical treatment.

If the answer is yes, then I have just lost a little more faith in the nature of the human animal.

Sincerely,

Godless Canadian Bleeding Heart Commie.

Is it too extreme to say that death, or people's natural fear of it, has become one of the most profitable aspects of American capitalism? Throughout one's life, there is a lot of money to be made through trying to prevent one's death. Thus, it naturally makes sense for the insurance industry to be up in arms about even the faintest hint of socialized health care (And this proposed plan really is nothing more than a faint idea of what a great many of us would like to see).
My brain is a little bit less willing to help me understand the great masses speaking out against the public option. The vast majority of the American population sends its kids through the public school system. We can agree that there might be better options, and everyone is free to explore those. However, I think people on both sides of the public option debate would agree that the public school system is a necessity and a staple of our society. How is healthcare any less important to a nation's people than education?
I often think about things that just started off on the wrong foot and continue to exist in the same form in today's society. For example, why do so many radio personalities have to speak in that annoying radio-guy tone all the time? Someone just started it that way and now no one questions it. I feel that privatized health care is the same way- sure it doesn't make sense at the basic level, but people are satisfied with the status quo, and will go to great lengths to protect it.

As an Englishman I have followed this debate with great interest, even reading all 600+ comments in your previous entry. Why? First off because I have genuine empathy with the 47 million (or however many) people with no health insurance in your country. Secondly, because I (along with many others) was extremely p*ssed off with the way the NHS was being slandered and misrepresented by FOX News and their brethren (including the shameful Tory MEP Daniel Hannan). And thirdly, there is something uniquely enthralling about the spectacle of turkeys actively protesting a ban on Christmas.
I find it hard to believe any reasonable person could read the above article and not be in favour of Universal Health Care.

Mr. Ebert,

I understand the "moral" question you refer to and agree that it is a major consideration for most people when discussing health care, as well as numerous other issues. My problem with the entire debate is that it ignores a large number of issues that have an indirect bearing on the cost and availability of health care insurance. I won't go into these issues simply because they are contentious and not easily covered in a short comment but there is one major factor that overshadows all others when it comes to the availability and cost of health care. That factor is emotion.

Every debate I have ever been a part of ends the same way. Someone mentions that cost averaging must be done in order to ensure people and/or insurance companies are not charged incredibly high amounts for a specific operation/procedure and someone responds by saying, "BUT I'LL DIE IF I DON'T GET THAT OPERATION/PROCEDURE!" Once that point is reached, all future debate is worthless. No amount of rational discourse or logical argument can overcome that emotional cry. It is understandable, but if the operation/procedure in question costs 1 million dollars at the hospital in question and only 100,000 dollars at all other hospitals, what are the insurance companies (and the government in the future) supposed to do?

If anyone should think that I'm the only person saying this, watch any television health care debate. Oprah had an insurance company executive on her show and as she attempted to explain cost averaging, Oprah said, "But my father needs that operation or he'll die!" Debate ceased and any chance for a reasonable discussion ended.

How do we get around this? I have no idea. I have tried multiple times with many different people to have a reasoned and rational discussion about how cost averaging and insurance needs to work logically, without emotion. Every time I have been confronted with the cry of, "I'LL DIE WITHOUT IT!"

Where are we to go from there?

Respectfully,
Calabogie

As a physician who practiced medicine in the United States for 25 years, I know both sides of "government sponsored" health insurance in the form of Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid paid me 10 cents on the dollar for treatment of the less fortunate;, the majority of whom when polled think they will get rich either winning the lottery or suing a doctor. The minions at medicaid headquarters were delighted when they could disallow claims for as many of my patients as possible; one Christmas time, I received notice 14 claims were being refused payment. That was the last drop in the glass as they say in Italy.
Before I finally moved on to the 2nd phase of my life, out of medicine and the bureaucratic hassles, I was paying 1,000 dollars a week for malpractice insurance for general surgery, a 4X increase in 3 years brought on by bad investments during the previous stock market downturn by the malpractice insurance companies, and the lack of competition in the field. Tort reform needs to accompany whatever system gets passed.
People in Europe think the poor are denied quality health care in america while the truth is I was obligated to treat anyone who presented at the emergency room of one of my 5 hospitals with an urgent medical problem. Public hospitals where I received my surgical training are set up in major cities in all states to treat those without insurance, including preventive medicine counseling and elective and chronic, non urgent health problems.
While you, Mr. Ebert were unfortunate to contract an illness most often associated with smoking, those who do smoke 2 or 3 packs of cigarettes a day could well afford at least catastrophic insurance with the savings accumulated through the cessation of that habit while at the same time lowering the risks for a myriad of illnesses.
Family doctors recently are limiting the number of medicare patients they take in their practice as the payments are below what is required to pay overhead and these folks take an inordinate amount of time with their more numerous problems. This has started a two tier system of quality; the less successful doctors and this sometimes equates to less qualified remain to take care of the elderly.
I, too, think everyone deserves good health care and think end of life counseling is one of the keys to cost savings. When a majority of health care dollars are spent in the last year of life to prolong someone's existence as QOL decreases, we need to rethink our aversion to the term "rationing" and come up with a suitable euphemistic substitute. Those foreigners who wrote to you in abundance need to ask themselves how aggressively the system in their countries cares for the elderly. I have seen horrible cases here in Italy with their universal health care; for example, a 90 year old in terrible pain refused simple diagnostic tests to discover an acute clot in her leg. In the United States, the lady would have been cured within 12 hours of arriving at any major medical center.
Well, I am rambling incoherently now and to end, we need physicians, lawyers, politicians, health insurance executives all involved in the problem solving process to resolve this issue and not a passel of lawyer/politicians and policy wonks. It is a problem that needs time and serious thinkers, not someone who wants to pass something through congress in a rush, just to say they accomplished something.
I hope physicians of my age don't quit in droves when this all gets solved as I am returning to the United States where the best care in the world is available to everyone and I need them there if I get sick.
This is really a topic better discussed for hours across a table as there are an unlimited number of topics to cover. Thanks for starting the forum here.
ds

Ebert: I certainly agree that damages for alleged malpractice are insanely out of control.

I've always valued your insights on films, but this post and the last one on this topic are among the most important you have ever written. Thank you.

As a gay kid in America, I am deeply disturbed by the conservative mindset that perhaps all men weren't created equal, that if the weaker cannot help themselves than that is the way it was meant to be. How can we play the free market with people's lives?

Perhaps I'm being to dramatic. It just destroys me every time I see someone deny others of basic human rights: the right to share love, or more importantly, the right to access information and care which will save their lives. How do you convince these people? How do you save them from themselves?

P.S. And on a lighter note, why are people still afraid of Socialism? Are there Americans out there who are truly prepared to be "dead than red?" And when was the last time the red scare was relevant? What's next, "The british are coming!"? What century are we living in?

Roger, while I mostly applaud to how you have defended your reasons for universal health care, my concern with universal health care is not the idea of it, but its application. Even though I consider myself a Libertarian, that doesn't mean that I'm close minded to the idea of Universal Health care, just as long as it's not forced on to the general public. My big concern with universal health care is whether or not it will actually work. Yes, it's true that it has been proven to work in other countries like France and Canada (unless I'm mistaken), but we have to bring into account of the political climate of the United States, the amount of people who live here, and how terms such as "socialism" are not exactly embraced or accepted here as it is in other parts of the world. In terms of how to approach universal health care, I personally believe that in order for Universal health care to work, it would have to work at state level, not federal level. The US is populated with over 300 million people last time I checked, and having the federal government be responsible for the health for that many people could possibly make universal health care ineffective.

I mean, I'm all for having everyone have equal access to health care (as long as it's not forced on people of course), but it has to be done in a way that doesn't make it too bureaucratic, nor makes too hard for people to gain access to it, which is why I believe it is gonna happen, it should be done at state or local level, not federal level. Also, if universal health care does happen, it has to be presented to the general public in a way that tells them that they can keep their private medicine, but this is an option too, not making it seem like it's mandatory to have it.

And another thing:

"Good health is a responsibility of the individual, not the state."

As for this general idea, I personally agree with this because I don't believe the government has any right to tell me how I can take care of my health. If I am educated on the subject (as health education should be required when you are in grade school), then I would be given the tools to decide how to take care of my health. If I'm educated about my health or the health of others (i.e, diet, exercise, nutrition, diseases, etc.), then I'm most likely gonna make a responsible, healthy decision about what to do with my body. The most the government should be allowed to do is offer the services for healthcare (which, again in my opinion, should be run at state or local level), but if I decide to refuse their services in favor or something else (or nothing at all), than that's my choice.

"He must have no idea what it costs to have a serious illness in this country. It will take a lot of savings."

True, but at the same time, this still boils down to individual choice. If I choose to use this service, than that's my choice. If I choose not to, than that's my choice, too. If I decide not to rely on any form of medical coverage, then that should be my choice, even if I knew in the long run that it might not be a good idea. Good choice, bad choice, they are still MY choices. How I live MY life, how I can handle MY health, should be no business of the government.

I'll give an anecdote about this idea: Earlier this year, I was diagnosed with high blood pressure (160 over 80). Yes, I know that's high, but I made the decision that I was going to work to lower by doing it naturally. That's my health choice. A month ago, I went to a community clinic for something else not related to my blood pressure (I didn't go to my regular doctor; I don't want to get into why because that's private). They as a mandatory procedure checked my blood pressure and they told me that it was high. I told them that I already knew that and I was working on that on my own, and I made it very clear with them that wasn't why I went to their clinic. Anyway, once my session was over, they gave me some fliers and I was like,"What's this?""These are fliers about the effects of hypertension and we need you to come back so we can help with you with it. You need to schedule an appointment."

I was absolutely appalled about this because I had absolutely made it completely clear to them that I didn't need their help with my blood pressure and that was not the reason why I went to their clinic. I mean, if I was going there about my blood pressure, that would be different. But that was not what I went there for and I made it absolutely clear to them that was not what I was there for, yet absolutely demanded that I come back. First of all, I didn't NEED to go back. If I wanted help with my blood pressure, I would've gone to my regular doctor whose opinion I trust more than theirs. I understand that they had good intentions, but having good intentions doesn't mean you should have the right to require someone to do something about your health.

My point is, Roger (and I'm sorry if I'm rambling on with my boring randomness), if Universal health care is going to work in this country, it has to be done so that it doesn't become too bureaucratic and infringe on people's right to choose. The right to live their life however they want.

Anyway, those are my 2 cents. I apologize for not being a liberal. :)

btw, when I first heard about "Death Panels", I wanted to laugh so hard because of how ridiculous it sounded. The idea itself is absolutely illogical.

Ebert: How can you have universal health care that doesn't involve the general public?

But never mind. I want to offer some information. Ninety percent of high blood pressure is linked to sodium intake. Period. Lower your sodium intake, and down goes your blood pressure. Period. There is salt everywhere you look. In bread, diet sodas, ice cream, candy. One bag of popcorn at the movies, you're over your limit for the day. Fresh fruits and vegetables, grains and rices, waters, teas, unseasoned forms of protein. Unsalted juices. Try it for one month. It doesn't work, you get a shiny new dime.

Wether it's a right or not, how can anyone argue the need for reform?
America spends the most, gets nowhere near the most.
THAT should be reason enough to change, and this is coming from someone on the right (althou mind you, no conservative).

Yes, why is it that morals and "God's will" are invoked for everything under the sun, except when it weakens the Conservative argument? Please, someone show me where in the Bible, Jesus says, that only the "privileged Christians" should be looked after, and all the weak and poor be left to rot.

Any religion where you indiscriminately pick and choose your morals, is NO religion at all. It's hypocrisy in its finest form.

I'm surprised to hear that the Canadian commenters here have been uniformly positive about our health care system.

Off the top of my head, I could point to recent Supreme Court rulings that waiting lists are no substitute for actual health care, or to recent revelations that the British Columbian government is thinking of increasing the waiting times for surgeries etc. as a way of controlling costs, or to the role that Toronto hospitals played in spreading SARS.

But since you are a film critic, Roger, I will simply point to Denys Arcand's The Barbarian Invasions -- the only Canadian film to win the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film -- and note that it is, among other things, a withering critique of the Canadian health care system. (For what it's worth, there was a hint of this critique in one of Arcand's earlier films too, namely Jesus of Montreal, which shares a few characters with The Barbarian Invasions; it is because of the lousy hospital conditions in that earlier film that the protagonist dies.)

There is, to be sure, a lot to like about the Canadian system. But it has significant problems, too, and if we're going to invoke moral arguments, then I am not sure how it is moral to deny people much-needed care for extended periods of time simply because it doesn't match some government policy or other.

Which brings me to another point: The passage you cite from Matthew is a very important one, to be sure, but it says nothing about the role of the state. Jesus actually had some rather sharp things to say about the political leaders of his day, and the taxes they imposed on people, so quotes like the one above only get you so far. One could certainly argue that there is nothing particularly moral about being charitable with other people's money, or delegating the responsibility of distributing that money to some anonymous and possibly wasteful bureaucracy.

Ebert: It's a wonderful film, particularly in its ingenious approach to palliative care. :) But the Canadians posting here haven't told such stories.

I happen to think that Universal Healthcare is a marvelous idea, but like most marvelous ideas it tends to get bullied in my mind by that most nagging of questions: How does one PAY for such a thing, both in money and logistics? I fear that it is simply not possible to provide full-scale, full-quality medical coverage to all people, all of the time, and that as such we would soon find ourselves left with two far-from-marvelous options: High-quality care (and high quality standard of living) for a few decided by strict rationing, or low-quality care for everyone via similiar rationing (either from a government or an insurance company, rationing is rationing.)

Understand: I'd LIKE to see it happen, I'm just unable to percieve how it does.

One thought-experiment idea that's occured to me here and there regarding this issue would be to ammend the basic concept to "Universal - WITH caveats in the details." Short version: We cover (or at least make coverage available to) everyone... BUT said coverage only extends to maladies which are not the person in question's "fault" in the strictest sense. I'm a Libertarian at heart, but I can't bring myself to object to my taxes going toward folks who've contracted cancer, or suffered terrible accidents, or what have you. HOWEVER, someone who winds up in a debilitating state because they CHOSE to, say, abuse dangerous narcotics? Undertake other risky behavior? No, I don't see why they ought to be covered in the same way. They've made their bed, as the saying goes. Natural Selection and all that.

Part of me thinks this would be a functional way to keep the folks who NEED coverage covered without breaking the rest of the system; though the annoyingly-logical part of me is quick to point out that the people who'd benefit MOST from this would be the lawyers specializing in arguing that so-and-so's 30 year cocaine habit is not, in fact, his fault. Ah, well...

A few days ago I was thinking of the exact same passage of Scripture that you quoted, Roger, in regards to the healthcare debate.

If Jesus was walking around America today, pointing out the hypocrisy of the authorities and ruling classes of the day, telling the rich how hard it will be for them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and telling people to sell their possessions, give their money to the poor, love their enemies, and to feed and clothe and tend to the downtrodden...he'd be branded a "Socialist!"

I'm sorry but health care cannot be a 'right' because it requires other people to provide it. A legitimate 'right' cannot impose obligation on others except in a negative fashion... meaning all others have to do for you to exercise or enjoy a 'right' is... nothing.

That said, I'm not opposed to some sort of 'safety net' provided by individual states but I have zero faith in the federal government based upon its past and present performance. The actual cost of medicare is nearly $1,000 per month per person... yet it takes in taxes only a small fraction of that which is why the program is insolvent and its portion of the national debt and unfunded liabilities is mind-boggling.

Inter-generational debt is immoral and unethical.

I'd also like to point out that the 'higher' life expectancy statistics from nations with socialized medicine are misleading. When accidents and homicides are factored out, life expectancy in the US is higher.

We also survive longer when afflicted with horrible diseases such as your cancer, Mr. Ebert. It's why so many people come to the US for cancer treatment despite it being 'free' in their home nations. If they can afford our prices, they come and they get their money's worth... just as you did.

I, for one, am glad that if you had to get cancer, Mr. Ebert, you got it here in the U.S. where you had timely access to some of the best medicine in the world.

I quote Daniel Q:

"The doctrine of human rights similarly comes down to such a leap of faith. There is no way to "prove" the universal value of human life."

The mistake here, I suppose, is thinking of the knowledge of rights and ethics as belonging in a empirical domain. It is not the case that we may know that someone has rights, in the sense that we can know of some physical phenomenon or other. Rather we feel that people are deserving of rights and that they genuinely do have them. And this I don't think is a matter of theory.

I don't agree that there is such a thing as a moral imperative for governments to provide universal health. It is not a right of man to be provided with care (not to mention health care), because we don't usually think of one person having a claim over another person's benevolence (Otherwise we might find our obligations uncomfortably far reaching, e.g. what about third-world famine victims?). We may find imperatives in religious texts binding our obligations to some form of universal love or charity, but one does not have to subscribe to those religions.

As a society, we do have the obligation to provide care to those that are most disadvantaged (at least according to a Rawlsian theory of justice), and this is where medicare and medicaid come in. As for a moral imperative for universal health care, I don't think so.

There are good economic arguments for the case of health care reform, but I will not expound them here.

Excellent post Roger.

Coming from Canada, I will agree that our system is more or less similar to yours in terms of quality of care. Waiting times however are atrocious and some small towns like mine have 12 hour waiting times for the EMERGENCY room. So while I don't regret my nationalized health care, I do wish it were more competently and efficiently run. Our system is far from perfect sometimes. Not as imperfect as some Republicans would have you think, but needing a tune-up nonetheless.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that it is a moral and ethical obligation to care for one's fellow man to the best of our abilities. However, Americans are quite weird about this whole "caring" thing. You fanatically love your country, but seem to have a bit of difficulty showing the same level of devotion towards your countryMEN. It's as if you're so used to symbolic displays of affection towards political figures, religious icons, and football teams that you've forgotten how to do it when it doesn't involve saluting a flag or singing the national anthem.

In fact, I made a sarcastic remark once that the best way to sell universal health care to Americans is by telling them that it'd all but eliminate illegal immigration, since you would need to be a legal citizen in order to be treated in any hospital. That way no one who had entered the country illegally would be able to see a doctor for as much as a stubbed toe, no matter how much money they had; and that tends to discourage long stays.

However, I started to get really depressed when it occured to me that this approach would probably work very very well.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I hope cool and sensible opinions like yours prevail, because otherwise I can see this unravelling mighty quick.

I've been pretty disappointed watching this health care debate from across the 49th. While it makes for great theatre it's astonishing that both sides seem to be devolving into caricatures of their own worst extremes. I'm especially disappointed in the liberals for the timidity of their approach. I'd hope that just as the Republican party has had it's own worst elements turned against it in public view that the same may finally happen to the Democratic party. It's a party so lacking in genuine left-leaning liberals like Dennis Kucinich.

However, taking politics as theatre, I find the irony of the insurance companies stirring up fears about "death-panels" to be truly astonishing considering they're the ones who have analysts on hand to try and strip people of coverage and deny them of care at any opportunity to save themselves money.

"I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn't deserve it."

This sums it up very nicely. Put that to any of the protesters, though, and I'm sure they would vehemently deny wanting to deny coverage to anyone ... they just want everyone to accept their terms for it. Never mind that their terms (the status quo) exclude so many.

This issue has become downright embarrassing. And here I thought our image around the world would improve with our new President. Yet we are simply confirming how ridiculous many Americans are.

I do wonder, though ... what happened to the idea of simply offering the health care coverage members of Congress have as the public option? Wasn't that supposed to be the plan?

In a fair and just world, this would be the last word on this issue. Bravo, Roger, and thank you for lending some eloquence to this absurd "debate."

My favorite objection so far is "I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions". So my girlfriend and I and the 47 million other people without health insurance shouldn't have health care because some guy is worried that some women he'll never meet might get an abortion? Another favorite objection is, "I don't want a government bureaucrat to have a hand in my health care." Really? Is it really better to have your health car in the hands of an insurance adjuster? Of course nothing tops, "Obama is as bad as Hitler." How exactly is health care reform related to the death of six million Jews?

As a UK resident I have been watching this debate with interest (particularly as it has involved a substantial amount of fibs about our own NHS - not perfect but still fantastic). I have seen the reasoned arguments back and forth as well as the images of people screaming 'give us our country back' and carrying weapons to the Townhall meetings (kudos to Barney Franks for his plain talking).

It's all been very entertaining because as you know, no matter how much we deny it, we Eurobods love to point at America and chuckle and scoff about the latest ludicrous notion being passed by Fox News, GOP et al with their birthers, t-baggers and Glenn Beck. But deep down we all love America. We do... and so ultimately we joke because we are upset that someone so dear to us, a friend in times of need, an inspiration of ideals, could seem so callus and uncaring.

Obama and co need to argue the moral argument even if it is just to force their opponents to admit that they just don't care about other people.

Mr. Ebert -

I think you have the right idea by examining Obama's socialized medicine plan in terms of morality. But I believe your analysis is incorrect: socialized medicine must stopped precisely because it is immoral.

It's easy to see why:

(1) When people say they want the government to supply them with some personal benefit, they're really just saying that they want someone other than themselves - one or more of their fellow citizens - to pay for it, so they don't have to. The government gets the vast majority of its money by taxing its citizens, so a "paid by the government" program is really a "paid under duress by other people" program. To look at your neighbor and say "I don't want to pay for my medical care - I want YOU to pay for it for me" is childish, selfish, and immoral. It's no different from demanding that someone else pay for your food, your house, or your car.

(2) Insurance is a great idea. It's a way for people to voluntarily pool their resources so that large, unusual expenses that would be financially ruinous to an individual can be covered by the group. But the key is that this is voluntary. To force people into a relationship like this that they don't want to be in is coercive, and immoral.

(3) Wherever it's been tried, socialized medicine has resulted in lower-quality care than the American system. There's little reason to think it wouldn't have the same effect here. People from socialized-medicine countries such as the UK or Canada travel to the U.S., because they can't get the quality medical care they need in their own countries. Do a similar number of people travel from the U.S. to those countries because they can't find the care they need here? Of course not. It's often stated that life expectancy in the U.S. is shorter (slightly) than in some particular socialized-medicine country, but that is misleading in a conversation about medical care, since it includes all causes of death, many of which are unrelated to medical care. For those with conditions that need medical care - the only ones of interest in a medical care debate - life expectancy is generally longer in the U.S. than elsewhere. Replacing the best medical care on Earth with a system that has already repeatedly been shown to be worse elsewhere would be immoral.

(4) Very few government programs have a reputation for quality or efficiency. Government schools cost way more per student than private schools (or home schooling) do, and generally educate far worse. The IRS, or a typical state's DMV - or Congress itself, for that matter - are no one's ideas of well-run organizations, and the same is true of most government departments. Historically, privatizing government services has saved money and increased quality of service, whereas forcing those services to be government-controlled has had the opposite effect. Historical precedent indicates that putting medical care under government control would raise the cost and decrease the quality of service, which is at least foolish, and, arguably, immoral.

(5) The biggest problem with insurance currently is that it's already too socialized. I'm happy with my home, auto, and life insurance - for each of these, I looked at plans from a number of companies, and picked the balance of costs and benefits that I felt was right for me, from companies I was happy with. But I had no such choice with my medical insurance. Why? Because the perennially misguided socialist element of our society - unions and Democrats - pushed years ago to make health insurance a "job benefit". That means it's chosen by my employer, instead of by me. That means I can't choose the costs and benefits that work best for me. That means that if I don't like the insurance company's policy or service, I'm still stuck with it. That means that the insurance company has little incentive to make me happy, because it's impractical for me to take my business elsewhere. That means that the self employed and unemployed often find insurance ridiculously expensive because they're not part of one of the employee "groups" that the insurance companies have been encouraged to cater to. That means that if I change jobs, I lose my insurance - a situation so ridiculous that now the Democrats are trying to enact a gigantic, costly, coercive, and byzantine set of regulations in a naive attempt to fix the problem they themselves created with their last set of costly, coercive, and byzantine regulations. Of course, I'm still paying just as much for the insurance as I would otherwise - my company simply extracts the cost of the insurance from the amount they're willing to pay for my services, and calls the remainder (after all the other government-mandated taxes and such) my salary. Insurance as a "job benefit" is no benefit to me at all. The right way to fix this problem is with more freedom and less regulation - keep the government away from my insurance and let me buy what I want. The wrong way to solve it is with less freedom and more regulation - yet that's what the socialists always push for. Is it not immoral to force people into a government plan they don't like, rather than allowing them to select a plan they do like from a free market?

(6) The "uninsured" in America largely fall into two groups: people who voluntarily choose not to spend the money for insurance, and the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but haven't yet signed up for it (since they need not do so until a medical need arises). There are also those who are not poor enough for Medicaid, but find medical insurance difficult to afford; narrowly-tailored adjustments to our current system to address their needs would be welcome. But tossing the whole system and replacing it with socialism under the pretense that it's somehow necessary to help those relatively few people - well, that's just dishonest, and immoral. Besides, in practical terms, people in the U.S aren't denied medical care, whether they can pay for it or not - walk into almost any hospital emergency room, and they'll treat you, regardless of your insurance or financial condition. I've gone to very reputable hospitals and seen prominently-posted literature explaining that, if you don't have insurance, you can talk to them and they'll willingly lower their prices substantially. That's probably not the best way to handle things, and the system could certainly use reform; but pretending that large numbers of people aren't able to get the medical care they need is dishonest.

(7) I find Barak Obama to be grotesquely unethical - racist, dishonest, arrogant, fraudulent, contemptuous of America and its people and traditions, and clearly more comfortable with terrorists, communists and dictators than with those who desire free people and free markets. It appalls me to think that he - or anyone appointed by him, given the tax cheats, racists, and various other shady characters that he has chosen to surround himself with - would have any influence over decisions affecting my personal health care, or that of my family. I understand, of course, that some others feel differently - that, for some reason, they actually LIKE the guy. So I would suggest that they imagine my hope, and their nightmare: that in four, or eight, or twelve years a Republican they despise is elected president (surely such a thing has happened before, and may happen again), and he appoints his (to their way of thinking) nefarious band of cronies to the Health Care Board. Will they really be glad then that they have signed over control of their health care to that administration? Or will they decide then that it's suddenly time to campaign for health care privatization? Forcing people to accept the control of people they don't trust over their health care is immoral.

