Why Is Universal Health Care ‘Un-American’?

[Wavex]

Dude, the UP section is dying and I am stupid enough to create a new thread... oh well, I thought this was an interested read.

by Rev. Jim Rigby

Last week supporters of health-care reform gathered around the country, including in Austin, TX, where 2,000 people crowded into a downtown church to hear speakers talk about different aspects of the issue. Asked to speak about the ethical dimensions of health care, I tried to go beyond short-term political strategizing and ask more basic questions. This is an edited version of what I said.

Is anyone else here having trouble with the fact that we are even having this conversation? Is anyone else having trouble believing this topic is really controversial? I have been asked to talk about the ethical dimension of health care. Here's one way to frame such a discussion:

If an infant is born to poor parents, would we be more ethical to give medicine to that child so he or she does not die prematurely of preventable diseases, or would we be more ethical if we let the child die screaming in his or her parent's arms so we can keep more of our money?

Or, let's say someone who worked for Enron, and now is penniless, contracted bone cancer. I've been asked to discuss whether we are more ethical if we provide such people medicine that lessens their pain. Or would we be more ethical to let them scream through the night in unbearable agony so we can pay lower taxes?

I can't believe I am standing today in a Christian church defending the proposition that we should lessen the suffering of those who cannot afford health care in an economic system that often treats the poor as prey for the rich. I cannot believe there are Christians around this nation who are shouting that message down and waving guns in the air because they don't want to hear it. But I learned along time ago that churches are strange places; charity is fine, but speaking of justice is heresy in many churches. The late Brazilian bishop Dom Hélder Câmara said it well: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Too often today in the United States, if you talk about helping the poor, they call you Christian, but if you actually try to do something to help the poor, they call you a socialist.

Some of the other speakers today have been asked to address what is possible in the current political climate. I have been asked to speak of our dreams. Let me ask a question. How many of you get really excited about tweaking the insurance system so we just get robbed a little less? (silence) How many of you want universal health care? (sustained applause) I realize that insurance reform is all that's on the table right now, and it can be important to choose the lesser of evils when that alone is within our power in the moment. But we also need to remember our dream. I believe the American dream is not about material success, not about being having the strongest military. The American dream is that every person might have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It's amazing to hear Christians who talk about the right to life as though it ends at birth. They believe every egg has a right to hatch, but as soon as you're born, it's dog eat dog. We may disagree on when life begins, but if the right to life means anything it means that every person (anyone who has finished the gestation period) has a right to life. And if there is a right to life there must be a right to the necessities of life. Like health care.

I believe the American dream was not about property rights, but human rights. Consider the words of this national hymn:

"O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years. Thine alabaster cities gleam, undimmed by human tears."

Doesn't that sound like someone cared about the poor? There are those who consider paying taxes an affront, but listen to these words:

"O Beautiful for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved and mercy more than life."

"Mercy more than life" -- have you ever noticed those words before? Supporting universal health care does not make you socialist or even a liberal, it makes you a human being. And it makes you an ambassador for the American dream which, in the mind of Thomas Paine, was a dream for every human being, not just Americans. As we struggle to get health care to all people, we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils, but remember your dream -- the true American dream, a human dream. Whatever we win through reform is just first step toward a day when every human being has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Rev. Jim Rigby is pastor of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

[wrightme43]

I do not have time to debate this morning, but I will definately be glad to offer a solid reasoned opposing point of view.

Boils down quickly to the fact that most of us are 100% behind health care reform, but this bill is not what is needed.

 

[Cuba]

I would make the point that in order to make the moral argument, which is becoming the front line offensive for supporters of the current health care reform bills, you are painting yourself into a corner. Follow my reasoning for a moment: If you believe that it is our moral imperative to spend our money on the health care of others, that no child should die so that we may keep our hard earned money, that human life is far more important than our own persoanl prosperity, etc. etc. then I can understand your perspective. HOWEVER... apparently your argument stops dead in its tracks at our borders. If your argument is the value of human life then you cannot claim that this only counts for American citizens. What about the Mexicans? Central and South Americans? The entire continent of Africa, and southeast Asia. So we are morally bound to protect human lives, but only if they are American? What sort of moral high ground is this? If you believe what this reverand is saying then would you not be advocating that we send ALL of our money to third world countries to provide modern western health care to the billions without it? That mere existence is paramount to all else? We certainly do not have the money, doctors, facilities, medicines, or medical devices to do so, it is not possible nor would anyone sane advocate such a thing. So the argument being made here is we have a moral obligation to protect and provide not for human life, but for our own. This is not an objective term, it is subjective and to some may include merely our family, to others such as Nancy Pelosi this includes illegal aliens, and to others it may be at the state level as it should be under our 10th amendment. The point being: This argument is neither clear nor self evident. The issue is far from black and white and painting it as such is intellectually dishonest. To quote your quote:

