To the Editor:
Re “Obama’s Audience Speaks First,” by Anna Deveare Smith (Op-Ed, Sept. 9):
A doctor interviewed by Ms. Smith says, “American culture simply has never been based on caring about what happened to your neighbor.” Unfortunately, this is ultimately what this health care debate comes down to. “I’ve got mine; the fact that you don’t have yours is not my problem” is the thinking.
There is a right and ethical way to do things in this world, and the ethical thing to do here in one of the richest countries in the world is to provide health care for all Americans, regardless of whether they can individually pay for it or not.
Yes, socialized medicine is one way to describe it, but what exactly is wrong with that? Who do the opponents of a public health care option think make the medical decisions about health care? The insurance companies do. They are far more concerned about their profit margin than the government will ever be, if it is ultimately to make these same decisions.
And, at least, with universal coverage, we will all have the option of having someone make those decisions, whether the government or insurers, rather than just some of us.
Kimberly N. Hogg
Berkeley, Calif., Sept. 10, 2009
Note from KBJ: Where does the letter writer think the government gets its money? The money is taken from citizens against their will (or without their consent). Why should I be forced to provide for the needs of others (including people whose choices I despise)? Nobody is entitled to my hard-earned money. If the letter writer wants to help others, she is free to do so. She has no right to take my money for her purposes, or to have agents of the state do it for her. How did we get to the point where coercion isn't even seen as an ethical matter (or where coercion is seen as being justified merely because someone needs what one has)?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 