(8) I appreciate your inclusion of a quotation from the Bible, but surely it’s clear that in that passage – and throughout the Gospels – Jesus was talking about PERSONAL charity, rather than government programs. At no time did Jesus walk up to Pontius Pilate and say “Hey, Pontius – you really ought to raise the taxes on the Israelites through the roof and give the money to people you think are more deserving”. When person “A” gives money or other assistance to person “B”, who is in need, that’s charity. But when person “C” takes money from “A” by force, and then gives it to “B”, that’s just simple theft. There’s no charity involved: not on the part of “A”, because the money was taken by force, and certainly not on the part of “C”, since it wasn’t their money. In socialized medicine, the government is “C” – not a moral position to be in. Survey after survey show that Republicans give more to charity than do Democrats. Why do Democrats want to be “C”, using other people’s money, rather than “A”, using their own?

One of the founding principles of America is that more freedom and less government interference is generally the moral choice; less freedom and more government interference is generally the immoral choice. It is my hope that, for moral reasons, we will reject socialized medicine.

Since this is my first time contributing to your forum, may I add how much I appreciate the respectful, compassionate, and thoughtful way in which you present issues here. We have (as you might suspect) opposing views on quite a few of them, but well-reasoned, well-mannered discourse is a joy to all.

Ebert: I don't think it's a case of the government doing it for my benefit. I think it's more a case of mutual benefit.

I've always found it odd that the "Christian" parties platform is:
-anti welfare
-pro war
-anti universal health care
-pro Reagonomics (supply side)
-anti PBS/NPR
-anti social security
-pro corporation
-pro military
-anti environment
-anti science
-self serving ("pull yourself up by your bootstraps")
-pro wealth
-anti socialism
-pro nationalism

..and that they love to talk about our founding fathers. I'm finding as I get older to just figure this is the way of the world; life appears to be about bitter irony. Which reminds me of a poem I wrote..

The sky lights up and attacks the sensibilities then blows up all around a field of unwieldy patriotic souls saluting a symbol rarely understood. The stars and stripes wave timidly between the smoke of modernity and fade away behind the cloud of mass affirmation hazed in the dreams of textbooks and shouted by imperialistic minds assuredly christian hyperbolic hypocritical jubilee. As the tea party tax day ventured by the rich commodity of white suburban comfort slinked between the rush of colors the colored lay in the hobble of culture poverty, being skin deep these days, one must say the way of the world and the moral party is a hearty bit of ideology mixed with Reagan mythology, that a union busting deregulator is the true savior and that the Man who turned the tables of profit is simply the savior of the leper and the blind and leave behind the rich mans decent to hell because America is swell, and well hope is enough for us tough troopers. We have no solutions but universal health care and regulation, taxation on the rich and no segregation, but we understand that this is just reverse racism, and the cataclysm of the right is a catechism shrouded between covered eyes, and a priests thighs. God bless America for four hundred years of rape and war, we had a good ten in there somewhere who could ask for more. Just be glad with what you got because if you had it anywhere else you'd surely get shot.

Thanks, as always, for your eloquence.

I have a friend who has been an American nurse for 50 years and she speaks eloquently (and OFTEN) about the Justice reason for universal health care. The notion that there is NOT rationing of health care right now in the United States is absurd. How is it that an enterprise such as Remote Area Medical, set up to help people in developing countries get checkups, dental care and eyewear, does such brisk (free) business in LOS ANGELES? http://rogerowengreen.blogspot.com/2009/08/unhealthy-health-care-debate.html

hi Roger,

Just a really minor thing: in the list of countries you mention Holland and The Netherlands. Holland isn't a country but a part of the Netherlands (it's two of it's twelve provinces: South Holland and North Holland)

But I'm sure you knew that and made a copy/paste kind of error :-)

Thanks for bringing morality into the conversation, Mr. Ebert.
As another smug Canadian whose seen friends and family go through chronic illnesses and sudden injuries I can't imagine having to add, "How are we going to pay for this?" to the list of questions and anxieties that come up at those times.
Most people looking in from the outside have been shaking their heads for years at a government who would allow such questions to drown it's citizens and we're shaking our heads even more to see the fight being raised over whether or not to throw the proverbial life-ring.

I'm not sure if I'm a conservative or liberal but I do have compassion.

As an American living in Germany, I am able to see socialized medicine first hand and while the tax rate for Germans is higher than an American making the same pay, the benefits seem to far outweigh the cost.

I think we need to make the message more personal; rather than focusing on how people might lose benefits (although I have seen nothing that implies that anyone currently under an insurance plan would) start talking about the millions that have no access to healthcare currently but would under this new plan.

Also, what about infectious diseases? Isn't it better to have more people with access to health services so that we can nip a starting pandemic in the bud?

If only people would stop to appreciate the other side of the argument, and take account for the contradictions of their own, perhaps this issue would already be resolved. Remember - the ignorant get angry, whereas the intelligent attempt to broaden their understanding.

Here is an interesting conversation on yesterday's Jon Stewart's show which I believe sums up the attitudes and arguments on both sides. Do check out all the parts.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/exclusive---betsy-mccaughey-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/exclusive---betsy-mccaughey-extended-interview-pt--2

My sister is totally against this healthcare reform. She says the government can't even run the Post Office, let alone run a nation wide health care plan! My question is, why is Post Office getting such a bed rap? As far as I know, I receive my mail everyday. However, a quick google search tells me that the Post office is losing money:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS339US341&q=post+office+loses+money

My logic tells me that more people are sending emails and and using the internet for electronic payments and are not sending letters like they used to.

Is this reason enough to make the comparison to healthcare?

Roger,

I am British. I have been having this argument with an American friend of mine, who is neither conservative nor stupid. I mailed him a link to your last post on this matter and I shall be mailing him a link to this one.

He is concerned about waiting lists and the "fairness" of universal healthcare when there is no "universal contribution". I disagree with him because I believe that health care is a basic human right. Bertrand Russell once said that he had no logical basis from which to attack Nietsche's self-centred superman ethic (because it is internally consistent) but that he felt in his bones that it was wrong. I have no basis for thinking that health care is a basic human right beyond what you have already stated, which is that it is an uncomfortable feeling to have access to medical care while others do not.

I would also like to make a (very British) point about communism and isms in general, which you may edit or delete if it is overlong or boring. I will use some well established definitions which can be found in philosophical literature and (as ever) on Wikipedia.

Most Americans at least follow "classical liberalism"; that is, negative liberty in the sense of freedom from the government to do as you wish provided you don't harm anyone else. Many Americans, together with the majority of the western world, follow "social liberalism"; that is, positive liberty in the sense that, where needed, the government helps you to do as you wish, for example, by providing free education up to 18 so that disadvantaged kids are on a more level playing field with everyone else. So while classical liberalism only allows people who can be free to be free, social liberalism also helps those who cannot be free (for example because they are poor) to be more free. It's pretty clear that the health care reforms are in line with social liberalism.

Socialism is actually the belief in public or collective ownership of all stuff. There are very few (if any) employees in a truly socialist model because they are all part-owners of the business they work in, even if that business is run by the state. There aren't any countries that are genuinely socialist of which I am aware. Communism is a misunderstanding of socialist ideals in which the reforms of socialism are forced upon the unwilling rich by "the people". It seems to have tended to result in secret police forces, human rights abuses, inefficiency and misery. None of the US health care reforms I have seen amount even to socialism, since the hospitals and insurance companies would still exist and still be privately owned. Those who accuse the reforms of communism simply do not understand the term.

It has become common for people to misunderstand and oversimplify the above systems and accuse social liberals of being socialist or even communist when clearly they are not. I think we need to remember that there are more than just the two political philosophies which were represented by the two sides of the cold war.

This is exactly it. This is the crux of the argument. Universal healthcare is simply the right thing to do.

"But it will cost a trillion dollars."

You know, there is another thing that's been costing a few trillion dollars... Just saying.

Hahaha! "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare!" - I love it!

In my mind that comment illustrates perfectly what's wrong with this debate - People are so incredibly passionate about their opinions on health care without even understanding the issues. I suppose the same could be said for almost any political debate, but it is particularly prominent in this one.

I guess when the right people, with the right money, and the right words decide to attack an issue with ideological rhetoric, it's easy to get support of the hysterical masses, believing lies that make them so afraid that "the government's going to come take away their God-given Medicare".

Thanks, Ebert, for your insightful views on this debate.

Though I too support the administration's efforts on health care reform, I have to disagree with the premise that a moral argument is superior to a pragmatic one. Emotions may initially motivate policy, but it ultimately has to be justified by level-headed cost/benefit analysis.

In my view, a lot of the problem with modern political discourse is opinion forged from gut instinct. Strong emotion behind a viewpoint can be frustratingly impervious to facts. Yes, there are emotional reasons for universal health care, but is it not also emotion that inspires among some an inherent distrust of the "otherness" of our president? Or inspires extremist single-issue behavior of all stripes, such as ecoterrorism, the violent fringe of the pro-life movement, etc?

For one thing, when did this particular "moral imperative" cross a threshold? Were we an immoral nation for 200+ years of our history on the issue of universal health care? On a pragmatic, economic level the answer is clear: we've found ourselves only recently with sufficient technological innovation and wealth that it is feasible to further improve our standard of living by guaranteeing universal access to health care. Someone could equally argue its our moral imperative to instead use these resources to further bring up the third world, who you, it can be argued, casually dismiss from discussion when you cite that "...the United State is alone among all developed nations...". Whose "moral imperative" wins out in the face of scarce resources?

I sense my distrust of the emotional argument is not widely shared. I would ask, could you imagine defending a position ONLY on purely "moral imperative" grounds when it is a loss for every tangible metric? While the emotional argument, obviously, makes us emotionally satisfied, does it not, in general practice, contribute to the kind of non-civil discourse one gets by pitting self-righteous egos against each other?

Thanks for attempting to rehabilitate the word "socialism." Calling something socialist is not an argument, but an accusation. Oddly enough, it is usually an accusation that you are attempting to accomplish some common good.

But I remember when the word "liberal" was a slur. It seems to have slowly made its way back to respectfulness. Perhaps the common good can make its way back to respecfulness too, if others take your lead and fearlessly advocate for it.

I love that you reframed this Roger, because it boils the issue down to its essence. We didn't end slavery because we found a workable solution in which the plantation owners could maintain a reasonable standard of living while still keeping America's industry competitive with other nations, we did it because it was the right thing to do.

We didn't end Segregation because it would increase revenues among small businesses and increase federal education dollars by increasing school enrollment, we did it because it was the right thing to do.

We provide access to public (socialized) education because it is the right thing to do.

We set aside money for retirees because it is the right thing to do.

We mandate that workers have two days off a week because it is the right thing to do.

Based on any code of morality, including Judeo-Christian (as you brilliantly point out), caring for all of your citizens is the RIGHT thing to do. Our receiving Universal Health Care should not depend upon whether or not the government can effectively implement it; our elected officials jobs should depend upon their ability to implement the program. We cannot treat this as negotiable.

(for the literal minded reader, No Healthcare is not the same thing as slavery or segregation, I'm merely making a point of motivation)

As a foreigner looking in from the outside (and, for most of last year, as an exchange student looking in from the inside), American politics often baffles me. The widespread notion that "more government is always bad" is particularly puzzling, even though I understand the historical and economic reasons behind it; taken to its extreme, it leads to "socialism" being the political strawman argument it has become, with few people actually knowing what "socialism" means (and ignoring the fact that "social democracy" would be a much more accurate term to describe the political ideology of many left-leaning European and Canadian parties). The current debate over health care, as strange as it may be to witness for outsiders, does therefore make sense in that context. The mistrust of Obama's health care plan originates in part from that general mistrust of government, and the people who oppose it are very aware of that sentiment: as outrageous as it may be, the idea of "death panels" plays on that fear of a big government that would try to regulate every aspect of its citizens' life (and death).

While I agree with you when you call universal health care a "moral imperative," I am not sure it is the right approach either. Many of the town hall protesters have proven that they don't see it that way, that they don't have a problem with having health insurance while others don't or can't afford it. Just when you believe rugged individualism is a thing of the past, it rears its head again.

As a pro-life Democrat and a liberal, I have been saddened by the tenor of this public debate. Many of those who claim that their primary agenda is the protection of innocent life seem so willing to cling to "death panel" meme to terminate the debate; they jump to the unsupported conclusion that universal health care would force doctors to perform abortions and would encode euthanasia. Nothing is further from the truth. Thank you for including the passage from Matthew. If all Christians took it to heart in the public sphere as well as the private, the answer to proposals for universal health care would be a resounding "Amen!"

When I moved to my present town 26 years ago, I was appalled that a doctor visit was $35 instead of the $15 that I was paying in a small midwestern town. Now, an office visit is $200. Multiple factors have caused the price to rise faster than inflation.

I pay for expensive insurance, and I have freedom to choose. It is important to me and that is why I spend the money on it. Do I like this? Of course not, when I don't need healthcare it seems like a waste, but when I needed it, I was happy that I could choose the best doctor, I did not have to take on-call person. Other people choose the least expensive insurance, and are surprised that there are limits to coverage. When you say that your policy maxed out that probably means that the insurance company has paid a million dollars for your care. I pay $8000/yr and they will accept the risk of having to pay up to a million dollars.

There is a wide variety of treatment choices for any given condition, sometimes it is hard to tell if you doctor is on the cutting edge or the lunatic fringe. Should insurance include untried and unproven treatments? (Don't get me started on alternative medicine.) What constitute adequate treatment?

My friend had "free" medical treatment at a military facility. Because of treatment protocols she waited (in constant pain) for 2 years for surgery. Look at existing government health systems: active duty military, VA and Indian Health Services. Tell me if you are impressed.

It is an enormously complicated system, and destroying it to "save" it does not make any sense. Again, rushing through hastily considered legislation seems unlikely to improve it. What do these 1000 pages of vaguely worded things really mean and what will the unintended consequences be? I think a good place to start is with tort reform, see how that goes, then move on to the next single target.

I'm from Barcelona, and both people and the media keep repeating all the time: "This is the best place to live. We have sun, good food. No other place in the world is like our country". They repeat it so often than I believed it. Then I moved to the cold northen Europe, and I discovered that people is happier here: they work less hours, they have more money to pay their bills, they can spend a lot of time with their children, they have a lot of social advantages.

The main problem here is that Spaniards don't travel a lot: they don't have enough money, and 30 years ago the country was still a dictatorship. And what is worse, they don't want to hear that other places may be better in some aspects.

Therefore... travel, compare and LEARN!

BTW, both Spain and Norway have universal health care, there are no death panels, and that other famous idea about Scandinavians and the suicide ratio is just false. Look at the statistics.

"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. The only nation in which that word, in and of itself, is thought to bring the discussion to a close."

McCarthy used Cold War paranoia to pursue his witchhunt and install a pathological fear of the left in people's mind, but I think it was Milton Friedman's economic 'theories' (aka Chicago School Economics, aka Reaganomics, aka trickle down economics, aka voodoo economics) that really did the most damage. It gave the rightwing (which from a European perspective includes many Democrats) a sellable alternative to Keynesian New Deal economics.

Ever since Reagan the rightwing in America with the help of the MSM has basically succeeded in convincing the majority of Americans of a false dichotomy:

- (Milton Friedmanist) Capitalism, which they equate with patriotism, freedom, self-reliance, keeping your hard earned money, no handouts (wink, especially for 'lazy minorities')
vs
- Socialism, which has become a codeword for an unpatriotic immoral big government that interferes in the lives of people and redistributes your tax-dollars to people who don't deserve it (wink 'minorities').

While their real objective was killing the New Deal and putting in place a predatory form of capitalism that seeks to dismantle financial regulations, labor unions, minimum wages, social safety nets, taxes (especially for the rich) and the goverment in general. Leading to killer profits for the few at the top of the food chain at the expense of the middle and lower class.

This form of capitalism by its nature is very antisocial and antidemocratic and prefers dictators, local mafia, corrupt politicians (doing backroom deals) and a corrupt media to bypass the democratic will of the people. Their ideal is a lawless economy in a repressive society.

For the people who weren't paying attention to the real effects and costs of this form of capitalism in the rest of the world, last year's collapse and bailout just proved again that it's basically just one big pyramid scheme; with all the profits privatized, while all the losses are for the public once the bubbles burst. (I also think last years collapse showed that this predatory capitalism has turned canniballistic.)

The question now is: will Americans finally come to their senses and reject the economic model that has outsourced their jobs, destroyed their manufacturing base, created massive government and personal debt and inequalities, poverty and corruption on a scale not seen since the 1930's. Or will the Friedmans and Gordon Gekko's of the world again dupe the public into believing that the only alternative to predatory greed is totalitarian socialism?

The way I see it, real health care reform in the USA is just the first step in healing a society that let rightwing ideology run amok for too long without any real opposition. And arguably the most important step, because it will show if at least one of the two parties still believes in the New Deal or just pays lip service to it.

(PS: Roger, in your text you mention both Netherlands and Holland. Holland is the western (most populous) part of the Netherlands.)

as an Australian, I find it completely befuddling to imagine that in a developed country, with no apparent lack of health facilities, one could be refused health care.

in America, you can walk into a hospital bleeding, sick and dying, and be turned away? A doctor would refuse to SAVE A LIFE because of something so abstract and comparatively worthless as money?

it's terrifying. The scope of the privilege that I have grown up with is dizzying.

I hope that health reform in America is successful. I am absolutely certain that if it is successful, those same people who are yelling and screaming in town meetings will be amongst the most grateful. (Well, maybe not the ones who are on the insurance company payroll.)

Hi Roger.

I'm a U.S. citizen who currently teaches school in Taiwan. I went home for vacation this summer and was appalled by all the thugs who shouted down their representatives at town hall meetings; no debate, no discussion, just a lot of mob-yowling triggered by Obama Hate or those oh so nasty words "socialized medicine." Well, you know what? We have socialized medicine here in Taiwan, and it works just fine. The following has been copied from Wikipedia, via "All Things Considered" on NPR:

"In 1995, Taiwan formed the National Health Insurance (NHI) model. NHI delivers universal coverage offered by a government-run insurer. The working population pays premiums split with their employers, others pay a flat rate with government help and the poor or veterans are fully subsidized. Taiwan’s citizens no longer have to worry about going bankrupt due to medical bills.[4]"

What saddened me most about those town hall "meetings" this summer was that nobody bothered to make an effort to be well-informed beforehand; just like the guy in the coffee shop who--when I mentioned I teach in Taiwan--wanted to know how I like working in a "communist" country. He didn't quite believe me when I said that Taiwan has been a democracy since 1988. Dumbing down, indeed...

Roger:

I don't know that I follow the moral or ethical imperative here. Still, it seems to me that you and the rest of the "morality" crowd should at least put your money where your mouths are. My son is autistic, and our insurance doesn't cover the cost of his therapy. When may I expect your donations to arrive in my PayPal account?

If a right to health care exists, it must be because a right to health exists. Never mind the Bill of Rights (no right to health there)--there must be some natural basis for this. The problem is, I can't find it. Animals in the wild don't appear to have a right to health, or even life. It's brutal out there. (I am in no way suggesting that it be brutal for humans.) I simply can't find a basis for health as a right--and therefore, I can't see health care as a right. (Your appeal to the Judaeo-Christian ethic strikes me as a bit cheeky, since you are no longer a religionist by your own admission.) The Animal Rights folks would surely suggest that if humans have a right to health then animals must as well, but I sure don't see much action on this.

My problem with the entire debate is that the solution currently presented does not address the problem. The problem is cost. Costs used to be low, until personal injury lawyers got involved. Tort reform, award damage caps, and faster time-to-market allowances by the FDA would go a long way towards lowering the costs of medical care.

I've always thought it immoral that "pain and suffering" awards so far exceeded the actual cost of medical care and lost wages. I don't get much support for that. The juries that thought to "stick it to the rich guy" or "stick it to the insurance company" didn't foresee the inevitable outcome--costs would rise to compensate for outrageous, morally-unsupportable awards. The juries voted themselves, and a lot of the rest of us, right out of the market.

Not smart.

Those of us with 401Ks or IRAs (I realize that this particular argument leaves out Joe-Bob down at the mill) want insurance companies to be profitable. We are likely invested in them through mutual funds and other instruments, and we know Social Security simply isn't enough for retirement. It's self-defeating to damn them.

At issue is exactly what health "insurance" is. Compare it to homeowners insurance. Homeowners insurance doesn't pay for each can of paint, nor a voluntary re-roofing, nor lightbulb replacement costs. The same is true of car insurance. Health "insurance," on the other hand, is a credit-card account that can never be paid down, but can (inexplicably) be exhausted. I was told by my son's physician's that I can't simply decide to pay cash for a weekend visit--the insurance company must be involved. This is one place where I part company with the insurance providers--the regulations and contract stipulations are ridiculous. Why would the government dare insist that we involve ourselves in this racket, on pain of fines and penalties? (Would a government-run program be any less stringent and generally stupid?)

So, back again to my original thesis: those of you who support the moral imperative to fund other people's medical treatments and therapies should step up to the plate and help my son, right here, right now. (That'd be to mrprogguy@techie.com, by the way.) If you fail to do so, I suggest that perhaps you're not as compelled by your moral bases as you claim to be.

(Or is it, as once declaimed by Linus Van Pelt, that you simply "want to be a philanthropist with someone else's money?")

Ebert: Why doesn't your insurance cover the cost of his therapy? Shoudn't it?

Our society is based lock, stock and barrel on the Judeo-Christian Ethic. The Bible is the founding document of Western civilization. One's religious beliefs aren't relevant.

My husband and I are Canadian parents of 10 kids, in elementary school, high school, and university.

What I don't understand about conservatives in the U. S. is the overall disagreement with socialized medicine in principal-- I get that some might disagree with the Obama plan, but what's wrong with universal health care in itself?

There's a lot of talk about demographics and baby busts among social conservatives, but don't they get that you really can't have a pile of kids in the U. S. without a millionaire's income if any of those kids have major health problems?

Here's our tab for major things so far:
Emergency cardiac surgery on a 10 day-old infant, complete with a helicopter ride to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Subsequent follow-up angioplasty at the age of 10 months. Problem is completely fixed. He gets an echocardiogram every two years as follow-up. Now, he's the picture of health at 7 years of age.

Emergency delivery by C-section at 26 weeks of pregnancy-- 100 days in the NICU. Laser eye surgery to correct retinopathy of prematurity and prevent blindness. Yearly follow-up visits with pediatric eye doctor. Hearing impairment-- cochlear implant at the age of one year, with 3 years of auditory verbal therapy. She's going into grade one this fall, has been performing at or above grade level in school.

Ruptured appendix-- hospital stay, follow-up surgery,follow up visits with pediatric surgeon for my 10 year old.

Not to mention all the run-of-the-mill childhood stuff, regular immunizatons, etc. And of course all those births.

Hasn't cost me a cent, except through taxes (and my husband and I together earn a good living, so we still pay a fair amount of those) which I gladly pay-- and I'll be glad to pay them until I die, as will our children, so that others can be cared for as well as we have been.

There's no way on earth we could have had this family of ours if we lived in the U. S. My husband is a teacher and I work in social services-- those procedures above would have ruined us financially.

Ebert wrote: "Strangest thing. As I was reading this, into my mind came the image from "The Seventh Seal" of the knight playing chess with Death. A wicked political cartoonist could provide Death with the face of Mrs. Palin."

Yes they could. :)

http://www3.telus.net/thiliasspace/Marie/jpegs/sarah_death.jpg

And speaking of death...

http://www3.telus.net/thiliasspace/Marie/jpegs/spamfilter.jpg

Now, the spam filter and I go back a ways here in Roger's blog. And clearly there are some unresolved personal issues. However, and in the wake of some catastrophic accident such as illustrated above, and despite our seemingly insurmountable differences of opinion, I'd still want the spam filter to be covered under a Universal Health plan.

For "I" am a compassionate humanitarian. :)

Ebert: Sign that cartoon and e-mail it back to me. It's about to go viral.

So fundamental is our universal health coverage in Canada that even our most conservative politicians would never even consider dismantling it. Nor would they want to even if they could. I don't even get the sense that health care is even a "political" issue here in Canada. It's just something that everyone has a right to, and falls outside the political ring.

And any story you see our hear in US news about Canadian dissatisfaction is either very distorted or completely made up. I'd love to see a story where a US reporter comes to Canada in search of people willing to give up our system and trade it for the US's. I bet they wouldn't find one person.

I wonder how much of the opposition in the US is based only on the fact that it was proposed by a Democratic administration. If a Republican president were to introduce the exact same bill, would the same people still be protesting it?

Directly from my last post:

"We are all responsible for everything and everyone in the face of everybody, and I more than the others."
-Dostoyevski

We always exist and experience the world with others (there is no isolated "I"), and have no other purpose but to help and care for everyone. Citing Emmanuel Levinas, the obligation to the Other is asymetrical; it is a debt I can never fully repay. The Other comes as the stranger, the widow, the orphan, the poor...and the uninsured.

The notion of autonomy perpetauted in American culture is a myth; we are more dependent on each other than we could ever come to realize.

Indeed, socialism is a word unfairly maligned in this country (USA), because people have been led to confuse "socialism" with TOTALITARIANISM!

I wish people would catch on to this simple fact. If Obama were truly TOTALITARIAN (giving (most) everybody health care???), haha, there would be NO town hall mobs to speak of for long, there would be no Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Senator Grassley or Lou Dobbs. They'd all be dead or silenced some other way. Furthermore, there wouldn't be "town halls" in the first place- only propaganda rallies. And all the shouters in a genuine propaganda rally would be swept away via militant force.

Then again, if Obama were a TOTALITARIAN- why the hell would he even pretend to give more people health care??????

Back to "socialism"- socialism is not the only word that has been unfairly maligned and misinterpreted by so many in Western/American society; indeed COMMUNISM is also also confused for, and used wrongly in an interchangeable way with TOTALITARIANISM. In fact, communism is very near to socialism- both words mean living in a manner that's for the good of everyone. Hmmm...sounds like...the NATIVE AMERICANS- or any indigenous peoples of the globe! Communism isn't about Stalin's TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP! Thanks Stalin, for ruining the good words of Karl Marx! Thanks McCarthy for enabling Stalin! Communism is a mere synonymous extension of socialism, neither term to be feared, especially when we realize that we in America are currently more Communist than Stalin's USSR ever was.

I'm sure many people will be interested to be reminded that the American Communist Party and various American Socialist parties thrived in America in the earlier half of the 20th century when big corporations were especially cruel and there was minimum government regulations, protections, and intervention to limit corporate abuses!

