Universal health care gives chance for equal society

By: Jessica DeLisa

Posted: 5/21/04

In response to Aaron Sakulich's commentary last week ("Concept of universal health care relic from communism," The Triangle, May 14. p. 11), much can be said. I was a little angered and puzzled by his commentary. His opposition to the idea is not the problem, but the so called "facts" and "statistics" used to prove them. After reading it, I even considered the idea that it was a sarcastic piece.

In his opening paragraph he points out the main reason why this is a bad idea, money. He uses the words "vain or hypochondriac people" to describe the "huge number" of people that the tax payers would have to pay to insure. The thing that I would like to know and that most of you should have asked yourself is where he got the idea that most people who don't have insurance are hypochondriacs. This is not a fact and it is not fair to categorize uninsured citizens in this way. The truth is that many people work 40 or more hours and still do not receive health insurance or enough money to maintain a family. The economy has created a system in which someone can work over time and still not be able to put food on the table. I would not call this person lazy. Their work may not be as honorable, but if we did not have people to pick up garbage every week, our world wouldn't function properly. We need them to do what we don't want to do; this does not make them any less of a person.

Aaron then begins to assume most uninsured people put themselves at risk through irresponsible actions. The statistics presented, although valid, did not provide a sound argument that one equaled the other. So there are 193,000 emergency room incidents that are related to cocaine; where in the report from the National Center for Health Statistics show that those 193,000 incidents were in any way related to a person who did not have health insurance? Maybe the 509,000 attempted suicide incidents (assuming they were somehow related to the group of people without insurance) could have been prevented. Let's assume those people did not have health insurance; they more than likely were suffering from depression, which with treatment could have prevented suicide attempts. Denying access to health care is the same as ignoring a suicidal person. Most people who know a depressed or suicidal person would try to help. So is the difference in this case that you do not know the person suffering?

It is interesting how we believe that the people who take part in these risky activities are all poor people. As if we have not heard of millionaire actors who have been a little too involved in drugs, caught drinking and driving, and so on. I suppose that's OK because they can afford their rehab. Maybe the correlation between drugs and the poor is caused by lack of education and the ability to be easily influenced by the rich, like Robert Downey Jr. or the widely used sex sells campaigns. That seems more logical to explain the actions of the under educated. Rich record producers stoop to a low level to sell at the risk of increasing underage sex, but yet won't take responsibility for the outcome.

The same constitutional argument of why we should not pay for health care is a great reason to argue why we should. Sins of the father shall not be laid on the son; well then, why should a child born into a poor uneducated family suffer without health care because his parents can't afford it. The next argument, that collective punishment for one person's actions is absolutely not allowed, should be applied to a different argument, such as the high car insurance bills that prevents college students and poorer families from owning cars. So even if they did have health insurance, many would not able to use it without a car.

If we are going to talk about punishment and taking responsibilities lets look at where companies decide to dump their waste. Why is it that Chester was the chosen location for waste processing facilities? Why are they punished through the actions of large companies? Is it because Chester has a median family income 45% lower compared to other Delaware counties, or because of its 25% poverty rate? I bet it is safe to say that some of their families can't afford health insurance, but they face many more health issues because of the action of the wealthy and powerful. Chester has the highest low-birth rate and infant mortality rate along with the highest lung cancer mortality rate in the state (Shippensburg University, the Slate, 1996). What were you saying about collective punishment?

What health care covers is an issue whether one pays for their own healthcare or not. If an insurance carrier decides to cover abortions then it should not pick and chose which customers it will cover. By covering it the insurance company recognizes a need for it. The argument made by Aaron is that abortion should not be covered because his money would go to an abortion for a pregnancy he did not cause. With his main concern as money I wonder why he does not support this. It would be a one time fee instead of another child's lifetime to pay for. As for medical marijuana, there really is no way to know the value of it unless you are a very ill person.

I will not even attempt to go into the topic of comparing other countries to ours. I am sure we can think of reasons why this is unnecessary. It would however be interesting to compare the differences from state to state in our own country.

The system today allows for people who do not make enough money to apply for health care, but only under certain guidelines. If you are single and over 18, good luck. My state issued health insurance will run out in a little less then a year when I am 19. When I contacted social services about this, they said that because I am single and not pregnant I do not qualify.

The lack of health coverage has a negative effect on a person and only brings them down further. Working another job and maintaining my active campus life will be difficult, but doable. Is it necessary though? I do not spend my weekends drinking and I am not worried about sacrificing my social life, but it is tough to look around at others who are reckless and don't have to stress about having proper medical care. My only other option is to get pregnant. How is it that I can come from a family that cannot provide health insurance and manage to do something good, but yet I am being pulled back down because I am not pregnant? If I am covered until I graduate and I get a degree it will advance my options. By doing this I will be one less person being paid for by tax payers and one more paying for others. This is the way to break the cycle.

By refusing health care we are refusing an equal chance in society. Health most certainly will affect someone's ability to succeed and limiting it will create a chain that will be near impossible to break. It will only hurt the tax payers more by not providing health care. My advice is to make up your own opinion, but whatever you do, take Sakulich's commentary for what is: A point of view full of statistics that do not demonstrate a relationship between the two things he tries to compare, a contradiction between not wanting to waste his money on health care, but not supporting abortions, stereotyping uninsured citizens and proving to be an unconcerned citizen.

Jessica DeLisa is a sophomore majoring in communications.