Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
ENLARGE
My friends are mostly conservative. They are, by and large, business people who have a far different view of government and government entitlement than those who've never signed the front of a paycheck.
Many of them, in fact, are self-employed, which means they get up in the morning and have to find a way to make some money because, if they don't, they won't eat. The law of the jungle.
And so for many of them this national health care debate poses a conundrum: How to balance an inherent distrust of government with the need to provide health insurance for themselves and their families. Many of my friends, you see, don't have insurance because they are self-employed and can't afford it. I can't help but wonder how they really view what appears to be the makings of a trillon-dollar government health care package that is designed to help them and millions of other uninsured Americans.
Me? I'm probably a semi-Libertarian, which means I don't trust government to do much of anything right, especially when it comes to spending money it doesn't have. I think we're headed for a financial train wreck of epic proportions when those bills come due ... and bills always come due eventually. Most who today cheer the mind-boggling money being spent on bank and automaker bailouts and now health coverage won't be around when the check is plopped on the table. Our children and grandchildren probably will and one day they'll wonder why we left them with that tab while we snuck out the back door.
Rep. Tom McClintock, who represents us in the House, voted against the measure last week because, as he says, we can't afford it and because the bill uses the term “shall” more than 3,400 times. He says any bill that tells us what we “shall” do 3,400 times can't be very good.
At the same time I'm reminded that my wife's breast cancer treatments would have cost us close to a million dollars if we hadn't had good insurance. And the medication she takes each day would also be cost-prohibitive if we had to buy it out of pocket. Then I'm reminded that we'd be hard-pressed to purchase the inhalers my asthma-inflicted daughter suffers from. She gets these attacks and she needs the inhalers to breathe.
If I left my job tomorrow and had to go out and buy medical insurance for my family, it would probably cost me close to $1,000 per month, thanks to my age and my family's various medical needs. And since $1,000 per month on top of a mortgage, college bills, food, utilities and transportation would probably be out of reach, we may have to do without, which is a choice millions of Americans have made today.
The risks are significant. An unexpected medical emergency could cost you your house, for example. And since most medical emergencies are unexpected, it's probably just a matter of time before each family experiences one. More and more Americans are one paycheck away from homelessness with or without insurance.
Most of America's uninsured are not deadbeats. They are our neighbors, friends and family members. Among them is the carpenter, who works from job-to-job hoping that there are enough decks to build and repair while he waits for the housing market to rebound, something many experts predict is years away.
She is the 24-year-old retail worker, whose small company doesn't provide medical coverage, so she must scrape together what she can to pay for the birth control pills she takes because she can't afford another mouth to feed.
He is the 50-year-old Realtor whose escrows have been few and far between and nowhere near the level of offsetting the costs for medical insurance for himself, his wife and two teen children. And so he does without the routine checkups, dental cleanings and other so-called “preventative” measures he'd like to have to avoid the cavities and other procedures that will eventually come because he and his family could not afford to cut them off at the pass.
She is the single mother, who has gone years without seeing a doctor or dentist because her children have always come first. Especially when it comes to “extravagant” spending for eye glasses, or fillings, or to address various childhood ailments and accidents that always have mom hoping beyond hope that none of them ever require long-term hospitalization she could never afford to pay for.
He is the 73-year-old man who lives in a trailer and suffers with a broken tooth because he can't get someone to look at it because they know he can't pay. And so he dabs a little numbing liquid on it until he can get past the dental office receptionist who wished he'd just go away.
These are the people behind the debate — a debate along typical and tiresome partisan lines. One side at least recognizes that status-quo is unacceptable and the other ...well ... the other side knows what it doesn't want, but I've seen little evidence that it offers a solution to the real needs of our neighbors, friends and families who should not be without basic medical coverage.
As much as I distrust those proposing to spend a trillion dollars we don't have, I'm hard-pressed to continue to sit with a straight face and explain to my friends that they are better off with nothing.
