Authentic Christianity: Loving your neighbor with your own money.
Acts 2:45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
I’m not saying there isn’t a role for government in helping people in times of need. I am saying that it is nauseating to see heretics play the “Jesus card,” as if Obamacare in its current state is straight out of the New Testament.
Side note: Shame on Chuck for only using the word “extremist” one time in his post. You need to use it multiple times to demonstrate that your oppenents are so evil and such a minority that you don’t need to discuss their ideas. Then again, you could look at all the facts and see who the real extremists are.
By the way, where is the separation of church and State crowd now regarding the religious groups pushing for Obama’s health scare plan? Why aren’t they blasting those who are imposing their (false) religious views on others? Oh, right, because that is just a fake argument they use to try and silence those they disagree with.
Obama & Co. continue to abuse the trusting nature of Americans. Here’s another hidden item in the Bill That Is So Incredibly Important That We Must Pass It Without Further Obstruction From Extremists But Not Important Enough To Actually Read It Or Apply It To The President Or Members of Congress: Obamacare gives the government the right to take your children. Hyperbole? Read the bill’s language for yourself and see.
P.S. My biggest laugh yesterday was passing a TV just as Obama was blaming the media for misinforming people about the wonders of his plan. Uh, yeah, once again the media is out to get you.
Excellent. We need much more of that said than is being said right now.
When Christians don’t/won’t step up to the plate and do as the Christ commanded of them, then it’s absolutely fine with me that Government step in and make it happen.
That’s a provocative comment and there could be merit there, but you seem to make a few big assumptions:
1. The government will do the right things.
2. The government will do them well.
3. That what they do is in line with Constitutional powers.
Yes but it seems like Conservatives are making some very big assumptions also
1. For profit Corporations will do the right things.
2. For profit Corporations will do them well.
3. That what they do is in line with Constitutional rights.
Oh, we know that many corporations will do the wrong things. We know human nature and aren’t nave like Liberals. But true competition is the best antidote to that.
True competition is a motivator, but surely we need better consumer protections in regards to the health care industry (at the least), bottom line, pre-existing condistions must be eliminated. A person who has paid for health care insurance with their employer for 10 years and has diabities, high blood preasure, etc. is out of luck if they get fired or laid off and happens to pick up a gig with no health care. Cobra cost are ridicules and they won’t be able to get coverage because of “pre-existing conditions”.
If that is changed, the whole system then has to fundemental change, hopefully a pool for unisnured people between jobs or under employed or self employed to have buying power because a mandate has to happen if the insurrers have to insure people regardless of preexisting condition.
I agree that some creativity needs to take place with respect to pre-existing conditions.
Side note: I also think insurers have a right to give incentives to people who do basics like taking care of themselves. I’ve seen a lot of humanity lately with my travels and am disgusted at how poorly people treat themselves. If they would get off their . . . couches . . . and walk 30 min. a day it would do more for the average national health than any other healthcare reform.
My understanding is that “pre-existing” conditions can be waived under HIPPA. Apparently you have to show a Certificate of Credible Coverage. My step-son and his wife are going through this process with their newborn daughter even as we speak. She had coverage through her mother, then COBRA for 4 months and is now switching to his coverage.
The problem comes into play for people who can’t afford cobra coverage after they are laid off and who don’t qualify for medicare due to the unemployment benefits or if they take a dip in income with a job without insurance. Hapens all the time…
“then it’s absolutely fine with me that Government step in and make it happen.”
Why?
Because the majority of people want them to step in.
Are you okay when they step in and pave the road in front of your house, or would you rather do that yourself?
What about schools? Should we close public schools as well? Should we just allow the rich kids to have their private schools, and the poor kids learn from the streets?
So your logic is that the government does some things, so it can do anything the majority wants? Can you see where that might have limitations? If so, then perhaps you’ll grant us that the currently proposed health care initiative might not be the best plan just because the government is behind it.
This is a perfect example of what you’ve complained about with LCB. You make ridiculously broad statements like that. I ask a question to demonstrate why the comment was ridiculous instead of saying it is ridiculous (Uh, except for this paragraph).
Neil, nothing I said was ridiculous. If you want ridiculous, check out the claims that “Obamacare” will take your children, and kill your old grandmother.
I absolutely acknowledge that the government could screw this up, and I don’t think that government backing makes a plan a good one. They screw it up in Canada ALL THE TIME, and it takes constant pressure from the public to keep the ship right. However, I do not believe that a health care system run by people whose entire mission is to get you to pay the most, and provide you with the least is a good alternative. All the “good” stories about private health care come from the people who have the money to pay the massive costs. You are completely ignoring the poor and disadvantaged. I believe they deserve the same level of service as the rest of us.
People with money can have a nicer car, nicer house and nicer clothes, but their life is not more valuable than anyone else’s.
