I think the core philosophical issue regarding healthcare today is if total universal healthcare is a right to all Americans or instead something else. See the quote below from Women4hope blog.

“Just the other day on my Women 4 Hope blog…I had a young man comment about being told he had sleep apnea, and that he needed a special devise to help him breath at night or he could die. Oddly, his insurance company won’t cover the cost of this piece of equipment. How can that be? This young man has resourcefully started a blog in hopes to find a used machine, or raise enough money to purchase a new one.So, how is it…That we are the richest country in the world, but we can’t afford to make sure our own citizens have quality affordable health insurance? This is actually a question I intend to pose to the presidential candidates at the10 Questions project, later this weekend (I’ll post the video here in comments, once I have it ready).”

I understand the issue this guy is facing. He needs to find a way to pay for a healthcare item that his insurance company does not cover in its policy. He obviously is complaining that the insurance carrier should be paying and not him. So, is it his right to have someone pay for this device?

I don’t think so. I wish him the best, and hope he gets what he needs. In fact, he has taken a very American approach to solving his problem. He is blogging to see if others can help him.

The point here is this, an individual that has a need should not be dependent on the government for healthcare. If healthcare is a right, then where do we stop with the thought pattern? Do we as a society provide clothing to everyone? What about food? That must be a greater need than healthcare. The logic just does not work for me. Healthcare is something we have to pay to receive. Americans simply have their priorities wrong. We would rather have the latest iPod or cell phone than save for our healthcare expenses. Insurance should take care of catastrophic problems; we should be paying for everything else, not expecting the government to take care of us cradle to grave!

I always have fun reading the liberal blogs and just how far off these people are. The comments below are from http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/10/healthcare_for_children.html

“In the days following the President’s last veto, Dems and Republicans began to see the light, as they felt pressure from their constituents to support such a good bill. We’ll see that pressure continue. We may never change the President’s attitude toward providing healthcare for children, but we may shift the power dynamic soon regarding who gets to make that decision.”

First, The USA should not pay for healthcare for individuals over the age of 21. This bill that Bush Vetoed would have paid for the healthcare of “children” to 25 years of age. Also, the wages were way off regarding who qualified. No one that I know of has a problem with poor or working poor having tax paid subsidized healthcare, but it should not be for everyone. President Bush has not said he wants children to die in the streets from lack of healthcare. The liberals just can’t get this right about Bush.

The SCHIP bill is simply an attempt by the liberals to extend government controlled healthcare to the majority of citizens. If this bill had been signed by President Bush, most “kids” up to age 25 would have healthcare via the government and seniors 65 and over would be mostly in government ran programs. Hmm, that would have only left age 26 to seniors totally in the private sector. Again, it just seems to me that the SCHIP bill was an effort to piece mill nationalized healthcare.

After Hillary’s failed healthcare attempt in the early 1990s, the Clinton administration and its T.V talking helpers said it would just have to be done one piece at at time. I guess we see that happening with SCHIP.