Quote:
Originally Posted by onlydarksets
It's an op-ed, not an article - big difference. It's typical for an op-ed, too. Light on substance, long on rhetoric.
First, I agree with what the author says about potential concerns regarding unions and global warming. Each needs to be checked. However, the rest is pretty much bunk.
- Universal health care: Yes it costs. It's worth it. We take health care for granted, but many can't afford it.
- The business climate: Is the author actually arguing that Sarb-Ox is a bad thing?
- Taxes: Taxes will rise for 2% of Americans and fall for 98%. I really don't have a problem with that. And I'm part of the 2%.
- Free speech and voting rights: This is classic - "Increased access to the polls favors the Democrats". Seriously - is that an argument?
- Special interest potpourri: This is six of one/half-dozen of the other. The R's are just as bad. I will say - does anyone actually think No Child Left Behind is working?
|
I'm completely down for universal health care. I would love to give people who would never be able to afford health care the chance to get treatment they other wise, wouldn't receive.
But I hear in Canada, where they do have universal health care, that:
1) The wait lists there for organs and such are HUUUUUUGE. Bigger than what we have in the US, and people already die here waiting.
and that
2) You have to be either pregnant or dying to get any sort of good attention there. Anyone with any sort of illness deemed "minor" is shoveled medicine and pushed away.
Now this may or may not be true and it's also someones opinion. Even though I've been told this, I'm still for it. The details of it, (insurance companies, prices etc etc) I don't really care about. I'm all about the big picture, if this is implemented (technical insider mumbo jumbo aside) could it stand up?