But in your pro-legalized abortion rationale you’ve made the case over and over that differences of opinion over which human beings qualify as “people” are entirely logical — provided that they end up with the same fuzzy description of when protections are deserved as you do.
Now you want to play the moralist and talk about all lives having equal value? Sure.
You insist that all have a “right” to the same level of service, but of course Obama & Co. won’t be subject to the plan they are pushing yet haven’t even read.
You naively imply that there are unlimited funds to provide the ultimate care to everyone on the planet.
And you complain about red herrings…
You can’t have it both ways. I hear conservatives complaining that there will be no private option, and also complaining that Obama will choose the private option for himself. There will be a private option. There has to be one. If there isn’t a private option, people with money will travel to a country where there is one, like Canada.
Red herring? Heh. They market the plan as being swell but wouldn’t touch it themselves.
And you seemed to have ignored the part about how they haven’t read the plan. How do they even know what it says?
You brought up abortion as a red herring, and that is irrelevant.
You’re right, they probably wouldn’t touch it themselves. They are rich and have nice private plans that probably give them nightly foot rubs. Does that not prove to you that those who want a private plan can still get it?
I certainly hope that those making the decisions have read the bill, and either way, it’s in the public now, so any objections can be made. The problem is, most of the objections I’ve heard have nothing to do with the content of the bill, and are mere speculations about Obama’s intent.
No, you brought up life and death decisions, so it is completely relevant. Don’t dodge the consequences of your worldview. When some human beings get to decide whether other human beings qualify as “persons” then lots of very bad things happen. You’ve rationalized your little culture of death, but you not only open the door but swing it wide with your moral relativism.
Wow, you’re certainly in attack mode. You are constantly accusing me of bigotry and being anti-religious, yet in almost every argument you play the “consequences of your worldview” card.
I assure you, you know very little of my worldview if you don’t think I value life above all things.
See, here’s the difference: I point to very specific things in your worldview and take them to their logical conclusions. That isn’t bigotry. That’s charitable conversation.
I sought to carefully understand your views and after hundreds of comments I’m confident in concluding this: There are many human beings who you don’t deem to be “persons” worthy of having their lives protected (in fact, all human beings are in this category for you at some point). Your criteria are fuzzy, somewhat fluid and arbitrary (e.g., bad to kill a female human being who has been in the womb just because she’s a she, but OK to kill her for convenience or other reasons), but I think I have a pretty good handle on them.
Your worldview also said that abortions are OK as long as pain is not involved. To your credit, when I demonstrated the logical consequences of that view — i.e., we could easily kill people outside the womb pain-free — you seemed to concede the point and quit using that argument. If you completely and permanently abandon that argument, then good for you.
It is your worldview. If you think I’ve misrepresented it, then feel free to clarify. I’m more than willing to be corrected or even to have people retract statements.
But don’t play games and pretend that isn’t your view.
That should read, “a female human being who has been in the womb 4 months” (or whatever arbitrary date you want to pick).
Neil, you’re right about all that, but I am right to say that you believe in a magical sky-daddy who’s jealousy causes him to burn the people he doesn’t like in a fire pit.
See how I made that completely offensive without lying? That’s what you do when you take little bits of what I say, and reword them to make me sound stupid.
You don’t understand my worldview because you insinuate that I agree with murder, when I just have a different definition of life than you. I still value life just as much.
Ryan
“You don’t understand my worldview because you insinuate that I agree with murder, when I just have a different definition of life than you”
Please don’t think that I’m saying you’re a Hitler because I don’t. I’m just using that horrible event to help me clarify what you’re saying.
Could Hitler not have made the same claim?
Sure, if he could demonstrate to me that he is correct in his evaluation of life. I’m sure he did make that same claim.
I have not seen any evidence that a small bundle of cells at the early stage of pregnancy has any of the qualities that constitute a human life, or a person.
Ryan
If Hitler had been convinced that certain races were not humans it would have been nothing new. So it is understandable that Hitler probably did, as you agreed, make those claims.
Given that your complaint about Neil was:
“You don’t understand my worldview because you insinuate that I agree with murder”
Do you think that those who did not understand Hitler’s worldview had any right to insinuate that Hitler agreed with murder?
Again only trying to clarify your worldview.
(Neil this is the third attempt at posting this comment. I’m sure it is something that I’m doing wrong, like not hitting the reply link. Any advice would be appreciated. This same reply is posted somewhere in the middle of this thread so please ignore.)
Hi Dan,
Note sure what the issue was . . . it seemed to pass thru the filter ok . . .
Thanks for the comments!
Then you are deliberately ignorant of basic scientific facts.
Ask the person who came up with those basic scientific facts about evolution. Or do you just listen to “some” basic scientific facts?
The basic scientific facts also show that an embryo has no cognitive function, which is also the same criteria that is used to take a person off life support.
Don’t pretend to support science.
Don’t pretend not to be a pro-abortionist.
