Skip to main content

Health care isn't political; it's personal

A couple nights ago, late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel made news by giving a heartfelt monologue with regard to his newborn son, who was born with a congenital heart condition. Teary-eyed throughout his speech, Kimmel said this:

"Before 2014, if you were born with a congenital heart condition like my son was, there was a good chance you would never be able to get health insurance because you had a preexisting condition, you were born with a preexisting condition, If your parents didn't have health insurance, you may not even live long enough to get denied insurance due to a preexisting condition. If your baby is going to die, it shouldn't matter how much money you make. I think that's something that whether you're a Republican, or a Democrat, or something else, we can all agree on. No parent should have to decide if they can afford to save their child's life. It just shouldn't happen. Not here. We need to make sure that the people that are supposed to represent us, the people meeting about this right now in Washington, understand that very clearly. Let's stop with the nonsense, this isn't football there are no teams. We are the team, it's the United States. Don't let their partisan squabbles divide us on something every decent person wants."

In response, here's what a few conservative media outlets had to say:

Washington Examiner: "Don't use Jimmy Kimmel's viral newborn story to defend Obamacare"

RedState: "My Heart Goes Out To Jimmy Kimmel But Using His Story To Plug Obamacare Is Disingenuous"

The Daily Caller: "POLL: Should Jimmy Kimmel Use His Children's Health Problems To Oppose Repealing Obamacare?"

Washington Times: "Jimmy Kimmel - an elitist creep who needs to shut up"

It really amazes me that the GOP brands itself as the party of family values. While a large majority of Republicans in Congress fight tooth and nail to protect the lives of the unborn, that's when their defense of life seems to end. Once a baby is born, they're on their own.

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as most GOPers seem to call it, isn't perfect. I'll be the first to admit that. However, it has provided over 20 million more people with health insurance and has helped decrease personal bankruptcies by 50%. So no matter what Congressional Republicans would have us believe, when the number of those whom are insured goes up and the number of those whom are bankrupt goes down, not all is rotten in Washington (okay, Denmark).

Many Republicans, including those I already mentioned who had written articles regarding the subject, have come out to criticize Kimmel for his comments, saying, "He just had to make it political, didn't he?" I'm sorry, but people's health isn't political; it's personal. The GOP has made the matter political. To them, this isn't about keeping the positive components of the Affordable Care Act and tweaking the negatives to make for a stronger overall bill and help improve the health of this country's citizens in the process. No, this is about attempting to quash the landmark feat of the previous president, Democrat Barack Obama. The thing about it is neither party should care under which president this law was enacted. They should care about the health and well being of the people they represent. This isn't about taking sides on the political spectrum; it's about saving lives. If the GOP was truly the party of pro-life and family values, they'd see things from that vantage point as well. You can't constitute yourself as pro-life when you're only pro-life-until-birth.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jimmy-kimmel-son-video-obamacare-repeal-2017-5

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"