Stanek weekend question: Do you think Obamacare will survive?
On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing an unprecedented three days of oral arguments in a lawsuit brought forth by 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and four small businesses challenging the constitutionality of the two-yr-old Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The lawsuit alleges that forcing individuals to buy health insurance and forcing states to expand Medicaid benefits are both unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, Obamacare isn’t faring well politically. Politico posted a must read article yesterday, “5 things Dems got wrong on health care,” vindicating conservative opposition to Obamacare:
President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies thought their political assumptions were airtight during the yearlong battle to overhaul the health care system.
Voters would reward them, they thought, even if Democrats muscled a bill through without Republican support. It was just a matter of getting out of Washington and selling the law. Obama would lead the charge, and rank-and-file Democrats would proudly campaign on the achievement.
None of it worked out that way….
One year from now what do you predict will be the status of Obamacare?
[Photo via Politico]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m feeling it’s a 50-50 shot whether Obamacare stays or goes. But I really hope they can it. The single-payer clause in there is so monumentally wrong that it baffles me anyone ever thought that would be okay.
I have no idea, but it will be interesting to see.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is thinking – “it’s good to be king…”
For those with pre-existing conditions or horrible illnesses (that could lead to lifetime caps) – I really hope it stays. I have a friend who’s been denied coverage many times, and has hit yearly caps – and it is terrible to see that gone through.
I think they should keep and refine – not get rid of it (though part of me thinks that would be the much quicker way to usher in a single payer system – the current, pre reform system is not sustainable).
I think it survives 6-3 in the supremes - maybe 7-2. I don’t see the supremes dialing back the power that congress has. Who knows though – the court can be more about politics than the law…
I’d feel better about its chances if Chief Justice Roberts wasn’t sointellectually dishonest and morally corupt.
And Alice, I think you mean “individual mandate” not “single payer”. Single payer is what we need, but don’t yet have. Who knows, maybe if this is struck down we’ll get real universal health care in the second term.
@Hal: Oh, you’re right. I am talking about the individual mandate. Thanks for the catch. :)
I believe HAL and Ex-RINO should be responsible for each other’s health care.
They should have equal acess to each other wealth to ensure they receive health care whenever they desire it.
Elective surgery should be covered, even gender re-assignment surgery and even gender re-re-assignment surgery should they be unhappy with their new gender.
Re-creational drugs and performance enhancement substances should be included in the healthcare they provide each other should they be more than happy, but not ‘satisfied’ with their new genders [lithium batteries included].
If their combined resources are inadequate to pay for all this ‘health care’ then they should be able to steal their children and their grandchildrens wealth to pay for it.
Hal and Ex-RINO want they Obama money, out he stash.
Not surprised. Personally, I prefer America (even though I’m poor and don’t currently have any health insurance-the last time I got sick, I paid for everything myself) to Europe-lite+”free” stuff. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Adults should know that.
Hal and Ex-RINO – you can stick a fork in it. Obamacare is dead. And Americans don’t want single payer (bureacratically controlled) healthcare. We help people in need as friends and communities and NOT through government mandated socialization. Ex-RINO, have you run or donated to a fundraiser for your friend?
“I don’t see the supremes dialing back the power that congress has.”
The commerce clause doesn’t give them the power they usurped. If you believe it does, then there’s no limit to what Congress can do.
The idiocy of hoping Congress’s abuse of power is upheld by the courts merely because you agree with the particular benefit the abuse sought — is unbelievable.
The rule of law doesn’t mean transgressing the scope of its purview, re-defining it to suit some exercise of authority its intent and original scope would not permit. The idea is that you change the law if you want to do something new, and beyond the original scope. You don’t just redefine it.
The contempt for the rule of law by those who prefer revisionist readings to actually getting support for new law/amendment/changes, is almost beyond belief sometimes. Honestly, I think it’s just incredibly stupid. It’s certainly too stupid to imagine consequences. When the other party is in power, do they want the same kind of abuse of law? No. Well then gee, idiots, there’s a simple solution — use the law the way it’s supposed to be used, don’t abuse it.
My aunt came down with cancer. She met her insurance cap. Some of the locals put a collection jar in the town grocery stores. They made more than enough in donations to cover everything for her. I put what I could in there, too, even though she and I didn’t particularly get along at the time. You do realize that people are perfectly capable of charity without being forced into it by the government, right? And-GET THIS, GUYS-the more prosperous a people is, the more citizenry naturally give of themselves! It’s almost like…this crap would work itself out if the government just kept focusing on keeping its people prospering!
No, it will not survive SCOTUS wholly intact because the individual mandate is blatantly unconstitutional. It only remains to see if the entire law is struck down. I can see a split decision–a solid majority ruling that there was overreach on the mandate, but possibly a divided court ruling that some individual provisions remain. The latter is unlikely, but we will see how they handle the political pressure…26 states against the law on the one hand, and on the other hand the Obama admin issuing directives on how to spin it in the media (which the MSM will dutifully comply with) and encouraging demonstrations.
The best analysis of this via Judge Vinson’s ruling in Florida is from Randy Barnett and Elizabeth Price Foley
http://www.elizabethpricefoley.com/Obamacare%20Ruling.html
The decision will turn on the 2 key points – if the Obama administration goes down the route of trying the Necessary and Proper Clause and they stick to the non-severability of the individual mandate, then they will most likely lose. The repercussions of upholding those positions would be catastrophic.
Necessary and Proper is about implementation, not expansion. What Obamacare effectively does is crank open the door to any and every possibility of government control. As we’ve already seen, that’s a direct route for dictatorship.
The administration couldn’t argue the Commerce Clause aspect – at what point do you demand compensation for an unprovable non-activity (material participation in a medical service) that you’re demanding a person engage in, because you think they might at some future point? That’s imaginary commerce.
The real sticking point for Obama’s minions is the control desired from non-severabliity of the individual mandate. In other words, they rammed through the whole thing because they’re not interested in actual health-care reform, but in using the whole kit and kaboodle as a power lever.
If Vinson is correct – and you can’t untangle the individual mandate from the snarled hairball mess of legislation, then I think the Supreme’s will go the safer route and deem it unconstitutional.
A crazy as this sounds, I think the ramifications from upholding it would lead more or less to civil war.
Without the individual mandate, the rest isunworkable. Civil war Chris? Didn’t happen under romneycare.
The individual mandate is unconstitutional. Even leaving out the “imaginary commerce” problem that Chris brings up, requiring people to buy insurance and penalizing them for failing to do so is tantamount to charging people a fee for being alive at all. There is simply no way to justify that.
I’m going to agree with Hal (well, based on his short responses). I want universal healthcare. That isn’t what this is- and much of the arguments of its opposition have been debunked numerous times- but this is at least taking some initiative to get there.
Here:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/health_care_myths.html
From a pro-life perspective, we need to focus on getting every pregnant woman and child covered. Some people may disagree with the current legislation- alright. It’s always great to have a mix of ideas. But we need to start having these conversations at the very least: How do we help pregnant women and children get the healthcare that they need?
Vannah-
From a pro-life perspective, pregnant women and children ALREADY ARE COVERED. That’s what medicaid and other state-run programs are for.
“The administration couldn’t argue the Commerce Clause aspect – at what point do you demand compensation for an unprovable non-activity (material participation in a medical service) that you’re demanding a person engage in, because you think they might at some future point? That’s imaginary commerce.”
The compensation is for insurance coverage, not “material participation in a medical service”. And the Commerce Clause allows for the regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, even if they themselves are not strictly “commerce” in any linguistic sense.
Hal – as far as the current implementation being unworkable – yes.
I thought you were pro-choice? Does that really only mean when abortion is involved? Of course. It’s not really about choice at all. Never was.
If the government can compel individuals against doing something against their free will, then that same argument can be used against the entire pro-abortion argument too. You somehow think this doesn’t come back around…
Additionally, and eventually government mandated abortions like China become not only possible, but very practical.