"...was a dream for every human being, not just Americans. As we struggle to get health care to all people, we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils, but remember your dream -- the true American dream, a human dream. Whatever we win through reform is just first step toward a day when every human being has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "

The right to life for every human being would, in the real world, eliminate the liberty and ability to pursue happiness for all of us. We would be working tirelessly for the mere continued existence of an over populated planet, something that I believe is contrary to the very fabric of human existence.

Health care reform yes, welfare state no. Make it more efficient, more affordable, provide subsidies for those that CAN'T, but do not give it away for free. We all have a chip in the game and we all have a personal responsibility first and foremost to provide for ourselves. You cannot expect people to rise up without a reason to do so, and there is no reason stronger than survival. If you provide food, shelter, healthcare, and cash to all and ask nothing in return, what is the motivation to earn, to work, to be a provider rather than a taker? The idea that those of us who work our asses of for what we have are somehow are undeserving of better things than those that choose not to is something I cannot support. The grasshopper has no grounds to berate the ants for their greed when winter rolls around. There are those of us that contribute to society, and those of us that detract from it. I see the current bills a shift from the former to the latter.

 

[wrightme43]

Restrictions on prescription of osteoporosis drugs 'defy belief', says leading doctor | Mail Online

 

[necrotimus]

Cuba pretty much responded to everything.

The only other thing I would add is many people don't have a problem with the idea of universal health care they have a problem with GOVERNMENT run universal health care. Too many government social programs are not only failures but cost many times more than they ever give in aid.

Give me the power to run the country and I can give you plenty of social programs, including universal health care, at no additional cost to the tax payer. Simply cut the waste at every single government agency... in fact your taxes may even be less.

How I wish to work for the government individuals private wealth had to be sold off and all their money given to the government. Their compensation would be a direct correlation to the efficency of the government.

 

[Unseen]

I live in a country that has public health care. It's not exactly free (never has been) but does provide health care to all citizens, actually it's a compulsory health insurrance. I'm paying ~1100 euros per year and because i'm self employed I pay an additional 1300 on top of that (if you are employed your employer pays that). Recently the problem have been costs, reasons are: abuse of the system, people who don't pay for it are helped (eg illegal immigrants); short sighted government that forget the baby boomers, these people are now getting old and thus need more health care; manager overload, the medical profession is overloaded by manager types who add little value but take big pay checks (while nurses doing the real work are overstressed and underpaid). My opinion is that a civilized country should provide health care to it's citizens. On the other hand people do abuse the system, so you could argue if people are actually worth it. But still I feel health care is a basic service the government should provide, considering the wealth we have we can afford it, reallocate resources, for instance bring back the troops from Afghanistan from their rebuilding mission. What's there to rebuild in a sandbox? Ofcourse I know the real reason is strategic but my government never told me that (which makes them liers). Now the problem for the US is the financing of this health care system considering the already huge debt the US has, i'm not sure what the strategy is on that part.

On a side note I feel the government should provide the basic services like: infrastructure, postal, public transport, utilities (water, electricity), health care. Because these are monopolistic by nature (water only comes through one pipe), there's not much innovation in these fields, and especially with health care you don't want greedy corporations to profit on people's health. Everything else can be free market, but by US standards i'm already a commie with this view I think Recently the utilities have been privatized, thanks to the European union (or are it the greedy bankers that run the world) . But anyway costs have risen since...

