Really? Trading Chickens for Healthcare? Really?

In Reno Nevada, the people in charge of the poll booths decided to ban chicken costumes. The reason for this is that the costumes are being used to mock Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden. I think it is reasonable to ban such costumes as I feel it is necessary that the polling booths remain politically neutral, however the reason this incensed me was the reason why protesters were wearing chicken suits in the first place.

Lowden had commented that people should, in lieu of using money or a gov't run healthcare system, barter with their doctors. She said, and I quote, "Our grandparents would bring a chicken to the doctor."

This made me shake my head in disgust. A chicken. Right. Because my doctor would take, in lieu of a $30,000 bill for a surgery, a freaking chicken. It's a preposterous idea and obviously she doesn't literally mean "bring a chicken" but that only illustrates how a barter system won't help the issue. If my doctor is going to accept something other than money, he'll accept something of equal or greater value, meaning that I'd have to own something worth those thousands of dollars to cover my expenses. Even then, the doctor has to find some means to convert whatever the trade was into cash. It won't help.

Then I noticed something else. This woman is a multimillionaire. If she gets cancer, she has the money to pay for it, the money for the medication and everything. She's all set. But damn, if I get cancer, I've already got college bills, and now a hospital bill? I'd be screwed, really. And how is it fair that someone who is rich has a greater advantage to healthcare than someone who is poor?

This is what really astounds me when people are so adamant against healthcare for everyone. With our current system, poor people are left hung to dry if they get sick. Even if they live, it can still be devastating to their lives, incurring massive debt from hospital bills. I just don't understand how healthcare isn't a right for every American, and not simply a privilege for those who simply afford it?

Tea Partyists and Republicans like to scream 'SOCIALISM' in a loud voice when the idea of public health care comes up but perhaps there are somethings, like life's basic necessities, that shouldn't be in the hands of capitalists. Perhaps we should have a government that takes advantage of both capitalism and socialism. A healthy mix of both ideologies will do much better for our nation than simply ignoring the good that can come from socialism.

I am not arguing that we adopt an all out socialist economy. Of course not. Our economy for the most part should be capitalist. I am simply saying that we can use socialism to level the playing field and ensure everyone in America has their basic needs. What is so immoral and evil about that? What is it about the idea of giving everyone a hand when needed that the conservatives are afraid of?

Healthcare should be an option for everyone, no matter how much or how little money they make. Having access to medication, doctors, surgeries, etc, should not come with a crippling bill to those who do not make money.

And someone who is a multi-millionaire, who either never knew or has forgotten what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck, has no room to make comments such as this.

Chickens?

Really?

J Kuhl Signing Off