Unlike draft service during a declaration of war (when’s the last time that actually happened?) where you can point at who and what you’re protecting, and in general, a limited duration, mandatory participation on each individual is for all practical purposes indentured servitude – slavery with no limitations.
Maybe people are too distracted with entertainment and all, but as the costs rise and the wasteful incompetence comes, and non-appealable decisions come down from on high, people will wake up to the fact they’ve been enslaved. The end result won’t be pretty, because instead of looking out for the interests of the people, the Supreme Court will have decided they and other forms of government are more important than the people.
it’s only a matter of time.
The arrogance and hubris of Obama provides the irony in the ultimate dissolution of his signature “accomplishment”. He could have waited until after the SCOTUS ruling but by going after the first amendment rights of individuals and institutions in the most recent HHS mandates Obama exposes the inherent unconstitutionality of the act in such an “in your face” manner that it cannot be ignored by the court. Thank you, Barack. Your desire to placate your base by politicizing Obamacare has probably driven the last nail into it. By overstepping all bounds of legitimate authority vested in the executive and legislative branches this law can only be overturned by the court—they know they have no choice but to uphold the constitution.
How do we help pregnant women and children get the healthcare that they need?
And somehow you imagine free abortion does this Vannah? That the only new thing Obamacare gives to pregnant women and children.
Joan: “And the Commerce Clause allows for the regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce, even if they themselves are not strictly ‘commerce’ in any linguistic sense.”
Good grief, troll. Not buying something is not an activity!
Do people of your ilk seriously intend that the government should determine which activities — which we don’t engage in — we’re obliged to engage in? “We regulate certain activities, but since your inactivity is beyond the legal reach of the law that permits regulation of these activities, we’ll force you to engage in them so that we can regulate you!”
Seriously, are you people insane?
I’ll say it again — thinking the end result good, lunatics like y’all are willing to let the government become anything and roll over anyone, if only those who prefer the policy alternative would lose the political battle. You’re willing to destroy Constitutional government to ensure that what you want to happen isn’t reversed.
You’re little different than Turkish PM Erdogan, whose Islamist tribalism prompted his classic moronitude: “Democracy is like a train: you ride it to your destination, and then you jump off.”
Jerry,
My understanding is that once the individual mandate is struck down as unconstitutional, the entire law must fall. It is the delicious result of the hurried, midnight-voting railroading of the bill by the Democrats.
Pelosi said we had to wait till it was passed to find out what was in it. Well, they foolishly neglected to include a provision that would allow the rest of the bill to proceed even if parts were thrown out - as is done with most bills.
It’s hard to believe they dropped that ball in a 2,000 page monstrosity. But then, I’m sure they believed it was handed down from on High. Not so much.
They also have to contend with the little problem of Is it a tax? Or is it a fine? They have a split personality on this point, but they better make up their minds what they’re going to argue. Rasqual, I understand that there’s some kind of weird precedent for regulating NOT buying something under the commerce clause, the assumption being that your absence from commerce affects commerce. Nuts I know. But it worked in the Comstock case–I think that’s the one. From the 40’s?
Who knows though – the court can be more about politics than the law…
Well said, Ex-GOP — reference Roe vs Wade.
“Do you think Obamacare will survive?”
No, because things that can’t go on forever, don’t.
It is insolvent from the word go. There is no way to make it work. It is a non starter.
It would be struck down 9-0 if we had 9 judges on the Supreme Court. Instead we have 4 Justices, 1 egomaniac, and 4 criminals who should be in jail for crimes against the Constitution. Unfortunately the criminals who hate the Constitition and all freedoms aside from the freedom to be a pervert or a baby killer will “vote” to uphold the most unconstitutional law of all time, but the other 5 should do the right thing.
Just catching up from a day away…
Xalisae – you said you don’t currently have insurance. If you were to get in a car accident – big injuries – and were brought into the emergency room, what do you think should be done to you, and who should pay for it?
Rasqual – there have already been numerous conservative judges who have written opinions stating that congress does have the power to do what they did. Not sure what else to tell you – I stand by my first assessment.
Hans is right – if the individual mandate goes, the whole thing goes. You can’t tell insurance companies they can’t discriminate against pre-existing conditions without the individual mandate (people would just wait until they get cancer and then jump onto a plan). So if the mandate goes down, we can add ‘pre-existing condition’ back to our every day language.
John Lewandowski – That might be the stupidest comment I’ve seen on this board in a long time.
If you followed the lawsuits at all, you’d see that conservative judges, right leaning judges have found it to be constitutional. I’m not saying that the end result is going to be in favor of keeping it (my prediction is above already) – but to say that some of them would be committing crimes against the constitution – that just isn’t a bright statement.
Jamie -
Part of me wishes they had just put in an opt-out.
if a person wants, they can opt out of coverage, but it allows them to be discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions, prevents them from rolling medical bills into a bankruptcy, and keeps in place lifetime and yearly caps. Somebody proposed a bill doing that – unfortunately it didn’t go very far.
Going to bed now…it just baffles me that the Democrats have become the party of personal responsibility on this one.
Here we have it – lots of Republicans saying “sure, don’t get preventative care – get really, really sick, then go to the hospital, and when you can’t pay your bill – well, just raise the insurance rates for those who have insurance!”
Yikes.
Ex-RINO says: March 24, 2012 at 11:27 pm
“Going to bed now…it just baffles me that the Democrats have become the party of personal responsibility on this one.”
Based on this bit of surealism it would seem you went to bed quite a while ago and are still dreaming.
Hans and ex:
I have read reports that say it is possible (though unlikely) to have a split—throw down the mandate but rule separately on the rest.
Another thought: Not only is the individual mandate unprecedented in federal law and unconstitutional on its face, but there is a matter that may fall under the category of equal protection under the law. How is it that the Amish are singled out under Obamacare and relieved of having to comply with the law, and how is it that some organizations are granted waivers, and not others? Aside from the constitutional question doesn’t this put on full display the lie of Obama’s mantra of “fairness”? And isn’t it just all too convenient that the main beneficiaries of HHS Secretary Sebelius’ largess in granting these waivers that they are primarily unions and friends of Pelosi and Reid?
Jerry,
That’s what really burns me up. Not only have the Dems been looking at the ceiling and whistling when Obamacare is brought up (Obama spent only a few words on it in the State of the Union speech), but they’ve granted waivers to their little vote-churning machines.
Can’t people smell something fishy going on? At the very least, they don’t really believe this is the solution, if they allow exemptions to their buddies.
Hans – are you talking about the one-year waivers on the mini-med plans while they adjust for the new law?
It *shouldn’t* pass the court since it is, on it’s face, unconsitutional. The problem is the Supreme Court is both well know for ruling against the Consitution *and* for inventing Constituional ‘rights’ out of no where. Furthermore we’ve one Justice who actively worked to pass Obamacare before becoming a Justice (who refuses to recuse herself so far) a couple who have been appointed by Obama who aren’t going to fall out of lockstep even if he put through an executive order nullifying the Consitution and at least one who has openingly said that they think the Consitution is outdated and should not be used as a guidepost. The numbers fall conservative by only 1 (sometimes swing) vote. So, as much as I hope someone in those 3 days of arguements just reads the Consitution and the Supreme Court’s oath of office to the sitting Judges…it’s fairly naive to think they are actually going to dust off their oaths and due their blasted job.
Ex-RINO,
Your ‘catching up for the day’ somehow missed responding to my post. I’ll repost for you so you can respond. “Americans don’t want single payer (bureacratically controlled) healthcare. We help people in need as friends and communities and NOT through government mandated socialization. Ex-RINO, have you run or donated to a fundraiser for your friend?”
Ex-RINO said:
” Xalisae – you said you don’t currently have insurance. If you were to get in a car accident – big injuries – and were brought into the emergency room, what do you think should be done to you, and who should pay for it?”
Ex-RINO. I say that the same thing that gets done for everybody else should get done for x. You patch them up and send them the bill. Now what do you think should happen?