Do you dispute the scientific fact that life begins at conception? That is what is at issue here. You think that most of the abortions that occur each day are morally neutral or morally good. You’ve been quite clear on that. You rationalize away their humanity with your gibberish about personhood.
No amount of side stepping can hide that, Ryan.
I’m not “pro-abortion”. Ideally it should never happen.
Sure science says life begins at conception, but that is the “scientific” definition of life, which also applies to a blade of grass. Do I think that the first few cells in an embryo are a human member of society? No I don’t, and if you really took a scientific perspective on it, you wouldn’t either.
Stop calling my arguments gibberish, and tell me why I’m wrong, and don’t use ay gibberish about God.
What is the pro-life position on the morning after pill?
Blades of grass are not human beings. Am I actually having this discussion??!! And you say your arguments aren’t gibberish.
Your personhood rationale is gibberish. It is purely your opinions and they are completely fluid and inconsistent. I’ve demonstrated that many times. Here’s one: You think gender selection abortions are bad, but not “regular” ones. But the same human being dies.
I gave you a thoughtful argument on my reasons for that. If you don’t remember it, go back and find it. Neither results in a human being dying in my opinion.
Right. Back to square one. You completely ignore scientific facts and call it “thoughtful.” Let’s move on.
If they don’t result in a human being dying why are you opposed to abortion?
Ryan, it’s unfortunate that your anti-science blind faith in your ideology forces you to deny what appears in embryology textbooks and what scientists say is true.
Babies are babies even when they are little and tiny.
I’m sorry LCB, but your comments lately completely ignore what I say.
Anti-science blind faith? What are you smoking? You are the one who ignores science. How can you stand on the shoulders of the very scientists you think are all liars due to their almost unanimous support of evolution?
@Neil and Ryan:
“The basic scientific facts also show that an embryo has no cognitive function, which is also the same criteria that is used to take a person off life support.”
Is this true and if so what is the pro-life response?
Thanks for the softball!
To legally remove someone from life support who is not conscious you need to demonstrate that you are acting in that person’s best interests, as they would so act if they were conscious, and that there is little or no hope of recovery.
Abortion fails miserably on both counts.
Hat tip: Theobromophile
We’re not talking about consciousness. We’re talking about the brain’s ability for cognitive function, or lack thereof. If the brain has no capability for cognitive function, then the patient is removed from life support. It’s called “brain-dead”, and it means there is no life present.
More weasely reasoning to rationalize destroying unborn human beings. Really, give it a rest. It gets depressing reading over and over about what self-described thoughtful and moral people will do to rationalize abortion.
When taking the person off life support the person has no cognitive function. If the person is reaonably likely to regain that function it makes a difference.
The embryo is reasonably likely to develope that function.
Bad example, Ryan. If you want to prove me wrong then you’d point out where my assessment of your views is inaccurate.
Which part did you disagree with? Where have I misstated your views on personhood, abortion, gender selection abortions, etc.? Please, please clarify.
Otherwise, don’t blame me if the logical conclusion of your worldview sounds ridiculous.
“You insist that all have a “right” to the same level of service, but of course Obama & Co. won’t be subject to the plan they are pushing”
That’s an obvious truism, isn’t it? Surely the point of a national healthcare system is to provide access to a minimum level of health
care no matter what your individual means. If you personally can afford more than that minimal level of health care, there’s nothing stopping you;
and if other people can afford more than that minimal level, it doesn’t prevent you from receiving it.
“Surely the point of a national healthcare system is to provide access to a minimum level of health care no matter what your individual means.”
That is a very unfounded assumption.
It would be nice if that were the case. Except for the part that committees are created to evaluate your contribution to society so as to determine what health care you get to receive, and the bill explicitly sets in motion bans against all private health insurance.
But yeah, keep telling yourself what you’d like to believe.
It’s not an unfounded assumption; it’s founded in the very explicit pronouncements of those that support national systems of health care.
All systems of health care have to make decisions about cost vs benefits to the community providing and receiving that care. Insurance companies make exactly the same sort of calculus when they choose who to insure and at what level of coverage. So are you objecting to the brute fact that, in a world where we do not have unlimited resources, this is how health care systems must operate? That seems a little quixotic.
I do not presume goodwill on the part of either Obama or the democratic party on the health care debate.
It is a naked power grab.
Ryan
So are you saying that with government health care I might find myself in the waiting room sitting next to Bill Gates?
Probably not. I assume he has enough money to have a private doctor come to his house. If so, good for him. If he is in need of quadruple bypass surgery however, I would expect he would probably walk through the same door as everybody else, since, at least where I live, the best facility and the best doctors are available for everyone without prejudice.
I was once waiting for my son in surgery sitting next to a very very famous athlete who was waiting for his son to get out of surgery. It was a wonderful experience knowing that my son was getting care worthy of anyone in his situation, regardless of income.