In truth, the people who want to deregulate, cut services, etc., etc. - the people who believe every person for themself - sounds awfully like chaos. But let's be fair- they want military, police, military, police, military, police, military, police, military, police...and private guns (maybe). Minimal rules and restrictions (except those against the poor and all non-rich folk) and lots of weapons and military and paramilitary organizations. Sounds like paradise!

NO, let's be truly fair- drop the military, drop the laws, and drop the remaining laws- and real chaos is achieved.

P.S. - Socialism and Communism are not TOTALITARIANISM.

Mr. Ebert,

I also agree the issue of morality needs to be at the forefront of discussion. Everyone SHOULD have access to good health care, regardless of their economic status.

But it seems that neither side in this debate can automatically claim the moral high ground, nor can practical issues be left out of the equation.

It all comes down to whether offering universal public health care is the best way to fix our system. Many people, in good conscience, believe this is true. Many other people (including myself) doubt this is true. We are concerned that a universal public health care system would cause MORE people to suffer and die unnecessarily, because it would not be efficient and would be unable to pay for the best care for its recipients.

I don't doubt the sincerity of the Canadians and others who have posted to praise their health care systems, but there are others from those various countries who have been extremely vocal in their criticism.

For instance, the new head of the Canadian Medical Association recently gave a speech saying their system is "imploding" and is itself in serious need of reform. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw)

Of course, it's also important to note that Dr. Doig is not calling for Canada to switch to an American-style system and dump their socialized system entirley, but she is saying that what they have is broken and needs to be fixed. Just as our system is broken and needs to be fixed. The debate is over the best way to fix it.

No system of health care is perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for perfection. And it doesn't mean we don't need health care reform of some sort. But there are those of us who do oppose the public option on moral grounds--on the very real concern that it may do more harm than good.

Others are convinced that the public option is a good idea and will indeed help more people. One of us is right and one of us is wrong, but there are people on both sides of the debate who are driven by sincere moral concerns.

I think the argument from morality is problematic because of the inherent implication that taking opposing your position must be immoral. (Of course you are not saying that, but let's be honest, many people are.) If the arguments used in favor of universal health care are not defensible, the argument can only become a more wordy version of "you're a bad person", "no you are", "no you are". I could make the argument that taxation as a percentage of income is immoral because the government's purpose is to invest for all people in equal proportion, and absolutely no one telling me that that is impractical can take me off my moral high ground. Appeals to what is "Right" are simply a dead end.

Speaking of which, I happen to work in the insurance industry (not health), and I can assure you we are not all bad people. I won't lecture on the importance of insurance to society, but me and my colleagues do believe in what we do. Our industry works because we expect, on average, to pay out less money on policies than the premium we charge, and accepting risks we are guaranteed to lose money (for example people with a pre-existing condition) is the equivalent of subsidising their care with the premium of other policies. If you think that situation is inherently untenable and a certain amount of government takeover is warranted, fine, I can talk about it with you. If you think that we in the insurance industry are greedy, heartless, immoral people and must be reigned in by the forces of good, you're not winning me over.

Ebert: What are those people to do who cannot qualify for insurance, or afford it? If you did not qualify, what would you do?

You've summed up how I feel on the topic. I am perpetually stunned that this is a political issue, split neatly down party lines.

Although, I should add that the conservatives I know that support Obama's plan are those who work in the health care industry. Anecdotal evidence, but something to think about nonetheless.

Thanks for speaking from your heart and not just your head Roger. That's one reason why so many of us come here. I'm convinced that there are Old Testament Christians and New Testament Christians, the first group focused on justice and vengeance, and the second on love and fellowship. I've known plenty of the latter who weren't Christians at all, merely godless socialists who loved their neighbors.

Please keep fighting the good fight.

PART ZWEI

I saw a video clip a few weeks ago (weeks, I think) showing a man yelling in a treateningly promissory manner, at an apparently pro health care reform senator, that someday "GOD WILL JUDGE YOU..." and so forth. Hence, God will judge the senator for passing this wildly malevolant legislation (that's what he appears to be saying anyhow).

To that I say back to the yelling man:

"And God shall judge you for coldly attempting to deny your fellow countrymen access to health care"

OR

"And God shall judge you for unscrupulously pretending to be so angry, when you're not, about such an important, moral, humanitarian issue"

OR

"And God shall FORGIVE YOU for KNOWING NOT what you SPEAK and being MISLEAD by UNSCRUPULOUS INTERESTS and their MISGUIDED SYMPATHIZERS. PRAISE! YOU ARE FORGIVEN!"

Hi Roger,

I'm glad that you are engaging in this topic. We need to see more reasoned discussion about health care. I'm not totally convinced that the proposed bill is the answer, but I also haven't seen any legitimate counter-proposals from the opposition. The opposition does not seem willing to admit that there is a problem with the current situation. Even if you currently have a job with good insurance, you are one layoff away from having no insurance. And have you priced COBRA lately? Also, anyone who claims that "my insurance is eating right, exercising, and keeping some money in savings" forgets that they are one car accident or cancer diagnosis away from being financially ruined, regardless of their superior lifestyle. I had a friend (age 39) whose husband was laid off from his job as an airplane mechanic at Northwest airlines. They chose to not pay for COBRA (claimed it was too expensive). They had a lot of savings, house was owned free and clear (no mortgage). Then she had a brain aneurysm burst and died 10 days later after a life flight by helicopter, several brain surgeries and 10 days in neurological intensive care. Her husband came close to loosing everything. I also believe that the quality of her care suffered because she did not have insurance. And as you point out, insurance policies have lifetime limits that can and do run out, especially after a major catastrophic illness. We have to do something because any one of us could end up in the same boat. We as a nation need to discuss the options in a reasonable manner, without shouting each other down.

Mr. Ebert, Thank you for your articles. It is a breath of fresh air to know that there are in fact others that feel as I do. Many misinformed readers continue spewing words such as Death Panels, The Constitution, Nazi programs etc. and I am truly amazed that these are the same individuals that lack the common sense and/or education to truly understand these references in their entirety. God Bless you and your family.

I noticed that in your list of countries, Switzerland was missing so I thought I should write to close that gap.
Our system forces all citizens to have a minimum health care plan with any of the private health care companies. The state only controls that you have health care, it does not provide any. The idea here is the same as you expressed in your writing, the state is interested that small ailments do not become big ones because people cant go to a doctor because they have not health care.
Our system is far from perfect however, cost is exploding (as everywhere else I guess). Speaking of death panels, one scary fact I heard a while ago from an insurance expert, in Switzerland more than 80% of the cost of healthcare is caused by people who have less than 1 year left to live, regardless of how much care they receive. Knowing this, it should be clear to everyone that health care is a moral question and not something we can leave to free market capitalism. Someone once said a country can be judged by the way it treats its prisoners, maybe we should rather say that about the way a country treats its sick and injured.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Roger: Universal health care is a moral imperative; unfortunately, we live under Capitalism, which includes no moral precepts--but fortunately, the proto-Capitalists who founded the U.S. were products of the Enlightenment, so Jefferson and Co. might offer some hope.

A true Enlightenment social-contract-ist (see also Rousseau and John Locke), Jefferson famously asserts we have a "right" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (for the last, Locke in The Second Treatise of Government had used the word "property," by which he means not only goods/estates but one's "person" as well as one's labor). Jefferson goes on to declare that "governments are instituted" "to secure these rights."

By "life," does Jefferson imply "health"? It would seem irrational to suppose that mere existence, regardless of the ability to enjoy liberty and pursue happiness, is much of a right--that is, a power that can be executed, used in some rational/productive way. Anyone who suffers bad health and its disabling effects (and I don't have to tell you anything about that, Roger) rightfully concludes they are a hindrance to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I know this is sounding like a "quality of life" argument, but Milton's notion that "they also serve who only stand and wait" (he was writing of his blindness) is essentially a "moral" position, not a "rational" one--and for the Age of Reason, morality matters only if it makes tangible sense; submitting to one's illness as the will of God may be a matter of salvation, but it is not a goal of "civil society," which is all about working for oneself (self-interest) and protecting the common good (enlightened self-interest--thank you, Adam Smith).

So, fans of the Enlightenment (Locke reminds us we are creatures of reason--but scolds us for not employing it as often as we should), is it possible that Mr. Small-Government Jefferson would argue that securing the right to a healthy life is a duty of government?

"'Come now, let us reason together,' says the Lord. 'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson,they shall be like wool'" (Isaiah 1:18).

When it goes bankrupt and costs thousands of lives due to inferior care, hopefully this nation will be smart enough to keep the socialists away from the government.

Again, if this stuff worked, the USSR and other socialist countries would have eaten our lunch economically. The only reason China's doing halfway ok now is because they aren't stupid enough to actually implement this destructive behavior.

Lots of Marxism is going around again lately, people just haven't learn from trial and error and just WISH SO BAD that it would work. It's a really depressing shame that it appears humanity will have to try it and fail over and over..

Ebert: Setting aside the USSR and China and speaking only of the free world democracies: Each and every one, except the U.S., has a national system of health care. How does it work for them? Why do they like it?

Thanks for this. I'm pointing my mother, who has been watching Fox News again, to it. I seriously considered blocking the channel from her set yesterday. It would take her months to figure out how to do a channel scan and unblock it.

She had no health insurance when she had her heart attack, and nearly lost her house to the hospital... and yet because of the "death panels" and that she "can't see her own doctor" she opposes the Obama plan. And no information that I provide is able to counteract what she hears on the "News".

Mr. Ebert believes universal health care is simply the RIGHT thing to do. I believe universal health care is the WRONG thing to do. I respect his opinion but I wonder if he respects mine. I suspect that he does but there's another difference between us. Mr. Ebert wants to convince me (or somebody, I guess) that he's right whereas I don't feel any need to convince him that he's wrong.

So you see, it all works out!

Next problem, please.

I have a number of libertarian acqauintances on the web who, in my opinion, exhibit almost some kind of sociopathy. When the issue comes down to money, and WIIFM (Whats In It For Me), I always like to point out that of the eight nations with a higher standard of living than ours, six of them have social healthcare and education. Gee, do you think there's a connection between healthy, educated people and a strong economy?

What, then, is the point of a society if we're disconnected from, and not looking out for, one another?

And in what venue, on what soapbox, will these folks piss and moan about social healthcare if our economy collapses, only to be surpassed by technologically advanced nations built upon a healthy, well-educated workforce? Oops.

As a conservative in the very liberal state of Massachusetts, I've learned much about the art of compromise. Joan Vennochi offers the Massachusetts healthcare plan as an option that may be palatable for most. She writes: "The Massachusetts experience also shows that with enough time and patience, bipartisan agreement can be reached. But, even in Massachusetts, agreement did not include the 'public option’ preferred by liberals. Instead, a health insurance 'connector’ links the uninsured with private health plans at more affordable rates. If that was good enough for Kennedy, the liberal lion in the bluest of states, why isn’t a national variation - accompanied by tough regulations and oversight of providers and insurers - good enough for liberals in Congress?"
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/08/20/unlikely_bay_state_pair_found_answer_on_health_care/

Conservatives don’t want to pull up the life line, Roger. We just don’t want the government to be in charge of rope.

Universal health care is unconstitutional by the mere fact that it's *not* in the U. S. Constitution. If it is such a moral imperative, then follow the procedures and amend the Constitution to include it. Otherwise, it's illegal by definition. Being, as you claim, the *right* thing to do, this should be no problem.

I like to point out to opponents of universal health care the part of the Constitution that DOES support it - the Preamble:

We the people...promote the general welfare...

Ebert, I'm afraid for all your appeals to reason, logic or even basic humanity, your point remains moot.

This is simply the wrong time to be proposing a public health care option. Let us be frank; whenever a policy is associated with an foreign influence, as represented here by "socialism" (which as you've pointed out carry with it the unfortunate connotations of hostile foreign powers) and a federal government led by a right-of-center Democratic party along with its black president and his Kenyan christening, mass hysteria and pandemonium quickly grip the Baby Boomer American public like a rabid terrier.

Fear of loss in the name of some vague notion of nationalism is a powerful opiate underlining the latent resentment many have towards an ever-changing world. And although you are astute in pointing out that many of those against reform are often those same people currently benefiting from "socialized" medicine, their anxiety reflects an increasingly polarized nation more than anything else. That is to say a nation that is experiencing a shift in demographics as white Christian conservatives slowly lose their majority status.

Remember that it was the commie-bashing Nixon that ultimately opened relations with Red China. Americans were comfortable with that because they trusted him not to sell them out. Not so with Obama. Even now there are those who call him a Muslim Radical Communist Sleeper Cell Whatever instead of seeing him for the right-of-center corporatist that he is. A minority they may be, but a very vocal and powerful minority that will use their influence in order to see to it that this country burns to ashes before accepting anything Obama attempts to implement by terrifying the conservative Democrats who were voted into office by antsy and fickle independent voters in the first place.

In sum, you can have the first black president or a major change president. Not both. Not until the situation has deteriorated to a breaking point. And if you still can't sleep at night, allay your conscience with the knowledge that you aren't telling your neighbor he "doesn't deserve" health care; rather, you're telling him he does indeed deserve it while he's calling you a Hollywood liberal armchair activist and telling you to keep your filthy elitist nanny state hands off his ineffectual insurance-based health plan. Works for me. The faster his generation departs this earth, the better we'll all be for it. You defend his right to extend his life at your own peril.

"The strength of democracy is more in its ability to react than its capacity for foresight." - Anonymous

Thank you for this thoughtful article. Yes, making health care is available to everyone is both morally and pragmatically the right thing to do.

I am stunned by the level of vitriol in the debate in the United States. I am a Canadian, and although our system is not perfect, what we criticize when we criticize is a basically a very good system which we want to make better.

No one should have to face the consequences of not being able to avail themselves of affordable healthcare. I hope that Americans -both politicians and citizens - who support the idea that health care is a basic human right hold firm to their convictions and make public healthcare a reality in the United States.

Roger, I appreciate you trying to bring reason to this topic which our media and politicians have let sink into an emotional slugfest of misinformed bellowing. But sadly, I think it's all for nought. From a young age, we Americans are taught to believe we should gladly suffer for any and all mistakes or accidents we have made, and that our neighbor, in the sociopathic tradition of Ayn Rand, should not be compelled to so much as step over us as they walk to work. We deserve the kick while we're down; why else would God have put us there?

We're told that it insults our dignity to even be offered help from the government that our taxes fund; leave the begging to the corporations, as the business of America has always been business. When even supposedly liberal idiots like Ashton Kutcher spout the mantra "I don't want to pay because some guy ate cheeseburgers all his life!" we know that our Puritanism is genetic, and so deeply ingrained that health care can never be free until we lose the instinct to punish first and smile later. It's the root of so many problems in this country. Every other developed nation treats drug addiction as a disease; here it is a crime and a character fault, and once you've been caught, the Scarlet Letter follows you forever and keeps you from working, which might make you want to stop abusing drugs. Health care is the same way; I'll be surprised if we get Universal Medicare- which is what it should be called, but the Democrats don't have the memetic wordsmiths that the repugnant Republicans do- without the doctor first asking us how we've sinned, that put us in need of care.

We've paid trillions of dollars to bail out criminal Wall Street robber barons, to feed the military industrial complex and murder hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of civilians to keep our post-World War 2 war economy rolling, but when it comes to saving the fellow citizen, we act like an Inquisitor instead of a Samaritan. If we are a Christian nation, we aren't the one Jesus would have envisioned, but Torquemada.

You are correct that this is, fundamentally, a moral issue. Proponents of so-called "universal health care" feel no moral compunctions about forcing me and my family, at gunpoint, to pay other people's bills. (If you think "at gunpoint" is over the top, try consistently not paying your taxes and see how long it is before someone shows up with a gun.) Somehow an act which virtually all of us would recognize as armed robbery if done by one individual, or two or three working together, somehow becomes justified or even downright noble when committed by millions of people at the ballot box. I reject this evil. I do not consent to be governed in this way. If you want to pay for other people's care, form a private entity that does exactly what you want the government to do, and leave me alone.

Ebert: If you don't want the government to do what it does, nobody is forcing you to live here. Find a government more to your liking.

Roger,
I have to vent here with you since you are as passionate about the health care problem. Indeed, who wouldn't need to vent when you live in America (one of he richest nations in the world) and it won't pay for universal health care.
I had an arguement the other night with a college friend of mine about Obama's health plan. He is one of the Obama-phobes and true to his position, he doesn't seem to understand the concept of the plan at all, but rather that it is by Obama and therefore bad. The only arguement he could use to counter mine was, "so you want the government controlling your health?"
Does he, and others in his camp, really think that no one is controlling your health now? If they don't think that a mighty hand is controlling your health now then, honestly, I cannot see a point in continuing to argue with them.

P.S. - And what of the 50 million uninsured Americans?

If they really wanted health care, they can bloody well start pushing for it by becoming more vocal than the naysayers. Otherwise, they have only themselves to blame.

By Guy on August 21, 2009 1:52 AM

This entry defines exactly how I feel about this farcical shouting match that claims to be a debate. I am a 19-year-old college student, and as such am completely unable to afford insurance of any kind. Until two weeks ago, I hadn't been to a doctor since I was a toddler because it was simply too expensive.

Two weeks ago, I went to the emergency room with alarming chest and arm pains. The quality of the care was top-notch; I had two EKGs and a chest x-ray done within fifteen minutes of arrival, and there was a tenured cardiologist in the room in twenty, impressive in itself because this was after midnight on a Saturday. They determined that I was not in immediate danger and admitted me for an overnight stay for observation.

Through a series of tests, it has been determined that I have a leaky aortic valve, likely caused by a birth defect wherein two of the three "flaps" of the valve fuse together. This condition is not dangerous now but probably will be within a few years.

To bring this story back to the topic at hand, I have just received my bill for this world-leading health care, to the tune of $17,000. That is nearly three times what I make in a year, and I pay for my own school. I didn't have insurance before because I couldn't afford it; now, barring this direly-needed reform, I am blacklisted for life, a life likely to be made much shorter due to the prohibitive cost of treatment.

What I would like to do is to ask one of these hive-minded, hate-spewing protesters to look me straight in the eye and tell me that my life is a waste of money; that I am not worth saving because I "irresponsibly" failed to purchase my own health insurance; that they would rather allow a young man to die of a treatable condition than open the hospital doors just a little bit wider; that their political ideology is more precious to them than the lives of 47 million fellow Americans.

I have never been one to promote outright hate; it's unhealthy and disrespectful and I used to believe that man was smart enough to find better ways to express himself. But I say this: I hate these sheep-people blindly opposing that which they do not understand. I would love nothing more than to put each and every one of them in my shoes to see how it feels to be faced with bankruptcy before the age of twenty. Their lies are despicable and are killing people every day.

Man didn't come from ape; man is ape.

America, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Smug Alert: Code Red.

What is our police force if not socialized security?

Do those that oppose a public option for health care also advocate the abolition of the police?

And what about the fire department? Surely they chose red for their trucks as a throwback to their communist roots...

"Ebert: If you don't want the government to do what it does, nobody is forcing you to live here. Find a government more to your liking. "

Love it or leave it, eh? Wow, imagine a leftist using that. Such irony.

Nick "I consider myself above all a human being. I know that may sound a little corny..."

Nope, not corny at all. What would be corny is thinking of yourself as an AMERICAN ABOVE ALL (now that's CORNY!)!

Indeed, so often the neocons and the old-fashioned cons and the ignorant are quoting the bible- but PRAISE be to Ebert for turning the Bible back on them- and in a more truthful, valid manner.

Indeed, often the far right, conservatives, and authoritarians either sincerely misinterpret the bible, or they willfully use it as a front and an excuse, by distorting it, to help justify whatever perverse agenda they have. Either way its reprehensible.

I'm a lover not a hater.

*********************************8

STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE

I must confess that I am a STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE person- but SUBSTANCE is so very very appreciated and important! 'Tis my love of style (in relative absence of substance), for intance, which motivates me to watch, and own a film like Twilight.

I must say that you, Mr. Ebert, have achieved an excellent marriage of style and substance in this, your latest of blog entries!

P.S. - I left out one scenario from prior post:

"And God will judge you for having opposed health care reform, simply as a function of your racist/hate-driven opposition to the presidency of Obama."

Contemplating Daniel Q's entry, the posted biblical references, and your response to Daniel Q's entry, I got the strange urge to share the following quote from The Satanic Bible (SELFISH) by Anton Szandor Lavey:

"When a person, by his reprehensible behavior, practically cries out to be destroyed, it is truly your moral obligation to indulge them their wish. The person who takes every opportunity to "pick on" others is often mistakenly called "sadistic". In reality, this person is a misdirected masochist who is working towards his own destruction." STYLE!

Of course health care for all is a noble thing and I truly hope that one day we can get to that point. But with us paying for two wars, bailing out banks, the auto industry and who knows what else, I just wonder how are we going to pay for this. That's really my only concern.

The constitutional argument, which you seem to be so eager to throw away... Well, it seems quite odd as you are a person who very much enjoys the protections and privledges that come from the first ammendment. But arguing such points was apparently tiresome, so you throw them all out, and appeal simply on emotional grounds.

So I'll throw out a challenge - if you're so big on ensuring that others have healthcare, then pick someone out of this blog and provide health insurance for their family. Might as well get used to it, as we've got two choices - tax people more, or ask more people to loan us money as we see just how much the world will allow us to rack up before we become deadbeat debters.

So, put your future tax money where your mouth is.

Ebert: Let's extend your argument. If you agree with our policies in the Middle East, why don't you buy a rifle and a ticket and over there? Why are you so big on ensuring that others to do your fighting for you?

Roger,

That is a wonderful biblical quote. I am certain that one can find similar moral guidance in any of the world's religions from Buddhism to Islam to Judiasm, as each has selflessness and sacrifice for the greater good of humanity at its core.

I am Jewish, Canadian, liberal. While I believe strongly that that religion has no place in politics and vice versa, religion appears to be such a large part of American Conservatism, and hope that you have touched the soul of at least one person enough to come around to the morality of universal health care.

Then again, you may have just caused a synaptic short circuit as people struggle with their dichotomous philosophies.

If it weren't for the fact that there were actually so many on the far right screaming "socialism," I'd claim Strawman on that argument. To me, that's not the real issue.

My problem with the Obama plan isn't about "socialized" medicine. The problem I have with it has more to do with what Obama's camp continues to claim the bill says, versus the wording of the actual bill itself.

For example, Obama emphatically states that no one will have to give up their current health insurance if they are happy with it. Well, if you read the bill, the reality of it appears to be more "yes and no." There are taxes that will be slapped onto businesses that don't offer the government plan (the amount depends on their payroll). However, once the business does offer the government plan, it creates some VERY specific conditions regarding whether or not employees can keep their current private insurance.

And there are other quirks that don't quite mesh with the reassurances.

Then there is the simple matter of this government's tendency toward more bloat than substance. I understand when people in other countries tell stories of how relatively simple it is to get basic care. However, I have to balance that against how incredibly complex almost all dealings with current government programs is in this country.

Am I opposed to the notion of affordable, available health coverage for everyone? Not at all. Yet I am worried about this plan. I think that the cries of "socialism" drown out any serious examination of the potential pitfalls in the plan. I also think that this is Obama's first year in office and his administration is pushing really hard to ram this bill through as fast as possible -- and many senators admit to not even having read the entire bill, yet still support it.

Seems to me that something as important as ought naught be rushed into. If it's really a good, valid plan, then it will withstand widespread, line-by-line scrutiny and debate that avoids emotionally charged words like "socialism." If it can't withstand it, then we don't want it.

Tim wrote, "(If you think "at gunpoint" is over the top, try consistently not paying your taxes and see how long it is before someone shows up with a gun.)"

Taxes pay for public schools; if you were homeschooled and don't have kids, you are paying for other people to get an education. They pay for roads; if you never leave your home ever, you are paying for other people who do. Bottom line is, if you pay taxes, you will be paying for other people's (as well as yours) bills. Saying that the introduction of public health insurance suddenly changes the nature of taxes is either hypocrisy or a lack of understanding of how government and living in a community work.

Thoreau refused to pay his taxes because he disapproved of slavery and of the US-Mexico war. But he had the moral decency not to liken taxes to "armed robbery," and accepted the consequences of his actions.

It's remarkable how the right uses communist and socailist as a slur; it's the only argument they need. My Uncle, believe it or not, is one of those card carrying conservatives. The other day, my mother mentioned that I was such a nerd that I came into the room and turned on Hannity and Colmes (it was not Hannity and Colmes, it way Bill Moyers!). Then they got into a conversation about pundits and my mom mentioned that I watched Rachel Maddow, who he called a communist.

This is a man who works for the government, fixing government run roads and bridges, got all of his kids into a state school because he works for the government, whose sister in law lost her business due to cancer, and opposes things like Cash for Clunkers, the President's healthcare plan and Rachel Maddow, because they're... communist?

And that isn't the first time I've seen this! I once heard a girl say that her father was complaining about the president taking money from him, but apperently, it's okay for the government to take money from others to pay for his little girl's education.

The hippocracy is outstanding. They care so much about the fetuses that no one will ever miss, but not for the 18000 who die every year because they can't afford not to, and the 900000 who will go bankrupt, most of whom have insurance. And their arguments boil down to lies, exagerations, and an absurd fear of socialism. This in an issue about people dying and how we take care of our citizens, and yet our elected officials manage to politicize the issue to keep the cash flowing. Then the conservatives lap it up as Fox News drums up fear.

This is a debate we should have had after WWII, when other countries began to provide healthcare to its people. How many have died since then?

Anatole France once said, when critiquing the `equality` provided by the state, that - yes, everyone has the right to live under a bridge. Only in the USA do people actually fight to maintain the right (and conditions) to (literally in some cases) live under a bridge. Of course, in reality, as expressed by some of your readers, the intent is really to provide others the right to live under a bridge.

An observation: Your president is weak. With the amount of power the democrats have now it is unfortunately quite telling the little difference the present pres has made since the last one, when provided the opportunity.

By Tim: Proponents of so-called "universal health care" feel no moral compunctions about forcing me and my family, at gunpoint, to pay other people's bills.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't your taxes already pay for a whole list of things that you personally will never benefit from? Maybe every individual in the whole country should have their tax money set aside with their name on it so that the government only spends it on things that specifically benefit each person?

