In South Dakota, state legislators introduced a bill requiring people over the age of 21 to purchase a gun. It was a poke at the new healthcare law. The bill’s sponsor, Republican State Representative Hal Wick, said, “Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not,” he said. “But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance.”
OK, so introducing this ridiculous piece of legislation was to prove a point. Does it really though?
vs. 
Guns – used to kill
Healthcare – used to prevent/cure illness
Guns – may not have to be used during a person’s life
Healthcare – will be used at least once in a person’s life
All this has proven is that the state representatives have way too much time on their hands.
I’m writing this post and am sick with the flu. I went to the doctor today, and she prescribed antibiotics. She wanted to treat me as if I had pneumonia because of the symptoms I’m having. She did not want it to escalate. She also told me to start using my steroid inhaler before my asthma gets worse.
I am very blessed to have insurance. What if I didn’t, had to wait, and developed pneumonia? Or had an asthma attack? I’d probably go to the ER. What if I can’t pay? That’s OK, they’ll see me anyway. What if I end up hospitalized because the pneumonia was that bad – from not being able to go to the doctor earlier? I’ll run up this huge bill in the tens of thousands of dollars. If I can’t pay it, I’ll just discharge it through bankruptcy.
This is how it is now. The healthcare law is an attempt at fixing our broken system. It’s far from perfect, which is why we should work on it and not scrap it all together. People are already benefitting from this law. Children will not be denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions and young people can stay on their parents’ insurance until they’re 26.
Instead of writing up legislation to point out what’s wrong with a law, how about thinking of things to make the existing law better? Maybe South Dakota is on to something, though. If people get sick and can’t get or afford insurance, they can kill themselves with the gun that was shoved down their throats.
Spinny Liberal 
February 1st, 2011 at 6:46 PM
Spinny,
What South Dakota did is unfortunate, to be certain. But Obamacare doesn’t help as many people as you think it does – and why? Because it doesn’t go far enough. There are still people who will be uninsured, and many who are insured might as well not be, as their insurance won’t cover certain ailments.
Healthcare is a human right, but Obamacare doesn’t mirror that fact. I wouldn’t mind the Kucinch plan, which is, essentially, a single-payer system.
February 1st, 2011 at 7:32 PM
Yup, ITA. I wanted the single-payer too. We can work with this one, though. The fact that it can’t deny people with pre-existing conditions makes it better than what we have now.
February 1st, 2011 at 8:34 PM
At least we found something we agree on.
See? I’m not a doctrinaire conservative.
February 1st, 2011 at 9:46 PM
Never said you were, Terrance. 🙂
February 3rd, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Really Terrance. I’m impressed.
But I’m confused. As a Libertarian doesn’t a government funded single payer plan cross the line for you?
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Absolutely not, because I firmly believe – as a libertarian – that government has a responsibility to ensure the Rights of people are met! I believe health care is a human right, not a privilege.
February 4th, 2011 at 2:43 AM
Terrance,
I believe health care is a human right, not a privilege.
Bravo!
February 2nd, 2011 at 4:58 AM
The point is that the Republicans better find a way to work with this President or no one but the wealthy and the insurance companies will win. And healthcare costs will continue to escalate. There were a lot of very good measures in the Healthcare Act (gawd, when will people stop labeling it Obamacare? That’s childish and makes me less inclined to listen to them.) Didn’t go far enough? It got as far as it could what with the obstructionism and vitriolic speech (e.g., “death panels”) played out during it’s inception. So, let’s keep what worked and fix what wasn’t appealing, then. It concerns me greatly that the party that has shown itself to be less than interested in the middle class will be doing the fixing. But, I’m trying to keep an open mind. I’m all for constructive compromise and I’m sure Obama is, too. Frankly, the majority of us are one paycheck and one serious illness away from homelessness or, at least, financial ruin.
February 2nd, 2011 at 10:22 AM
ITA. I hope they work with him. I hope they introduce legislation that actually makes this one better. I hope they actually work to make people’s lives better instead of sticking to their admitted objective – to keep Obama from getting re-elected. We’ll see.
February 3rd, 2011 at 11:18 AM
One thing legislators in South Dakota and elsewhere seem to be overlooking here is that we are talking about 15% of the insurable population. 6-8% of those are mostly young adults who feel they are healthy enough and don’t need coverage. The rest are poorer people who feel they can’t afford it but are apparently unaware they they will receive federal assistance to make it cost affective for them.
The fear by others who have adequate coverage of their own that this mandate affects them directly is true only in the sense that by insuring everyone it will lower premiums and contain costs for all. To politicize this in reactionary, anti-government form is despicable, IMO.
February 3rd, 2011 at 8:32 PM
Absolutely despicable. Other countries, some with economies stronger than ours, have universal health care. The only reason why we do not is because of big pharma and insurance companies and their pursuit of profit over people.
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:13 PM
Look at all the studies they produce which say vitamins are either more harmful than helpful, or else have no effect…Then look at independent studies which show that vitamins are extremely beneficial.
Do you think the big-pharma wants you to know that Niacin and Folic Acid are in fact better at reducing LDL and raising HDL than any of their drugs? Nope.
February 4th, 2011 at 2:42 AM
Terrance,
Do you think the big-pharma wants you to know that Niacin and Folic Acid are in fact better at reducing LDL and raising HDL than any of their drugs?
That may be true, and I sure as hell am not defending Big Pharma, but how do you see the industry actively working to conceal this information regarding the benefits of vitamins, which by the way can also be found in natural food sources including meat, poultry, fish, milk, eggs, cheese, broccoli, spinach, dates, figs, nuts, whole grains and fortified grains and cereals?
February 4th, 2011 at 8:00 PM
I don’t think they’re trying to conceal; I think they’re trying to advance conflicting, shotty research to confuse people. And they do it, sadly, through some health care providers; those in their pockets.