Since February of this year, my family has been without health insurance. However, I am completely opposed to socialized medicine or any type of health-care proposal that would provide "universal coverage." If a family member became very ill, we could use our savings, sell our house or even borrow from our families to pay for medical expenses. For my husband and me, this option is preferable to the possibility of government restrictions on care or long waiting lists to receive care.
There are people who are in favor of government-controlled health insurance who believe that our taxes would not be greatly increased and that the level of care would be better than what we have now. I don't want the government (which has difficult problems with welfare programs and public schools) deciding who receives care and who is too expensive to treat.The utopian view of socialized health care is that everyone will be covered. That is a nice thought, but what about the reality? Examine closely the problems England and Canada have with their government-controlled health care. Will we have ridiculously long waits for doctor visits here, as in England? Will we be arrested and fined for seeking the opinion or care of another doctor that we are not assigned to? How long will our terminally ill family members have to wait to receive lifesaving treatments? Months? Maybe not at all? Will the medication we need be available to us? Will senior citizens be given adequate treatment? I believe the reality will be a nightmare and not an improvement.
It's true that our system of health care now isn't perfect. But we need to take steps to improve the system that we have now - not make it measurably worse. It angers me that the government wants to tell each of us how we will treat our health problems.
Promises have been made to us to the contrary, but I have a difficult time trusting our government, which doesn't seem capable of being honest with us.
Kelli Buckner
West Jordan