Xalisae – you said you don’t currently have insurance. If you were to get in a car accident – big injuries – and were brought into the emergency room, what do you think should be done to you, and who should pay for it?
I should be treated to the best of the ability of the ER staff. Then, when I’m discharged, sent the bill so that I can start my payments. I don’t see why this whole “personal responsibility” thing is so hard for you to comprehend.
My ex and I were involved in a car accident while we were together. We didn’t have insurance on our car at the time. You know what happened? We self-insured (paid for the cost of repairs to the guy who hit us). The world didn’t only just start turning after they invented insurance, dude (and I say this as someone in the insurance industry!).
You act like framing your position in a way that would make it advantageous to me (“Ok, well…what if YOU were put in a position that you might want free stuff?! What then, huh?!”) is going to make me change MY position. But that’s where you and I differ. I’m a REAL Republican, while you never were. I have these things called “convictions” which you seem to consider a completely alien concept. If getting pregnant in one of the worst situations possible didn’t make me magically Pro-Choice, why do you think being uninsured is going to make me support this hot mess?
If you followed the lawsuits at all, you’d see that conservative judges, right leaning judges have found it to be constitutional.
“conservative” and “right-leaning” like you, Ex-RINO?
Truth – sorry i skipped yours – wanted to get to a few others first…
I didn’t say Americans wanted it – I’m saying it would be a quicker result of what I think is the inevitable (and more than a few experts think will eventually happen). Just take a look at the amount of uninsured people over the last 10 years -and take a look at the number of people who are insured through work plans over the last 10 years. Every day, health care becomes something less and less people have – but everyone needs health care – so as more people can’t pay – higher costs pass to those who can – which leads more people to drop…at some point, system can’t support itself, but the need will still be there.
On my friend – I didn’t say she had unpaid for bills anymore – she had cancer back in the day, had a bone marrow transplant, is perfectly healthy now, but has been turned down for insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
Jespren -
All I have to say is – Wickard vs. Filburn.
xalisae – that’s great you were able to pay for it.
Let’s take one health care system – Mayo Clinic System (Franciscan Skemp) – out of La Crosse Wisconsin.
in 2010, they had 8.800 uninsured patients for $6.6 million in charges.
7% of the $6.6 million was paid (leaving a tab of over $6 million to pass on to others through higher rates).
Face it – you have the potential for being a walking time bomb – at any point, you could get an illness or have an accident that would overwhelm your finances and your ability to pay – yet you would want the care to save your life (and I agree 100% that the care should be given).
So what do you want in that situation? To not have any skin in the game, but require the system to cover for you?
This is why the Heritage foundation was one of the first to dream up a mandate – we all are part of the system, all take advantage (or might take advantage) – so all should participate.
Not sure what else to say – some in the audience at a GOP debate said we should let a person die if they don’t have insurance and can’t pay. I hope we don’t get to that point ever as a country. That’s the alternative to what I laid out above.
Jerry: I have read reports that say it is possible (though unlikely) to have a split—throw down the mandate but rule separately on the rest.
Jerry, I think the Court will consider whether the rest of Obamacare can stand, minus the mandate, or whether the mandate being ruled against would mean all of it would need to be scrapped.
Ex-GOP: I think they should keep and refine – not get rid of it (though part of me thinks that would be the much quicker way to usher in a single payer system – the current, pre reform system is not sustainable).
Certainly don’t have a crystal ball here, but I do think the single-payer system is ultimately the way to go. It’s working well in a number of places, including countries where the care is as good or better than ours, and they pay way less on health care as a percentage of GDP, etc.
Let’s take one health care system – Mayo Clinic System (Franciscan Skemp) – out of La Crosse Wisconsin.
in 2010, they had 8.800 uninsured patients for $6.6 million in charges.
7% of the $6.6 million was paid (leaving a tab of over $6 million to pass on to others through higher rates).
Face it – you have the potential for being a walking time bomb – at any point, you could get an illness or have an accident that would overwhelm your finances and your ability to pay – yet you would want the care to save your life (and I agree 100% that the care should be given).
So what do you want in that situation? To not have any skin in the game, but require the system to cover for you?
This is why the Heritage foundation was one of the first to dream up a mandate – we all are part of the system, all take advantage (or might take advantage) – so all should participate.
Not sure what else to say – some in the audience at a GOP debate said we should let a person die if they don’t have insurance and can’t pay. I hope we don’t get to that point ever as a country. That’s the alternative to what I laid out above.
Very good post, Ex-GOP.
I’m not a big supporter of Obamacare – I already had a good deal, overall.
No matter what happens, I think almost all of us are headed for less services provided and increasing costs – the demographics and monetary amounts are staggering.
I’m for tort reform – judgments on malpractice, etc., should be limited. It’s one more thing that’s dramatically driven up health care’s cost. Where my employer is located – West Virgina, there have been a lot of doctors who threw in the towel, with malpractice insurance over $100,000 per year. Lots have gone elsewhere, some just quit the profession.
Also think the incredibly cushy deal that Congress has should be killed, and have them be subject to the same as the rest of us.
Ex-RINO,
You did say your friend had unpaid bills and that it was terrible to watch her go through when she hit her cap and could not get care. By your response I am assuming you never donated money yourself or cared to hold a fundraiser while she was going through this terrible time; at least not that you can remember.
Doug -
Thanks for the props – good post as well.
There was a recent study on tort reform – it is easy to study as a lot of states have legislation in place. The affect on health care cost is about 1%-2% overall – so there is an affect, but not as significant as some think.
”If you were to get in a car accident – big injuries – and were brought into the emergency room, what do you think should be done to you, and who should pay for it?”
There is this thing called a bill. After the provider provides services, he sends to a bill. If you can’t pay the bill, you make payments. It is kind of like a mortgage, if you have heard of that. If the bills are way beyond what you can ever pay, you can go bankrupt if you have ever heard of that. Now if you go to an expensive college that doesn’t qualify you for a highly remunerative occupation, then you are just stuck paying. You can’t discharge that debt like you can truly beneficial useful services like healthcare.
Truth – I was at one college during the illness – she was at another far away. The struggles I talked about were later on when she had moved closer and was trying to get insurance.
Regardless, if you feel that the future of medical care in America is to hold fund raisers…wow.
LOL Ex-RINO,
So now; at least according to you; it is either we do what you say is best and manadate people buy insurance or let people without coverage die in the emergency room. It hasn’t ben happening in the past but the nanny and his king have seen fit to declared our future being left to die unless we submit to their benevolent mandates.
Hippie -
Yes – on the surface, great answer.
Look at the numbers I provided. 7% got paid. 93% didn’t. So when the bill gets sent and nobody pays, where does the money come from?
Hippie – that was an interesting answer by the way – “live the american dream – if you get really sick or have an accident, you might be forced to file bankruptcy – you’ll ruin your credit score, but hey, you might be able to keep your house!”
Regardless, if you feel that the future of medical care in America is to hold fund raisers…wow.
I t comes natural to me to donate to fundraisers like that and it helps out a lot of people. The wow is that it would never even cross your mind to think of contributing or holding a fundraiser to benefit somebody in need of health care. I don’t fault you for it ; you are entitled to your own way of thinking; it is just a foreign way of thinking to me. You are not obliged to give and you have a right to speak for the mandate.
Truth – I think there are other options as well – a single payer system with universal coverage.
But yes – the current system (pre-reform) is not sustainable. Again, as rates increase, more people become uninsured, and when they get care and don’t pay for it, it gets passed on as higher rates…which continues the spiral.
Truth – I’m jumping out of conversations with you on this thread – but will continue to respond to others.
Truth – I’m jumping out of conversations with you on this thread – but will continue to respond to others.
Straight talk can make a bent mind hurt.
They make insurance for “dying/getting sick”, actually, so no, if you plan well enough, you might not have to file bankruptcy, ruin your house, or ruin your credit score. Maybe we should mandate that too, eh Ex-RINO?