And you would contend that that level of care would continue under government health care?
My father could remember when the farmers did take care of their own roads. The roads were better and they cost a lot less.
I find it unlikely that the agricultural community could finance, construct and maintain the national road network, so I’m not sure how that helps us.
Merkur
Sunday School Teacher didn’t insinuate that the “agricultural community” could finance, construct, and maintain the “national” road network.
Dan is correct.
However I do maintain that had the government not stepped in. The transportaion industry would have built a network.
I would guess that it would have relied on rail, toll roads, and mass transit.
In fact private industry had built a pretty fair rail network when the government started providing free roads for trucks. (I know that is an oversimplification); but in fact, whether they intended it or not, they government tipped the scales heavily in favor of private (and more energy intensive) transportation.
In my area local property taxes led to the removal of rail lines that might be usefull again today.
The trouble with government management of things is usually the unintended consequences.
The most recent I have any knowlege of is the grain ethanol subsidies While it did not really increase food prices, despite claims to the contrary, ethanol is not made from food grade corn. It did reduce and sometimes eliminate research on other areas, that I personally believe were more promising. No, of course congress did not know this (on further consideration some members were surely intelligent enough to figure this out), they probably had not read the bill, and even if they had the unintended consequences were not there.
I doube that these consequences were unknown, but the people who were aware of them were lobbying for their own interest.
I would be interested if there are any examples of a national-level service of this kind being developed, maintained and run effectively for the public good by private industry?
Neil, I am going to have to research this more but people are going crazy over this health care reform. If government starts taking people children it will only be the poor people. The rich will be able to fight it. Foster care is dealing with cut backs and a lot of other problems so I don’t know what the government is going to do with these children when they take them.
“The rich will be able to fight it.”
In general, the rich are the first targets of these things under socialist regimes.
This isn’t health care reform. This is a Stalin-like Nationalization of 15% of the economy with government seizures of children and forced euthanasia of the old and disabled.
People aren’t going crazy. The crazy ones are those supporting this. Remember, it’s the Democrats who are paying union thugs to beat up conservatives who are daring to speak up against socialism.
And remember, those people who are now keeping lists of everyone who speaks against them, who are refusing to meet with the public, and who are paying thugs to beat up the opposition… those are the people who will now run your ObamaCare and decide if you get to live or die, and if you get to keep your children or not.
I’m curious – what is the evidence that this is a “Stalin-like Nationalization of 15% of the economy with government seizures of children and forced euthanasia of the old and disabled”?
“what is the evidence that this is a “Stalin-like Nationalization of 15%”
1) I presume the 15% number is not in dispute, but the most cited source for that number is Pear, R., “U.S. Health Care Spending Reaches All-Time High: 15% of GDP.” The New York Times, 9 January 2004, 3.
2) That the activity taking place is nationalization, that is, a mass government takeover of private sector activities does not seem to be in dispute, since it is indeed a mass government takeover of private sector activities
3) It is stalin-like in that it is being done under threat and intimidation, with individuals suffering for the sake of the state and a charismatic leader who employs near constant new-speak to make his case through a cult of personality
“government seizures of children and forced euthanasia of the old and disabled”?”
1) Sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (page 838) deals with placing social workers in homes, individuals who have the authority to determine if the home meets state approved guidelines and seize children
2) Forced euthanasia is a practice that has become prevalent in Europe, in some countries the elderly reporting that their #1 fear is going to the hospital because so many old folks just don’t manage to make it out alive (especially with signs posted around reminding doctors of how gosh darn expensive old folks are):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000390
is a good starting point. Then we have this, going into a bit of detail about Ezekiel Emmanuel
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm
Then we have Section 1233 which puts in place death panels and mandates end of life counseling for old folks.
I could go on, like citing how the author of the sections of the bill dealing with this is a long proponent of forced euthanasia and has explained that the purpose of this section is to increase granny killing.
As for denying care to the disabled, which often amounts to forced euthanasia, you can read more from Ezekiel Emmanuel here. The intent behind the passages is very important, as is who precisely would be charged with enacting the bill.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
CONCLUSION:
We must also keep in mind (as I sourced yesterday) that the language of this bill explicitly exempts these state controlled medical decisions from death panels and those who seek to send people into your homes, take your children, and kill your grandmother from judicial review.
LCB, please show, with evidence from the bill, that the government will decide the level of care for any individual case. Also, please show that a profit driven insurance company will make a decision that is best for the patient, rather than one that reduces costs.
What page of the bill details the “forced euthanasia”? Will this be lethal injection?
Can you give me that names of the Democrat that paid someone to beat up Conservatives. I’m sure there’s good evidence, or you would not have made the accusation. I’d like to follow the trial.
I’d also like to know what sort of evidence you have that the government will be taking children in any case where the child would not have been taken before.
Will provide more source citation later, been v. busy today and this evening.