 

[Oscar54]

I would make the point that in order to make the moral argument, which is becoming the front line offensive for supporters of the current health care reform bills, you are painting yourself into a corner. Follow my reasoning for a moment: If you believe that it is our moral imperative to spend our money on the health care of others, that no child should die so that we may keep our hard earned money, that human life is far more important than our own persoanl prosperity, etc. etc. then I can understand your perspective. HOWEVER... apparently your argument stops dead in its tracks at our borders. If your argument is the value of human life then you cannot claim that this only counts for American citizens. What about the Mexicans? Central and South Americans? The entire continent of Africa, and southeast Asia. So we are morally bound to protect human lives, but only if they are American? What sort of moral high ground is this? If you believe what this reverand is saying then would you not be advocating that we send ALL of our money to third world countries to provide modern western health care to the billions without it? That mere existence is paramount to all else? We certainly do not have the money, doctors, facilities, medicines, or medical devices to do so, it is not possible nor would anyone sane advocate such a thing. So the argument being made here is we have a moral obligation to protect and provide not for human life, but for our own. This is not an objective term, it is subjective and to some may include merely our family, to others such as Nancy Pelosi this includes illegal aliens, and to others it may be at the state level as it should be under our 10th amendment. The point being: This argument is neither clear nor self evident. The issue is far from black and white and painting it as such is intellectually dishonest. To quote your quote:

"...was a dream for every human being, not just Americans. As we struggle to get health care to all people, we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils, but remember your dream -- the true American dream, a human dream. Whatever we win through reform is just first step toward a day when every human being has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "

The right to life for every human being would, in the real world, eliminate the liberty and ability to pursue happiness for all of us. We would be working tirelessly for the mere continued existence of an over populated planet, something that I believe is contrary to the very fabric of human existence.

Health care reform yes, welfare state no. Make it more efficient, more affordable, provide subsidies for those that CAN'T, but do not give it away for free. We all have a chip in the game and we all have a personal responsibility first and foremost to provide for ourselves. You cannot expect people to rise up without a reason to do so, and there is no reason stronger than survival. If you provide food, shelter, healthcare, and cash to all and ask nothing in return, what is the motivation to earn, to work, to be a provider rather than a taker? The idea that those of us who work our asses of for what we have are somehow are undeserving of better things than those that choose not to is something I cannot support. The grasshopper has no grounds to berate the ants for their greed when winter rolls around. There are those of us that contribute to society, and those of us that detract from it. I see the current bills a shift from the former to the latter.

I love the logic! We can't have universal healthcare here, because that would mean we would have to provide it to the whole world, and we can't afford that!

We can't have public socialized medicine that would save us money by not having to support redundent administrations and not being motivated by making evermore profits on peoples illnesses, when we have private socialized medicine that pays executives millions and denies coverage routinely to paying customers because that's Capitalism! I guess for the conservatives, it is better to pay money to a private company and have them deny to pay for your treatment then to pay taxes for universal coverage to our government who would have not such incentive. At least is called a premium instead of a tax.

 

[Cuba]

I love the logic! We can't have universal healthcare here, because that would mean we would have to provide it to the whole world, and we can't afford that!

We can't have public socialized medicine that would save us money by not having to support redundent administrations and not being motivated by making evermore profits on peoples illnesses, when we have private socialized medicine that pays executives millions and denies coverage routinely to paying customers because that's Capitalism! I guess for the conservatives, it is better to pay money to a private company and have them deny to pay for your treatment then to pay taxes for universal coverage to our government who would have not such incentive. At least is called a premium instead of a tax.

So in other words you feel there is no human moral obligation to provide healthcare to those that don't have it as long as they aren't American? Explain.

As for cost cutting, that certainly has not been shown by ANY of the proposals yet written, in fact as we all are aware by now the CBO has estimated the increase in costs by the hundreds of billions for each of them. If I thought for a moment this would decrease costs while expanding coverage and not reducing services or options then I would be totally on board, and so would everyone else. Those promisses are like the late night eat anything you want as much as you want while sitting on the couch and STILL lose weight! The latest poll on MSNBC had 39% of the population supporting the current healthcare efforts.

 

[Cuba]

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports™

Updating myself here, Rasmussen has it at 41% in favor, 56% opposed- this is the lowest level of support they have recorded. I got the MSNBC figures from Morning Joe, weird that the liberal poll was less favorable. Now Pelosi and company are actively pushing for illegal immigrants to be included in the plan, as well as subsidies for non citizens. I'm not opposed to tax paying non citizens that are contributing, but aren't the radical liberals now making Obama look like a... dare I say it lest I be called a racist... a liar?

Liberals seek health-care access for illegals - Washington Times

 

[Oscar54]

So in other words you feel there is no human moral obligation to provide healthcare to those that don't have it as long as they aren't American? Explain.