Also, Look at the numbers I provided. 7% got paid. 93% didn’t. So when the bill gets sent and nobody pays, where does the money come from?
How much of the 93% was made up of illegal immigrants? If it was substantial, a little immigration reform might help there, too. It’s almost like all the problems are like, connected or something! Wow!
Xalisae -
I’m not sure where you’re from, but let me say that the La Crosse Wisconsin area isn’t swimming with illegal immigrants. Surely not enough to make up the 93%.
I’m not sure if I understand your first comment – are you supporting that people have insurance so that they don’t face medical bankruptcies?
xalisae – I hope you aren’t glossing over my comments at 2:18 – specifically, the question:
So what do you want in that situation? To not have any skin in the game, but require the system to cover for you?
Ex-RINO,
Obamacare is a self-fulfilling prophecy of dependence on nanny state run government mandated care. For example, somebody like x might be able to afford to purchase a catastrophic policy with a million dollar cap but under Obamacare she would be prohibited from buying any policy other than you and the HHS secretary deem she ‘must purchase’.
We really need to remove the pro-choice label from the liberals. They are only pro-choice about one thing….pro-choice to terminate babies in the womb.
The lefty Obama backing liberal statist mentality has literally taken away American citizens ability to buy an insurance policy that covers catastrophic illness. 2012 can’t come quick enough. They obviously didn’t get the point in 2010 cause they are doubling down. All that is left to do now is hit them even harder in 2012 and take away as much power from them as possible.
Two interesting notes I found:
– There is a chance the Supremes could punt and say nobody can sue until 2014 when the law takes affect.
– The total nationwide amount for uncompensated care was $43 billion, and that was in 2008. With more insured, that figure is surely much higher. This is what gets passed on in higher costs.
It will cost us more than 43 billion dollars annually in legal costs alone for the life of Obamacare. Not to mention the ever growing bureaucracy costs and cronyism costs enbedded in government run systems. Toilet seats costs alone in the bathrooms at Obamacare exchange facilities could cost more than 43 billion dollars. If they are estimated to cost $640 a piece and another $640 for the union plumber to install them. How many toilet seats would it take more than offset the cost of all 43 billion dollars in uninsured patient coverage? And that is just the seat; it doesn’t include the cost of the toilet.
If 3 million citizens a year have to pay $15,000 each in Obamacare fines or in legal costs to fight our government about Obamacare fines or coverages then that will cost citizens 45 billion dollars annually. Now add the cost in taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to go after those citizens and it ends up costing us more than twice the amount we would spend on uninsured people.
By 2016, the penalty (for not having insurance) increases to $695 for an uninsured adult, and up to $2,085 per household, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.
So, 10 cool points to anybody out there that can tell me how much a person would have to make annually to hit truthseekers $15,000 per person?
Oh, and lets not forget about the cost of the actual care. How much will that cost us annually? Aren’t we subsidizing it for free anyway for many of those same citizens that were uninsured? Exactly how is this gonna be a cost savings????
So, 10 cool points to anybody out there that can tell me how much a person would have to make annually to hit truthseekers $15,000 per person?
And another 10 ice cold points for anybody who can tell me the cost of a policy on the obamacare exchange…..hint…think 15 thousand dollars annually.
We can assume most uninsured people will choose to remain uninsured and pay the fine if/when they need care. If the fine is only 2 thousand dollars then how exactly are people recouping the 43 billion dollars in uninsured medical costs? So at 2k annually and if most people will go seven years without needing catastrophic coverage; so it would come out to a typical fine of about 15 thousand dollars per person.
Ex-Gop, 93%, want to know why? Because *insurance*, *government*, and *beurocracy* (sp?) got involved in the first place. At one time the average person could afford standard care and the truly destitute and truly emergent services were usually covered by charities. Very few people lacked basic healthcare. Even the lowest factory worker was likely to be able to see a doctor when they needed to. Yes, there was a sortage of *doctors*, and many people had no access to healthcare because there simply weren’t doctors in their area. But even in the 20’s and 30’s private charity run hospitals would scoop up street kids run over by horses and provide for their needs.
Several years ago I had a procedure, paid out of pocket $35 for it. Same exact procedure last december got billed at $500 *after* a ‘prefered in network deduction’ of almost 50%. Yes, inflation and the general economy/passage of time accounts for some of that. But the main reason I got charged $500 (and would have been charged $1000 if I was an ‘out of network’ customer) is because insurance, government, and beurocracy drove up the cost completely unrelated to any ‘real’ services preformed. (My procedure took 1 alcohol wipe, 5 minutes, 1 syringe, and 10cc of lidocaine and the doctor and room I was already in for the general appointment.) But when people don’t pay directly for things, rates go up. 3rd party (insurance/government) paying for it makes people 1) unconcerned with the cost and 2) unheeding of the cost. So rates start rising because they can. Then people who *do* have to pay out of pocket start dropping bills or dropping standard care (ending up with more expensive care down the line). Then hospitals try to make up the income by increasing the cost, the 3rd party payers still don’t care and will pay it, while even more out-of-pocket people will default on their charges. This spirals, more increases, more dropped bills, more increases, eventually the 3rd parties can’t pay and start passing on the now exorbinant fees to their end users, many of whom won’t be able to pay or will start dropping service. It’s a cycle, and it will only get *worse* if you disconnect the end user (the patient) further from the payer (insurance/government). Only by weaning the system *off* the artifical disconnect that caused the artifically increased prices will actual headway be made. It’s one of those ‘government spends $500 on a hammer’ things. Putting more government control on the system doesn’t reverse the government-caused increase, it just *increases* the spiral. It didn’t actually cost the hospital $1000 to give me a trigger point injection. Realistically it *might* have cost $50. A bill I could have paid and would have expected. Instead I’m stuck with an unexpected (and completely unexpected and indefensible) $500 bill. One that I *can’t* pay and will have to chip away at for months if not years. And we have insurance. We also had insurance, good insurance to boot, when we were swept off our feet and drowned in debt after our firstborn spend 32 days in the NICU. More insurance, government forced, mandated, or controlled, will not help the problems plaguing the healthcare system. Nor has it in other countries. Government inforced/caused waiting periods, rationing, non-consenting euthanasia, non-consenting dnr orders and refusal of treatment and doctor shortages plague socialisic medical systems just as bad or worse than capitalistic ones.
And another 10 ice cold points for anybody who can tell me the cost of a policy on the obamacare exchange…..hint…think 15 thousand dollars annually.
That 15k does not include co-pays or deductibles…that’ll be extra too. Not to worry…the government has figured out a single policy that is just perfect for everybody.
Jespren: “But when people don’t pay directly for things, rates go up.”
+1
Also, it’s fun the way hospitals jack the costs up insanely, knowing that the ticket will be negotiated by the insurer to a fraction of the original cost. The fun starts when your insurer denies coverage on something and you’re stuck with the inflated bill without the underwriter’s negotiating clout.
Insurance shouldn’t pay for run-of-the-mill, quotidian care. Catastrophic things, yes.
The claims by the proaborts on here to support “health” ring hollow. Far more likely that they support massive, unaccountable government forcing its views on the people, as long as those views are pro-perversity and anti-civilization. ObamaCare manages to smash both economic and religious freedom. That is why it is the most unconstitutional law ever and only a criminal could possibly support it.
Hi Rasquel,
Insurance doesn’t pay for routine plastic procedures, as a result surgeons in our town must compete for clientele who somehow find the money, sometime in the thousands, for procedures they want desperately enough.
Indeed third party payment increases costs.
At one time health insurance covered only catastrophic costs, not routine care. I well remember my grandparents spending a lot of time in the hospital prior to Medicare, and they were certainly not rich by any means. Somehow they managed to pay. I also remember people wanting to be admitted to a hospital for the most trivial of reasons because Medicare was paying for it.
Ex-GOP,
I don’t remember all the details of the many waivers given to the Teamsters and many of Obama’s friends. I’ll go back and look that up later. Let’s not also forget that GM’s success has been helped along by waiving them from paying taxes.