For now, start with this:
http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm
That’s been flooded in my email box today, so it must have gone viral somehow. Expect to say it around a lot in the next few days.
That analysis has nothing close to your claims of forced euthanasia, and government taking children more frequently. The only valid issue there is who will make the decisions about what types of care are covered. I acknowledge that this is an issue, but it is more of an issue when the motivation of the decider is to make a profit off of the patient.
It’s a total red herring. In Canada, under socialized medicine, the person making the decision of what care gets paid for is you and your doctor for all but the most experimental of treatments. If you don’t like the doctor’s decision, you are free to find another one.
Even in your worst case scenarios, if the person does not like the standard of care in the government system, they can go pay for treatment like they do now.
This bill is to help the people that do not have another option, and reduce the load on the people struggling with the only available option. These are good things to pay taxes for, and they only serve to improve the lives of the people around us.
That link doesn’t seem to contain particularly strong (or in some cases even very well-founded) objections to the bill. Do you have any other links?
Rationing, punishing Americans who try to opt out, destroying private health insurance, punishing the successful for daring to work hard and be successful, price controls, increasing the power of government, providing government full access to all personal financial information without a court order, barring the courts from intervening in these matters at all (which congress has the constitutional authority to do), forcing americans into the plan automatically…
Those are pretty strong objections.
Remove all those things and I might be able to support the plan.
“LCB, please show, with evidence from the bill, that the government will decide the level of care for any individual case.”
This has already been demonstrated.
“Also, please show that a profit driven insurance company will make a decision that is best for the patient, rather than one that reduces costs.”
You are shifting the debate. Red Herring. The issue here is Obama championing the killing of grandmothers, the seizure of children, government rationing, government price controls, government nationalization, and the bankrupting/takeover/elimination of insurance companies and the millions of individuals they employ.
“What page of the bill details the “forced euthanasia”? Will this be lethal injection?” Cited above.
“Can you give me that names of the Democrat that paid someone to beat up Conservatives. I’m sure there’s good evidence, or you would not have made the accusation. I’d like to follow the trial.”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/kenneth-gladney-files-hate-crime.html
That relates to the incident where 6 SEIU members and also members of the Carnahan campaign assaulted peaceful pro-america protesters, including beating one black man viciously, hospitalizing him, calling him a N****r while doing so.
You may also find it helpful to consult this for a bit more info about SEIU:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/06/seiu-and-the-persuasion-of-power/
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/08/12/brown_shirts_vs_purple_shirts
SEIU has received massive, massive amounts of federal dollars funneled to it by the Democratic party. Democratic congressmen are so afraid of hearing dissenting opinions that some are even hosting ‘townhalls’ in SEIU halls that are outside their own district.
http://moelane.com/2009/08/11/rep-bishop-boswell-having-health-care-meetings-allllll-the-way-over-there/
In turn, large sums of SEIU money are of course funneled directly to democrats. The quid pro quo of money for thuggery, especially on the heels of Obama letting folks know that “the time for talking is over”
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/21/obama-says-talking-time-over-but-has-no-clue-whats-in-obamacare/
and of course there is the Obama classic of encouraging his thugs to “get in [people's] their faces”
The modern brownshirts wear Obama stickers and vote democrat.
And when did the SEIU violence against pro-America protestors start? Why the same day that the White House promised to “punch back twice as hard”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07/white-house-vows-defend-democrats-health-reform-punch-twice-hard/
And by punch back, they meant SEIU thugs beating up Americans.
You want a name? Barack Obama, Rahm Emmanuel.
“I’d also like to know what sort of evidence you have that the government will be taking children in any case where the child would not have been taken before.”
Cited above.
The “profit-driven” insurance company that provides my care is not involved in any decision making at all.
If they were, I would find a different company.
lol, wait to you have a “costly” decision. I pray you NEVER do BTW…
Neil, welcome back. Thanks for this discussion. I’ve given up on some liberal blogs I read because I just couldn’t trust them anymore. Glad to see some real debate here. I just wish congress would listen to some real debate.
I think of Obama’s plan and I think of this image: http://is.gd/2dYxi
Considering the CBO’s assessment of the bill being floated the most, and the fact that the US Chamber of Commerce thinks it smells bad, one of the first concerns has to be the cost of the plan not only now, but down the road. Medicaid and Medicare have all gone well beyond what was predicted cost-wise. This bill starts off being more expensive than can be afforded and is projected by the CBO to only get worse. So even if the lib’s best dream came true as regards what is covered and whom, it can’t last without severely damaging the economy. That crap about 95% of the population never seeing their taxes raised will be blown out of the water, and very soon.