As for cost cutting, that certainly has not been shown by ANY of the proposals yet written, in fact as we all are aware by now the CBO has estimated the increase in costs by the hundreds of billions for each of them. If I thought for a moment this would decrease costs while expanding coverage and not reducing services or options then I would be totally on board, and so would everyone else. Those promisses are like the late night eat anything you want as much as you want while sitting on the couch and STILL lose weight! The latest poll on MSNBC had 39% of the population supporting the current healthcare efforts.

Stop with the moral equivalent crap. You are the one that is worrying about paying for illegals not me. You are the one that going off on not want to pay for someone else's health care and calling people "Socialist" derisively.

So, health care is free now and doesn't cost hundreds of billions and doesn't go up 10 to 15% every year because it is so efficiently run by private corporations?

The fact that an illegal alien might get medical treatment if we had a Medicare type system is a pretty lame argument. We all are paying for employer provided health care, its cost is just buried in the products and services we buy. So where is the difference? We have "Socialized" our health care through employment.

How many Americans do you really think could afford to purchase health insurance if it wasn't being "Socialized" as an employment benefit? The median household income is around $50,000. Kaiser Family Health states that the average family yearly health care premium is $12,680.Yearly Premiums For Family Health Coverage Rise To $12,680 In 2008, Up 5 Percent As Many Workers Also Face Higher Deductibles - Kaiser Family Foundation That's around 25% of income before taxes.

The Republicans have no interest in reforming the health care system because it is making plenty of money for them, in the form of campaign contributions, and their true constituency the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Companies they will become lobbyists for when they retire from Congress. If they did they would have at least proposed a plan instead of just carping about what is wrong with the Democrats proposals or lying about the Democrats creating "Death Panels" to kill your grandmother.

American spends more money per capita than any other industrialized nation yet freaking Costa Rica has better health care results than the USA according to the WHO.

So stop with this baloney that the Government Health Care will be worse. It's a lie plain and simple. My Mother has never had to wait or ever been denied anything under Medicare and she has never had a Doctor tell her they won't treat her because of Medicare. And she has never been told to go off and die somewhere to save taxpayers money.

Oh, and Insurance by definition is "Socialistic".

 

[Oscar54]

Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports™

Updating myself here, Rasmussen has it at 41% in favor, 56% opposed- this is the lowest level of support they have recorded. I got the MSNBC figures from Morning Joe, weird that the liberal poll was less favorable. Now Pelosi and company are actively pushing for illegal immigrants to be included in the plan, as well as subsidies for non citizens. I'm not opposed to tax paying non citizens that are contributing, but aren't the radical liberals now making Obama look like a... dare I say it lest I be called a racist... a liar?

Liberals seek health-care access for illegals - Washington Times

Sounds like you need to throw a party?

"The Republicans successfully killed health care reform! And I helped!"

"Now Americans can continue to be denied coverage and go bankrupt from medical bills in FREEDOM!" YeeHaw!"

 

[wrightme43]

Calling what is offered reform does not make it reform.

We 100% need to have a overhaul of healtcare. It is broken right now. However what is being offered right now is a lie.

 

[Cuba]

My point, which is apparently lost on you, is that we are being sold a bill of goods. These proposals are not being honestly discussed or disclosed. Why would the president stand up and say no illegals will be covered under the plan when clearly they would be unless steps are taken to close the door? Medicare has citzenship checks, as does social security, yet the democrats voted against this multiple times for the healthcare bills. The gentleman from SC was on the committee urging them to put in such measures but was ignored. So what happened was the president lied (whether knowingly or, more frighteningly, unknowingly), was called out for it (classlessly, yet effectively) and as a result the democrats were forced to include citizenship checks. That's point 1- factual evidense that what we are being told is not entirely true and that our concerns (which are generally being either ignored or attacked as scare tactics) are in fact quite valid.

Point 2 is that the "crisis" that the president has created around healthcare is on the basis of cost. You yourself have cited this as a central problem "bankruptcy". We were told hundreds of times by the president that this is the reason for reform, to cut the costs that are "crippling our economy". While I disagree that this is a "crisis" I am in total agreement that it is a major problem, it is hurting our economy, and it should be dealt with sooner rather than later. Crisis implies immediacy, but this is a slow growth issue and nothing new, the reason for the "crisis" is clear, it gives them the ability to ram it through quickly. Rahm likes a good crisis, never wastes them. The problem though is that not a single proposal or bill so far has even come close to solving this cost issue, and they have universally been found to add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficits. There has been and still is a pledge of "deficit neutral" reform. Nothing that has been proposed is in the same solar system as deficit neutral. These are facts that cannot be ignored.