Before I wade through the rest of today’s comments, let me leave you with George Will’s column, which I think is a good summary of what’s at stake this week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamacares-rewriting-of-contract-law/2012/03/23/gIQAVuFmWS_story.html
Mary:
Thanks for the reminder that there was a day when health care costs were within reach of the average person’s income.
The truly pathetic thing here is how dramatically Obamacare has changed the discussion. Now “health care” has become political fodder and class struggle. The pro-Obamacare bloggers here gloss over the costs and the unaffordability of the affordable health care act, and how it will drive down quality in the name of equality. It puts everyone in the “how do I make this work for me” mindset thus increasing acrimony and division between people as we start viewing one another as competitors for an ever decreasing piece of the health care pie.
Ex says:
Not sure what else to say – some in the audience at a GOP debate said we should let a person die if they don’t have insurance and can’t pay. I hope we don’t get to that point ever as a country.
First, I do not believe your statement. Produce a tape/video/credible article or retract. Be ready to prove too that the commenter(s) (if there were any) were not in fact plants to make the Repubs look bad. If you want a sense of how the left views things just take a look at the hatred and vile comments about Dick Cheney and his heart transplant.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/25/new-civility-twitter-explodes-with-cheney-hate-following-heart-transplant/
@Hans: Thank you. That is exactly what I have been saying. It is wrong to force people to purchase something if they do not wish to, and it is especially wrong to force them to do so because they are alive. There is no way to claim that is just or right or to defend it under an reasonable interpretation of the law.
Jespren: “But when people don’t pay directly for things, rates go up.”
And when it is the government that subsidizes the cost, rates absolutely skyrocket. Besides healthcare, higher education has also experienced rate increases in correlation with the amount of federally guaranteed financial aid.
Jerry -
Here’s the video of it. How did you not see this – it was all over the airwaves for weeks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yva0VSN1_T4
This has been a great post folks. So far, it appears that the GOP response to health care in this country is to either turn back the clock to the good ole’ days, where the doctor just slapped you on the behind and gave you some sprite, or to put up collection jars all over town.
I long for the good old days as well. We aren’t in them anymore. Time for grown up solutions to grown up problems.
“If you want a sense of how the left views things just take a look at the hatred and vile comments about Dick Cheney and his heart transplant.”
I think it’s great he could afford his transplant. I do wonder how he got to the top of the list with his multiple health problems and age. It’s not like there are a ton of hearts out there.
I can see where you guys are coming with the “pay for routine care, have catastrophic care insured”, yeah it makes sense. How in the world are we supposed to get there? Mandate that insurance only covers catastrophies and serious illnesses, and mandate that doctors drop their prices for standard care. What about prescriptions? My family of four’s medications per month, without insurance, would cost more than our rent and car insurance combined. How can any average person afford it? Should we insist that drug companies lower the price on meds so they are affordable without insurance? Your ideas sound okay on paper but how in the world would we implement them?
And lol Jespren, thinking everyone in yesteryear had access to basic healthcare. Let’s just pretend that medical technology was the same thing and people didn’t die of chronic conditions that we can now treat.
And seriously, you all must have a LOT more faith in humanity than I do if you think that charity is going to cover people who desperately need help. It won’t. A couple anecdotes doesn’t make it so.
Ex-Gop, when you’re going the wrong way responsible adults turn around, it’s the irresponsible who continue to wander down the same path that got them lost in the first place.
JackBorsch, well, um, history says I’m right. Lack of doctors, as mentioned, made obtaining care problematic to people in remote areas, but charity hospitals, traveling doctors, and care houses took care of even the most destitute. At one time over 90% of hospitals in this country were charity hospitals. You may trust corrupt and incompetent government, which has never proven itself capable of caring for it’d people in a nanny role, over people’s good will and charity, but I’ll trust the proven track record of people’s good will and charity. Yes, medical knowledge has advanced and we can now treat more diseases, but we also have a host of diseases that were once exceedingly rare that are now common or that were previously not in existance. Once hospices were packed with tuberculous patients, now it’s
Yeah… and the life expectancy was about 50 years old for the early part of this century. I mean, come on now. It’s a faulty comparison. Doctors also didn’t have near as much training and treatments available. It’s a lot easier to be a traveling doctor when you actually don’t have to do much doctoring that costs anything.
(My cell decided to submit that without checking with me)…
Now it’s AIDs. Once people died of infects, now we die of diabeties or heart disease. Every generation has it’s sicknesses and plagues, and every generation has it’s treatments that the one before didn’t have. But it’s absurd to say that the increase in technology and medicinal knowledge is what caused rates to skyrocket. It’s been said if asperin was discovered today it would be hailed as a miracle pill and sold for $100 a pop. But that kind of mentality has nothing to do with what it costs to produce or an intrisic value, it has to do with what companies feel they can get away with charging. Many high price tools are used when low priced ones are more appropriate (check out how many unnecessary MRIs, CAT scans, and even xrays are done every year) and many treatments are unncessary (antibiotics handed out like candy anyone?).
The technology boom has not made the real world price of getting things done more expensive, it’s simply allowed to more easily blur the line between what a thing is worth and what people are willing to pay for it. And that holds true from shoes to shots and from radios to radiation therapy.
Jespren- I actually agree with you (to a point) – but let me ask you what parent is going to take his/her kid into the clinic, and when told “we can do x, y, and z”, will say “let’s just do the cheapest and hope for the best?”
I think what you’re going for in your post is what I’ve sen referred to as the Veterinarian model – after figuring out the problem, the doctor presents out the options with price and effectiveness, and then the patient makes decisions. Now, surely health care would be cheaper if the only people who got certain treatments are the super rich…it just doesn’t seem real moral.
Ex-Gop, well, I’ve never heard it refered to as veterinarian care, but your discription is valid.n I expect doctors to offer me the appropriate treatments and their costs (up front) and I, as the consenting patient or guardian will decide what is best for myself/my family given what we can obtain. it doesn’t matter if that’s the best money can buy and top notch cover-everything insurance, or it’s the most basic of care at a free clinic. I’ve lived with good insurance, crappy insurance, and no insurance (and I have a chronic condition, as does my dad). I think it’s immoral to keep people from pursuing their wanted care, (we have a basic right to pursue happiness, not to happiness), and I find it immoral to keep doctors/hospitals out of people’s reach. But in no way do I find some people obtaining different medicines and treatments immoral. In other words, if you have a problem and you need a doctor, it would be immoral for a hospital to turn you away and not provide immediate, life saving care, which is already the law of the land and has been for some time, but the fact that Jack can afford/obtain chemo, radiation, and a bone marrow transplant and Joe can just afford/obtain pain meds to make him comfortable as he dies isn’t remotely immoral. That’s called ‘life’. And I will never understand how someone can think ‘health care’ (top notch health care especially) is some kind of basic human right. Basic human rights are inalienable, constant, and exist alongside humanity. They can be surpressed or denied, but they can not be granted or created. To seek health is a basic human right, we’ve been doing it for as long as there has been dishealth. But to say we have a fundamental right to specific medication or treatments, many which have only come into existance in the last few years, and almost nothing we’re argueing over has been around for hundreds, much less thousands, of years, is to stretch the concept of ‘basic rights’ past any semblence of sanity. You may have a *legal* right to something that is not a basic human right, but it’s quite impossible to have a ‘basic human right’ that is not transendent of time or culture, that’s why they are called basic human rights or inalienable human rights. Our great-great grandparents had just as much right to them as we do today as will our great-great grandchildren. How can any of use be afforded a right to something that didn’t/doesn’t/may not exist?
