JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: In health care reform, consider others' needs

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

Shop Smart, Shop Local

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Friday, October 9, 2009 9:05 PM CDT
LETTER: In health care reform, consider others' needs

PEGGY BRAYFIELD, Charleston

I am a senior citizen who supports health care reform.

I believe our current system is unjust, in that the ultimate decisions of who gets health care are based on money; the money to get good insurance, money to pay the deductibles and co-pays, or if uninsured, money to pay cash for care. Some of that money comes through tax-funded government agencies — Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, military medical service. Those not covered by any of these means, do not get health care.

Like most seniors, I have children and grandchildren, and this is the health care system we bequeathed them. My self-employed children cannot afford to buy insurance. One son pays premiums on a bare bones plan with $5,000 dedictible, and would lose even that if laid off from his job.

My grandchildren have just graduated college, no longer eligible to be covered by student insurance. Would our children and grandchildren be better off with the proposed reforms? You bet they would!

Would I be willing if necessary to pay a little more, or take a little less of what I have, to make that possible? You bet I would!

Perhaps it’s only human to think first, ‘What’s in it for me?’ That why the great religions and ethical systems teach us to consider others’ welfare, not just our own and that of our own families. No religious or ethical teacher ever made ‘Look out for number one’ into a commandment. All the great religious/ethical traditions stress our moral obligation to consider the needs of others. Human society could not exist without some sense that “we’re all in this together.”

Health reform would mean self-employed and uninsured would have access to affordable insurance, with financial help if premiums were beyond one’s means. It would mean no exclusions because of pre-existing conditions. It would mean our children and grandchildren could get health care as they need it, and pass on the benefits of improved well-being to their children and grandchildren.

Whatever this costs, doing nothing will cost more. And not all “costs” can be counted in dollars.

Our Consititution was adopted, in part, “to promote the general welfare.” And if we are “one nation under God,” as we hear so often, then we must consider, not just our personal welfare, but the welfare of all our people.

That’s why we should support health reform now.

PEGGY BRAYFIELD

Charleston

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Harry Potter wrote on Oct 10, 2009 8:42 AM:

" Be patient Peggy, health care reform is coming. All the efforts of Fox news and the radio wind bags combined won't stop it this time. "

likestoknow wrote on Oct 10, 2009 12:34 PM:

" Good letter, Peggy. There have been at least three thoughtful letters published in two days--can this be??? I went to Tim Johnson's Town Hall, where the people behind me had brought their Glen Beck "talking points". A few seats down, sitting behind a friend of mine, someone said "why if all these people get insurance, I'll have to wait two weeks to see my doctor". We should be so thankful for all we have and be grateful to have an opportunity to share with those less fortunate. I, too, am a senior citizen on a fairly small retirement income, but would be happy to pay a little more so others could be insured. The unbelievable selfishness of people is, well...unbelievable! And so much of it comes from people who call themselves "Christians". They have sure heard a different message than I have. "

Interested Observer wrote on Oct 11, 2009 2:06 AM:

" An excellent letter, Mrs. Brayfield! "

prairieguy wrote on Oct 11, 2009 9:30 AM:

" Thank you, Peggy, for putting a human voice to the moral issue of health care for all. Those who oppose it are in it for profit or selfishness, plain and simple. My best wishes to you and yours, and to all of us. "

yocsmotel wrote on Oct 12, 2009 9:40 AM:

" liketoknow, you refer to Glen Beck "talking points," so you also might like to know that Ms. Brayfield's adoption of the "general welfare" argument from the Constitution is one of the Obama talking points. It is also a perversion of the meaning that the founding fathers intended for the Constitution. That argument was anticipated and refuted by James Madison in 1792. For historical background on this, please see http://bejohngalt.com/2009/09/promote-the-general-welfare/
--yocsmotel "

even steven wrote on Oct 12, 2009 10:28 AM:

" What is needed to reform health care is tort reform and the elimination of barriers for insurance companies to compete with each other in all states. The government taking over health care is a dramatic lurch toward socialism and flies in the face of free market economics. "Medicine is the keystone of socialism"-- Vladimir Lenin. We don't need more government control, nor do we need more federal government intrusion into our lives. Until the government proposes tort reform and interstate competetion, health care reform is nothing more than a government power-grab, and I think just about any thinking individual would agree that our government could screw up a one car parade. Big government is not the answer. "

father bob wrote on Oct 12, 2009 2:14 PM:

" yocsmotel wrote on Oct 12, 2009 9:40 AM:
" liketoknow, you refer to Glen Beck "talking points," so you also might like to know that Ms. Brayfield's adoption of the "general welfare" argument from the Constitution is one of the Obama talking points. It is also a perversion of the meaning that the founding fathers intended for the Constitution. That argument was anticipated and refuted by James Madison in 1792. For historical background on this, please see http://bejohngalt.com/2009/09/promote-the-general-welfare/
--yocsmotel """""

good google..... "

father bob wrote on Oct 12, 2009 2:16 PM:

" hey yocs.....try wikipedia next, it's just about as misleading. "

shumphreys wrote on Oct 12, 2009 2:48 PM:

" Yocsmotel the "general welfare" argument comes from the posters on these threads and in the letters to this paper that claim it isn't the governments duty to care for anyone. It is the governments duty and is stated there in the opening paragraph of the Constitution. Madison may have not liked the idea but it is there in plain writing for all to see. It is also the "Christian" thing to do! "

Bernie wrote on Oct 12, 2009 6:34 PM:

" Not only is honest health care reform the moral thing to do, but if done right (and Democrats are not, but then neither did Republicans), it would also save our country trillions of dollars collectively.

Improve and expand Medicare for ALL. It's by far the most cost-effective and compassionate system we have. "

likestoknow wrote on Oct 13, 2009 12:02 AM:

" To yocsmotel--I note you are apparently a devotee of Ayn Rand, who wrote The Virtue of Selfishness. And since I am not a supporter of selfishness, I of course disagree with you. Also, since you seem to be quite expert on the meaning of the Constitution, perhaps the Supreme Court is superfluous. But apparently our forefathers didn't think it was all so simple and that perhaps we would need a branch of government to interpret the law. "

yocsmotel wrote on Oct 13, 2009 9:32 AM:

" It's the government's duty to care for everyone? If that's true, I guess that makes it officially "ironic" to criticize conservatives who call this socialism. As far as it being the "Christian" thing to do, no one is stopping you from being a Christian. Go to church, be a Christian, and help others. That involves what you can do as a Christian, not confiscating wealth through the force of the government to distribute it to others. You're getting Jesus Christ confused with Robin Hood.
--yocsmotel "

Danny Boy wrote on Oct 13, 2009 1:59 PM:

" Do you think it is the government's duty to protect American citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Of course you do, and it is payed for by American taxpayers, who provide a military to do that.

But God forbid we protect our citizens from disease or death. That is only for the privileged, and the wealthy.

If you are unfortunate to have lost a job, or you work where there is no employer coverage, and you are barely making enough to feed the kids?

Well "too bad", I guess. You don't deserve to live.

God bless America "

Danny Boy wrote on Oct 13, 2009 2:00 PM:

" sorry I meant "paid for" not "payed for"..... "

shumphreys wrote on Oct 13, 2009 2:53 PM:

" Oh and yocsmotel from a purely selfish viewpoint, which seems to be the only one you have, healthcare/insurance reform is the ONLY way to go. If you want to protect what little you have that is. Without some reform medicare and medicade (nor social security for that matter) will be there for you. Without some reform you had better hope you never get hit by a drunk driver or an idiot texting or get cancer or diabetes or swine flu or anything else. You had better plan to stay healthy and uninjured for life. "

yocsmotel wrote on Oct 13, 2009 3:07 PM:

" Danny Boy, in answer to your question--no, I do not think it is the government's duty to protect American citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is, however, the duty of American citizens to protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
--yocsmotel "

Danny Boy wrote on Oct 13, 2009 4:39 PM:

" yocsmotel.........wrong again

It is:

"I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God"

It is apparent that you have never served in the Armed Forces, because that is the oath taken during induction into the military.

It is not the pledge of allegiance. and it is not required by the citizens of this country...."They" are not required to do anything !!.......That's the problem !! "

yocsmotel wrote on Oct 13, 2009 5:00 PM:

" Danny Boy, defense is a legitimate FUNCTION of the goverment. Governments cannot have DUTIES, because they are ENTITIES not people. DUTIES refer to CONDUCT and therefore that term can only apply to humans. A pledge to uphold the Constitution is also taken by every federal employee when they are hired. However, every American should be ready to defend the Constitution, regardless of whether they have taken a pledge as a prerequisite to employment or military service. You now correctly refer to the Constitution as the object of defense, not "citizens" as you previously stated. The military is defending the Constitution, not individual citizens. Case in point, on September 11, 2001, the military came very close to shooting down a plane full of civilians. "

Bernie wrote on Oct 14, 2009 10:34 AM:

" " What is needed to reform health care is tort reform and the elimination of barriers for insurance companies to compete with each other in all states."

Both of those ideas only remove the few consumer protections that exist.

"The government taking over health care is a dramatic lurch toward socialism and flies in the face of free market economics."

What about Medicare, "socialized" highways, parks, libraries, fire protection, etc.? "

red,white,blue wrote on Oct 17, 2009 9:14 PM:

" Confusing Jesus Christ with Robin Hood! I love that line!

And Even Steven you always make good points. "