If using a portion of your tax dollars to pay for the care of your fellow citizens is unacceptable to you, maybe when you send in your next tax return you should include a map of roads in your neighborhood, so your money can be used to fix up only those ones and no others. It must drive you crazy to think of the government spending your hard earned money to build a road somewhere that you will never even get to drive on.

"If it doesn't directly benefit me, why should I care?" - this perceived attitude of your country is why you're generally thought of so poorly around the world.

It's amazing how selfish and heartless people can be. They reject universal healthcare because they want their evil, socialist government to keep its hands off their money. When did we get to the point where money is more important than life? And I find it extremely ironic that most rejecting universal healthcare do so because they want to retain their "right to choose." But these are the same people that fight to have Roe v. Wade overturned because they see it as a slap in the face to the sanctity of life. I see universal healthcare in the same way they see abortion. Life is precious and valuable. Why deny someone healthcare coverage because you don't want to give up your "right to choose?"

The need for universal health care has become an acknowledgment that health care is a right not a privilege. When costs were lower, and doctors made house calls, and insurance companies didn't determine how your doctor treated you, it used to work, but not any more. Call it socialism if you like, call it a principle of basic goodness, I call it a right. A human right. Since our country is blessed with all sorts of riches, including wonderful medical schools, talented physicians and nurses, and hospitals galore, we need to go about the business of providing every human being with the right to competent health care. And Roger, I wish that you could stay well. We need your voice.

Mr. Ebert,

I have read your movie reviews consistently over the years and always knew by your writings that you were a wise, insightful and thoughtful person. I have never agreed with you politically but I certainly never let that interfere with my enjoyment of your reviews and website. By the way, I am most definitely not a liberal and most definitely not a conservative.

I have never commented on this blog before but the first paragraph of your post really struck me, because the morality of the issue is the most important way to analyze it (and every philisophical issue, in my mind). I personally believe that this country has moved rapidly in the direction of statism, not because of arguments of economic efficiency (it is widely accepted that capitalism is the most efficient ever in existence) but because people have accepted the wrong morality - altruism.

I hope you will read the following link which states my position on health care much better that I ever could. The arguments made are specifically in opposition to your statement – which should be the focus of the debate - that health care is a right.

http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html

A good case for universal health care but what about the people that suffer with problems and don't wish to hoist his or her burden on the rest of the country. Last year my wife had two expensive surgeries (expensive to us anyway) a few months apart. We are making payments on them every month. We have worked it into our budget and have gone without a lot of things we would like to have. We don't want a hand out and we don't even want sympathy. Call it what you want (socialism or whatever) but I believe it's immoral to place the burden of my responsiblities on someone who bares enough of his own. I'll pay my own way and make my own decisions. If the government was doing some many things it has no business doing in the first place we would all have more money and charities would flourish.

I know from talking to others I am not the only person who struggles with medical bills but feels the same. My struggles may not be as severe as some (I believe I've been blessed) but they are mine.

Ebert: What do you do if your money runs out?

You write: It is "socialism." Again, yes. 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.

I'm afraid as much as I agree with your arguments overall (as a fellow health care reform proponent myself), I have to take exception with what you wrote in the above. I'm only a casual student of political science, but this much I know: the meaning of the word "socialism" is not what most people on the left or the right think it is, and its frequent misuse in the public discourse is a reflection of a corrosive pattern of sloppy, intellectually careless thinking about politics in American society that seriously damages the quality and integrity of the discourse.

"Socialism" in it's earliest uses in the economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels was simply a synonym for "Communism," which referred specifically to an economic system in which workers had, through revolution, seized control over all the means of economic production in a formerly capitalist state. In a socialist economy, the theory went, everything--all commerce, all industry, all property--would be seized in a bloody revolt by the masses of oppressed workers, who would then go about equitably divvying up the wealth they generated through their labor in a more equitable way that eliminated capitalist profit-taking and exploitation.

Later, Lenin revised these ideas to redefine "socialism" as a form of transitional political and economic system that a revolutionary state passes through on its way from capitalism to full-fledged communism, in which a strong central government temporarily maintains control of the means of economic production, with mechanisms for centrally planning the distribution of resources, until such time as the workers are ready to assume control of the means of production for themselves (which, of course, never happened in practice in the Soviet Union).

What most people mean when they use the term "socialism" is not socialism at all. It's "social democracy," which is a distinct political ideology with different historical and ideological roots. To think that health care reform brings us in any way closer to socialism, as that term is properly applied, is so misguided and at odds with reality as to strain even the limits of absurdity.

[cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism]

Also, for those arguing the US government's role is constitutionally restricted to preserving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness I pose this question: What could possibly pose a greater threat to a person's life and property than not having affordable access to adequate health care? Why is it the government's duty to protect us from armed robbers but not illnesses that are just as capable of depriving us of our basic rights?

Rodger, I think you're missing the real point of this debate. Which is how do you pay for it?

I would love to be able to give everyone free health care, day care, a living wage, college and a four day work week.

But nothing is free as you know. Our deficits are already out of control and you want to add an even further burden to our children?

I haven't seen you or one poster talk about how one pays for all of this.

I am happy for you that you apparently make so much money that you don't mind paying even more taxes. I don't know what you consider a fair tax rate, but those of us living in NYC already pay a combined marginal rate of over 50% in various taxes.

I don't mind paying taxes, I want good schools, I want good police and fire protection, and well kept parks...I believe in a safety net, NASA, ect.

But I already kick in 50%.

How much more do you want me to pay Rodger?

Very well, I agree. I do object to the governemnt run health care option, mainly because I am familiar with the government's previous work and find it wanting. While the news agencies bounce this issue back and forth (MSNBC wanting to French kiss Obama, FOX wanting to deport him, so much for getting the straight info!) there was a blurb on CNN about the Post Office ceasing Saturday deliveries. My primary objection to all of this is the timeline. It's my policy never to trust any salesman who adds the pitch-line 'But you must act RIGHT NOW!!!'. Let's take our time.

As for the Canadian approach, I certainly can't argue with Canadians who have and love it. My thought on it is that with 33 million folks and a defense budget of roughly 18 billion bucks, it has to be easier to run their health care system than with our population of over 300 million while spending over 500 billion on defense. Yes, I know the proposed plan will not cover everyone, but with some Dems suggesting they WANT to go single payer, how do I know I'm not being lured into an ever tightening trap that becomes harder to get out of as I go?

I object to having objections that label me part of a mob, or unAmerican. There is absolutely nothing MORE American than dissent. If I knew that with this plan that the uninsured would be insured and that's all, of course I would support it. I just have too many questions about the pushers to take what they are pushing.

God Bless you Sir.

Why I Oppose Universal Health Care

First, let me state the core beliefs upon which my opinion is founded:
- I believe in equality of opportunity over equality of ends
- People make choices, and are morally accountable for the consequences of their decisions
- People who make foolish choices are less likely to be able to afford private health insurance
- "Charity" enforced at the barrel of a gun is not charity, but armed robbery, and is morally wrong

Why are people poor? I would argue that in at least 90% of the cases, it is because they have made foolish choices. Maybe they didn't work hard in school, and failed to get a high school diploma. Maybe they got pregnant at an early age, and were unable to financially support their child. Maybe they bought houses or cars they couldn't afford, or racked up excessive credit card debt. Maybe they majored in Art History in college, instead of a marketable skill such as Engineering. Maybe they didn't save their money during times of plenty, so that when the rainy day came (such as cancer), they didn't have enough.

My own life experiences, and observing the lives of both the "rich" and the "poor", support this belief. In the vast majority of cases, the "poor" people I know are not poor because they don't have enough money, but because they made poor choices. The "rich" people I know have earned their wealth though hard work by the sweat of their brow.

My father was born into abject poverty in Ohio. Too poor to afford college, he joined the Army after high school, and saved his money. When he left the Service, he went to college and majored in Math while working a 40 hour a week job. When he graduated, he was able to parlay his Math degree and the Electronics skills he had obtained in the military into a job with IBM. He pulled himself up by his bootstraps, from poverty into the middle class, without accepting a dime of taxpayer money. What one man can do, so can another, and another, and another.

My grandfather lived through the Great Depression. He tells me that before FDR's New Deal programs, life was hard, but people provided for themselves. After the New Deal, peole realized that the taxpayer would be supporting them, so they quit working hard. Incidentally, my grandfather never earned more than $40,000 a year. He was an air-conditioner repair man. While not wealthy, he certainly isn't poor. Why? Because he worked hard, lived beneath his means, and made wise choices. He also opposes universal health care.

Are you telling me that I am morally (and legally) obligated to bail someone else out for making foolish choices, and being unable to afford private health insurance? I ask you to take an honest look into your own heart: if we both have $20, and I spend mine on beer, and you spend yours on food, do I have a moral right to take a gun, put it to your head, and demand your groceries because I "need" them? Equality of OPPORTUNITY over equality of ENDS

You say that health care costs are so high that even avarage people can't afford them? I tell you that the reason why they are high is precisely because of Socialist policiies. When doctors and patients know that the taxpayer will foot the bill, it encourages abuse. I've seen it firsthand: hospitals billing Medicaid and Medicare for services that were never provided, at grossly inflated rates. Hospitals forced to treat patients without insurance in emergency rooms, then turning around and billing the cost to those who can pay. Eliminate Socialist policies, and I'll wager money that you'll see health care costs drop dramatically (which in turn would enable more people to be able to afford them).

One final observation: there are many private charitable organizations that help those in need. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone deserves a second chance -- provided that they recognize the mistakes they made, and are committed to making a sincere attempt to change and not make the same mistakes again. If the taxpayer isn't forced to bear the cost of Socialist policies, they will have more money (and, I suspect, more inclination) to contrbute to these charities. If people knew that the taxpayer wouldn't be bailing them out, then they wouldn't be as likely to made foolish choices.

Hi Roger,

I appreciated your piece, as always. Well argued. Some thoughts:

1. The most illustrative point in your piece is the mis-citation of the Bill of Rights:

It is a peculiarity that some of those happiest to cite the Constitution are the least interested in its Bill of Rights.

Conservatives understand that the Bill of "Rights" is not about entitlements from our Federal Government. Far from it.

Conservatives understand that the Bill of Rights was an explicit proscription by our founders of what the Government should not and could not do!

Hey Federal Government! Keep your inefficient and repressive paws off of our free speech. Our right to assembly. Our right to bear arms. Stay out of our houses. Leave our property alone. Respect our liberty!

That's what the Bill of Rights is about. We should add to that: hey Federal Government, keep your inefficient and onerous taxation paws off of our health care!

2. Ann Coulter has this argument exactly right. This is a classical liberal two-step.

Step 1: Cripple an industry with intrusive and repressive government regulation and red tape and onerous taxation. (Like not allowing us to buy health insurance across state lines).

Step 2: Declare it hopelessly disfunctional, with the only fix being more regulation and taxation! In fact, the only remedy being complete government takeover.

3. USA, as a predominately Judeo-Christian nation, loves Matthew 25. All of us. We just profoundly disagree on how to implement it.

Liberals believe that "government" equals "community".

Conservatives believe that government hinders community, at least in charitable contexts.

America is a deeply geneours and charitable and compassionate nation. We help each other in countless monetary ways, on top of what the government takes and squanders. Do you doubt that? Do you doubt that private charity is much more efficient that government programs?

4. The entire society shares the cost.

No, we don't. And that's part of the problem. UHC would be primarily income tax supported. 50% of Americans do not pay income tax. 100% of Americans would be covered. That's unsupportable in the long run.

5. It does not replace private medicine.

Then why has President Obama floated the trial balloon of "mandates". Don't you remember the fiasco of HillaryCare, where everyone would be forced into the plan or pay exorbitant penalties? That's what statists want, and what statists do. And Barack and company are proving to be capital S Statists!

Go back to Obama's speech where he toyed with the notion that "you have to have healthy people in the pool to cover the costs of the sick." Just like insurance companies need a wide pool of healthy premium payers to cover the costs of the sick. Mandates. Yes, Obama has floated that word.

Roger, we're all compassionate. Really. We all want to see everyone covered and no one ruined by catastrophic illness. We just profoundly disagree on how to do it.

We are a nation founded on liberty, not socialism.

Randy

Ebert: Liberty and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Just ask the other Western democracies.

Whenever I see things like

"When it goes bankrupt and costs thousands of lives due to inferior care, hopefully this nation will be smart enough to keep the socialists away from the government."

I always wonder what these conservatives think of our armed forces, policemen, and firemen? Those are not private entities. Do these people think our men in uniform are incompetent and inferior? Should we keep "socialism" out of the government as far as these services are concerned, too?

Wonderful! This is exactly the kind of discussion or presentation of opinion I said was lacking in so much of the debate in our culture at the moment. I greatly appreciate it.

And in response to Bob K. I know some people who do indeed think that some of those institutions should be privatized as well.

It's easy to label something with moral imperatives. It has been a "moral imperative" for the fundamentalist Mormons to marry multiple women. It has been "morally imperative" to ban interracial marriage or reduce the surplus populations of undesirable groups through forced sterilization. All of these have been moral imperatives here in the US as late as the 20th century. Moral imperatives are easy to declare. In this case, I agree that caring for everyone is good and worthy, but I ask: how can we pay for it?

We can't afford universal health care because the US Government is broke. Social Security payments just surpassed intake this year, and will do so permanently by 2016 or so. Since we have no spare cash to pay those payments, we will have to borrow that money or quit spending on something else. At the current rate, the US Government will be doing absolutely nothing but Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and debt service by 2035 or so, and that assumes no debt or spending growth.

In the shorter term, we are running out of creditors. The US will have to borrow 1.5 Trillion US Dollars this year (we got lucky; 300 billion didn't get spent on bailouts). Next year, we will spend almost 2 Trillion US Dollars more than the government will take in (BEFORE health care changes). That will continue for at least 10 more years, by White House estimates. Currently, we are only funding this by the good graces of the Chinese, Japanese, and the oil producing world. The Chinese government is already publicly doubting the US government's ability to pay this debt; they should since it's clear we have no intention of ever paying it back. The moment that the Chinese, the Japanese, or the oil producing countries decide that they want to quit the loans, our government is bankrupt.

And saying "We'll tax our rich" won't work. There are around 118 million households in the US, earning approximately $8 trillion. 49% of that, around $4 trillion, is earned by just 20 percent of the population, 23 million households. If you were to tax 100% of all income over 100K per household, you would draw in only $2.3 trillion at a maximum. This would barely cover the deficit right now, and would destroy our economy to boot.

To fund what we're doing right now, we would have to tax everyone to the point of pain and suffering. The rich will hide money, and corporations do nothing but pass their taxes on to their customers (or go broke). To make a movie reference, think of a bad Robin Hood movie. Scene 1: the tax collectors take the poor family's last meal for the tax, just before Robin and crew come and beat them. That's the kind of taxation we'd need to fund the current debt load and prevent what's coming in the very near future.

Like addicts, we have to make the first steps to digging out of debt: admit we have a problem. We can't pay for more health care; we can't pay for the programs we're running now. We need to spend less right this moment, because we need to leave our kids, and possibly ourselves, SOMETHING other than a bankrupt government and a failed economy.

Three things:

1. I'm glad you ended with the quote from Matthew. The same passage stood out to me when this debate first got cranked up and going. I've never quite understood why so many of the people who believe America is a Christian nation are the same people who view universal health care with contempt. When did Jesus become a staunch free market capitalist?

2. My mother was on trip in England a few years ago when she became violently ill (complications from cancer treatments), and she had to go through the much reviled UK socialist medical system. She had nothing but good things to say about the speed and quality of her treatment. Mom, a staunch Republican, told me, "If that's socialized medicine, I guess it works."

3. The current death panel "debate" is ironic since there's already such a thing as a death panel. It's called your HMO.

tBoy, people really do get worked up about this, don't they?

Mr. Ebert is simply stating his opinion and probably trying to stiffen the resolve of those legislators who agree with his position.

It must upset every supporter of universal healthcare that things are going the way they are going. Sure, blame those angry people at townhall meetings. Some of them are idiots, no doubt about it. Every group has its share.

The simple truth is that the group with the power in this debate is afraid to exercise it. They have the votes, they merely lack the will. They're not worried about moral imperatives, they're worried about saving their jobs. How's that for morality?

Profiles in courage. Always blaming somebody else. Hey, we're afraid to vote on this thing so let's just keep blaming all those angry people.

Mr. Ebert thinks it's the right thing to do. A lot of Democratic legislators think it's the right thing to do. So, why isn't it done already? We must be holding up a vote on this because we'd really like it to be bipartisan, right? Please. It's not going to be bipartisan and everybody knows it so vote already.

What a bunch of wimps this country has elected.

Ebert wrote: But never mind. I want to offer some information. Ninety percent of high blood pressure is linked to sodium intake. Period. Lower your sodium intake, and down goes your blood pressure.

Sea salt is actually quite healthy. Natural salt was so precious it was used in the ancient world as currency in some places. The problem is with processed foods. And regarding that stat - it has never been linked directly to sodium intake. Of hypertension cases studied, in only 10% was the was the cause discoverable. Of those, virtually all were genetic or stress related. Low sodium (according to the University of Bonn), due to the resulting lowered blood volume, was more dangerous than the hypertension the sodium reduction intended to fix. Generally I would say the research indicates that natural sodium, that is from non-processed food sources is, as it has always been, quite healthy.

I guess it really doesn't matter but there are multiple Robs posting today. I trust that you see we are different people. One of us can spell. No, I'm not picking on somebody for poor spelling and grammar, just pointing out the most obvious way to tell us apart.

Let the debate rage on!

"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."

Just to pint out Roger ... this is not correct. I have health insurance through my job that covers things the government haelth insurance does not (mainly dental care, prescriptions, and eyeglasses), but I am most certainly not free to buy private insurance or see private physicians. Don't get me wrong ... I am not the least bit against our health care system, but I thought I should clarify that point.

Also, keep in mind that the Canadian health care system is federally funded, but managed on a provincial level with additional financing from the provinces. Hence, there is no single "Canadian" system ... there are variations from province to province. The broadest strokes and the fundamental rules that govern the system are set federally though.

Like other folks, not being American, I prefer to sit this debate out, but I'm rooting for you folks. Good luck.

I'm overwhelmed by the degree of selfishness that most American people have achieved. It's strange how financing the war in Iraq wasn't that big an issue for most American taxpayers, but this matter, which points to the ultimate well being of all citizens, finds such extreme aversion.

Ebert: We had a couple pf trillion to force our help on the people of Iraq, but to hell with Americans.

I'd like to see those who oppose Socialism try living without some of the pieces of Socialism we have right now. If you've ever received a letter from the US Postal Service, or checked out a book from the library, thank Socialism. If you've ever been saved from a house fire by a fireman, you can thank Socialism too. Drinking water, Highways, Public Schools, and the Police are all services provided by government and are all Socialist.

In fact, the basic idea for health care sounds a lot like the current system for public education. The government provides schools for everyone that are paid for by taxes. These schools may not provide the best possible education, but it's significantly better than no education at all. If you are unsatisfied with the public school system, there are also many private schools that you can attend. These are generally better than public schools, but now you have to pay to attend these. The plan for healthcare seems similar. We all can have the free health care, but if we want to go to a private insurer you also have that option.

Ebert: Let's extend your argument. If you agree with our policies in the Middle East, why don't you buy a rifle and a ticket and over there? Why are you so big on ensuring that others to do your fighting for you?

I don't agree with our policies in the Middle East; they are costly, in terms of both money and in the lives of talented young people, for empty objectives that will never serve the national interest.

I take it from your lack of response to the presented challenge, that of providing health care for a family that is engaged in this debate with you, that you're not exactly thrilled about the concept of paying for someone else's health care. Well, you'd best pay attention to the health care debate, as you are one of the highlighted targets - you make enough money that your taxes will be raised. You receive health care benefits from your union, which will be taxed to help pay for the health care of others, and most significantly, since we have a finite number of doctors and hospitals, you're willing for your own care to be diminished to provide care for others.

Why not just skip the middle man and do it yourself? Least you could have the personal satisfaction of following a family that you're helping, rather than an impersonal government tax collector.

Ebert: Society doesn't work that way. I think you know that. I am willing to help in the care of all. My private charities are my private concern.

Your biggest flaw in the entire argument Roger is that you think democracy and freedom go hand in hand. They don't at all.

If 51% (or 48% or 0% or whatever is required to get the electoral votes) of the people think you should have higher taxes then you have higher taxes. And for some period of time that money is taken from you against your will and you have no recourse. How's that free?

Or if the President and congress decide to institute the draft and send you off to war. Or anything at all. Where's the freedom in democracy?

Ebert: You're confusing freedom with anarchy.

For those pointing out that the Canadian system has problems too -

the issue here, on this blog, and in the US, is whether or not UHC should exist, not whether, should it exist, it will be perfect. Obviously, the Canadian system is flawed, but the argument is not binary. These folks seem to be disingenuously implying that, since the Canadian system is flawed, perhaps Canadians are in the same boat as a country with no UHC. Even a flawed (not inept) system is a-different-world better than nothing.

And concerning the *devastating* financial costs of the UHC project: how are all other societies that have some form of UHC managing to remain above anarchy and chaos?

I 100% agree with you. However I am at a loss for the following argument made by the opposing side:

"If a man doesn't willingly and knowingly take care of himself - he eats like crap, doesn't exercise, smokes, drinks, et cetera - why should I have to pay for his health care?"

This person rightly assumes that this unhealthy individual will require more money in terms of health care costs. I'm curious as to what would you say to this argument? I need a good comeback next time this comes up :)

Ebert: "There but for the grace of God go I."

Ebert: If you don't want the government to do what it does, nobody is forcing you to live here. Find a government more to your liking.

Which one? Why should I have to do that? Why can't I just be free? This argument is as childish when liberals make it as it is when patriotic (nationalistic?) Republicans or conservatives make it.

Ebert: In other words, free to disobey the laws you disagree with? It's called civil disobedience. I'm sure you know that.

Joel Maye makes an excellent point. Perhaps we should first amend the Constitution to guarantee health care as a right (under the umbrella of a wider human rights amendment?) before we try to put a practical plan into place.

Modern healthcare technology would have been unfathomable to the framers of the Constitution, but they were wise enough to build into the law a process to update it for changing times. Why have we neglected this process for so many important issues? Is it due to the legacy of Prohibition?

I am devastated today. My beloved sister-in-law, Vickie, died suddenly Thursday in the wee hours of the morning. My husband's little sister, she was like a sister to me as well since I'm the only girl in my immediate family. She was such a brightly burning light, and the most positive person I ever met. She suffered a triple brain aneurism (sp?) in 2002 and almost died then. Tough as nails, she made it through. Paralyzed on one side and blind in one eye, she couldn't stand to be idle. She tooled around her small Indiana town on her scooter and kept as busy as she could.

Although she worked hard all her life, she had a hell of a time getting health care after her aneruisms. Her husband came out of retirement with his catering business to pay for Cobra until that ran out. It took three years, an expensive lawyer, and two rejections before Vickie was able to receive disability.

She had problems on and off, but was always upbeat and hilarious. Her death was very sudden and unexpected, although peaceful. She died in her sleep.

I wonder through all this debate, did Vickie get the best healthcare possible? Would she have lived longer in Canada with their healthcare policy?

I will close with a tribute to this amazing woman. Her many careers included wife, mother, caretaker of sick mother, bar owner, caterer, and finally head cook at a prison. An excellent cook and fearless broad, she ran a kitchen staffed with prison trustees who adored her. However, her famous jello cake resulted in a dining room riot at the prison when the prisoners began fighting over one another's jello cake. The warden had to declare the jello cake verboten, and Vickie was not allowed to serve it any more. She suffered her triple aneurism while employed with the prison, and she was forever bombarded with the well-wishes and prayers of the prisoners. They still miss her cooking.

I love you Vickie. If there is a heaven, I know you're the loudest, bawdiest, funniest gal there. I'm jealous of the angels right now.

Ebert: Blind in one eye, paralyzed on one side, but not disabled. What did the insurance adjuster argue? You only need one eye and one side?

As happy as I am to hear the benefits of universal health care from our Canadian and British brothers, I must insist comparing the merits of these programs does not apply to current health care reforms.

President Obama wishes to create a governemnt sponsered insurance company. The matter is this simple. The President is not advocating "universal health care." The government will not run hospitals or doctors.

I enjoyed your passionate article in moral defense of universal health. It exceeds your own lofty standards. However, particiapting in this type of debate allows the right to control the "battlground." By controlling this battleground, the right has been able to sweep the facts under the rug. They throw around "Socialism" and "death panel" and "France" as if these were points in of themselves--you pointed this out quite eloquently in the death panels article.

Wikipedia defnies a straw man argument as an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. The right is running one hell of a straw man arguement, and articles like this one, no matter how thought out or well intentioned, only enable this behavior.

a wee digression, perhaps...

"If it doesn't directly benefit me, why should I care?" - this perceived attitude of your country is why you're generally thought of so poorly around the world.

There is truth in this. One recognizes the bigotry of lumping all individuals into a stereotype. Even a society like Canada has its share of scandalization (ie government/military involvement in Haiti - which is not even a blip on our national political forum radar). Certainly no society is above reproach. But then again, no society waves the flag and assumes its own special place (and role) as the light on the hill for all others to follow as does the average American. It is your national religion. And, best case, the rest of us (non-Americans) are just baffled, sometimes ruffled by the astonishing ignorance required to balance the religious patriotism with the rather unimpressiveness of your social mores as exemplified by the lack of quality of life provided for those who have not (which, in this case, are not the stereotypical `parasites` but are hardworking contributers to the wealth of your society who get destroyed through no fault of their own). So please, do not come to another country and wave the flag and get put out of joint because people look at you as if you are crazy. It is a reasonable reaction, based on our perspective.

Roger,
I think it all boils down to whether one thinks of the health care issue in terms of "me" or "us". Off the topic, over the last few months I can "hear" the tone of your writing changing, more hopeful,as if you're more at peace with your lot. Keep up the good work, we need you to wear the white hat now more than ever.

I recently finished reading Chris Hedges' breathtaking 2004 book, "American Fascists." Those not familiar with it can pick it up for a song on Amazon, or can hang out with the author for an hour or so here, to get the gist of it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8117853208483879448 . To summarize, it's about the religious right's "dominionist" views and intention turn the United States into a theocracy, in fulfillment of what they see as their Christian destiny. I believe their present attack on universal health care comes from a fear that such a revolution in U.S. culture would make "secular humanism" too popular.