So what I'm saying is that we have been sold on a reason for doing something (unsustainable cost increases that are/will be crippling our economy) and yet what they are pushing for is universally accepted as a massive increase in cost with no evidense that the actions taken will ever curb the increases. "Bending the cost curve" as Obama was so fond of saying is correct, however the CBO has shown that these proposals bend that curve in the wrong direction. Adding tens of millions of people into the most expensive system on the planet, people that are being covered for free and have zero stake in how much additional cost they are incurring on our behalf, is not a good solution to what Obama clearly states is the problem we are trying to solve here.

Your intensly linear thinking is probably very calming to you, makes things so simple! But given the facts, I have drawn my own conclusions which do not agree with what we are being told by Obama and the far left. And I am not alone. The vast majority of republicans, independents, seniors, moderate democrats, doctors, and just plain old Americans agree with my concerns and do not support any of the current proposals. And yes I did help in some small way to bring these issues to light, that's what citizens are supposed to do. I am all for healthcare reform, curbing costs, expanding coverage, making the system more efficient, but nothing we have seen yet does that in an effective or sustainable way. We are being sold a bill of goods.

My question is: what exactly makes you confident that what you are being told, given the mountain of evidence to the contrary, is true? There is no evidence that these proposals will do anything to improve the central cost problem, only empty promisses backed by mountains of evidence that they will increase costs. When you pin them down on this it becomes a moral issue, when you pin them down on that it becomes a cost issue. When they actually get pinned down and can defend their position with facts, evidence, or rational thought I may change my mind.

You should try it some time: changing your mind as the situation evolves and more evidence comes to light.

 

[Cuba]

And one more related point on transparency, if this reform cannot stand on its own under scrutiny, should it stand at all?:

Congressional leaders fight against posting bills onlineBy: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
October 6, 2009

As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote.

Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.

While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.

"The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

At town hall meetings across the country this past summer, the main topic was health care, but there was a strong undercurrent of anger over the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills without seeming to understand the consequences. The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.

"If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out," said Lisa Rosenberg, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation to bring more transparency to government.

The foundation has begun an effort to get Congress to post bills online, for all to see, 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them.

"It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill," Rosenberg said, "and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it."



What you don't know can hurt you:
» House energy and global warming bill, passed June 26, 2009. 1,200 pages. Available online 15 hours before vote.

» $789 billion stimulus bill, passed Feb. 14, 2009. 1,100 pages. Available online 13 hours before debate.

» $700 billion financial sector rescue package, passed Oct. 3, 2008. 169 pages. Available online 29 hours before vote.

» USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed Oct. 23, 2001. Unavailable to the public before debate.


A similar effort is under way in Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.

Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.

The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.

The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.

For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting.

"The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill," said one top Senate Democratic aide.

But Baird warned of public backlash.

"Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this," he said. "The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."


[email protected]

 

[macem29]

It has has always baffled me why universal public run healthcare is such a
hot button issue in the US. You have government run fire depts, policing,
libraries...the list goes on and on. How is health care any less of a basic
human right in a modern western democracy?

 

[Oscar54]

I would make the point that in order to make the moral argument....BLAH...BLAH....BLAH. The grasshopper has no grounds to berate the ants for their greed when winter rolls around. There are those of us that contribute to society, and those of us that detract from it. I see the current bills a shift from the former to the latter.

You never cease to amaze me with your self-serving logic.

"Well we can't provide health care to the whole world, so we can't have national health care here."

By that logic you can't provide for yourself unless you provide for everyone? But what's logic got to do with anything you say!

Cuba, you really have learned the art spin very well I must say. You can write stuff that sounds pretty good until someone thinks about it and discovers it really makes no sense.

The grasshopper analogy is actually about thrift, not compassion or caring for others. It's about working, not sloth, but also saving for the rainy day or old age and not living for today, not weather you make enough money to pay to save your life if you are ill, or buying an insurance policy only to be dropped or denied coverage when you need it. Also, Ants are the ultimate communist society, everything they do is for the colony not the individual which is diametrically opposed to everything you have ever written on this site.