And of course, the gov’t plan isn’t going to be competing with the private plans in the same “free market” manner. Who could make them? And if this plan is available to anyone without their own insurance, why would any employer need to offer health insurance to anyone? What would be the point and what savvy enterpreneuer would waste their time and money providing what can easily be had from the gov’t? This would mean an individual would have to deal directly with what used to be his employer provided insurer and as we know, dealing as an individual is more expensive. The individual would have no choice except to pay more or go with Barry-care.
In addition, from what I’ve been able to gather, there is little to nothing being done in the area of tort reform which would relieve doctors and hospitals from prescribing tests and procedures ordered only to protect themselves from lawsuits should the patient take a turn for the worse. The costs of these procedures have been estimated from a conservative 200 billion per year to upwards of 500 billion. But will Barry go head to head with his legal lobby friends?
They keep pointing to a figure of 47 million w/o health insurance. But when others have removed those who CHOOSE not to spend their money on health insurance in addition to the illegal immigrants, that number is around half or less. So the “reformers” are using false numbers in their quest to muck up our health care situation.
Also, if they remove the restrictions against insurers selling outside their home states, this would do far more for true competition than any “public option” could ever hope to. Consumers could shop amongst insurers from all over the country and this would encourage the companies to provide more in order to get that business.
Finally, get the gov’t out of the business altogether. Their regulations have done more to drive up costs than anything else. Insurance companies are like every other company. They exist to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with this whatsoever. To say that any of them MUST do X,Y or Z is unAmerican. When they are forced to act in ways they wouldn’t normally act, they MUST raise their rates in order to accomodate the feds and still remain in business.
We have enough examples of how the gov’t would run health care without going outside our borders. Look at the indian reservations where the gov’t provides there. Look at the VA. Look at Oregon.
The worst thing about health insurance is that it is now viewed as some sort of right. I don’t understand how people can think that someone else should ever be responsible for the cost of their own health. I’ve been out of work since Christmas. I’ve found insurance that I can handle and that has similar coverage w/o having to deal with Cobra. It’s out there for people who care to look. If one needs to sacrifice a bit to do what is his own responsibility anyway, so be it. That’s called being a responsible adult.
Marshall, SPOT ON!! One minor change I would make is in the sentence – “The worst thing about health insurance is that it is now viewed as some sort of right.”
See, I believe that it’s a right, just like it’s a right to have a job. I would change the sentence to say “government responsibility” instead of “right”. It certainly isn’t the government’s responsibility to provide health insurance for you.
Minor semantics.
Both of you are wrong, health care is a basic human necessity which has been screwed up because it now is a marketable commodity.
What is wrong with you guys? I’m not saying it should be free, but everyone should have it, even IF they can’t afford it.
A universal right to health care is not the same as a right to universal health care.
One is right, the other is a naked power grab and is also not a right.
So why not put forth some suggestions on how to deal with the problem that IS there instead of yelling socialism and complaining about a problem you THINk will happen?
DJBA, why make a federal case of it? In other words, why is this the resposnsibility of the federal government? Maybe it’s an unpopular idea, I just think there are somethings the feds SHOULDN’T do. (yes, I know they’re already involved, at least they mandate it down to the states)…
I don’t think the “need” for health care equates to a “right” to have it “just because”. As the need does indeed exist, one should assume that one is therefor responsible for one’s own care. The responsibility to provide that care for one’s self comes before the need arises. It is the same with food. We need to eat. Do we have the right to food no matter what, or is it incumbent upon ourselves to provide for our own nourishment?
As I said before, insurance has become something it was not intended to be, and worse, the perspective of those who purchase it or wish they had is a distortion. If there were no insurance companies at all, no insurance against the catastrophic whatsoever, each of us would then be totally responsible for the costs related to our care. This is as it should be. That we now do not refuse emergency care to anyone should never have resulted in free care for everyone who decides to use the ER for their runny noses. Everyone, even those who use the ERs for real emergencies should be billed and expected to pay after the fact. The terms can be worked out, but pay they should, rich or poor.
The issue is really about the costs themselves and who should pay them. I certainly don’t believe the feds, particularly this admin, are capable of doing this is a cost effective and harmless manner. On top of that, this goes way beyond their constitutional mandate. At worst, the current system merely needs tweaking, not a full scale overhaul by those who contributed so much to it’s current costly state. I’d rather see charitable contributions go toward the truly poor than see the gov’t force an already burdened society to be burdened further.
My state started offering insurance for all children a few years ago. I am only directly aware of what happened at one local factory, but there, a surprisingly high number of employees (sorry, exact figures are confidential) discontinued their company coverage (which was very good and very cheap) and enrolled their children in a state plan (opting to do without insurance themselves).
“And if this plan is available to anyone without their own insurance, why would any employer need to offer health insurance to anyone?”
In order to increase their competitiveness in the marketplace, since employers offering their own health insurance would presumably attract more and better workers.
I’m all for healthy competition, but you may have missed the news where key people conceded that they want complete gov’t control over the insurance (I had a link to a video on a previous Roundup). If the MSM would do their job then people would know that. Sure, Obama & Co. won’t admit it now, but why should we trust them?