Bob K,

There's a big big difference between the military which is setup in the constitution and the slippery slope of socializing everything you can.

There are people that probable really don't understand why and how it is that there's a tiny bit of socialism that is acceptable, even beneficial.. But after a tiny bit there's a sudden drop in the benefits and then suddenly a huge restraint on growth. Redistribution of wealth has never made a country rich. The military, police, and so on aren't 'social programs' or 'make-work' or whatever you want to compare them too. That's a very flawed point of view.

What I don't understand about the conservative perspective is that it is all based on vague generalities presented as if they were absolute truths. Example:

"50% of Americans do not pay income tax. 100% of Americans would be covered. That's unsupportable in the long run."

Who says this isn't supportable? Where's the proof? If 50% of Americans make 90-95% of the income then I think this could be supportable.

I could give a lot more examples but there is no need - you all know what I'm talking about.

The other problem I have w/conservatism is that it attempts to impose a black-and-white philosophy on a shades-of-gray world, and it is very hypocritical. Government is bad (execpt government that benefits me), capitalism is good (except when it hurts me), personal freedom is absolute (exept when it threatens me), etc. Come on, folks, if you are going to espouse a black-and-white world view, stop applying it selectively. Put your money where your mouth is.

For me, while many on the right will consider my views "liberal", I feel I just recognize the world for what it is - a complicated, shades-of-gray, place, where no one philosophy can be blinded applied to all problems. Each problem must be approached with an open mind. In this case, as you say, universal health care is a moral issue. And there is no good reason NOT to do it - it has been proved effective in many industrial nations, and at this stage of our economic development we can afford it.

I'm a teacher and had a student in my class the other day (I teach high school journalism) raise her hand as we were watching MSNBC and ask, very innocently and sweetly, "Why wouldn't someone want other people to have access to health care?"

In the situation being presented by the Obama administration, I'm at a loss to answer my student's question. It's not like it's free. It's a public option the President is proposing. It's a capitalist endeavor. It's providing services for a lesser price. If that's not what capitalism is all about, I'm not sure what is.

I can't understand how someone or some business gets hurt by this. Insurance companies weren't getting any of this money before, so they're aren't losing money. It will force those that are inflating prices to come to react to it, so I understand they could lose money in that way. Money's a powerful force and it seems like this is the overriding thing that's driving this debate.

We've got Palin's death panels and socialism and all these other things conservatives have done to scare up opposition, but if you look behind them, at the politicians making the most noise about this, you'll see the insurance company's money bursting out of these public servants pockets.

I think everyone should be able to have health insurance. But instead of the government running a big complex show I believe they should give individuals the money to buy it from private companies. That and a few rule tweaks like eliminating rescission and requiring everyone be eligible to get coverage should move the ball pretty far down the field.

Roger,
I have followed the last couple of your entries with interest. I didn't feel you needed a comment, from yet another Canadian (the correct spelling!) on your last entry. I was in complete agreement and most of my compatriots covered off what I was going to say.
For those fearing socialism, I wonder about other 'socialized' services. For example, doesn't everyone pitch in for the military?
If that's true, one of the greatest socialized services in the world is the greatest might on earth. Wouldn't it be cool if a similar amount of energy and taxpayer dollars was directed to healthcare. I guess we would then have to fear the medical-industrial complex!

Ebert wrote: Good health is a responsibility of the individual, not the state

Responding to what followed, the reader who wrote about his plan to save money to pay for his health care etc --

I may be wrong, but the consensus I think I have observed re `burden` of `paying for another`: it all seems to be in the direction of `It isnt fair that I pay[sic] for someone else`s bills`. But I havent yet (may have missed it) really heard the argument against UHC from anyone expressing the desire to not make themselves a burden on anyone else. Is that not the true meaning of `rugged invdividualism` - to be self-supportive, not a `burden` (believe me, we are all burdens on the infrastructure in many ways - we receive much much more than we pay in. Only the willfully stupid could claim otherwise.)? So why does `rugged individualism` take the place of benevolence (though it is a shallow benevolence at best since all potentially prosper)? It is a twisted philosophy. Ah, but I see. One should (following the liberal philosophy of Mills) be free to express their own benevolence their own way - that is, not be forced to by government. Ok. So who puts out your fires? You? Who responds to your 911? You? Who teaches your children? You? The list goes on and on. So, since you do relatively very little for yourself, as a rugged individualist, are you actually a rugged individualist? Or are you simply confused, ignorant and selfish (stupidly so since, as Roger has pointed out, even someone drawing healthy paycheques with healthy benefit packages may potentially and quickly face financial crisis over healthcare).

If there is a true `rugged individualist` out there who truly opposes UHC on the grounds that they wish to remain self-supporting individuals and not be a `burden` (get over it, its called being a citizen) - then simply pay your own damn bills (and fight your own fires, and arrest your own criminals and build your own roads etc etc etc)!

Very recently it seems that the argument “taxes are unconstitutional” (and/or immoral) has surfaced again, trying desperately to compare paying taxes to tyranny. We saw it with a group of protesters “teabagging” the white house. (My god, CNN has become the Daily Show! IT’S BIZARRO TV) We see people maligning taxation because it provides social services to people that aren’t them. My question to these people has always been this, and I will pose it to all who care to answer now (with any luck, Roger will take a stab at it):

When did we stop being human beings?

When did helping the weakest among us become immoral? I understand that we are a country of bootstraps, that the ideal in this country is for a man born in a low place to raise himself up regardless of his background. Certainly we are free to do this. If you don’t think so, go talk to Indian entrepreneurs, where government regulations make even starting a business a monumental task. Nobody stops us at our front door and tells us “hey, you were born in the ghetto, what are you doing out here in the suburbs? Did you steal this house?” (The routine by Dave Chappelle notwithstanding.)

And at the same time, how can we argue that we are an equal nation anymore? Depending on your circumstances, college may not be a possiblity for you. Period. A little trouble in your youth can exclude you from having any kind of well-paying job, which will exclude you from getting into college, which has only become MORE expensive, (in-state tuition at my alma mater of UW-Madison is on track to hit $10,000 a year shortly - at this point bad credit can exclude a poor student from attending a university. How is that fair?) because many public universities take state funding from taxes. I think education is a moral, noble cause. Why should anybody be denied it simply because they can’t afford it? If there are bootstraps in this country, a college degree shows us where they are, and hands them to us. It is still up to us to pull, but it’s a hell of a lot easier then fumbling around for them bootstraps.

When did helping the sick, the weak, those in need become immoral? Is it because we’re taking your money to do it? Is a noble cause only noble until it infringes on YOUR pocketbook?

I can only dream of being wealthy enough to merit a 46% income tax, but even in my dreams, I can say this: If you can’t afford a 3% tax hike on $250,000+ a year, you’re doing it wrong. And frankly, if that 3% is going to help people who can’t help themselves, if you really want to call yourself a human being, you should be darn proud to pay it. You know where this money is going. It's not lining somebody's pocketbook. It's not falling victim to corruption. It's helping.

Tyranny is not your your government doing something you disagree with. That’s called a representative democracy. As a liberal, believe you me, I've had the last 8 years to come to understand that. (Don't worry, conservatives, you will too.) Socialism is not your government making you pay taxes to fund social welfare. That’s called a compassionate system, or a welfare state, and the countries with the highest GDP/capita all have it, and yet they are still free. Just ask a Swedish citizen. A social welfare system allows those who start out too low or disadvantaged or simply unlucky to advance (and if you do not believe there is such a thing, you have not spent time in the city.) That sounds more like equal opportunity than anything else I’ve heard. That sounds moral to me.

I particularly appreciate your comment about the word 'Socialism'. I am from Australia originally, and Australians have a 'socialist' health care system.

It is not perfect - for what system is in practice? - but it is far superior to what exists in the U.S. Since I have been living here, I have overpaid for such basic insurance that I really cannot afford to see a doctor for things such as the flu I currently have (and hope isn't 'Swine flu').

I merely overpay for this insurance to prevent me from becoming bankrupt if, touch wood, I need emergency care.

Something must change in this country. Those people ranting and raving in town meetings about Socialism, and Naziism, and all the other 'isms' they fear, are screaming their ignorance to the world.

They really need to take a breath, study up and seek the greater good. It IS unacceptable for any portion of 'the wealthiest nation on earth' to suffer without the best medical insurance. I completely agree.

The whole healthcare debate makes me want to jump out of the country and into one that has intelligent debate. I find it inconceivable that idiots trump out posters of Obama with a Hitler mustache at these debates, or they'll just drown out the speaker trying to tell them about the plan instead of listening. It seems such a Bush era thing to shout and shout and hope the loudest one wins.

I'm not against conservatives per se either. I disagree with them, but due to our system both sides of the debate need to step up and give their reasoning and contribute to the discussion. But when you are confronting an echo chamber, how can anything get done?

There just seems to be a segment of the population that takes difference in ideology as a threat instead of something curious about human beings. As long as these people drag their boots and prevent real change thats needed for every citizen, it'll be unbearable to function in America.

"...all of these Canadians, without exception, reported their enthusiasm for their nation's system."

Not true. I posted and I'm not enthused about the Canadian system. I thought I made that clear.

Lenin: "Socialists are the useful idiots"

While 50% of americans pay taxes, the other 50% gets "free" medical care.

As a physician, if I only see medicare and medicaid patients I will be in a corner with a sign "will work for food"

Medicare and medicaid are run like a Monty Pyton comedy, What do we expect from "universal care".

Will Ted Kennedy go to a Universal care clinic and wait 6 months to have his malignant brain tumor treated?

Where the Royals go for treatment in the U.K.?, The common Folks have rotten teeth.

Visit D.C. General Hospital E.R., it will not get better with universal care. Neither the thosads of Charity hospitals and County Hospitals around the Country.The politicians pocket the taxpayer's money.

So much for a moral obligation, there are no morals in government.

I consider myself a conservative. I think most socialist policies applied by politicians, specially in my country (Mexico) are populism of the worst kind. I believe in free market.
That said, I also believe health care related issues are a whole different animal. It would be wonderful if free market policies applied exactly the same way from buying a car to buying health insurance, the problem is that these insurers know they are dealing with something you have no choice but to buy, or else probably die, this the reason (in my opinion) for their exthortive practices.
And for those who flagilate themselves when listening to the word "Socialsm" described as a way to subsidize one group with another group's money: Wasn't it just that to bail out Wall Street with tax payer fund (government debt) ?

To an outsider - I am Scottish, and frankly every time I have a complaint about the NHS I think, well at least it's not the American system - the strangest thing about all this is the knee-jerk reaction to the word 'socialist.' The word has been so twisted in America that it is immediately associated with communism and lack of personal freedom. Aside from McCarthy's antics I think this is tied in with the notion of the American dream: you can come from anywhere and work hard and get lots of money and a family (and guns to keep away anyone who might want a slice of your Dream). It seems to implant in young people's minds that the 'freedom' of America is the freedom to make lots of money. This system of course relies on other people not making enough money, or not making any. And it ignores the entire issue of inheritence, overlooking the fact that if you come from a rich family you probably don't even need to work for that money.

The Obama-Joker posters seem to highlight a strange and peculiarly American phenomenon. The Joker represents anarchy and evil. The one word tagline, 'SOCIALISM,' is supposed to have the same effect as it might if it said 'FASCISM.' But I think most outsiders like myself looking at this debate have the same response: it's socialist because healthcare SHOULD be socialist. In America, the connotations of the word have overtaken the denotation. I was watching Watchmen the other night and chuckled at the accusation, 'Well "free" is just another word for socialist...' Whose freedoms do these people think Obama is trying to impinge on? Except the freedom of the rich to live while the poor die. Horatio Alger has a lot to answer for.

Okay, I'll bite. Why did you reject those two comments you received on your last post?

Ebert: They were brief compliments.

Mr Ebert,
I love your reviews and I respect your opinion..but after 2 columns now, there is an enormous misunderstanding you seem to have, and I wish to correct it. Yourself, and others who agree with you, continue to be be under the impression that those, like myself, that are opposed to Obama's plan are against healthcare reform and that is completely untrue! I do not know of anyone that is not for fixing the parts of the system that are broken. Conservatives like myself just do not want the government to be in control of it. With regards to the morality arguement, I completely agree that it is right and good to help other people in need, and I agree that everyone should be able to get healthcare, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. If a train full of people is headed towards a person standing on the train tracks, you don't blow up the train full of people to save the person standing on the tracks...you simply get the person off the tracks. According to polls I have seen, 85% of people are happy with the healthcare that they have. Turning over the healthcare system to a bunch of greedy incompetent bureaucrats will severely damage everyone's healthcare..look what the govenment did to the housing industry with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That too was in the name of helping people.. Bottomline, we all want to help people, but there is a right way, and a wrong way, to do it..

Roger, you wrote that being a member of a nation means "...voluntarily subjecting ourselves to the rule of law, taxation, military service, the guaranteeing of rights to minorities, and so on." Like you, I've been somewhat bewildered by people who are against some form of universal health care, even if they themselves have no health care plan. But I may have stumbled across at least a partial explanation.

I recently read a book called "Antiquity: From the Birth of Sumerian Civilization to the Fall of the Roman Empire", by Norman F. Cantor, an American historian. Very readable, and he has a very dry delivery that at times made me roar with laughter (as when he writes of the early medieval church, "...a special place of holiness was attributed to monks and nuns in a monastic setting because of their celibacy. Monks often became bishops; nuns were told to stay in the convent and shut up.")

Anyway, he writes about the heritage of the law code of the Eastern Roman Empire, and how it greatly influenced the codes of laws of the kingdoms of Europe, and also to a lesser extent the English common law. Specifically, he cites Cicero as what might be called the holotype of the lawyer for all time. Cantor writes, 'Cicero's other main judicial doctrine would be regarded as a highly conservative one today, although in medieval or eighteenth-century England it was, at times, arguably on the progressive side.
'The idea is this: Everyone in a country, even aliens, has an equal right to the due process of law. But this judicially substantive equality does not mean that the law can be used to amend hierarchical class structure and the economic inequality that exist in society. (emphasis JMW's) Indeed, the due process of the law signifies not only an equal chance in the law courts for the poor man, but also protection of the rich man's property and privilege.
'Cicero hated anything that smacked of what the ancients called "an agrarian law," using law to redistribute property to the poor - that is, socialism. That was morally wrong and politically dysfunctional, and would destroy the stability and harmony of the Republic. Cicero's bifocal vision - legal equality, social and economic inequality, both confirmed by the law - became central to English common-law culture in the period of formation, 1200-1500. It also became the cardinal doctrine of the Whig political party in England, and of the American Federalists and their Republican successors.'

Roger:

A thoughtful, rational posting. Seems to me the death panel is on the other side, the right side: They seem to be saying: If you don't have the dough, out you go...

I'm a 28 year old Canadian. My experiences with our health care system have been consistently wonderful. When my aunt, who lives in a small town, needed to be airlifted to a hospital in a city after she had a stroke she didn't pay a dime. How can someone NOT want that?

I have many U.S. friends and it saddens me to no end when I see what is going on at those town halls. It is, quite simply, MADNESS.

I enjoy a good debate but when I hear what's going on down there I become so stupefied that I barely know what to say.

Are that many people down there really so stupid? Does this insanity stem from a lack of post-secondary education in the U.S? Who has indoctrinated all this fear in you?

I wish you guys the best but you're going to need to step up and fight back.

The Daily Show is consistently putting out some of the best satire on this subject... it should be required viewing for all Americans.

Quoting Peter T. Chattaway, August 29 3:03 AM:
"I will simply point to Denys Arcand's The Barbarian Invasions -- the only Canadian film to win the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film -- and note that it is, among other things, a withering critique of the Canadian health care system."

Actually, Arcand's The Decline of the American Empire, of which The Barbarian Invasions is a sequel, also won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. You have no idea how proud of this we are here in Quebec.

Peter brings an excellent point though. In the spirit of eliminating misinformation, Americans from both sides of the issue should know that Canadians are generally not fully satisfied with their current health care system. In Quebec, for example, reforms to improve the system are discussed at every election. Oh, an we whine about it a lot. We really do. Why then are so many Canadians praising their health care?

Because the question is not whether we're 100% satisfied. It's whether we're happier with the current model than with the previous one, which did not offer universal coverage. The answer is a resounding yes.

Growing up (in a small village), I'd hear stories of ambulances refusing to show up because they did not feel the patient would be able to pay for it and things like that. Said stories would always be followed by, "Thank God that can't ever happen anymore!"

Doesn't that sound nice? "Thank God that can't ever happen anymore!" It does to us, and that's why we're praising our health care system in spite of its many, many flaws.

On another note, to Steven, August 29 4:53AM, who said,

"People from socialized-medicine countries such as the UK or Canada travel to the U.S., because they can't get the quality medical care they need in their own countries."

Uh, no. Just no. Please stop spreading lies about a country I love as much as you do yours. I suspect the reason so many Canadians are coming forward on these boards is because we have access to all the U.S. media coverage and we've had to sit through your politicians and journalists constantly insinuating that we are somehow savages and morally bankrupt, elderly-killing monsters, and we just want to set the record straight.

If you honestly believe that yours is the greatest country in the world--and I'm not here to tell you otherwise; I think Americans are a great people as a general rule--then shouldn't you feel that lying about other people being savages beneath you?

1. The minute you start lying in an argument, you stop discussing the issue. You've now started discussing a non-existent situation you've just made up. There actually are genuine concerns to be debated regarding socialized health care systems. As I mentioned, we, in Quebec, discuss them every election. However, name-calling your neighbours just because they live differently is not one of them.

2. The Canadian health care system isn't what your President is proposing, so denigrating us is kind of off topic. To quote Rosalind Wiseman's Queen Bees and Wannabees, "Calling someone else ugly isn't going to make you beautiful".

3. It's disrespectful and belittles us all (Canadians and Americans and let's throw in the UK too because my British friends have expressed their frustrations with being associated with barbaric "death panels"). I mean, it's cheap name-calling at the end of the day, and I'm sure that, as a proud, articulate, and fair-minded American, you feel you're better than this. I do too.

[b]To another, I wrote: "I hope your philosophy will be of comfort if you develop a serious illness."[/b]

That is a bit cheap. That is like saying "I hope your philosophy will be of comfort if your son or daughter is killed in a terrorist attack / raped by a released rapist / etc." But somehow the irony/hypocrisy is never acknowledged or validated - and that is the nature of bias. It does not make it "right" when there is no objective universal concept. In a democracy it is up to the majority. Don't cry sour grapes if your thinking goes against that (no matter how logical or compassionate). Otherwise you imply that you know better than the majority, and that for your minority vision to be implemented would be essentially a dictatorship (for their own good). I know, this stuff it tricky.

I also believe your exact quote has been said by religious persons to atheists (of which I am one).

As per the Canadians who flocked to your blog in praise of their health coverage, one wonders if it is a matter of you "preaching to the choir." Surely there are Nunavuts who are beyond Canada's magical health care, but then I imagine they are beyond having an internet connection with which to tell you. Your friend Bill O'Reilly has aired many Canadian emails which show dissatisfaction. But he is preaching to another choir. It doesn't mean disagreement does not exist, unless you are suggesting (sans proof?) that the emails or staged or fake? Even if he is cherry picking a minority of dissenters, at least his net caught a few, showing greater diversity than your net. Don't think your lack of Canadian dissenters passes the gold standard of anything approaching scientific proof.

Perhaps the litmus test is: unless you are draft dodging, where do the majority of immigrants go time and again? Why, that awful theocratic dictatorship with that horrible health care system Michael Moore says is worse than Cuba's.

Ebert: Didn't intend it as a cheap shot. It is a logical observation.

The whole death panel thing is ridiculous, I never thought Logan's Run had such a large audience ;-)

Earlier you told commenter Tim: If you don't want the government to do what it does, nobody is forcing you to live here. Find a government more to your liking.

I'm just curious, but does that mean you'd agree with the sort of conservatives who were prone to telling those who protested the Iraq War that they should simply leave if they didn't appreciate the direction the country was going?

As for myself, I do believe that if one loathes their country, then perhaps they should seek refuge elsewhere, but I wouldn't reflexively suggest that anyone who doesn't support a policy that I do should pack their bags and leave.

It's nice to see that this discussion has been largely civil. I hardly consider myself an expert, but I'd like to note that a lot of conservative objection stems from fear that the new system would be worse than the old one, not a cruel desire to see the poor languish in agony.

I was once walking with a very liberal associate who largely just sees me as a Republican, which to him is an aggressively pejorative word. A homeless person solicited change, a request he ignored and I obliged. My associate expressed shock that I would give away any money, as in theory I should have given the man a lecture on hard work and finance. Although this one individual is a blithering idiot to put it kindly, I think his perceptions are ones held all too commonly by liberals, perhaps similar to how some conservatives reflexively perceive those on the left to be lazy welfare queens.

I do not support the current health care reform proposal, though I don't claim to be any sort of expert in the topic (not that a deficiency in policy knowledge has stopped an array of people on both sides from commenting extensively about it). One concern I have is one that I rarely see addressed: the unknown. Perhaps the reforms would be a blessing, maybe they would be a disaster, but we just don't know for sure, and anyone who claims to know is engaging in a false practice. For now, count me as someone satisfied with their level of care, and though I readily acknowledge that I speak as an insured person with very few medical concerns, everyone has their lot, and it's my health care system, too, so my opinion is as valid as anyone's with a comparable amount of expertise.

"Roger Ebert. Jeez, You are an amazing human being.

I'm glad you can be so analytical despite you having been so clobbered by health concerns and despite people YELLING at you to not think about those health concerns, but just adore whatever was done to you medically.

The anti-health-care people are playing a mug's game, but sometimes mug's games win.

You are not playing their game. Thanks for that."

Roger, I know it took courage to let this response get printed. All the best to you, brave soul. I gotta go. Gonna watch "Inglorious Basterds". Hope I spelled it right. Or spelled it wrong, whatever.

Love the passage. I've been calling universal health care "Jesus Care" for years, especially to any Christians I know. See, I remember the part where Jesus goes around healing people, but my Bible doesn't have the part where he bankrupts them with a huge medical bill. (Perhaps I'm missing a book or two in the Bible, 1st Rescissions or 2nd Repudiations: "And Jesus performed many miracles in Galilee and said to the people, 'I tell you the truth, these acts you have witnessed today, you will pay for tenfold when your insurance carrier denies your claim.'" (Oh and they'd deny it too; faith-healing has to be, like, the textbook definition of "experimental procedure."))
A typical response I get is something like, "Well those are miracles, we don't have the ability to heal people like that." What?? Are you kidding me? We can do just about everything Jesus did! With medications and laser-surgery we can treat leprous skin conditions! We can perform eye surgeries that might restore sight to the blind! With prosthetics and physical therapy we can make the lame walk! With defibrillator pads we can --charge!clear!-- raise the frickin dead! How dare you say we can't work miracles!
The problem is, we withhold the miracles from those who can't afford it. Why any Christian (or even any otherwise decent compassionate person) would want to keep medicine as a for-profit industry totally mystifies me. I've heard all their arguments, and as I read/hear them all I can think is, "in the time/breath it took for them to say all that, one more uninsured American just died from poor-itis."

Thank you for making clear just how much we will gain both as a society and as individuals if (I wish I could say "when") universal health care is implemented. Even though I get health care from my employer, I will still get tangible benefits once universal health care becomes law:

1. My access to insurance will be assured. Call it insurance for my insurance.
2. I will have the freedom to leave my job and start a small business if I choose. My family has too many pre-existing conditions to even think about doing it and buying insurance on the open market.
3. I and my children will be free to have periods of non- or under- employment without worrying about insurance gaps.
4. Presumably, my insurance rates will go down as my insurer will not have to subsidize currently un-reimbursed care.

The mystery to me is why it is politically impossible to ask middle and upper-middle income citizens to pay something for these benefits. The dogmatic perpetuation of the idea that no one is willing to pay for this (except for soaking the rich) also creates the perception that it isn't worth anything to them. People don't necessarily mind taxes if they know that they are actually getting something in return. A return to Clinton era levels of taxation once the economic recovery is underway would be well worth the benefits we will receive.

One small correction: I was thinking about an article from the LA times, where President Obama answered questions about his health care plan on a radio talk show.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-health-obama-radio-smerconish,0,3650948.story

Los Angeles Times: Obama also attempted to refute rumors swirling around the healthcare proposals that he is promoting and Congress is debating.

"You mentioned illegal immigrants," Obama told one caller. "None of the bills that have been voted on in Congress and none of the proposals coming out of the White House propose giving healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants - none of them."

Glad to see President Obama is addressing the problems with his proposal. Specifically, whether the eventual system will cover both Americans AND Mexicans. President Obama used the term "illegal immigrants." Not very PC, but it was HIS quote, not mine.

Reply to: Ebert: I believe universal health care is, quite simply, right. It is a moral imperative. I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn't deserve it.

Philosophically, aren't we talking about our neighbors in Mexico? If we cant enjoy health care coverage if our neighbors in Mexico City can't afford it... Yes, it would be a wonderful thing if all the rich people would spend ALL their money helping the poor. That way, we could all enter the Kingdom.

"It is a peculiarity that some of those happiest to cite the Constitution are the least interested in its Bill of Rights."

Could you expound on this? I don't see where the health care debate ties in with the Bill of Rights.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, democracies are bad. Thats why were not set up as a democracy, but instead a constutional republic. The house of representives was the only branch of the federal government set up to be elected democratically as well.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson

We are currently restricting the rights of homosexuals due to democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ebert: Liberty and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Just ask the other Western democracies."

Liberty includes money you earn. We sacrafice a certain portion of liberty to have a society/government. The question is, how much?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ebert: If you don't want the government to do what it does, nobody is forcing you to live here. Find a government more to your liking. "

The problem with this is that America is currently still the best place to live for liberty. You could of course move to a country that has socialized health care, instead of imposing it on others. You probably didn't know though, that even if you give up your citizenship and leave the country, federal law requires you to pay income taxes for 10 yrs after this of whatever you make, even if its overseas.

Thank you Roger. When I think of the most recent discussions regarding health care I think back 13 years when my 80 year-old father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. My brother, an M.D., recommended no treatment. We did hospice care at home. It probably saved Medicare hundreds of thousands of dollars. But more important, we saved ourselves a tremendous amount of stress and my father was able to die peacefully at home. We went through a somewhat similar experience with my mother seven years later.

I am both outraged and saddened but the talk of "death panels." It is worse than lies, it is preventing people from being fully informed concerning one of the most important issues any individual and family will ever face.

