Ebert supports universal health care

"I believe universal health care is, quite simply, right."
That's how Roger Ebert, Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic, sums up his support for meaningful health-care reform in the United States.
"It is a moral imperative," he continues on his blog. "I cannot enjoy health coverage and turn to my neighbor and tell him he doesn't deserve it."
Exactly. That is why I find opposition to universal health care not just puzzling but a sign of moral deficiency.
Rep. Roy Blunt and his Canada-bashing ilk might want to take note of this observation: "Although we're assured by opponents of the Obama legislation that Canada's system of universal care is a failure, all of [Ebert's Canadian readers who wrote in on this topic], without exception, reported their enthusiasm for their nation's system."
To a reader who opposes health-care reform for philosophical reasons, Ebert had this reply: "I hope your philosophy will be of comfort if you develop a serious illness."
Ebert himself has battled cancer in recent years. His case illustrates how even a Yankee with a six-figure -- maybe seven-figure -- income and (in his case) two health insurance plans is financially vulnerable to a catastrophic illness.
In fact, he writes, "during the course of four major surgeries -- no, make that five -- I maxed out one [insurance policy], and so much for that policy. I'm approaching the cap on the second. Most policies aren't unlimited, you know. Luckily, I now qualify for Medicare."
Now imagine what would have happened to Ebert if he didn't have two insurance policies, and wasn't a high-income earner. Where would he be now if he were just a working-class guy with a working-class job?
Something to think about.