You always throw in there that you are all for health care reform but just not what is being suggested, but you, like the Republicans, never say what you do want, only what you don't want. The Republicans have not even bothered to offer a "Comprehensive" bill for reform. They just demand changes to weaken or block other proposals and then don't vote for the bills even when they include their suggestions.

So at least be honest for once and admit you really don't care about health care reform because you have coverage and its all good for you. And that's fine, but just say it. Stop trying to make it sound like you are standing up for some kind of principle? You don't want to have to pay for anyone else (even though in reality you are and always will be) and that you are hoping that the Republicans are successful in either blocking any health care reform at all or weakening it so much it fails to make a difference, all so it will hopefully destroy Obama's presidency, which you have been obsessed with since he was elected.

 

[Cuba]

You never cease to amaze me with your self-serving logic.

"Well we can't provide health care to the whole world, so we can't have national health care here."

By that logic you can't provide for yourself unless you provide for everyone? But what's logic got to do with anything you say!

Cuba, you really have learned the art spin very well I must say. You can write stuff that sounds pretty good until someone thinks about it and discovers it really makes no sense.

The grasshopper analogy is actually about thrift, not compassion or caring for others. It's about working, not sloth, but also saving for the rainy day or old age and not living for today, not weather you make enough money to pay to save your life if you are ill, or buying an insurance policy only to be dropped or denied coverage when you need it. Also, Ants are the ultimate communist society, everything they do is for the colony not the individual which is diametrically opposed to everything you have ever written on this site.

You always throw in there that you are all for health care reform but just not what is being suggested, but you, like the Republicans, never say what you do want, only what you don't want. The Republicans have not even bothered to offer a "Comprehensive" bill for reform. They just demand changes to weaken or block other proposals and then don't vote for the bills even when they include their suggestions.

So at least be honest for once and admit you really don't care about health care reform because you have coverage and its all good for you. And that's fine, but just say it. Stop trying to make it sound like you are standing up for some kind of principle? You don't want to have to pay for anyone else (even though in reality you are and always will be) and that you are hoping that the Republicans are successful in either blocking any health care reform at all or weakening it so much it fails to make a difference, all so it will hopefully destroy Obama's presidency, which you have been obsessed with since he was elected.

I am the finance director for a medium sized business that is facing a massive increase in our premiums this year, with the company responsible for 50% and the employees including myself and the other managers are all individually responsible for our own 50%. So yes I care very much about health care, in fact I would make the assumption that I care a lot more than you since it is part of my job to do so. Republicans have put forth 41 plans, none have been considered or even discussed or recognized as ever having been presented. The republican plans include mandates, interstate competition, tort reform, and subsidies for the poor. They do not include a government takeover of the health care industry. Get your facts straight, you are dead wrong on those assumptions.

I believe in careful planning but we aren't seeing that here. How will hospitals and doctors offices respond to the flood of new public option recipients numbering in the tens of millions? This was never explained. How can Harry Reid himself tell us that the bills on the table will actually cost $2T and that tort reform would save over $50B a year yet both of these are ignored? How can your plan be to take $500B out of medicare (with a tsunami of baby boomers now becoming eligible) and pretend as though this won't effect everyone already on Medicare, which is almost broke as it is? No rationing? Explain, in detail please, before we sign. You think emotionally about it whereas the majority of Americans are thinking rationally about it. How can we pay for it? How much are you individually prepared to pay for someone else's health care? Where do YOU draw the line?

The idea that the most advanced and expensive health care system in the world should be served up as a free all you can eat buffet has proven to be a bad one. Just because you feel you should be able to buy a house doesn't mean we should give you one, you have to be able to afford it- look how that turned out. I am not opposed to subsidies for those that CAN'T but I have a huge problem with paying for those that WON'T. You have to be motivated to support yourself and your family, if you can sit back collecting checks, free health care, free food, subsidized housing, then you are living beyond your means and detracting from society. What we need more than handouts is JOBS.