The argument from Ken Wells and others that "health care cannot be a 'right' because it requires other people to provide it" just doesn't work. The right to vote requires the government to organize elections. The right to a fair trial requires a justice system to support it; indeed if the accused had to pay for a judge to hear his or her case, I think it's pretty clear that right is compromised.

But as much as I agree with you, Roger, I'm not sure it's a winning argument across the full range of American opinion. What is puzzling to most foreigners is why so many Americans passionately defend the health care status quo when it seems to be badly broken from almost any perspective. There's no shortage of solely economic
reasons to criticize the current American health care system:

- Reliance on employer-sponsored health plans pushes up labour costs for employers and limits their competitiveness internationally. (It's one of the reason Canada has had more than its fair share of auto manufacturing: employee benefit costs were up to $10/hour cheaper.)

- The employer-sponsored route also reduces flexibility in the job market and hinders entrepreneurship: anyone with a medical history (something as simple as a heart murmur) faces high premiums, gambling on not getting sick, or clinging to their job in a large corporation with a group health plan.

- Costs per capita are the world's highest, and roughly double the OECD average.

- With the aging of the baby boomers -- whether their care is handled by the government or the private sector -- it's not clear the United States can afford to pay greatly above-average rates for health care much longer.

The current debate on healthcare in the US reminded me of a situation a few years ago here in Halifax.My work partner Ken and I were taking a stroll along the waterfront to view a huge yacht that had just sailed in when we ran into a group of seniors from the US on a bus tour.Ken turned to a tall heavy set man ,steel gray hair wearing denim overalls and started to make small talk about the yacht.The man said they had toured the city and had seen the hospital complex that housed a veterns hospital.Ken jumped on the comment and started talking about the Pub and activities that were included for our Vets.The man was eyeing him a bit sceptically and said "but its socialized right,socialized medicine."No Ken came right back and said "Its universal healthcare,you will never go bankrupt or lose your house because you get sick,not here not in Canada." The old guy shook his hand and wandered off but I have often wondered about him in the past month.Where would he sit on the debate.
I am a recruiter and have placed people in the US and Canada and I can assure you it costs a lot more to hire and provide a family health insurance benefit to a US employee than to hire an equally skilled and experienced employee in Canada.This has to affect how many small businesses can provide health benefits.
BTW I have an 84 year old Dad who had a massive heart attack and stroke a year ago and an 85 year old step Mom (they got married 8 years ago)who survived double by pass 5 years ago and has a pacemaker.We touch the health care system regularly and they have always been treated well.
One last thing.The recent anger and the carrying of guns etc and finding out that people can legally carry a firearm into a restaurant etc has made my group of 6 friends decide we wont visit the US as planned this year,its just too dangerous.

I think the one thing about this debate that bothers me the most is that everybody is either on the side of 'free' health care, or pay for your own health care... but nobody is addressing what I think is one of the most important issues: Why is health care so expensive? I mean, you didn't used to need insurance, necessarily. Now, one surgery is like paying Harvard tuition for a year. Why?

I'm not against everybody getting the healthcare that they need, and being well treated. I have insurance through my employer, and I'm glad I do. But I wish it was possible for me to take care of myself, rather than be taken care of by the Government, or my employer, or whatever organization I get insured through.

Jesus may have had socialist teachings, but the bible quote I try to live by most is God helps those who help themselves. I'm afraid the more Government takes care of us, as a people, the less we'll ever be able to take care of ourselves when we need to.

I think at this stage, the debate over health care has become more of a not-in-my-backyard, over-my-dead-body yelling match that misses all the really important points instead of addressing them properly. Tick one up for the insurance companies and republican hubris (and I'm a republican). The fact that we even are debating the right for everyone to have universal health care is astounding. The fact that the word socialism forces a gut-wrenching HELL NO! stance from those who can't possibly be very happy with their current health coverage is amazing. I know my costs keep going up, and my quality of care keeps going down (and I don't blame doctors for that). And I'm one of the lucky ones who has a decent health plan at work, though I'm now paying thousands of dollars more a year to keep it. The simple fact is that everyone deserves to be covered by health care. And I deserve to not have my premiums and my coverage not be blindly dictated by insurance companies who are in it for a profit.

If health care reform means I pay more now to cover everyone and myself, then I rather do that then pay, most certainly, a lot more later, as healthcare costs continue to spiral out of control, for me alone.

We are all in this together; something the republican party has lost sight off, and, I hope, the democrats don't lose sight of.

Roger, you might be interested in knowing that in Canada presently there is a debate about having a private option available readily for people alongside the already present public one. This is fundamentally for 2 reasons: first is to reduce unintentional export of Canadian medical intellectual property down south. The second is to prevent that situation where the lady mentioned that she had to fly her mom to California for a knee replacement.

I don't follow the health care 'debate' - it is not much of a debate with people in town halls literally threatening to turn violent - much in the states, but at bottom of all of this is the fact that American politicans from both parties collectively are the whore for hire of the insurance companies. Till this unethical, illegitimate and illegal relationship is exposed for what it is and terminated, the closest you are going to to universal healthcare in America is a public screening of Michael Moore's Sicko.

I, for one, am tired of those who protest about health care reform by arguing that we shouldn't jump into something so huge so fast. If not now, then when? Should we kick this can down the road 10 more years until our insurance premiums triple again? A stab at initiating reform was made back in 1993-1994 and it died then. The Democrats have a majority *now*. We needed reform decades ago. Now is the time to put change in motion. For a nation of "we the people" it seems a lot of the people are more interested in what's good for "me" and keeping their own. This article's life rope analogy is fitting.

I have never understood, even as a young adult in the 1990s, why our wonderful, rich, industrialized nation has such a sorry health care system. Here is how our bungled system worked for me for a long time: I eat well, take vitamins, exercise, and am very interested in my health. I have a master's degree in biology but, because I worked seasonal jobs for about 10 years after graduate school, often for non-profit organizations and universities, I did not qualify for health care benefits. Therefore, I didn't have dental check-ups or well-woman exams for about a decade. In the instances where I needed medical attention, I often had lengthy debates with myself weighing the pros and cons of going or not going to urgent care or the emergency room based almost solely on finances. In what other civilized country would this be considered right, fair or moral? That people should suffer because their pocketbooks aren't fat enough? That anyone should have to sit at home and wonder if their chest pains will go away so they don't have to pay exorbitant amounts for emergency room visits?

Jonathan Weiner asked a wonderful question on a talk show the other day when he asked why do we even need the health insurance industry? What invaluable service are they providing? If it's so great, why aren't seniors jumping ship on Medicare to go back to their private insurance? Good question, I say.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/anthony-weiner-leaves-joe-scarborough-mome

It seems to me that this blog entry, though wonderfully written and illuminating to many, can be boiled down to one simple idea: the difference between liberas and conservatives (in this country particularly, but others as well) is morality.

This is not to say that all conservatives are immoral. Nor does it say that all liberals are moral. But the way in which the two sides view morality is tremendously different. You and I, and millions of our friends, think that universal health care is simply right. It is an imperative.

The other side of the argument don't consider this a moral issue. They see it in terms of money. Simply put, they believe that if you can't afford health care, you don't deserve it. It goes hand in hand with their belief that if you can't find a good work, you are "lazy". They think that people deserve their lot in life, which I believe to be a patent falacy.

Yet these people are the same people that want to deny a woman her right to choose. Abortion is, of course a moral issue. We can all agree. But in this case, our roles are reversed; liberals tend to see the woman's rights as the more important factor, whereas conservatives put the "life" of the fetus first. On this point, I can understand the conservative stance. In the cse of health care, I simply cannot. They don't believe it to be a moral decision. Their opinion-makers try to frame it as a moral issue, citing the Constitution - or Declaration ;)-, the American Protestant work ethic, the "rugged individualism" of Americans; all parts of the American myth, but none quite true, and none quite taken from a purely moralistic stance. It would be nice if all of us could afford health care through our own hard work, but it is simply not the case. Why do they keep up the charade?

The answer is that these opinion-makers try to frame it as a moral debate, but it is really an economic measure. Insurance companies make a fortune; they stand to make less if Obama's plan is implemented. They will not go down quietly. It is the same situation that we have seen before, when oil companes and auto companies sided together to fight CAFE standards, slow the process of electric cars, and so on. It will happen again and again. People always try to protect their interests.

Also, I must commend you for your outright acceptance of the "liberal" tag, and your admission of "socialized medicine". I always do the same. Why do we have to hide from these truths? Why have we, as Americans, made "liberal" and "socialist" into dirty words? It is a shame, and it is one of the reasons why our public discourse has fallen to the level it has. It is funny, though, that only guys like us are labeled as bad guys. I don't consider "conservatives" bad people. Some certainly are, especially the one's that are responsible for framing debates today - the Palin's, Rove's, and so on. These people are awful, evil people. Liars and cheaters all. But so far, liberals have been reluctant to do the same to the other side. I think it is because we see honest, open debate as a moral issue.

Hello Roger,

First, I just wanted to say I've been following your reviews for many years and enjoy your columns.

As a Canadian, I don't really deserve a voice in your health care debate but I would like to say I agree that every person has a right to health care. I so often hear those in your country refer to Canadain medicine as government controlled, with long wait times, and people dying while wating for treatment. This is simply an over-exageration and does not reflect the true nature of our system. Yes we do have wait times that are long for SOME procedures but these are of the less critical and elective nature. Serious conditions, for which my family and friends have required treatment, are handled with expediency and by competent professionals. There is no "agent of the government" watching over Doctor decisions and deciding whether a recommended treatment should be provided or not.

I wish you all good luck in this difficult debate.

Is this a health care proposal for Americans, or Americans AND Mexicans?

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1250843596287750.xml&coll=2

Plain Dealer: Under the heading "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens," the House bill, H.R. 3200, says: "Nothing in this title shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

It doesn't say anything about citizenship. The phrase "lawfully present in the United States" will probably be thrown out as "unconstitutionally vague."

Plain Dealer: That language would seem to ban government insurance for a population estimated at 5.6 million to 8 million strong.

A population anxious for jobs and better schools. How high will it go when free health care becomes part of the incentive?

Plain Dealer: During a broadcast Thursday with Michael Smerconish, a syndicated radio host, President Obama said. "So everybody who is listening out there, when you start hearing that somehow this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, that is simply not true and has never been the case."

A number of Republicans, however, contend the prohibition will be difficult to enforce. "The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund health care subsidies for illegal immigrants," Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, a negotiator in ongoing Senate Finance Committee talks, said last week. (end)

I agree with Sen. Grassley. The phrase "not lawfully present in the United States" is just asking for trouble, when it comes to constitutional issues. You might as well get it right the first time.

Reply to: Ebert: I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn't deserve it.

maybe I'm confused by the word "neighbor."

40 And the King will answer them... "I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me...."

Philosophically, how many of these naked, hungry strangers are we supposed to welcome? Are we going to be sentenced to Eternal Punishment if we don't provide for... what was the term... STRANGERS? isn't that the same as "not lawfully present in the country"?

Great post, Mr. Ebert. While I personally have a lot of disagreements with the health care plan the Democrats have come up with -- I don't think it goes far enough, but I won't get into that -- I am appalled at the behavior of those opposed to any sort of universal health care system, particularly those bullies showing up at town hall meetings and elsewhere to attempt to disrupt by adhering to the age-old principle "the fabricating shrill screaming wheel gets the grease" (or something like that, I think).

I'd like to point out that all of those railing against "socialism" need to keep in mind that one of the systems on this planet closest to socialism -- free housing, free health care, free education and training for a trade craft, an essentially "level" pay system where a doctor gets the same pay as anyone else who has also been at their job the same length of time and who has also met basic routine performance evaluations, and retirement benefits including health care -- is the U.S. MILITARY. But I doubt we'll see any of these same folks showing up at town halls screaming at the top of their lungs "Cut those soldiers' socialized medicine! End this Stalinist free housing on military bases!"

Yes, there are aspects of our military dolled out to the private sector, but rather than this being an example of why the military isn't a true "socialist" system, it is in fact an example of how the socialist military system SUBSIDIZES so-called "private" industry. That money for military contracts comes out of the military budget, paid for by tax dollars, and these companies then obscenely inflate costs and materials and labor to suck the contract for all the pennies it's worth. That's MORE socialism, not less.

Why aren't the right-wingers lining up to spit on soldiers for being part of and participating in such "socialist" practices? If socialism is so evil and dangerous, why exactly is it safe to allow it to dominate our ARMED FORCES, perhaps the main place it might be the biggest "threat" if socialism is indeed so evil?

The other point I want to make is about the inflated myth regarding malpractice. Bureau of Justice statistics show that 90% or more of all malpractice lawsuits are cases in which the patient either DIED or suffered PERMANENT injury -- they aren't frivolous, is the point. Less than ONE-QUARTER of malpractice lawsuits are successful, far lower than the average for most tort cases. Government stats also show the following:

1. There are 12,000 deaths due to unnecessary surgeries, and another 20,000 due to other hospital errors.

2. An additional 7,000 patients die due to medication errors at hospitals.

3. The Institute of Medicine report from 2006 found that about 1.5 million patients are harmed/injured due to medication errors.

Yet, despite the above facts about the large number of deaths and injuries and other harmful medical errors caused by the healthcare profession (and I selected just three to make a point, there are plenty more and all are equally bad), and despite the truth that 9 out of 10 are for death or permanent injury while only 1 out of 4 of these lawsuits is even successful, we are constantly told that tort reform is a major issue that has to be "corrected."

It is a myth that malpractice lawsuits are out of control and that the tort system must be "reformed" to stop it. Our privatized health system injures, poisons, kills, and otherwise harms a very large number of people, and when serious permanent injuries and/or death result, people have an absolute right to seek justice and compensation (as is the situation in 90% of the cases, remember). With three-quarters of such lawsuits ending in failure for the patients anyway, with doctors increasingly moving into specialized care instead of general practice (probably the single largest problem with our health care system in terms of reduced quality of care, reduced preventative medicine, and grossly inflated costs due in large part to the shocking overcharging that occurs in the specialized fields -- this overcharging is stunning when you look at it in Medicare, by the way).

If we allow profit to be the first and primary motivating factor in our health care system, that inherently means that public health and wellness is at most a secondary motive. And that is unacceptable. It is a big lie that the U.S. has the best health care in the world, and if the private system were so great then our elected officials wouldn't have a public socialized system for themselves (they do). Our military runs a socialized health care system -- a REALLY socialized one, since the doctors are even paid on a socialist sliding scale sort of system.

We have Social Security, Medicare, subsidization of agriculture and military contractors and other businesses (even down to small business loans). Our roads, our fire departments, our public schools, so much in this nation that is "socialist" in nature, in that it relies on the common people entering into arrangements for our common good. These things being "socialized" allow us to enjoy our lives and our individual and collective freedoms to their fullest. Far too many people lose sight of these things. And far too many others are willing to lie, cheat, bully, and whatever else is necessary to cloud or cover up these truths.

Gary wrote: "So I'll throw out a challenge - if you're so big on ensuring that others have healthcare, then pick someone out of this blog and provide health insurance for their family. Might as well get used to it, as we've got two choices - tax people more, or ask more people to loan us money as we see just how much the world will allow us to rack up before we become deadbeat debters."

On average, European countries spend 60% less per person than we do on health care, the quality of which is comparable to ours, and they insure everyone. It shouldn't be a question of how much more are we going to spend in order to insure everyone in this country; it should be a question of how much will we save.

One might ask a follow-up: "Who is looting all the money we're currently spending on health care?" I'm waiting for our press corps to ask these questions in order to build frameworks for public understanding. Maybe then we wouldn't have such misinformed citizenry causing disturbances at town hall meetings.

Steven wrote:

Very few government programs have a reputation for quality or efficiency. Government schools cost way more per student than private schools (or home schooling) do, and generally educate far worse. The IRS, or a typical state's DMV - or Congress itself, for that matter - are no one's ideas of well-run organizations, and the same is true of most government departments.

Tom is writing:

Who cares? Do you know what government program had a reputation for quality and efficiency? Germany's Final Solution! What does quality or efficiency have to do with moral imperatives? The health care systems of many African countries are just awful. Should we disband them just because of the state they are in? Of course not, they are doing a job that is absolutely necessary, and it is better than nothing.

Our situation is a bit different, as we already have a relatively good system of health care. But quality and efficiency should absolutly not be considered in moral issues. Your argument makes sense when you look at the issue through an economic lens, but that is not Roger's point, and it was not your either. By making that comment, you illustrate the problem with conservatives' stance on the issue. It is not a moral one, it is economic. The debate focuses on how the government will not spend the money efficiently, and how we will be burdened by higher taxes. These are serious considerations, but we are comparing that to saving lives!

To everyone who is talking about how much this type of health care system would cost, it's important to note that every developed country, on average, spends roughly 60% less per person on health care than we do. They offer quality care which is comparable to our own, and they insure everyone. Why is the question about how much more we will have to spend, when it should be about how much we are going to save? A follow-up question could be: Who is looting all of the money we're currently spending on health care.

If we had a press corps willing to educate its citizenry with these kind of data, we might not see the kinds of things we're currently seeing at these town hall meetings.

I had a sister diagnosed with colon cancer 6 weeks after her physical that found nothing. She did not have insurance.She was treated at Scott and White hospital,the best care you could possibly get, including hospice. The present health care bill going through congress will cost a trillion and not cover everyone. Death panels will be needed as they are in Oregon, you cannot provide care to the elderly or the dying under universal care,particularly when you are dealing with a financially bankrupt country like the USA. This country is completely broke and in debt of over 1 trillion dollars. We can tax everyone 100% and we will still not have enough to pay our debt. Love that hope and change.

I agree with you, Roger. A friend and I have actually discussed this for some time (years), and we both feel it comes down to this: I don't want to ever be part of a group of people that can tell a person "You're too poor to live". Of COURSE doing what we can to make sure that everyone has an EQUAL chance at a healthy life is the right thing to do...and I think it's important to note that "right" in this case means not "the opposite of wrong", but rather "good". It's the good thing to do. People are saying morals are relative, and to an extent, they certainly are. But who really is going to say their morals include letting a person get sick or die when they could have done something to prevent it?
I think I'm getting a little dramatic here. People just don't seem to think sometimes, about how much the greater good helps everybody. Hell, there's a bunch people don't seem to think about. Have you noticed that many of the people upset about government's invasion of privacy concerning universal health care are the same ones who defended the government wire tapping? And what's with the freaking out about higher taxes? Forgive the possible ignorance, but if I'm paying more tax to have the government subsidize my health care, that means my insurance premiums get to go DOWN right? Doesn't it all at least even out?

No, Roger, I have to disagree, you should *not* make an emotional appeal. It might make you feel better, but this is too difficult a question to let hearts rule. We evolved minds for a reason. (And, if this seems like an easy question - if it were an easy question, we would have settled it long ago.)

Sure, emotionally it feels like the right thing to do, and I believe it is. But does this plan adequately assess how it will be paid for? What the government's role is? How we keep the government from creating yet another massive bureaucracy to oh-so-inefficiently carry it out? No, put the emotions away and use brains.

Since when did American citizens decide that a "real American government" is one THAT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING? Why is a government that tries, in any way, shape or form, to care for or help the citizens that elected it (other than consistently shelling out for more and more Medicare) suddenly a godless Commie Socialistic Hitler-run hellpit spewing acid and melting your hard earned money right out of your pockets?

Honestly, I know why the rage and hatred are the focus of the news--it's good TV. After all, "THORNY POLITICAL ISSUE THOUGHTFULLY, CALMLY DEBATED BY ALL SIDES, SOME REASONABLE CONSESUSES REACHED" isn't much of headline. But really, considering what a heady, violent drug these strong emotions can be, we really need to tamp it down. (Also, quit with the Hitler references. As the famous "Internet Etiquette" rules point out, the person who brings in Hitler or the Nazis has lost the arguement.)

A few posters have wondered why Obama chose to tackle this so soon in his administration, or at all. Well, it's his job, for one. He decided it couldn't wait very long, and he might as well get on it while he still had some political capital and energy. I personally feel the deadline was rushed, but I read it as Obama's not wanting the debate to drown in endless quagmires of debate and committee.

NO ONE is going to be happy with every aspect of the health care reform. There are too many of us with too many different viewpoints. But there's a difference between living with disappointment and being rendered finacialy ruined by our current system. We all need to man up and start the doing hard things.

Just to play Devil's advocate....

If Anyone Will Not Work Neither Shall He Eat - 2 Thessalonians 3:10-11

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. (Matt. 12:30) [Now you know where Bush got it from.]

You are my friends if you do what I command you. (John 15:14)

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! (Luke 12:49)

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.'" (Luke 19:27)

I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he." (John 8:24)

If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15:6)

I am at work and don't have my Bible handy to confirm these quotes. Biblical scholars, please weigh in with your thoughts. The above quotes were taken from the following website:

http://www.usbible.com/Jesus/hellfire_jesus.htm

The author(s) of the website are decidedly opposed to Christianity, so it may be that they have taken quotes out of context.

The primary causes of health insurance costs are pharmaceutical costs (U.S. drugs cost 50% more than elsewhere, and this is in comparison not to just poor nation but to the EU for example; factor in the U.S. tendency to rely on more expensive and brand-name drugs, and the overall price disparity skyrockets to a shocking roughly 120%), risk-sharing (meaning people without health insurance wait until health problems becomes serious before seeking medical attention, which makes the eventual treatment and costs far more expensive -- and we've got 46 million uninsured people in this nation), absence of a true electronic system for health records, causing massive inefficiency in repeated paperwork and tests etc (which is just one part of a broader problem of major inefficiencies in bureaucratic costs unrelated to lawsuits), and an absurd amount of massive reimbursement to doctors for procedural work instead of preventative or early diagnoses and treatment.

In addition, consider that as programs like Medicare subcontracted their administrative workload to the supposedly more efficient private sector, the cost of administration leaped by at least 30%. These costs are increasing exponentially, too. This is, by the way, just one of many examples of data demonstrating the myth of a private sector that works better and more efficiently than a public health care system. And I always laugh when I hear the argument against a universal system that claims it would put "bureaucrats" between you and your doctor -- as opposed to the current situation with insurance companies, I presume? Ha!

We really cannot fail to grasp the extent to which procedural payments to doctors are a major part of the problem here. Specialists simply charge outrageous fees, whereas general practitioners are by far more cost effective and save a lot of money for the health care system. The McKinsey Global Institute has a very informative report that shatters many misconceptions about health care, the real costs and waste and where it originates, and gives a much more accurate picture than the U.S. media or either of our absurd and myth-propagating political parties.

The practice of over-testing and "defensive medicine" by doctors worried about lawsuits is overstated, but it is also true that it happens. However, the FEAR of lawsuit is disproportionate to the likelihood of lawsuits and -- very importantly -- the likelihood of LOSING a lawsuit. And some physicians and nurses argue that in fact, the practice of defensive medicine is actually overall beneficial since it often occurs in regard to patients suffering injuries, and thus certain procedural tests are done just to ensure more serious damage didn't occur or that a pre-existing (and known) condition wasn't a contributing factor. And sometimes this defensive medicine is most beneficial to working-class and poor patients, who otherwise tend to be more likely to be victims of UNDER-testing and lack of adequate care.

These tests in fact do often catch things that otherwise would've been missed, sometimes help identify additional health problems, and overall the amount of waste involved is relatively minor and could be easily handled without need for legally limiting people's right to seek compensation for actual malpractice. Why isn't more concern focused on preventing the big problems that in fact LEAD to the lawsuits in the first place, such as the extremely problematic dispensing of medications and the practice of unnecessary surgeries? These are areas where the problems have increased specifically due to lack of diligence and concern, while the industry and professionals focus on and push for tort reform to a very disproportionate degree.

I'd like to recommend the book "The 2% Solution" by Matthew Miller, which deals with health care amid a variety of other major problems that our nations faces. The proposals come from intense study of the issues and the stats involved, looking at both sides of the argument in political terms, and then taking the best parts of different proposals and applying them in the most effective and efficient ways possible. It should be a must-read for anyone concerned with this issue, not to mention education and social security and jobs, for example.

If you haven't already visited stuffwhitepeoplelike.com, I suggest you do so. When the author refers to "White People", he actually means college-educated liberal-leaning white people, similar to David Brooks' "bobos": a mixture of bourgeois and bohemian.

The creator of the website, Christian Lander, writes with great style and is a skilled satirist. Here is #94 on his list of Stuff White People Like:

"In spite of having access to the best health insurance and fanciest hospitals, white people are passionate about the idea of socialized medicine. So much so that they have memorized statistics and examples of how for-profit medicine has destroyed the United States.

But before you can exploit this information for personal gain, it’s important that you understand why white people are so in love with free health care.

The first and most obvious reason is “they have it Europe.” White people love all things European, this especially true of things that are unavailable in the United States (Rare Beers, Absinthe, legal marijuana, prostitution, soccer). The fact that it’s available in Canada isn’t really that impressive, but it does contribute to their willingness to threaten to move there.

These desires were only heightened in 2007 when Michael Moore released “Sicko,” a documentary that contrasts the health care industry in the United States with that of Canada, France and Cuba. As a general rule of thumb, white people are always extra passionate about issues that have been the subject of a Moore documentary. As a test, ask them about 9/11, Gun Control, or Health Care and then say “where did you get that information?” You will not be surprised at the results.

But the secret reason why all white people love socialized medicine is that they all love the idea of receiving health care without having a full-time job. This would allow them to work as a freelance designer/consultant/copywriter/photographer/blogger, open their own bookstore, stay at home with their kids, or be a part of an Internet start-up without having to worry about a benefits package. Though many of them would never follow this path, they appreciate having the option.

If you need to impress a white person, merely mention how you got hurt on a recent trip Canada/England/Sweden and though you were a foreigner you received excellent and free health care. They will be very impressed and likely tell you about how powerful drug and health care lobbies are destroying everything.

Though their passion for national health care runs deep, it is important to remember that white people are most in favor of it when they are healthy. They love the idea of everyone have equal access to the resources that will keep them alive, that is until they have to wait in line for an MRI.

This is very similar to the way that white people express their support for public schools when they don’t have children."

You have it precisely right, Roger: UHC _is_ a moral issue and needs to be discussed in moral - not economic - terms. The economics of UHC is important, of course, but does not share primary of place with the moral argument by a long shot.