I did miss that news, could you provide the link to it again? Of course even if what you say is true, that wouldn’t invalidate my answer about the economic reason why employers would continue to provide health insurance.
Also: you appear to think that Obama is deliberately hiding his evil plans from the world, but your evidence for this seems to be that he won’t admit that he has evil plans in the first place. You might want to re-examine that logic.
Now there’s a cute debating trick: Ask for evidence then say it wouldn’t matter anyway. I’ll oblige for the truly interested commenters — http://www.verumserum.com/?p=7795 . Your replies regarding the evidence will be removed since you preemptively said they wouldn’t matter to you. I really hate to waste time like this.
My logic is quite clear and rational: Obama has disastrous plans in mind, but of course he thinks they are swell. But he knows people would oppose them if he was honest. Therefore, he is dishonest.
No, I was interested to view the link on its own terms as evidence. What I am saying is that your point – that at least some people want complete government control over all insurance – is not relevant to my point – that in a system which includes but is not limited to government insurance, employers still have an incentive to provide insurance to their employees in order to remain competitive.
Should the government take complete control of the insurance system, rather than maintain a public / private system, then obviously my point would be moot; but since I was responding to a question posed in the framework of the latter rather than the former, it seems to be valid. Your point may also be valid – I’ll look at the link – but it’s not specifically a refutation of mine.
It’s also important to note that in Canada, every single major company (and most small companies as well) offer extended medical coverage for employees. Mine has so many options it’s difficult to decide. I can pay a small amount for 90% dental coverage for my family, or a bit more for 100% coverage. I can pay another very small amount to have a glasses allowance.
Ryan:
Finally I hear from a real Canadian about their system! I’m moving to Nova Scotia…
Nova Scotia is beautiful. I’m on the west coast though. Health care in Canada is far from perfect, but the main thing is that you don’t need to worry about catastrophic events. You may spend some time in a waiting room once or twice for longer than you like, but if you need a major life saving operation, or if you are in an accident, you will be taken care of immediately by the same doctors that treat the wealthy. You won’t get a bill, and you can concentrate on getting better.
Welcome to America’s Hat.
I know no system is perfect, and ours is pretty good, but I do have a problem with Americans here acting as if any sort of system that takes care of people without the “for profit” schtick is inherently “evil”.
You may frown upon my intentions getting up there, I would like to start a church! I’ll have to have a ministry out west too so we can meet!
Why is it evil? Should not a person be able to profit from their labour, work, and innovation?
O.K., in that case Firemen, Soldiers, and police officers should all become “for profit” occupations and the business that they are in (in many cases saving lives or defense) should all become purely market driven?
No one denied that the gov’t has a role in providing certain things to society. But it is a great leap to assume that they can do anything they like.
I think that the basic health care needs of society are on par with our protection from other countries, and our police and fire service, along with many other things. I think there are plenty of things that the government should get their noses out of, but health care is not one of them.
First of all, he didn’t say it was evil. People certainly should be able to profit from honest labour and any innovation, and I don’t see how anything about socialized medicine prevents that in any way.
It does, however, prevent some companies from making huge profits by selling insurance to people, and then removing that insurance when the person needs it most.
I wonder what you would say about your views to a child who is going without basic health care needs because her mom cannot get insurance. How do you justify letting so many children be at the mercy of corporations that have no interest in her well being.
“and I don’t see how anything about socialized medicine prevents that in any way.”
Government pre-determined price controls.
Included in the house bill are price controls set by the government that doctors must abide by.
“It does, however, prevent some companies from making huge profits by selling insurance to people, and then removing that insurance when the person needs it most.”
Insurance company profits are low, in the range of 1-3%. That’s hardly huge.
Insurance companies are prone to flaws of all companies.
To their critics I offer the same advice I do to Wal-Mart and oil company critics: Invest in their stock to share in their largesse and/or start up a competing firm and show them how to do it “right.”
Ryan:
My conservative Christian brethren (and sisteren) at least the ones here don’t seem like the type who want to deny people basic necessities (and Health Care IS a necessity) they just haven’t come along to understanding that even when people can afford it, there is a host of problems that need to be addressed, and yelling “socialism” at people who ARE trying to do something isn’t much of an alternative to me.
Well said DJBA,
No matter what you believe in, I think we can all agree that we should all pitch in to help the most vulnerable in our society. Anything else could be considered social Darwinism.
Ha! What’s wrong with social Darwinism? (That’s rhetorical, so don’t bother answering — I know what is wrong with it, but how can a moral relativist Darwinist have any grounding to criticize it?!)
You are totally losing it. Everything is wrong with social Darwinism. With that logic, a nuclear physicist must be in favour of nuclear bombs.
