You said a lot, so I'm breaking it down to respond:
Make me the bad guy if it suits your purpose. You can argue that I live in a conservative stereotype, but I tend to make my decisions over statistics and logic rather than emotion. Health care isn't a right, and the United States became the greatest nation in the history of our planet without social medicine. So your argument that my opinion somehow prevents progress is faulty.
There's plenty of logic behind the idea that what's good for the collective can be good for the individual. Hell, even Spock said that! But in all seriousness, how is it illogical to make a country better by making the weakest parts of its population better off? And, speaking of statistics, you made a lot of claims in this post (your 5 million number below) without any stats to back them up. I don't always need a number to prove something, but since you're basically arguing that 90% of our uninsured population is in that state due to their own fault (and I note that you don't include poverty as a fault), then you'll need to demonstrate that one.
Also, I don't buy your "greatest nation" argument. We have more poverty, a worse healthcare system, and piss poor education...do those not count in the measure of a great nation? Or is it only about military size or some other factor?
And, no, health care is not right in the Constitutional sense. Neither are paved roads, cars, jobs, and millions of other things that we generally think of as making things better. So, what's your point?
I honestly don't care what goes on in Canada because their population is a 10th of the US and they strongly rely on the US for protection and support - as is the case with many countries that afford social medicine. Health care in the US is the best in the world to those that can acquire it (which is the vast majority) and we don't have to worry about union type environments where the CATScan is only operational 10 hours a day. I know the average wait times for care in Canada and other social nations. Thanks but no thanks.
Protection from whom? We pay exorbitant sums to sustain a ridiculously large military, but no country has attacked us in our homeland over sixty years. Of course there have been instances in other places, but one must wonder how things might be different in we didn't project military power into every continent on this planet. Since the end of WWII, there are very few American military misadventures that one could call justified.
But that's off topic. Many of the countries we're currently "protecting" have nuclear arsenals, so I'm not sure how much protection they really need from us. Hell, the reason they can afford universal healthcare is BECAUSE they don't have such exorbitant military expenditures.
Regarding the "wait times", most of my searching on this topic suggests this is more hype than reality. I'm sure there are instances. Perhaps you move and can't get a doctor to serve as your primary care physician because they're all full up. Or you have to wait days to get an appointment for a non-emergency issue. No...wait a minute...I'm getting myself confused. Those are MY experiences with our perfect, wonderful, no wait time American debacle.
Also, the thing you don't note here is that we don't have to implement a system exactly the same as that in Canada or any other country. Indeed, we should not. Examine their systems closely, implement what works, and find different solutions for what does not. If the CT machine is only being used 10 hours a day and there are long waits, then hire more people to run it at different hours. That's the kind of job that doesn't go overseas, and a hospital makes more from running a CT than from having a CT remain stagnant, so I can't see why they'd object.
The excuse that not everyone can have a good job is bullshit. There are always jobs available that pay well, construction or other labor type jobs. I know this and see it first hand. As I said in an earlier post, when you compile all those who lack healthcare in the US at no fault of their own (meaning they can't afford it or an existing program allready would cover them) that figure comes to 5 million people. So 1.5% of people in the US can't afford healthcare. Even under Obama's plan, he estimates 15 million people will still not have care. I hardly think that providing healthcare for those 1.5% (something we still haven't established as a right or responsibility of the government [that pesky constitution is always in the way isn't it?]) warrants the most dramatic social program in the history of the world.
No, it isn't bullshit. Not everyone can have a "good" job at the same time. It is not possible. Suddenly America is a wonderland of boarded up McD's (I'm picturing fried tumbleweed) because all those people got other jobs that paid better and ahve good benefits? Sorry, that just isn't reality. I'm sure some people working as a burger flipper can get a better job, but there aren't infinite jobs.
And the Constitution isn't in the way of healthcare. It simply doesn't speak to the matter.
Mock personal responsibility all you want, but there is a correlation to the demise in sense of self responsibility and the defecit our nation faces. Playing a victim is never a winning strategy. But let me hammer one point again, Obama's plan does nothing to provide total care for all Americans. So if you're going to attack me as some archaic speedbump in the road to progress, you need to add Obama to that group as well.
I'm not mocking personal responsibility. I agree that it's become a sadly diminishing phenomenon. But it isn't
the answer. It's part of a larger answer, sure, but there are other issues that go far beyond personal responsibility.
I'm not the victim. I have insurance. This is not me arguing for something I want provided to me. I'm arguing that our country helps to address a serious problem (poverty) by addressing one of its primary causes (healthcare expenses and crises). I'm arguing that it's a good thing to make the country better in a way that benefits all people.
And, yes, I would agree that Obama's plan doesn't go far enough. But as far as speedbumps go, your position is one of those bumps that makes your car bottom out and gives whiplash. His is very small by comparison.