Roger,

As always, you're writing is insightful and gracious. I think you'll find, though, that your moral appeal will fall on deaf ears as well. The conservatives, libertarians, et al., can not stomach universal, socialized health care for no other reason than because at root, at the foundation of it all, they are selfish. Sure, they jazz up their arguments with appeals to the deficit (but not on defense spending) or the lower quality of care in other countries (which just isn't true) or the gov'ts inherent inferiority to the free market (even though in the healthcare market the stockholders' success depends, literally, on the misery of others). And, yes, they'll trot out elaborate ideological systems ostensibly proving that altruism is foolish, or that socialism necessarily fails (even though we socialize so many things already), or that "gov't handouts" provide disincentives to work...but really, what it all comes down to is that they don't want the little number next to the percentage sign to change on their tax forms. That's all it is, I promise you.

I have many conservative and libertarian friends and their answer to EVERYTHING is to cut taxes. Starve the beast and what not. It doesn't matter how roundly we defeat their arguments with logic, or how far we sit on the side of righteousness...as long as what you're proposing has within it a hike in taxes, however modest, they will spew the nastiest kind of filth in your direction. Somewhere along the line they got the idea that they are the cause for their "success" and that only their hard work and industriousness got them where they are. They fail to see the incredibly complex web of social networks, institutions, white privilege, and history that has afforded them their position in society. Liberals, for the most part, recognize these antecedents to their prosperity, and so, are willing to approach nationhood as a community and not as a contest.

Is universal coverage a right in a sane, moral society? Yes, absolutely. Do we live in such a society? Absolutely not.

Strangely Right Wingers never speak up about the fact that Nixon had a universal health care program in the works when he got caught up in Watergate, or that TR had it as one of the planks of his platform when he ran as an independent.

We have very few rights everything else is a privlege. What next ? Food is a right ? Shelter is a right?
I would prefer to live under the private insurance robber barons as a freeborn citizen than be part of the hive , collective Obama nanny state. This is not about health care it is all about the Dems acquiring power and control. Dems want more federal workers ( unions...). Dems want to form a fascist alliance with the Big Pharm, insurance companies like they did with Wall Street. Read the owner of Whole Foods take on the issue on the WSJ. He nails it.

The world constantly hears the mantra emanating from the USA that it is the greatest country in the world and the greatest in history. If something is American it must necessarily be the best, and it must necessarily be right. While the USA certainly has a lot to be proud of, such blind pride seems to really limit the ability of Americans to acknowledge their shortcomings and to perhaps look beyond their borders for ideas and solutions. As a Canadian, I certainly wish the best for my southern neighbours, and note that there is nothing shameful in following the lead of different nations who have found a better way.

By Jason on August 21, 2009 8:54 AM
"Ebert: If you don't want the government to do what it does, nobody is forcing you to live here. Find a government more to your liking. "

Love it or leave it, eh? Wow, imagine a leftist using that. Such irony.

I would like to point out something Tim said in the original post that elicited that response from Roger:

"Somehow an act which virtually all of us would recognize as armed robbery if done by one individual, or two or three working together, somehow becomes justified or even downright noble when committed by millions of people at the ballot box. I reject this evil."

What Tim is essentially saying is that a democracy that reaches a decision he disagrees with through democratic means is evil. What response is there, at this point, but to invite him to step away from the democracy, since he has concluded that he does not wish to uphold the social contract of it?

Roger was not being glib; it's not like Tim simply said, "I don't like the Democratic party and think the President is a moron" and Roger pulled a "love it or leave it" on him (which, as you pointed out, is exactly the sort of thing we heard a lot of in the Bush era with reversed parties). Tim explicitly stated that he wanted no part of a democracy that could reach a decision he disagreed with. The only solution then... is to go outside the province of the democracy in question.

Ebert: So it might seem. Me, when I disagree, I stay inside and work to improve things. I'm on board for the whole journey. This is my country.

Oh, if you want Bible quotes that would be most relevant, look at Acts.

They lived in a pretty communistic setting, there's simply no denying it. God even strikes dead a man who sells his belongings and doesn't put ALL of the money into the "community pot" so to speak (the man Annanias holds back money for himself). Then God ALSO strikes dead the man's wife for not telling anyone that her husband held back money and lied about it! Some argue that God only struck them dead for lying about it, but that ignores the rather overriding narrative about wealth, about the inability to serve two masters (material wealth being one, God being the other), about amassing possessions being futile (because everything will eventually be lost and gone), and so on. The context cannot be ignored, although it frequently is by those attempting to ignore or dismiss the blatant socialist setting in which the Apostles lived.

I would've posted on the last entry, but it took well over an hour to read most of the other comments. Figured I'd start fresh here.

Perhaps my reasons are selfish, but I am quite willing to pay more so I can have universal health coverage. If others benefit, it's just an added bonus.

I work on average 30 hours a week. Why? Because at 32 hours you're considered full-time, and the company lets you in on their health care plan. But of course they don't want that. So not only do I barely make enough to support myself, I don't get health coverage either. I'm confident that eventually I'll climb the ladder and end up full time or salaried, but let's hope I don't get sick in the meantime.

Ebert you are a maudlin , Obama -groupie sap.
1. Health is up to the individual. Once infant childhood illnesses are fixed the rest is up to the individual. Norway spends less on health care cause their population makes better choices, eats better etc NOT because of a superior health system.
2. Health care is more expensive in the USA due to lawyers and lawsuits. There is not one sentence of legal/tort reform in this bill so this is why I don't beleive Obama is serious. Obama is in the pocket of trial lawyers.
3. Health care is more expensive in the USA because we have to pay for illegal aliens. About 15 million of the alleged 47 million uninsured are illegals. Norway does not have to pay for Danes flooding their country and consuming free health care
4. So the answer to health care is more about personal responsibility. More personal accountability. Of course when this is spoken about one is labeled a religious zealout, right winger.
5. comparing Sweden to the USA is laughable. USA is a huge country, 300million population, diverse.
Sweden all white, small and homogenous.

Ebert: It's those non-whites and immigrants who are such a nuisance, eh? If it weren't for them, you'd be in favor of universal care for the uninsured whites?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32506032/ns/health-more_health_news/

I was kind of reading both these articles at the same time. Strange occurrence given your situation (though, not sure of your exact afflictions) and the issues you've been discussing this week.

Here's a reasoned exchange between Stanley Dacer and Myself:
I'm assuming it is all right to post at Ebert. My comments are below. DVD

SD: I. Barack Obama said in 2003 that he supports single-payer. He tells the crowd he is

addressing that they cannot get there (i.e., pass single-payer into law) “immediately”, but

that it is necessary to get more Democrats elected first (“Because first we have to take back

the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”)

Barney Frank said that he supports single-payer, but there are not enough votes for it.

Mr. Frank suggests that the best way to get single-payer is to support the public option

now, and incrementally obtain single-payer.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the public option is a

Trojan Horse for single-payer.

DVD: There is a valid case for being against public option healthcare. Here are two points: 1) Competition drives the healthcare market toward excellence. People get into the healthcare market to make money, and there is nothing wrong with this. 2) The government has the ability to deficit-spend and still retain the status quo of a working operation, while private industry does not. This would break the free-market system, which is antithetical to The American Way.

Of course, I disagree with this argument because 1) We actually don't have the best healthcare in the world. Socailized countries have better care than we do. 2) I think it is shameful to allow Americans to suffer the way they do without healthcare and, in the long run, we will save money by cutting healthcare costs.

SD:
II. The U.S. is in fiscal crisis. There are not enough dollars to pay for all possible treatments for all citizens who are sick. Someone is going to have to perform triage, in order to save the most lives without bankrupting the Treasury.

DVD: While I'm with you on the fiscal crisis, it seems disingenuous to hear about fiscal responsibility from the Right. Not from you, not from Stanley Dancer, but from the Republican Party, which suddenly became aware that massive deficit spending isn't in our best self-inetrests. I think the crisis you speak correctly of could be met better if we were to curb loan defaults due to medical bankruptcy.
http://mnpublius.com/2009/07/new-research-shows-public-option-would-save-over-200-billion/

SD: III. From the link I provided to Mickey Kaus' blog on Slate, he excerpts an interview of

Obama talking about health care and ethics. The President suggests that normal political channels will not suffice and that a board of experts: “doctors, scientists, ethicists” will “guide” these decisions.

THE PRESIDENT: So that's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

LEONHARDT: So how do you - how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

DVD: What is your point here, exactly? Do you really think Obama is trying to pass public option healthcare so we can euthanize people!?

SD: IV. Peter Singer is an ethicist. He supports murder of disabled infants, and forced euthanasia of old people and accident victims who are not of sound mind and did not specifically request that they be kept alive.

V. Singer's beliefs are abhorrent and outrageous to most Americans, and would be considered beyond the pale by most Americans.

VI. Princeton University does not consider Singer's views abhorrent, as he is a member of the faculty there. I am unaware of any mass protest of Singer by the teachers or administrators at Princeton similar to what occurred at Duke University during the lacrosse rape case. Mr. Singer was given an expansive platform to put forth his thoughts on health care rationing by the NYTimes this July. I am unaware of any mass protest of Singer by the NYTimes staff or editorial board. Mr. Singer was chosen by Cass Sunstein to write an article for a book edited by Mr. Sunstein. Although the book concerned animal rights, it is doubtful that Mr. Sunstein would have allotted a chapter to, for argument's sake, a theoretical expert on animal rights who was also a Holocaust denier. I am unaware of any disclaimer that Mr. Sunstein wrote regarding the decision to include Mr. Singer in his book. The back cover blurb of the book refers to the “all star cast of contributors” that Mr. Sunstein gathered for the book. I am unaware of any disclaimer that Mr. Sunstein made regarding the publisher's decision to refer to Mr. Singer as a “star”. The NYTimes, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the New Yorker have all been expansive in their praise for Mr. Singer's ideas. I am unaware of any mass protest by the staff of these publications in response to their praise of Mr. Singer.

DVD: It isn't fair to write "Princeton doesn't..." I'm an academic myself, and I promise you once someone gets tenured, they can say pretty much anything they want and still retain their position. And again, if Singer is appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, I'm with you. (He hasn't been.)

SD: VII. From VI, I deduce that Peter Singer's beliefs are not considered abhorrent or outrageous by an influential and considerable segment of the intelligentsia, nor are his views considered outside the pale. Rather, he is considered a leading mind in the philosophical branch of utilitarianism.

VIII. Cass Sunstein is a believer in at least some aspects of utilitarianism. He believes that it is more cost-efficient to spend government benefits on children than on the elderly, given that this will produce the most savings in terms of total life years and the greater public good. See my first post for the full quote.

IX. Cass Sunstein was appointed by President Obama to lead a regulatory committee. This means that Mr. Obama is either unaware of or supports Sunstein's utilitarian views. He is either unaware of Mr. Sunstein's link to Peter Singer or does not consider it detrimental.

DVD: Were the views of Senators Helms and Thurmond considered abhorrent or outrageous by an influential and considerable segment of the Right? How about G. Gordon Liddy or Chuck Colson or any other criminal within the Nixon Administration? Cheney? If its fair to play guilt by association because somebody within the party wrote a blurb? Here's the specifics on the euthanisia in the Netherlands Law, none of which is remotely attached to a healthcare bill here:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/euthanasia/eu0021.html

SD: X. From the evidence that I have shown from the Netherlands, it is not an uncommon practice for doctors to practice involuntary euthanasia on patients when the doctors feel that the patient has a poor quality of life. The legality of voluntary euthanasia makes it easier for doctors to commit involuntary euthanasia without fear of prosecution (they can claim that the patient requested it of them before death).

DVD: Your link showed that it is a relatively uncommon practice. Do the math from your own site comparing it the general population.

SD: XI. Oregon voters approved a law approving physician assisted suicide. This was upheld by the Supreme Court. Proponents of the Oregon law claim that safeguards similar to the Netherlands will protect vulnerable patients.

http://www.euthanasia.com/supremecourt2006.html

DVD: There isn't anything in the federal bill about euthanasia.

SD: From X, I deduce that these safeguards will not always work and that doctors may kill patients without their consent.

XII. President Obama supports citizenship, or a path to citizenship, for the country's 12-20 million illegal immigrants. If universal healthcare is passed, it is safe to assume that illegal immigrants following the process of legalization will qualify for free healthcare. Illegal immigrants that are granted citizenship may then appeal to have their extended family become citizens through the Family Reunification Act. Any of these family members who become citizens will qualify for free healthcare.

DVD: Yep. They will receive the benefits of a government ordered by rule of law. Just like the ancestors of most of the people in this country.

SD: XIII. If XII comes to pass, and the board of appeals that rations health care decides to follow the recommendations of Cass Sunstein, and favor allocating resources toward the young and away from the elderly, then it is possible that an elderly lifelong citizen of the U.S., who paid taxes all his life and abided by the laws of the U.S., could be denied care that instead goes to the (younger) family of a former illegal alien.

XIV. Given Obama's appointment of Cass Sunstein, the influence of utilitarian philosophers among the elite, and the propensity for some doctors to practice involuntary euthanasia, it is not unreasonable to assume that the group of doctors, scientists, and ethicists that provide “guidance” for rationing of health care will include people who hold beliefs diametrical to most Americans, and that this group will have disproportionate power in deciding who lives and who dies.

DVD: So let me get this straight: You oppose the "public option" clause of a healthcare bill because:
A) An ethicist whose views most of us find abhorrent once wrote a book for which a top Obama official wrote a blurb.
B) The Netherlands have a law allowing assisted suicide which, in rare cases, might be abused by physicians. This is despite the fact that no provision for assisted suicide exists in any US healthcare bill whatsoever.
C) It will be costly, and we can't afford it.
D) It may allow physicians to help formerly illegal immigrant children over always-legal elderly people.

Here are my answers to your argument:
A) Peter Singer isn't a head of any department in the Obama Administration.
B) There is no provision for assisted suicide exists in any US healthcare bill whatsoever.
C) It will save us money.
http://mnpublius.com/2009/07/new-research-shows-public-option-would-save-over-200-billion/
D) If the kid is legal, shouldn’t he /she have the same rights?

I am a Libertarian. As such, I believe that the best government is the smallest possible government. Your contention that a bunch of squabbling politicians represent any real hope for health care reform frightens me.

Look at the financial crisis. Did the SEC and the FED earn your trust? Or did they just sit on their hands until the poo hit the ventilator?

Look at Iraq. Can you feel anything but shame at what our nation has done there?

Death Panels? An obvious lie! The government is going to fix things? A bigger lie still.

Just as no sane person depends upon Social Security to fund their retirement, no sane person can depend upon the government for their health care. I contend that our clueless government is the #1 reason why we are paying top dollar for sub-standard health care and that bigger government is only going to provide more of the same!

Boy, it feels good to let go of a first class rant like that!!!!

It troubles me to think that so many are violently opposed to raising the standards for ourselves as a nation. As Americans, do we find it acceptable that forty seven million of our countrymen have to suffer daily under the knowledge that the treatment of any serious illness or injury cannot be afforded? This isn't about "footing the bill" for somebody else. It's about lessening the suffering that goes on our own back doorsteps. It's an opportunity to improve what it means to be an American, what we are guaranteed as citizens, by raising the bar for our standards of living. We shape this society, and we share it, together. That makes us obligated to one another.

You are absolutely NUTS! When I turned 65 I was automaticaly enrolled in part A and part B of Medicare and my experience has opened my eyes.

one example: I am diabetic and have a prescription for 3 test strips a day. For several years I have been able to maintain control of blood sugar but problems started at age 65 with medicare. A classic example is when I requested test strips from my local pharmacy it was denied because medicare told them they would only pay for one strip a day because I was a type II diabetic and 3 tests a day would only apply to a type 1 diabetic. They therein became a substitute for my doctor. Next, they wanted my logs which I provided. This is invasion of privacy. Next they will want to know my food preferences, who I associate with. I'm serious since the amount and type of food ingested affects blood sugar. Also emotional changes so if I chose a friend that is argumentative I have a problem.

Poor service, invasion of privacy and life threatening arbitrary decisions come with medicare. One should not expect any difference with Obama's plan.

For myself, I don't see how the feds can expect to pay for universal medicare when they can't adequately pay for social security. Yeah sure, taxes, first they tax the "rich" then inflate the dollar so that everyone becomes rich.

To Randy Masters-

1. Conservatives understand that the Bill of Rights was an explicit proscription by our founders of what the Government should not and could not do! Hey Federal Government! Keep your inefficient and repressive paws off of our free speech. Our right to assembly. Our right to bear arms. Stay out of our houses. Leave our property alone. Respect our liberty!

I don't really disagree here. Actually, I don't think anybody would, including Roger, except perhaps to take issue with your characterization of government, or conservatives apparent monopoly on common sense.

2. Ann Coulter has this argument exactly right. This is a classical liberal two-step. Step 1: Cripple an industry with intrusive and repressive government regulation and red tape and onerous taxation. (Like not allowing us to buy health insurance across state lines). Step 2: Declare it hopelessly disfunctional, with the only fix being more regulation and taxation! In fact, the only remedy being complete government takeover.

Only Ann Coulter could possibly say with a straight face that the health insurance industry is not already crippled. She's perhaps also the only person who could call this a "classic" maneuver, as I can't recall any instances of it actually happening.

Also, selling insurance across state lines would cause all insurance companies to base themselves in the most permissive states, making it even more difficult for people to get coverage... unless the federal government were to step in and impose the regulations currently handled locally. This seems decidedly anti-conservative to me.

3. Liberals believe that "government" equals "community". Conservatives believe that government hinders community, at least in charitable contexts.

And this continues to baffle me. The whole point of democracy is that WE ARE the government. When we wish to provide ourselves something as a nation, be it effective law enforcement or better access to health care, government is the modus operandi.

The American fear of government bureaucracy is a boogie-man stirred up by Capital Hill Pots to call Capital Hill Kettles black. Sure, we've all had long waits at the DMV - but I've had longer waits on the phone with my credit card company. Tax forms are famously confusing, but they're Dick and Jane compared to a wireless subscriber agreement. I've now seen numerous testimonials from doctors who detest the hassles they have to go through in dealing with private insurance companies, compared to the cooperation and straight answers they get from Medicare. Government bureaucracy maintains the streets, provides clean water, runs the schools, puts out fires, delivers the mail, operates the best armed forces in the world and gives them medical care and a college education to boot, put a man on the moon, and even established this wonderful thing we are using right now - the internet.

Besides, as many have pointed out, bureaucrats are already making decisions about your health care. They could at least be bureaucrats who are not motivated by profit margins.

America is a deeply geneours and charitable and compassionate nation. We help each other in countless monetary ways, on top of what the government takes and squanders. Do you doubt that? Do you doubt that private charity is much more efficient that government programs?

Absolutely. Private contributions to one-shot projects, such as building a conservatory or funding a research project have proven invaluable. However, charities which solicit money from the general population for sustained causes like feeding the poor have a much spottier record. For one thing, dealing with uncertain amounts of money from diverse and shifting sources causes administrative problems on the receiving end. Knowing what's out there and who to trust causes problems on our end. And mostly, the big problem with any solicitous charity is that they must advertise, and the advertising budget almost invariably consumes most of their income. A government-run program based on taxation solves all of those problems.

4. The entire society shares the cost. No, we don't. And that's part of the problem. UHC would be primarily income tax supported. 50% of Americans do not pay income tax. 100% of Americans would be covered. That's unsupportable in the long run.

First of all, the figure is 38% of households pay no income tax, and over half of those make less than 20,000 per year (According to Urban-Brookings), so don't count on much money from them anyway. Also, let's be clear that this is Federal Income Tax -- everybody pays payroll tax, which mostly goes to SS and Medicare, but much is diverted for general use.

Secondly, it is NOT going to 100% of Americans. Most of us already have private health coverage, so we obviously won't be needing money from the public plan.

Third, I don't want to make light of the problem you've stumbled upon here, but it isn't a problem with universal health coverage per se. The problem is a politicized tax code and an ever vanishing middle class.

5. It does not replace private medicine. Then why has President Obama floated the trial balloon of "mandates". Don't you remember the fiasco of HillaryCare, where everyone would be forced into the plan or pay exorbitant penalties? That's what statists want, and what statists do. And Barack and company are proving to be capital S Statists! Go back to Obama's speech where he toyed with the notion that "you have to have healthy people in the pool to cover the costs of the sick." Just like insurance companies need a wide pool of healthy premium payers to cover the costs of the sick. Mandates. Yes, Obama has floated that word.

I have no idea what connection you're trying to make here. First of all, yes, you need healthy people paying into the system. Obama's philosophy seems to be that if you provide insurance at a good enough price, everyone will buy in voluntarily. But if he's wrong, yes you need mandates to balance the costs. I don't see to much problem with that - here in California we have a mandate to buy liability insurance to drive a car, and despite a little grousing everybody seems pretty happy with it - especially after an accident.

But mandates have nothing to do with the argument between public option and single-payer. They would only really be necessary if both choices were dropped in favor of simply requiring private companies to offer coverage to everyone.

aimee writes: "as an Australian, I find it completely befuddling to imagine that in a developed country, with no apparent lack of health facilities, one could be refused health care."

As An American, I find it befuddling that someone from a well developed country could have such a misunderstanding of american health care. One cannot be refused health care.

"in America, you can walk into a hospital bleeding, sick and dying, and be turned away? A doctor would refuse to SAVE A LIFE because of something so abstract and comparatively worthless as money?"

Wrong on both counts, Aimee. Its impossible for a hospital to turn away someone who walks in (or carried in), bleeding, sick and dying because its against the law for them to do so. They have to worry about payment later. And I've never heard of doctors refusing to save a life because of money.

Hello Roger,

I did not support GW. Nor am I a Republican. And I believe HealthCare is one of if not the important issue for Americans. But having said (wrote) that, I also believe the way President Obama went about this was and is a travesty. When I read the attached article below, I found myself nodding in agreement to just about every point she was making.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index.html

Many Americans are distrustful when the present party in control of the Government plans to change something that is so intrigue to their lives. Look at what happened when Bush tried to privatize a portion of the Social Security. And by the way, were those folks in revolt or opposed to this a “Mob”? Ah, clearly not. And when the Prescription Drug Plan was barely passed in the middle of the night (written & shepherded by a congressional member that now works for the Pharma industry) while America slept was and is outrageous. That plan by the way is now commonly acknowledged to be a failure and has added billions to the national deficit while benefiting the Drug companies.

So why the rush now? Why did Obama initially try to push what Congress had come up with through the same way before most people even had a chance to read or understand what was in the Bill or even before there even WAS a Bill? I’m sorry, but when this happens people just don’t TRUST. And they shouldn’t. This has lead to what we see now at these so called “Town Halls” with all the outrageous claims and misinformation. And whose fault is this? Obama’s. Why didn’t the White House take ownership of this from the get go instead of delegating to Congress? Is it any wonder we see what is happening now?

I believe HealthCare is a right for Americans. But the system we change to is as important an issue as what we leave behind. We (still) don’t know what that system will look like, how it is paid for, what it will cover or a myriad of other factors, known or unknown. And that’s the point.

And I’m sorry, but you just can’t compare the Canadian system with an American one. Canada has a population of 33 million people. The U.S. has over 300 Million. How about another comparison then? Why doesn’t the President and Congress just give us lowly Americans the HealthCare THEY have? It is commonly acknowledged that US Government employees have one of the best healthcare plans in the country. The hypocrisy on display here is just mind-boggling. And if anyone doubts this, just take a peak at Ms. Pelosi’s behavior when calling people “Un-American”. She once supported “disruptions” in town hall formats when she wanted it for her own political purposes. Now? Well, they’re just a Mob.

http://deceiver.com/2009/08/14/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-like-disruptors-except-when-she-does/

The failure of not CLEARLY communicating to all Americans what was going to happen if we made this monumental change in our lives belongs firmly at the doorsteps of the White House. And President Obama is now paying the price at the polls.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08212009/news/nationalnews/poll__americans_losing_confidence_in_oba_185686.htm

Roger,

I'll propose Randy's brief compassionate conservative health care reform bill:

1. We add the following:

a. We amend the U.S. Government Welfare programs to include a medical card that entitles the bearer to services to anyone who is unemployed or has proof of uninsurability. You don't want it, you don't have to get it. But, if you need it and want it, it's there.

b. We amend Medicare to provide catastrophic coverage to all Americans of any age. Exceed a threshold, and it gets picked up. You are responsibility for having private insurance up to the threshold, just like we are with car insurance.

2. In exchange we get:

a. Tort Reform to lower health care costs and unnecessary testing.

b. Elimination of federal regulations that drive up costs and reduce competition. For example, remove the restriction about buying health insurance across state lines. Let me buy it from Geico or someone on the internet, like I can car insurance.

c. Lower taxes on small business so more of them can afford to provide insurance for their employees (and the government has to do it.O)

Done. Limited government. Compassion for all. Liberty maintained.

Deal?

Randy

Hi Mr. Ebert,

Long time listener, first time caller.

Just a quick comment on the number of uninsured. Do any of the folks who claim that the numbers (40 million, 47 million) of uninsured are vastly inflated realize that they are undermining one of their strongest arguments? The theory seems to be that medical care is zero sum. If you give medical care to everyone, that will, by definition reduce the availablity of care to those who already have it, right? And that of course will lead to rationing and other horrors (according to the argument).

So, let's examine that reasoning in conjuction with the companion theory that the numbers of uninsured are vastly inflated. If it is true that 260 million insured people would be harmed or impoverished by extending healthcare to 40 million uninsured, then does it not also follow that if the number of uninsured is actually more like 5 or 10 million (and I have heard numbers that low quoted as being "more realistic"), doesn't the burden on those insured DECREASE astronomically?

I think the effect of 290 million insured folks helping provide care for 10 million is actually a BETTER argument for implementation of universal care.

Suddenly, no one is asking for the steak from my table, they are only asking for some crumbs from my plate. And how can we morally refuse, if it costs us so little?

P.S. As far as I know, no one has mentioned the U.S. military in all of this. You all do know that active military folks get free healthcare right? And all of their dependents as well, right? And the VA of course takes care of veterans, often till the ends of their lives, right? Any of the right-wing types who hate "socialized medicine" advocating to abolish this free, government provided healthcare? Just asking...

Roger - While you make persuasive arguments, why isn't food an entitlement? Shelter? How about gasoline? Heating oil? Clean clothes? College education?

And while you make a good moral argument for universal care, I think the real debate right now is why the various proposals working their way through Congress are the right approaches to meeting this moral obligation.