Now, legal rights are different. If you want to argue for a *legal* right to health care of a specific type that’s both your right and the proper way to do things. The ability to do so already exists. Any state can vote into existance the right/obligation for specific health care, and I have absolutely no problem with that (might not vote for it personally, but might too.) And if you want it enshrined on a federal level as a legal right, we have a way to do that too, amend the Consitution. If they had done that then, while I may not think it the brightest move for the country, I would be satified it was a proper legal right and would abide by it as such. But those trying to force health care on the country knew they couldn’t enshrine it legally as an amended federal power under the Consitution (that a *majority* of states are either sueing or inacting laws to avoid it prove that such an amendment would not have passed) so they forced through a wholely illegal, but enforceble, ‘law’ with the help of backroom deals, bribery, and trickery. Obamacare isn’t an expression of a legal right America agrees with, it’s a suppression of our basic human right to seek happiness (among others) and it’s a distortion and corruption of our *legal* rights already enshrined, legally an properly, in the Consitution.
JackBorsch, yeah, and the increase in life expectancy has very much to do with increased access to proper sanitation and fresh, clean water, as well as basic concepts like the acceptance of germ theory and availibilty of anitbiotics, and almost nothing to do with the high tech health care these type of universal health care laws seek to mandate.
Ex-GOP: “I long for the good old days as well. We aren’t in them anymore. Time for grown up solutions to grown up problems.”
I’ve never understood remarks like that. Seriously. They make no sense. They’re like the “bridge to the 21st century” campaign mantra and such. They just refer tautologically to time. On the one hand, we’re told we can’t get back to the good ol’ days because time marches on. Then we’re told, on the other hand, that we need progressive politicians “to take us into the future.”
If the “good ol’ days” disappear so automatically and irrecoverably, it seems to me we don’t need anyone at all to make our “good ol’ present” days disappear as well, once we get to that future we’re always reminded is such a great place we ought to want to be.
Seriously, folks pose this stuff as an argument of some kind? “Ya can’t go back!” What on earth does that mean? I’ll tell you one thing it means. Well, one of two things — at least. (A) It means the speaker believes in the infallibility and inevitability of “progress.” You can’t go back because you shouldn’t. Those old ways are bad. (B) It means the speaker believes that you can’t go back because it’s impossible. Whatever mistakes we’ve made, we can’t unmake.
The first makes no sense because it’s clearly not true. Progressives rant about No Child Left Behind. Libertarians rant about the Patriot Act. Conservatives about Obamacare. Well let’s tell ’em all to shaddup, because “progress” is not inevitable. No one actually believes that government (or any other institution or person) is infallible. Did I really need to say that? I think so, because certainly those speaking of never going back ought to be held accountable specifically for the second point.
Can we “go back?” Again, what does “back” mean? It’s ridiculous. No, we can’t go back in time. But yes — yes, we can repeal any of the above laws and replace them with something else (or nothing at all). Would that replacement be perfect? Would it “take us back?” No, obviously, because the project isn’t time travel — it’s implementing sound policy. But is it returning to a past policy, or at least returning to a time when the current policy wasn’t in play?
Yes, clearly. And we don’t need any talk of “good ol’ days” to see our way forward (use of such idiotic terms in riposte is legitimate as lampoon ;-)
As for setting up donation jars . . . what on EARTH? People do this all the time NOW. Whether it’s legal defense funds for a neighbor or passing the hat for the guy across town, people regularly go to bat for their friends. Entire funding foundations have been established from the goodwill of caring people. Any of a vast number of causes committed to seeking cures for specific diseases are principally private — passing the hat.
Just now a Google search yielded a really good document on where funding comes from just within the world of cancer research. In the intro it Amen’d what I just said: “The recent proliferation of advocacy groups for specific diseases and their use of innovative fund-raising strategies, and the rise of cause-related marketing in corporate giving, are raising unprecedented amounts of charitable dollars for biomedical research.”
The document goes on to not only show where funding comes from, but how it’s used. One thing I noticed is that federal dollars often go directly to treatment, rather than to basic science looking for a cure. On balance, a greater proportion of private money, one might say, is teaching people to fish rather than giving ’em fish — trying to solve the problem rather than treat it. The funding is 30 parts federal, 16 parts industry (but…but capitalism is bad!), 3 parts non-profit, and 2 parts state.
Here’s the kicker. In 199, industry funded 31% of cancer research. This is up from 2% in 1974. In other words, good ol’ capitalism — a private source of funding — has increased 1500%, from 1/50th of the pie to nearly a third. And again, in the report’s conclusion, “The philanthropic sector is also large and growing fast. At the national level, ACS is still the largest private cancer-specific fundraiser for cancer research, but it is being joined by a growing number of new organizations raising funds for education, research, and services for specific cancers.”
Growing number.
But we’re told that aiming for private funding is “going back,” and that we can’t do that.
Apparently, amazingly, wondrously, we’re doing the very thing we’re told we can’t do, while simultaneously not, actually, engaging in time travel. It’s astonishing! Whodathunkit?
And no, the proportionate rise in private contributions to cancer research are not due to a decrease in government spending in these areas; to the contrary, government spending increased substantially during the period examined.
Here’s another interesting point the paper raises. Speaking of contributions to charitable cancer institutions from people of “smaller net worth” (read: passing the hat / jar) — “Cancer center directors report that these privately raised funds, although relatively small, are important because they are flexible. They can be used for parts of the cancer research enterprise that research project grant funds cannot be used for, such as supporting new investigators until they can win a peer-reviewed grant, carrying an established investigator between external grants, and funding promising but risky research until there are enough results to submit a grant application.”
That’s an insanely good point. Grants are not only tricky things, but often involve ridiculous bureaucratic delays. That’s one problem with large organizations — they benefit from economy of scale, but the’re less nimble.
ANYWAY . . . all that just to say that those who imagine that passing the hat is something of yesteryear — they’re wrong. And there’s no need to “go back” — it’s right here, it’s right now. And it works. Can crazies bring up scenarios where hat-passing isn’t a satisfactory solution? Duh. Anyone could. But only crazies would cite such things as an argument that government solutions are the best thing going.
And look at those industry figures. Wow. The hope of profits motivating investment in finding solutions to human misery. Gotta love it.
Looks like some grownups are doing pretty well, acting like grownups looking for solutions to these problems (I’m inferring that cancer research is not entirely unique in these respects).
Hey Jack – I just wanted to say that I agree with your comments in this thread. I don’t generally get involved in healthcare debates because I don’t know enough to present a viable solution – it’s a problem too big for me to wrap my head around – but I definitely can articulate a serious problem and I find trite solutions like “allow competition across state lines” to be totally missing the point. I don’t really think that we need to reform our current system as much as just completely dismantle it, honestly, and I don’t see that happening.
I hope some of it stays, like the provision allowing parents to put their children on their insurance until age 26. My son works construction. The other day he fell off a ladder and was pretty banged up — thank God it wasn’t serious. But what would happen if it was serious and he didn’t have insurance?
I’m going to agree with Hal (well, based on his short responses). I want universal healthcare. That isn’t what this is- and much of the arguments of its opposition have been debunked numerous times- but this is at least taking some initiative to get there
I agree. My sister in NJ works part-time and has no health insurance, as her company does not offer it to part-timers. She is a slim, petite woman, but she has fibroid tumors so large that she looks six months pregnant. They usually are benign, but they cause her a great deal of discomfort and embarrassment. She makes too much for medical assistance, and she really needs to see a doctor about them.
“7% got paid. 93% didn’t. So when the bill gets sent and nobody pays, where does the money come from?”
The Health Care Act is worse than single payer because it guarantees profits to those who do not provide any care to anyone. You are forced to pay premiums to insurance companies for people who cannot afford to buy insurance. That is more expensive than the hospital just cost shifting to make enough money to cover their losses.
There is no such thing as free. We can’t buy insurance for people for free.
It is basically a way to get healthy people to pay more than they should and give less care to less people.
When you complain about your insurance not paying now, you can go to the government for redress. But when the government and insurers are working together to maximize profits for insurers and contributions to politicians, then there is no redress. You have to pay. You can be denied and there is no real appeal. We have experience with Medicare and Medicaid. We know the kind of service we can expect. This will actually be worse because we will be paying extra for insurance company profits.