Jeff Ackerman is the editor/publisher of The Union. His column appears on Tuesdays. Contact him at 477-4299 or jackerman@theunion.com.
Many of them, in fact, are self-employed, which means they get up in the morning and have to find a way to make some money because, if they don't, they won't eat. The law of the jungle.
And so for many of them this national health care debate poses a conundrum: How to balance an inherent distrust of government with the need to provide health insurance for themselves and their families. Many of my friends, you see, don't have insurance because they are self-employed and can't afford it. I can't help but wonder how they really view what appears to be the makings of a trillon-dollar government health care package that is designed to help them and millions of other uninsured Americans.
Me? I'm probably a semi-Libertarian, which means I don't trust government to do much of anything right, especially when it comes to spending money it doesn't have. I think we're headed for a financial train wreck of epic proportions when those bills come due ... and bills always come due eventually. Most who today cheer the mind-boggling money being spent on bank and automaker bailouts and now health coverage won't be around when the check is plopped on the table. Our children and grandchildren probably will and one day they'll wonder why we left them with that tab while we snuck out the back door.
Rep. Tom McClintock, who represents us in the House, voted against the measure last week because, as he says, we can't afford it and because the bill uses the term “shall” more than 3,400 times. He says any bill that tells us what we “shall” do 3,400 times can't be very good.
At the same time I'm reminded that my wife's breast cancer treatments would have cost us close to a million dollars if we hadn't had good insurance. And the medication she takes each day would also be cost-prohibitive if we had to buy it out of pocket. Then I'm reminded that we'd be hard-pressed to purchase the inhalers my asthma-inflicted daughter suffers from. She gets these attacks and she needs the inhalers to breathe.
If I left my job tomorrow and had to go out and buy medical insurance for my family, it would probably cost me close to $1,000 per month, thanks to my age and my family's various medical needs. And since $1,000 per month on top of a mortgage, college bills, food, utilities and transportation would probably be out of reach, we may have to do without, which is a choice millions of Americans have made today.
The risks are significant. An unexpected medical emergency could cost you your house, for example. And since most medical emergencies are unexpected, it's probably just a matter of time before each family experiences one. More and more Americans are one paycheck away from homelessness with or without insurance.
Most of America's uninsured are not deadbeats. They are our neighbors, friends and family members. Among them is the carpenter, who works from job-to-job hoping that there are enough decks to build and repair while he waits for the housing market to rebound, something many experts predict is years away.
She is the 24-year-old retail worker, whose small company doesn't provide medical coverage, so she must scrape together what she can to pay for the birth control pills she takes because she can't afford another mouth to feed.
He is the 50-year-old Realtor whose escrows have been few and far between and nowhere near the level of offsetting the costs for medical insurance for himself, his wife and two teen children. And so he does without the routine checkups, dental cleanings and other so-called “preventative” measures he'd like to have to avoid the cavities and other procedures that will eventually come because he and his family could not afford to cut them off at the pass.
She is the single mother, who has gone years without seeing a doctor or dentist because her children have always come first. Especially when it comes to “extravagant” spending for eye glasses, or fillings, or to address various childhood ailments and accidents that always have mom hoping beyond hope that none of them ever require long-term hospitalization she could never afford to pay for.
He is the 73-year-old man who lives in a trailer and suffers with a broken tooth because he can't get someone to look at it because they know he can't pay. And so he dabs a little numbing liquid on it until he can get past the dental office receptionist who wished he'd just go away.
These are the people behind the debate — a debate along typical and tiresome partisan lines. One side at least recognizes that status-quo is unacceptable and the other ...well ... the other side knows what it doesn't want, but I've seen little evidence that it offers a solution to the real needs of our neighbors, friends and families who should not be without basic medical coverage.
As much as I distrust those proposing to spend a trillion dollars we don't have, I'm hard-pressed to continue to sit with a straight face and explain to my friends that they are better off with nothing.
Jeff Ackerman is the editor/publisher of The Union. His column appears on Tuesdays. Contact him at 477-4299 or jackerman@theunion.com.