I’m not losing it. I’m just taking your moral relativism and Darwinism to its logical conclusions. If you were thinking more clearly, you’d re-examine your worldview. As it is, you just live in constant contradiction to it. Must be tiring.
I won’t frown upon your church at all
and either way, Canada welcomes you.
Time and again the Left–particularly “progressive christians” (yes, the small c is intended and I’m not apologizing for saying theologically and politically liberal “Christians” are at best ignorant or at worst, apostates) continue to amaze me in that they plug policies, legislation, and the like that the real Jesus would have condemned. (If real Christians spent half as much time evangelizing and praying for revival as these do pushing for abortion on demand and throwing me in jail for not wanting an active homosexual as a cashier at my evangelical bookstore, we wouldn’t have questions of “Can we really know if the Bible is the Word of God…or does it matter?”
I pray God cleanses His Church in America through revival–because I am afraid of the alternative. Come, Lord Jesus!
Neil, I’m glad you’re back! Congratulations on the house!
We can only be thankful that you’re here to tell us which policies, legislation and the like the real Jesus would have approved of, David.
Merkur
We sure can, if only there were more.
I think you misunderstood David, but thanks for proving the point of the post.
Thanks, David. And amen to that!
Ryan
I’m assuming that you think that what Hitler did was wrong, even though you agree that he COULD make the same claims.
Your complaint about Neil was that he doesn’t understand your worldview because he insinuates that you agree with murder.
Do you think that people in the 1930′s who complained about Hitler were not right in doing so, but rather, only had a different opinion of life? Not trying to trap you, only trying to clarify my understanding of your worldview.
Ryan
If Hitler had been convinced that certain races were not humans it would have been nothing new. So it is understandable that Hitler probably did, as you agreed, make those claims.
Given that your complaint about Neil was:
“You don’t understand my worldview because you insinuate that I agree with murder”
Do you think that those who did not understand Hitler’s worldview had any right to insinuate that Hitler agreed with murder?
Again only trying to clarify your worldview.
My main beef is not that Neil disagrees with me on abortion. I’m happy to debate that issue, and have done so a lot here. My problem is that when we are talking about something else, like my opinion that all people deserve basic health care, he bring up abortion, and asks why I care about a certain group of people instead of 4 week old embryos.
All that I ask is that you understand that even though I do not consider an embryo to be as valuable as the rest of us, I still possess the capability to value life, and I value it equally for all people, old/young/disabled/religious/atheist, and even murderers.
Hitler knew he was killing people.
Babies are people too. Just like Jews.
It’s not our fault, Ryan, that you subscribe to an ideology that says some people don’t count as people, despite scientific and medical evidence.
You don’t even listen to me anymore do you?
I do listen to you Ryan.
We long past the threshold where I directly repeat your words back to you, and you immediately deny them.
I just stopped taking you seriously when you demanded I stop using logic.
LCB, give me the stats on Insurance company profits with a source.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2007_August_14/ai_n27342953/
That’s a solid one.
You’ll hear “Profits rose 400+ % from 2000-2007″ which is true if we only count raw profits from the 10 largest companies. Those companies grew larger, and so their raw profits did grow. Further, their overall spending grew, so their profits grew.
But profit margin (the only number that actually matters) remains consistent in the 3-5% range depending on the year.
This chart: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp
puts into chart form this data:
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html
Which is all taken from publicly available information. Profit margins are not huge. These are not corporate raiders getting fat on the backs of the poor and laughing at the stupid peons.
The high value healthcare facilities field is commercial real-estate, and not really connected to the current debate at all.
There are fully 85% industries above health care plans in that chart.
There are some nice common sense reforms that really would massively help reduce health care costs (and get more people insured, and probably increase profitability)– and that includes things like tort reform and removing a lot of the state barriers that currently exist (for example, it is illegal to purchase an insurance plan outside your state… in every single state).
The solution isn’t putting the guys who run the DMV in charge of who lives and who dies, the solution is removing the government barriers that created this problem in the first place.
I highly advise reading Atlas Shrugged. Government interference (often in the name of naked power grabs by people of a certain political party) is the problem.
Thanks for the statistics and sources. I don’t see how “tort” reform does anything but increase those profit margins that result in BILLIONS of dollars in profit, and I believe the government removed many barriers and restraints which is why the problem increases each year.
Ryan
Do you think that those who did not understand Hitler’s worldview had any right to insinuate that Hitler agreed with murder?
This is still a question that deserves an answer. Can you please help me to understand your view of the world by answering it?
Yes, they did have the right.
Ryan
Thanks for your honesty.
Ryan
Woops, missread your answer.
How is what you say Neil is doing:
“You don’t understand my worldview because you insinuate that I agree with murder,”
different? I don’t understand? I know it sounds like I’m playing dumb here, but I really don’t understand. It sounds so inconsistent.
Should have read all the comments before I replied. Theo will alway say it better than I can