Probably the single most effective thing that could be done to lower health care costs would be to train more doctors. Every year tons of qualified people don’t get into Med school. If we had more doctors, there would be more supply to meet demand and prices could moderate some and each doctor could take more charity cases.
No illegals, huh…
That’s awfully close to the Canadian border. But I guess Canadians must never cross the country line to come to America for healthcare that they MUST be provided, rather than to wait on a deathlist in their native country.
Hi Xalisae,
Are you aware the Canadian gov’t contacts with American border hospitals to care for their citizens? Why is this necessary if the Canadian healthcare system is as wonderful as so many people think?
Exactly, Mary. Where are they going to go when our system is just as screwed as theirs?
On a lighter note, I think Ex-RINO might be racist, since by “illegal immigrants” he must’ve automatically assumed I was talking about Mexicans rather than those from the Northern climes of Canada just a day trip or so away.
RINO-If you live here in Wisconsin, I’m going to laugh until I start crying.
Catching up – good conversation – seems like it was an interesting day one for the Supremes…I wish i were smarter and had the time to listen to it all. Going to catch up on most/all of the various comments directed my way.
Jespren – while I disagree 100% with your argument, it is the one conservative argument that “works” (compared to the “I don’t want to pay, I just want everything” argument).
Now, I think it is quite crappy to look in the eyes of somebody and say “well, you are poor, so we’re going to let you die – but this guy down here inherited a bunch of money, so he’s going to live”. Quite frankly, this might be one of the most heartless posts I’ve read
But if you are going to leave medical care to the free markets, that what has to be done to really make it work.
Rasqual – all I meant about not being able to go back – is back in the day, when somebody had (illness x, y, z), they died. Now, many things we couldn’t deal with we can. So to say the solutions of the 1940’s is what we should do now is an oversimplification.
It’s like going into your job and saying “wow, 30 years ago, these offices worked so much better without the computers and servers and all this technology”. Try that sometime!
That’s all I was saying. Enjoyed the essay though.
hippie – I do agree with the rant on paying for insurance company profits. Health care shouldn’t be a profit center. Fareed Zakaria had a great and very timely article that is worth reading on good solutions:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/26/zakaria-how-to-save-american-health-care/
One thing I find interesting in the health care reform is that insurance plans have to spend a certain percentage on actual care. In some states, I believe that there are figures in the 70% range in regards to how much insurance premium actually goes towards care (vs marketing, overhead, profits, etc…)
hippie -
On your second comment (and I do hope you read that article because it speaks to this) – on those extra doctors they should hire, they should be paid on outcome, not for the number of services provided. What a backwards system!
“Now, I think it is quite crappy to look in the eyes of somebody and say “well, you are poor, so we’re going to let you die – but this guy down here inherited a bunch of money, so he’s going to live”. Quite frankly, this might be one of the most heartless posts I’ve read”
I am pretty sure that the people who say this kind of stuff would sing a different tune if it was their child or mother dying of cancer. Kind of like Ayn Rand signing up for Medicare in her old age after railing about government.
Mary -
Some cities like Detroit have partnerships with Canadian facilities to deal with overflows. It is actually smart medicine.
Plenty of Americans go elsewhere for care (and again, what you spoke of was pre-arranged partnerships), so not sure if your post really proves anything.
Xalisae -
I am in Wisconsin! Land of the cheeseheads.
I’ll tell you a little secret as well if you promise not to tell anybody.
Jespren – I do have to ask how your post is really any different than a person having an abortion due to lack of finances?
Your post is just a little crazy – i’m hoping I read it wrong.
Ex:
The video link to support your contention was about as weak as it could be. What I saw was a Republican candidate making perfect sense and what I heard from the audience was a moron, not a Republican.
Here is where I have a real problem with using that single instance to falsely paint it as though it constitutes a pervasive mindset. I don’t think you even believe it. Look again at the link I sent you. If you want me to say those comments are typical of democrats then so be it—I do not think it is. But there seem to be a lot more of the anti-Cheneyites spewing vile then the one or two individuals in the debate audience.
Jerry – I don’t really care if you feel it was weak or not.
1) People clapped as he said it.
2) Jespren just argued the same thing – read his long post. He doesn’t feel it is immoral if one person gets treatment, and another who can’t afford it is told that they are going to die.
So do you disagree with Jespren? Where do you really stand on the whole issue of health care and covering people who are uninsured?
Jespren,
The phrase ‘typing from your ass’ comes to mind when I read Ex-RINO’s posts. It is a positive thing to promote competition between health care providers by empowering providers to offer a variety of treatments including those that not EVERYBODY can afford. Rewarding exceptionalism promotes individual excellence. If it weren’t for the expense the latest technologies would be beyond our reach and medical research and breakthroughs would be choked off. When a socialistic statist like Ex-RINO insinuates that you would ’tell people they have to die just cause they can’t afford the treatment’; you just have to take the source into account and laugh it off.
Ex-GOP: “He doesn’t feel it is immoral if one person gets treatment, and another who can’t afford it is told that they are going to die.”
I’m curious — who is committing the immoral act?
It might be wrong, it might be unjust, it might be anything — but immorality needs an actor. Who is that actor?
Rasqual -
All of us – society – take your pick.
If a village has a pile of food, and the citizens are put in two groups – those who can pay and those who can’t – and we let those who can’t pay die because the system we’ve created demands that they must die – I don’t care what you call it – unjust, immoral. It sucks.
I’d rather not get split off on a word choice though – let’s be direct here – if somebody can’t pay for treatment Rasqual, should we let them die? If not, how should we pay for them?
Rasqual,
At some point you’ll realize that Ex-RINO may not be worth your time in responding. Obfuscation and willful ingnorance are his modus operandi. Many have pointed out clearly in several prior posts that when the indigant get the care they need in Obamacare the cost of that care is put on those who pay into the medical system. All the mandate does is build a HHS and IRS bureaucracy around another crony laced slush fund and limit the indigants ability to afford health insurance on their own by mandating everybody purchase a one size fits all Obamacare policy.
I’m not quite sure how wise this is, but…
AT the risk of triggering the ride of the Four Horses of the Apocalypse, I’m going to agree with EGV, at least in one very narrow respect: there is nothing strictly immoral, at least in theory, about a “pure” health care (note: distinct from “health insurance”) system funded by civil taxes. I’d add only this:
1) Given our culture and economy (and our fascination with embracing a demographic winter, through minimising the number of children through abortion, contraception, etc.), such a sweeping government mandate is financially insane; it would collapse under its own weight in due time, even if we were not already struggling with a mind-numbing debt which seems nigh-unto-impossible to pay off in any foreseeable circumstances.
2) Obamacare, as such (with its state-funded abortions, contraceptions, sterilisations, sops to Planned Parenthood and their ilk, direct assaults on the religious liberty of Catholics (and others of like mind), indirect assaults on teh religious liberty of everyone–i.e. “you are religiously free to the extent that this administration declares you to be free”–etc.), is such a devastatingly scrambled morass of morally illicit rubbish that it would never be morally licit to implement it. It’s a puerile fantasy to suppose that, even if a theoretical “universal health insurance” program were both workable and morally licit, Obamacare MUST therefore “fit that bill”. Rubbish. If you want a universal health insurance (which, again, is NOT the same as “health care”), then design a good one; don’t approve of a morally corrupt one on the fatuous basis that “it’s the only game in town”!
3) The “mandate model” has the potential to corrode the moral fabric of a society, in that it undercuts many incentives for actual almsgiving (which is morally up-building, and which fits our souls more readily for the Kingdom), so even if it be morally licit, it would probably not be wise.