The latest numbers show that the stimulus has created or saved (which is a lie) around 30K jobs. Each one has cost us approximately $500K, for 6 months. For that money they could have just hired 300K each getting $50K a year to actually do something for this country. What the administration is doing is creating a permanent underclass reliant on the government to support them, rather than preparing them to support themselves and rise up- which is a defining principal on which this country was founded. I'm against that idea. Maybe it would help get the point across if we all had score cards, how much you contribute to society versus how much you take. My score would be a lot higher than yours. I've helped create dozens of jobs this year alone, allowing families to support themselves, put their kids through college, buy their health care which again we pay 50% for, and I work for a green company actively reducing our carbon footprint in significant ways, but I'm evil? Armchair hippies like yourself need a reality check. I've done way more to support your goals than you have.

 

[wolfc70]

There is lots of good points here, and this debate could go on for days, so here is my take.

1. A 1500 page bill is not reform, no matter who wrote it or what the intentions actually are.

2. Get the trial lawyers out of the picture, this will save costs on malpractice insurance, which will lower costs over all, the trickle down effect.

3. Have basic malpractice clauses, that way legitimate cases are taken care of by the hospital, some monetary compensation should be allowed, but set a firm cap, and all related costs should be covered 100% for life. This will also save the average person money by again lowering costs across the board.

4. Have competition between health care providers and insurance companies. Just like how Lasik has decreased in price, and vast improvements have been made, competition can bring out the best, and may actually lower costs for more routine visits and operations.

Most Americans are happy with their health care coverage, but there is lots of room for improvements. Fixing what is wrong will not take billions/trillions of dollars and years to implement. It could be done in months, and very seamlessly. Throwing the system under a bus is not going to help us in the long run. We need to keep the innovations coming, and simply figure out how to control costs. This is something families and business do on a daily basis. It should not be this hard to fix.

 

[Oscar54]

OK, Cuba, so Capitalism and the free market is the only solution? (I won't waste time debating the spaghetti you keep throwing on the wall!)

Anything else is bad, won't work and will only help Obama turn America into a Socialist State. (Which is totally unfounded and ridiculous, with Geithner, Summers, Bernanke and now some Goldman Sachs Wonder-kid at the SEC in control. What a bunch of Commies they are?)

So, since the Magic Hand of the Free Market is so all powerful and all knowing and has been the Bible followed by every President, since, well Nixon, and the alter to which you unquestionably worship, why hasn't it solved the cost of health care? Why isn't it affordable, which you just complained about, and continues to escalate costs at unsustainable rates? Why is it taking so long to work its magic?

Please give me your astute, pragmatic, unemotional, informed, and of course unbiased opinion? (Maybe you can throw in one of those Republican Flow-Chart poster boards, for laughs!) And while your at it, maybe you can link up those 41 Republican proposals that apparently only you know of.

 

[C-bus Biker]

We're far too quick to close our eyes and see America's poor sitting in front of their huts with the swollen bellies and the flies landing on their eyeballs. This isn't so. In the United States, people who truly cannot afford healthcare are elligible for Medicaid-type wellfare coverage. The coverage is good. I operate healthcare facilities and I can tell you that we, under law and oversight by CMS, do not give Medicaid recipients any less medical care than Medicare patients, private insurance, or private pay. The uninsured in America are those that have chosen not to pay for health insurance. We hear of denials due to pre-existing conditions.... that only applies if you didn't have insurance when the condition began. Why didn't you have insurance? When we hear about people losing jobs, there is something called COBRA and as long as you keep some insurance, there will not likely be denials due to pre-existing conditions. I had an employee come to me the other day and ask if she can be taken off of the schedule because she is working too many hours and is risking losing her welfare benefits. Is this what we've become? Should the taxpayer be responsible for the child's "free" lunch while the mother smokes $5.00 in cigarettes each day or should that mother be charged with child abuse? Do you sit in the lines at the grocery store and watch the name-brand foods being piled onto the conveyor belt while the obese woman with the blue-tooth in her ear and thousands of $$ of tats up and down the arms takes out the "card" (Ohio's equivalent to food stamps)?

There are some that can't fathom why we would be against universal healthcare. From afar, who can argue? But when you get your feet on the ground and you see what is really going on, you will see that America's poor aren't that poor in comparison. In general, they're victims of their own choices in life. Of course, I'm not speaking about those with disabilities... but they have programs that they can take advantage of. If one truly can't afford healthcare, Medicaid will be provided.... but you might have to show proof of your income, commit a certain amount of your income to the program, and you may just need to sell a few things around the house. We entitle ourselves to far more than others do globally.