The fact that a solution is proposed by a Democrat, or by Obama, doesn't make it the right solution. And before you respond that the Republicans don't offer any ideas or solutions of their own, that still isn't an argument why THESE proposals are the right ones.

Yet another great entry, Mr. Ebert.

To semi-professional movie critics like yours truly, you are some sort of a person to admire, to say the least, and I've been surfing through your blog for quite a while now, though I've never entered a discussion before.

I am from Paraguay, and here we also have, in theory at least, socialized health care, and here too we can choose to go private should we find it a better alternative. I say "in theory" because the Paraguayan people pay ridiculously high taxes for a rather mediocre health care system, but that's due to the colossal levels of corruption that has plagued our government ever since the beginning of the Stroessner dictatorship in the mid-50s, and has managed to survive the dictator's fall in '89 and live on to this very day; that, combined with the passiveness of a population that is still generally afraid of the Government (people here still haven't seen that it should be the other way around, like V said).

But I, too, know about the way socialized medical care is handled in countries like Canada and England (I have relatives living in London), as well as I'm aware of how things are going in the US in that matter...and in my opinion, what the Canadians, English and other similar countries have achieved is something other countries should try their hardest to emulate.

There are people who give the word "socialist" and it's variations a bad reputation, but we're humans, we're supposed to be intelligent beings. And what intelligent beings do is analyze things with calm instead of immediately declare "socialized" just another word for "communist".

Dear Mr. Ebert,

Thank you for stating so articulately what I tried stating so inarticulately in my blog.

The Constitution mentions that one of the reasons the U.S. was formed (and the Constitution adopted) was to "promote the general welfare," which sounds like an argument for universal health care, especially since back then, welfare meant "health, happiness, or prosperity." Go to this link and click on "welfare" in the Preamble:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Thank you so much for this entry.

My husband and I are currently apart because of medical issues. He is German and I am American.

We both moved to Germany, and, as luck would have it, my husband came down with a cronic condition, something that he will have for the rest of his life.

Unable to find work in Germany, I chose to return to the US. We have been apart for nearly 1.5 years because of one simple reason: he is able to get the care he needs in Germany. He would not get help here.

I did freelance market research and translation for awhile, but there was no way I could afford health insurance on what I was earning, especially since the "self-employed" have to pay extra taxes.

Now I'm counting down the days until I have insurance, and my husband and I can finally be together.

Thank God for the German healthcare system.

Evan wrote, "Why are people poor? I would argue that in at least 90% of the cases, it is because they have made foolish choices. Maybe they didn't work hard in school, and failed to get a high school diploma. Maybe they got pregnant at an early age, and were unable to financially support their child. Maybe they bought houses or cars they couldn't afford, or racked up excessive credit card debt. Maybe they majored in Art History in college, instead of a marketable skill such as Engineering. Maybe they didn't save their money during times of plenty, so that when the rainy day came (such as cancer), they didn't have enough."

The idea that everything comes down to the choices you make is a fallacy (you even follow it up with the classic "I know someone who managed to get out of poverty, so that means that anyone who doesn't is responsible for it"). What about kids who never had a chance to get a good education? Or those who, for health reasons, were never able to complete high school/college? What about the people who suffered from a random accident that left them unable to work?
Equality of opportunity is a great concept. Unfortunately, it is not a reality. There are so many more factors than just the choices you make. It is easy to believe so when you are not part of the ones who "made the wrong choices" (and flattering, too, after all it means you made the right choices, and are better than them). It doesn't make it true.

Also, I weep for a world where every college student would make the "right" choice of going for a marketable major. We wouldn't be having this conversation on a film reviewer's blog, because there would be no films to review.

Ebert: If Evan, God forbid, loses his job and his health insurance, it will be 90% his own fault.

I assure you I'm not confused about the definitions of freedom and anarchy. I won't derail the thread by trying to start some kind of discussion of anarchy, but I made the points I did to point out the intellectual inconsistency practiced by nearly everyone on the planet. I've practiced it way too many times to count as well.

Basically it boils down to this: People wish to do whatever they like, and are just fine forcing other people to do those same things. Freedom for me but not for thee.

This happens on both sides of the aisle constantly by politicians, media, and regular people and is occuring on this blog, but it's justified by equating democracy and freedom.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington

If a homeless person came up to you on the street, brandished a knife and demanded money, this would be considered theft and wrong by any of us.

If the homeless person hired a big guy to hold the knife and took your money, it would still be theft.

Even if he was close to death, and the money would pay for his food, it would still be theft.

I am a liberal. Let me make this clear. But, as an avid SF/F reader, the best authors give us cause to think. Terry Goodkind tends to get a bit preachy in his Sword of Truth series, but one in the series discusses this same issue. I can't do him justice but I do want to summarize it a bit.

If I, as a righteous man, decide to give money, time, resources or any thing else to help the poor, or the disadvantaged, both of us are improved by the effort. I would hope that this happens all the time, but alas, it does not. Or at least, not enough.

If I am forced by some external organization to give my money to the poor or disadvantaged, it does not make me righteous. Even if I willingly give it (taxes), it still remains the external orgaization giving the resources.

The United States was founded on the concept that the power of the government ultimately rests in the governed, with limitations to prevent the tyrany of the majority. I see many valuable and worthwhile acitivities our government should be involved in, but I also see no desire for people to voluntarily pay for these activities.

American people are in general very generous. But when some unseen entity takes money from us to give to some other unseen entity without our consent, we are right to be unhappy.

So, for those who have read this far, consider what follows as the ultimate reasons why, dispite all the points I raise above, univeral health care is not just desirable, but a necessity.

First, from a capitalistic point of view, an economy of scale is created with enough people under the same system. When this scale is derived from an insurance agency, they are obligated to maximize profits, not health. The government can achieve both.

But, why can't a voluntary co-op or some other variation work? Again, economy of scale. It requires a large number of people to be under the same system, and that would require the system to undercut private insurance (eliminating them) to encourage people, or would need to be financed by taking money away from other needed government services.

Under discussion is how much money this will cost relative to other activities (like the war in Iraq), but really nobody trust any of the numbers since all they see is money being taken away and given to someone else.

So consider... we already pay for this. (What? No I don't!) Hospitals are required to treat walk-ins (at least here in California) without regard to their ability to pay. So, when they don't pay, who pays? Everyone who uses the hospital. In other words, you are already paying for the uninsured.

But, as has been mentioned many times, a doctor visit that cures before it is an emergency is much cheaper than than the emergency room. So, it is in each of our self interest to have a common insurance, not just for the respect of life, but because it is one of the few ways of reducing the cost to ME.

In other words, I allow the government, of which I am one of the governed, to collect and pool money to achieve an economy of scale that will allow me to reap reduced costs the next time I need the hospital. And if along the way, I recognize my responsibility as one of the justifications of governmental power, and recognize that my decisions matter, then maybe, just maybe, I can feel righteous for having helped my fellow man.

Jason,
Speaking of "flawed points of view", the very phrase you mention "slippery slope" is an informal fallacy of logic and reasoning.
Here's a helpful website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Last week my friend and I were having a discussion at work about the health care issue. We are both for universal coverage, and our discussion was focused on how people simply rejected fact, and continued to focus on the lies and falsehoods that have been injected into the public’s conscious about healthcare. One point in particular that we focused on was that people did not believe that Medicare was a government healthcare program. No one can refute that fact, yet people continue to believe that it is not run by the government.
My argument was that the reason these people chose not to believe these facts, even after being presented with them, was because they were all engaged in groupthink that is against that evil word “Socialism”, “Liberalism”, and in some cases President Obama himself. Even if deep down some of these individuals might actually rationally come to the conclusion that universal coverage is a good thing, I believe that they would find it next to impossible to come out publicly in support of it in front of their fellow groupthink members. It is very hard for an individual that is joined together in groupthink with others to stop, and stand up against the group.
I remembered these ideas from a class and professor I had during my undergrad years at DePaul. The class was called: “Mass Media and Culture”. Wanting to get help in articulating my groupthink argument with my friend, I went to my old professor’s website where she has essays and articles on the subject, and I came across the following BBC documentary: “The Century of Self”. Found here: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=8339

I watched all of the episodes, and part 3 in particular struck out in relation to this discussion I was having with my friend. This idea that has been propagated in our society that we as individuals can do whatever we wanted, and that we should have the freedoms to do so. Again I cannot articulate the points as well as the documentary, but the basic premise is that we have been sold this idea of the all powerful self that is primarily focused on achieving its own goal and satisfactions first, with little regard for anyone else. I feel there is a lot of evidence of this in our society today. If one watches the documentary you will see more examples of this.
Getting back to the Health Care issue, I feel that we as a society must get over these ideas, and start to realize that we as Americans, as human beings, are all in this boat together. Our nation cannot rise on the backs of a select few, but rather, we must come together as rise together. So many to adamantly declare that they are Christians, yet many of the same individuals are so firmly against universal healthcare. Is it not your duty as a Christian to care for and help the needy, the sick, and the poor? As someone else stated on this board, was not Christ the ultimate socialist? The bible verse that Rodger quoted summarizes this point perfectly. No one who claims that they are followers of Christ can with a clear conscious be against universal healthcare.
Thank you Rodger for another thoughtful commentary on this issue.

When it comes to politics, Roger Ebert is dumber than a bag of hammers.

Ebert: Now that is dumb!

I’m posting in response to Guy who posted on August 21, 2009 1:52 AM. He is the college student with the leaky aortic valve.

Guy, I’m empathetic to your situation because as an uninsured college freshman I tore my ACL and cartlidge in a pick-up basketball game. While my injury wasn’t potentially life threatening like yours may have been -- it was life altering. Without the surgery and physical therapy I never would have been able to compete athletically again. Total bill: Over $20,000 (this was 15 years ago) and not one cent of it was covered by insurance.

Guy’s post is exactly what is wrong with the healthcare debate. I know this is supposed to be the “emotional” blog but facts trump hysteria. Guy’s post is as hysterical and factually inaccurate as Sarah Palin screeching about “death panels” or that poor woman who humiliated herself on national television telling Barney Frank that our President is a Nazi.

1. "I didn't have insurance before because I couldn't afford it; now, barring this direly-needed reform, I am blacklisted for life, a life likely to be made much shorter due to the prohibitive cost of treatment."

Claiming that you are “blacklisted” for life because of your heart condition is totally false. Here is a link to my alma mater’s student insurance. This is similiar to the insurance that I acquired after my knee injury: http://www.umsl.edu/services/health/insur.htm. Click on the “Domestic Students” link to pull up the pdf of the policy. Notice on page 6 that all preexisting conditions are covered after you are on this plan for 12 months. This is very reasonable because you are a serious risk to an insurance company. Do you think a car insurance company would forgive a DWI after 12 months or a life insurance company would overlook Ebert’s cancer after only a year? No way. The premium for the highest level of coverage (option 2) is $172.75 per month. If you have half a brain you’ve learned the same lesson I learned: you can’t afford not to have health insurance. Don’t wait for reform. Get a second job, or get a better job, or take out a student loan, or do all three but get yourself insurance.

2. "I am not worth saving because I "irresponsibly" failed to purchase my own health insurance; that they would rather allow a young man to die of a treatable condition than open the hospital doors just a little bit wider."

How much wider do you want the hospital door to open for you? By your own admission you received world class medical care on a Saturday night without insurance. Why did you put “irresponsibly” in quotation marks? You were irresponsible not to purchase insurance. I made the same irresponsible mistake. So go get insurance right now.

3. "What I would like to do is to ask one of these hive-minded, hate-spewing protesters to look me straight in the eye and tell me that my life is a waste of money"

People can disagree with president Obama’s plan without being “hate-spewing” and “hive-minded”. I happen to admire President Obama. But I disagree with our President, you and Roger Ebert about the role the Federal government should play in our health care. You already have a right to health care. That doesn’t mean that the Federal govt needs to provide it to you. You also have the right to keep and bear arms. This doesn’t mean tax payers are obligated to foot the bill for everyone to recieve a govt issued Glock 9mm?

And by the way – your life is not a waste of money. In fact your life is so valuable that a hospital provided you $17K worth of healthcare without proof of insurance. Moreover, your life is so valuable that YOU have an obligation to YOUrself and everyone who loves YOU to eat sensibly, exercise regularly and protect YOUrself with health insurance.

4. "I would love nothing more than to put each and every one of them in my shoes to see how it feels to be faced with bankruptcy before the age of twenty."

I’ve been in your uninsured shoes. I was depressed and scared shitless when the hospital bills, surgeon’s bills, MRI bills, and PT bills started rolling in. But I didn’t declare bankruptcy. I consolidated the debt through a local bank and had $166/mo automatically withdrawn from my checking account until the bills were paid off. I also got a commissioned based sales job so that I could earn some decent money as a student.

Guy, you are 19 years old. You’re an adult. Man-up and stop being a whiny brat. Step 1 to manning-up is calling the phone number in the link I provided and find out what the group health insurance rate is for your university. You are worth much, much more than $172 bucks per month and you need to get your coverage in-force pronto so that if your ticker acts up 13 months from now you are protected. Good luck, young man!

As one of the 47 million without healthcare, thank you for your post. The economy forced the company I was working for out of business which meant that because the company was no longer there, I couldn't get COBRA medical coverage. Who could have afforded it anyway? I'm a single parent with an "ex" who is a deadbeat father. Let him give me the more than $50 thousand he owes in back support and I could afford to provide my own health insurance. Right now I struggle to afford the maintenance medications I need for my diabetes and diabetic complications and for the long-term medications my son is on for his neurological disorder. I hold my breath every day I am unemployed, fearing that if I go out to the grocery store or even just walking the few blocks to the local high school that the unexpected "what if" might occur. With the swine flu, I just prayed that neither my son nor I got it. And yesterday morning I found a small lump in my breast, but I can't afford to go have it checked out since I have no medical insurance.

I listen to these people arguing that "I have insurance and don't need the government to step in." Well good for you. Stop being so selfish and think about your next door neighbor who lost their job and was the sole support of their family. Think about the people who are so ill they can no longer work and can't afford to be treated. A friend just informed me that he lost a dear friend of his because she was uninsured and was refused treatment for her kidney disease because she didn't have insurance. By the time she qualified to be treated, it was too late. She died yesterday from renal failure at the very young age of 41, simply because she was uninsured.

Something has to give. I applaud your statement to those who think the "numbers are inflated" on the uninsured. WHO CARES?! Even one person without medical coverage is too many. The health insurance issue can't be solved overnight and shouldn't just be *slam!* we're done with it. Get real people into the discussion, not just politicians and attorneys and let's move this thing forward.

I am a christian-that is, i believe jesus. and i am unashamed that your quote of matthew moved me to tears. your swing from the heart and not the head landed on my gut, if not the jugular.

this may not be the place to do it, but i would like to respond to the objections to universal health care coming from people who are christians as well. as a person of faith, i am held to a different vow. not a higher vow necessarily, just different. so i don't have any real expectation that someone who does not share my faith to agree with me, or in this instance, to be motivated to do right and good for the same reasons.

but for those who seek to live like jesus, i cannot comprehend how one can be against universal health care (UHC) on moral-no, spiritual grounds.

from peter chattaway:

"The passage you cite from Matthew is a very important one, to be sure, but it says nothing about the role of the state. Jesus actually had some rather sharp things to say about the political leaders of his day, and the taxes they imposed on people, so quotes like the one above only get you so far. One could certainly argue that there is nothing particularly moral about being charitable with other people's money, or delegating the responsibility of distributing that money to some anonymous and possibly wasteful bureaucracy."

i would disagree. this passage says everything about the state since WE ARE THE STATE. in the voting booth and in the pews, i am the one with a political and spiritual voice and responsibility. jesus said very many things about the leaders of the day, political and spiritual (way more spiritual than political by the way). but who would argue that his rebuke is not universal? hypocrisy is bad. EVERYONE is your neighbor, no? our world may be much more complicated in jesus day, and in so many ways more sheltered. our responsibility is the same to take care of the poor we see as well as the ones we do not see.

this passage takes you quite far, and to argue against UHC in the face of this passage while possible, makes the christian perform such biblical and spiritual gymnastics in explaining away the responsibility of the christian living in community, that one questions what jesus would have say to our very sophisticated line of reasoning. the jesus i know cocks one eyebrow as if to say, "really? that complex to understand?"

this passage is the tip of a VERY large iceberg (just for fun, go to ANY online bible program and type in "poor" and see what comes up), and again, it is possible to argue against UHC in light of it, but one has some 'splaining to do.

as for being "charitable" with other people's money i would say a couple things. charity is not charity when we are talking about a spiritual imperative. jesus does not give me, or the church, a choice to take care of the poor. it is a command-it is about what is just and right. as to whether it is "other people's money", i would say that we do that all the time. i will walk home on a clean and safe street that was funded with my approval and my tax dollars and my vote. and hey, so can you! and in all seriousness, what would your jesus say if he were sitting in a church board meeting that was voting on whether to buy a larger screen tv for the youth group, or to expand the food ministry to feed more people? we are "charitable with other people's money" all the time. because hey, it God's money, right? furthermore, i believe in that boardroom meeting it would be called leadership to do so, and i am grateful that as a country we are struggling to lead in this regard as well. this is our chance to truly become a "more christian country" as it were. deal with that-separation of church and state vocals!!!!

again, i don't expect everyone to understand, much less agree with this reasoning. the different God that we worship holds our different vows and promises. but the jesus i know is all too clear in this passage. but admittedly, the seemingly bold thing to believe, is that according to this passage, we will all answer the same question in front of him whether we worshiped him or not.

peace.

I'm remembering that famous scene in James Ivory's "Howards End" (1992) when Mr. Wilcox (the Anthony Hopkins character) muses: "The poor are poor, and one is sorry for them... but there it is".

What scares me is that some members of the upper classes still hold true to that blind way of thinking.

Dear Roger,

Thank you for your piece, as always you are thought provoking.

No healthcare system is perfect, however ours is shameful. I was born in a third world country where people die in the waiting room. I visited my country of birth a few times and seen the madness of their health system. Being one of the “poor” people in America I have seen the system from the bottom-up, however I did not think it was as bad as my country of origins until recently. My mother broke her wrist and needed surgery; without an active health insurance we were promptly directed to the county hospital. When I set foot inside the waiting room, I thought I had been transported to my birth country. People noticeably very sick, with broken swollen body parts had been waiting to see the doctor for several hours. One man I spoke with had been waiting to be seen for 8+ hours.

At my 25 years of age, I have worked for medical facilities and know the cost of healthcare and the payment or lack-off doctors receive for their services. I knew my mother’s injury and all the physical therapy she would need after the surgery would cost us roughly the equivalent of a nice 3 bedroom house in the Hollywood Hills (and yes I live in Los Angeles and know the cost of those homes). I was sad and fearful to know I would be in dept for the rest of my life. My birth country has an excuse for putting people in horrible circumstances they are a third world country, but the U.S., what is their excuse?

There’s proximity theory which states that the closer a person is to the event the more affected they will be. To those companies who influence the government people are nothing but statistics, it’s not about morals it’s about figures. I encourage people to see the interview below and see where the fear of socialized medicine comes from. It helped me understand what it looks like from the top-down.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

Almost everyone posting on Ebert's blog named "Rob", "Bob" or "Robert" is troubled by the universal healthcare proposals.

Are we more sensitive about the misuse of our tax dollars? I guess the Roberts don't want to be "robbed".

Weird, huh?

The bit about the number of uninsured brings to mind George C. Scott's line in Dr. Strangelove (when proposing a nuclear first-strike): "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I'm saying 30-40 million dead tops!"

Opponents seem to ignore the huge cost of un- and under-insured people. Moral issues aside, they're a huge drag on the economic productivity of our country. And that affects all of us. They call in sick to their jobs, overwhelm emergency rooms, drain charitable organizations, and have no time or energy to raise their kids or volunteer in community activities. Do people think that they just vanish into some parallel universe?

Mr. Ebert,

My intention is not incendiary. I write that sentence as it has been my experience that people often like to be upset and wallow in the chaos of "liberal" America.

I am a liberal democrat and strongly support the President. His works have been honest and decent. He has done more good in the past seven months than the prior President did in eight years. I read opposition, and in many years have found nothing to convince me I am wrong to feel the way I do.

I have a chronic, incurable, disabling and painful brain condition. I do not share this information for your understanding, but to demonstrate that I have had quite a bit of interaction with our Medical System here in the U.S.A. I have seen doctors from Rochester, MN (Mayo), the University of Missouri, the University of Illinois and in Peoria, Illinois. I live in Normal, Illinois and I have a great appreciation for my doctors here.

Being near the so-called Bible Belt I have been told, numerous times, that my condition is because God is punishing me. Such comments are, to me, the worst kind of arrogance. Yes the combining of Religion with Polictical Conservatism is a reality. To many voters they are one and the same.

Universal Healthcare needs to be a right, just like owning firearms, or free speech, or national defense (indirectly). These truths are, if you'll forgive me, self-evident.

I feel, very strongly, the opposition to this needed law is dangerously close to falling apart. They are pushing to hard against the foundation truth with pillows of lies. The far right in public policy is not going to survive much longer and may citizens will turn against them. I have great hope that someday the Common Good will again be our greatest concern.

The Politics of Fear is not new. In fact it has been around for decades, if not longer. No recent example of this tact is better than our War in Irag. But, that's old news.

What's newer is the linking of "Christian" beliefs with Conservative Politics. While a strongly spiritual person I do not attend church as I have many concerns about the current state of organized religion.

All of these elements are building to a critical mass. The debate, at least, is out there and raising the standard of public debate is highly laudable.

Most voters are not yet thinking for themselves. When they start to, the conservative element will take a hard beating, and since there is a strong perception that religion in America is the same as conservative politics, Christianity will take that beating too.

I do not revel in anyone "taking a beating," and certainly not any religious elements (whose voice in public policy needs to be silent).

After years of Medical experience, and years more coming, I strongly believe Universal Healthcare MUST be.

Those who have wrongly sided with the conservative element will lose much power. Religion is an important part of our society, but it's part in politics is shameful and dangerous, especially to itself.

I respect all religions, and have a deep curiousity about all of them. What I respect more is the idea of America and, right now, the right of all its citizens to quality healthcare regardless of economic measures.

I just wonder of the purveyors of fear realize what will happen when people realize the good that can be done by focusing on what unites us, rather than what divides us.

To begin, I'd love to see some kind of public insurance option. I'm just not sure that the current clowns can put the right plan together.
Forget the illegal immigrant argument. Democrats will find a loop hole to make anyone legal and you all KNOW that.

To our foreign friends, I can only say this.

What is your individual tax rate? What % in total taxes do you pay?

My guess is the difference between your taxes and ours would easily pay for a very good USA policy.

Bob

Quote...Marty;As An American, I find it befuddling that someone from a well developed country could have such a misunderstanding of american health care. One cannot be refused health care.

I agree that it would be rare indeed for a doctor to refuse care in an emergency, but this issue isn't about doctors, it's about health insurance. In that regard, I'm sure you'll find countless examples of people being "refused care".

And in non-emergency cases (I use that term broadly) there are many instances where patients are not treated because they can't pay. I don't blame doctors for this, they should be paid! If you want examples all you have to do is watch TLC. I've seen this happen a few times on that show Big Medicine. One patient was denied coverage and the doctors had to turn him away until he could raise $40,000 on his own. Was this an "emergency". Well, he wasn't going to die from his condition right there and then, but he was certainly going to die within one or two years if he wasn't treated. This is what's known as a crack in the system and many Americans get swept into it. Don't you agree?

But as far as the good doctors, nurses and hospitals are concerned, why do some Americans tolerate the fact that they are being asked to take up the slack? They deserved to be paid and they should be paid. It's not a doctor issue, it's an insurance issue.

The current CARS (cash for clunkers) program was funded with a billion dollars. It quickly ran out. Congress added 2 billion dollars, and it also ran out.

Health care is the same kind of black hole. No matter how much money you use to fund it, it will cost more.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-health-obama-radio-smerconish,0,3650948.story

Los Angeles Times: During a broadcast Thursday with Michael Smerconish, a syndicated radio host:

"You mentioned illegal immigrants," Obama told one caller. "None of the bills that have been voted on in Congress and none of the proposals coming out of the White House propose giving healthcare coverage for illegal immigrants - none of them."

Glad to see President Obama is addressing the problems with his proposal. Specifically, whether the eventual system will cover both Americans AND Mexicans. President Obama used the term "illegal immigrants." Not very PC, but it was HIS quote, not mine.

Reply to: Ebert: I believe universal health care is, quite simply, right. It is a moral imperative. I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn't deserve it.

Universal health care? America has 300 million. The rest of the world, another 6.8 billion.

Who counts as a neighbor? the first BILLION who show up?

House bill, H.R. 3200, says: "Nothing in this title shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

The phrase "lawfully present in the United States" will probably be thrown out as "unconstitutionally vague."

You should be able to limit government-sponsored health care to American citizens, but that's clearly a violation of constitutional law.

What will happen - long-term - is that a health care program will be in place, and then minority groups will elect congressmen who will extend the coverage to "all residents" instead of "all lawful residents."

then it will get really expensive, when we're paying for health care for both the United States AND Mexico.

Reply to: Ebert: I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn't deserve it.

maybe I'm confused by the word "neighbor."

40 And the King will answer them... "I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me...."

Philosophically, how many of these naked, hungry strangers are we supposed to clothe and feed? Are we going to be sentenced to Eternal Punishment if we don't provide for... what was the term... STRANGERS?

While the philosophy might apply to religious belief, it doesn't really work when you're talking about tax-supported government programs.

A great deal of the passion in opposition to universal health care is class and, predominantly, racial prejudice. Every since the 1960s, white working and middle class Americans have been taught to think of the government as a consipiracy to take their hard earned money and give it to lazy people of color who don't deserve it. There is a mean spirited belief that those who cannot afford to pay for health care -- none of whom, of course, are good people like ourselves -- deserve what befalls them.

We see that in the delusion that Medicare is somehow not a government program. Well it is, but it is not a "government program" in the sense these folks understand, because it serves good respectable people like themselves who have paid taxes.

The European health care systems were established as a form of social solidarity among all classes at a time when the European countries did not have significant Third World immigrant populations. If the United States looked a lot more like Denmark, or even like Canada, there would be a lot less opposition to universal health care.

Roger -

You use of scripture misses a huge point. God wants each of use to freely CHOOSE