
![]() |
Where do you prefer to meet new friends? |

Recently, I became embroiled in a spirited classroom debate with an extremely conservative classmate on the topic of health care. In the process, he made his position abundantly clear with one particular statement: He does not believe that he should have to pay for someone else’s problems under any circumstances.
His appallingly callous attitude got me to thinking more broadly about such matters. For openers, it led me to wonder if those who hold such beliefs would support sending taxpayer-funded fire personnel to a house across town to extinguish a dangerous blaze. Isn’t that someone else’s problem?
What about sending taxpayer-funded police officers to arrest malcontents who are vandalizing a random car in a parking lot? Surely that, too, is someone else’s problem.
I therefore find it ironic that very few conservatives are lobbying to privatize fire and police protection. They probably don’t like the idea of calling 911 to report a fire and being told they’ll have to wait while the dispatcher finds out if their insurance covers the particular type of fire that’s rapidly consuming their home!
That’s basically how our health care system works. Every day, good people lose their health because they can’t afford the skyrocketing prices of both treatment and insurance – and some who have excellent insurance die anyway because their carrier refused to pay for treatment in order to increase profits.
America, then, is a place where it’s considered morally acceptable to force good people to suffer and die needlessly in the interest of maximizing profits. My classmate, being a conservative, would no doubt rationalize the issue by asserting that maximizing profits is the American way – and besides, the suffering and death are someone else’s problem.
Does that sound like the kind of country you want to live in?
Richard Snowden
Senior, English/political science major

![]() |
Where do you prefer to meet new friends? |