Why object to tax dollars saving lives?

I am starting to feel better about my country because a vast majority of Americans seem to understand that decent health care for all is not about politics, but rather about fulfilling a moral obligation to our fellow human beings, with the possible exception of the burgeoning "tea-bag" movement.

I would like to address a couple points. First, to people who insist that tea parties are not a blunt, Republican tool, I would remind them that this "movement" is nothing more than Fox News saber rattling, started by none other than Glenn Beck. And secondly, to those who fear the socialist scourge of health care reform, according to the World Health Organization, "The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance... The United Kingdom, which spends just 6 percent of GDP on health services, ranks eighteenth." Canada is ranked 30th. Maybe a more "progressive" government is what America needs.

Our country already has several government-run "social" programs in place that many Americans use every day: Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance and welfare, among others. These landmark programs were started by Franklin Roosevelt, who knew that in order for the U.S. to rise up out of the Great Depression, government would have to play a crucial role. I'm sure he reasoned that if government already fights our fires, polices our streets and wages our wars, then why not use this power to save lives in other ways? Why is it that we as Americans have no problem with paying billions in taxes to kill people in defense of our country, but we find it abhorrent if one penny of our tax dollars actually goes to helping one of our fellow citizens actually live a longer, healthier life?

Dan Halfeldt

Aurora