4) EGV, regarding your mockery and scorn toward personal and corporate (in the “collection of persons” sense, not in the industrial sense) almsgiving with respect to payment of medical expenses: I have to say that you, at least in this specific instance, don’t understand what you’re saying! Your position seems to reduce to: “almsgiving is unreliable, so let’s go to a government mandate; since people won’t do what they’re supposed to do, let the government force them!” Surely, if you think abut this for a moment, you’ll realise that your Rousseau-esque vision is a mere pipe-dream? Think this through: if people cannot be trusted to do what is right without governmental mandates, then whoever will ensure that the powers of government will do what is right? And however would you settle your mind about what is “right” and “wrong” in the first place, save perhaps to welcome any old dictator with open arms, on the pretext that “at least someone is taking charge”?
Whoops… an embarrassing error, in the above:
“…you’ll realise that your Rousseau-esque vision…” should be:
“…you’ll realise that your Hobbes-esque vision…”
Colour me red! There’s nothing like confusing two polar-opposite philosophers to give one a jolt of humility… :)
EGV 10:24PM
Not quite. I advise you do a little googling on the subject. Canadians are seeking out specialized care such as bariatrics, cardiac, imaging tests etc. in Detroit. Also arrangement were made with Canadian government offices. Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit made arrangements with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Services.
Go to Detroit and you will find any number of people telling you how Canadians come to Detroit for health care. My aunt’s physical therapist made arrangements with her medical connections for her father to come from Canada to Detroit for cancer treatment. He was on a waiting list in Canada.
Point is EGV, why can’t Canadians get care right in their own communities? Why the overflow. Maybe just maybe the health care system there can’t accomondate the need?
I don’t know about you EGV, but I don’t want to go to another city, much less another country, for routine or specialized care.
Ex-GOP:
If a village has a pile of food, and the citizens are put in two groups – those who can pay and those who can’t – and we let those who can’t pay die because the system we’ve created demands that they must die – I don’t care what you call it – unjust, immoral. It sucks.
But “it” cannot be immoral. Only agents can be immoral. So who, precisely, is being immoral here?
I’d rather not get split off on a word choice though – let’s be direct here – if somebody can’t pay for treatment Rasqual, should we let them die? If not, how should we pay for them?
Who is “we?” Who is failing, morally, in a given specific instance of a person dying because they couldn’t afford treatment?
Unless we can successfully argue that someone in particular is being immoral, you’re engaging in mere morally impressive-sounding rhetoric. Right?
You’re not answering the tough question.
And here you thought you were posing it. ;-)
I think word choice IS important. If this is really a moral issue, that’s VERY important. To hear you backpedal from the morality of the situation — a category of judgment you raised — is itself a serious problem if it really is a moral scenario where agents are culpable for a moral failing. And if it’s not that kind of issue, then why would you use the language of morality in arguing the matter? Isn’t manipulation of others in the name of morality something abhorrent?
Paladin: “(which is morally up-building, and which fits our souls more readily for the Kingdom)”
…which is true even for secular utopians, though their god is false. That utopians prefer the almighty State to private virtue is an astonishing idolatry. It’s one thing to worship the creature rather than the creator. But it’s quite another to worship the creature’s bureaucracy rather than the creature.
Blind trust in the State — as a principle of where one places trust, on balance — has always baffled me. And those who value private virtue so little baffle me too. And those who trust the State and disregard private virtue — or have given up on it — actually worry me some.
It’s one thing to worship the creature rather than the creator. But it’s quite another to worship the creature’s bureaucracy rather than the creature.
:) That’s a solid-gold quote, if ever I heard one! It was worthy of Chesterton, himself!
I agree, wholeheartedly… and the very idea of “trusting the state” implies that the “state” (which has no existence, apart from the individual persons who comprise it) is somehow bound (or infallibly inclined) to behave honourably and virtuously; is it really so difficult for secularists to wonder how such “state individuals” would be so constrained… or, more importantly, how they would ever settle upon any true contents of “virtue” at all? Those who live by opinion polls, political expediency and “trends” really aren’t in a good position to question whether those trends are RIGHT, or not. As my wife once said: “Taking a survey of the fundamentally clueless isn’t a reliable way to arrive at the truth.” :) Smart lady…
This thread is getting too long for my cell to load, so this will be the last thing I’m able to write on this one.
first, and least importantly, ‘Jespren’ is a girl, it’s the interent, I don’t really mind that people mistake me for male on occassion, but do find it funny.
Second, I’m poor, always have been, I’ve gone without medical treatment on many occassions, so have my parents, and I’ve had to choose minimal care or pick and choose what care my children will receive. I also had a very sick baby in a charity hospital NICU who treated him without promise of full payment. But you know what? I know that was just lucky and if they had demanded full payment we very well would have lost him. Just like we may tomorrow in a house fire, just the the richest person in the world could lose their beloved child to a fall from a horse or SIDs. The notion that we somehow morally deserve the best healthcare because *someone* can afford it is like saying we morally deserve not to die from a car crash because *sometimes* people don’t die from car crashes. To me this whole healthcare ‘right’ is just an absurd attempt by people to delude themselves that they *should* be able to control death. My kid may die because I can’t afford the best care. So may I, so may my any number of people in my family. I have no mental problem with that, and I see absolutely no reason to blame anyone but good old Adam who first brought death into this world and each of us who have perpetuated that Fall by continuing to sin. I certainly don’t think everyone else should be responsible for attempting to hold off death by paying for my (or anyone elses) health care. I’m not going to change my viewpoint because a personal situation changes. I’ve been unable to afford healthcare before, and I’ve sat by an isolet with the complete knowledge that even the best medicine (we were employed and privately insured through our own money and still knew we would not be able to afford our portion of the bill, the hospital knew that too) very well may not save our child. Death is not in our control, we took advantage of what we could obtain, through our private insurance and the hospital’s generousity, but knew it was up to God. If he had died we would not have screamed against a system that couldn’t provided us with more, any more than when I did against the system when I couldn’t afford treatment for a sublaxated verterba causing me extreme pain. Instead we did, and would have, and I’m sure will again, pray for the strength to get through it as best we can.
Third, my arguement could not even begin to be construed as the same as murdering a child because of lack of funds. Abortion is a specific act, a purposeful intent to kill. Not being able to afford something is a non act, with no specific intent or direct purpose. It could be analogous for a parent sending a child to live with a relative or adopting them to another family if they feel like they can’t afford them. That is doing what one can afford or manage to care for a child. That has happened for thousands of years and I have absolutely no objection to it, although it certainly would break my heart to ever find myself that destitute.
My stance isn’t popular because it requires personal responsibility and acceptance of what we can not control, and people *hate* being told they can’t control something. Almost as much or more as they hate being told they need to be responsible for themselves and only are ‘entitled’ to what they can manage to obtain.
Rasqual: Blind trust in the State — as a principle of where one places trust, on balance — has always baffled me. And those who value private virtue so little baffle me too. And those who trust the State and disregard private virtue — or have given up on it — actually worry me some.
How ’bout them thars what’s pretty much given up on the State? ;)
“My kid may die because I can’t afford the best care. So may I, so may my any number of people in my family. I have no mental problem with that”
Wow. Just… wow. Well, congrats on being the first person I have met who isn’t a huge hypocrite with the whole “uninsured people don’t deserve care” thing, but still. Wow. I can’t imagine being cool with my child dying because I can’t afford medical care.
”Third, my arguement could not even begin to be construed as the same as murdering a child because of lack of funds. Abortion is a specific act, a purposeful intent to kill. Not being able to afford something is a non act, with no specific intent or direct purpose. It could be analogous for a parent sending a child to live with a relative or adopting them to another family if they feel like they can’t afford them. That is doing what one can afford or manage to care for a child. That has happened for thousands of years and I have absolutely no objection to it, although it certainly would break my heart to ever find myself that destitute.”
No, when there are ample resources to cure or manage a sick child’s illness and they are refused treatment because of something as arbitrary as how rich their parents are, then I see that as almost as bad as just deliberately killing the kid in the womb. So, if a woman is pregnant with a child that will need expensive heart surgery directly after birth, but she can’t afford the surgery, you see aborting that baby as immoral, but letting that child die a painful death after birth as hunky-dory. Wow. Changed my mind on the hypocrite thing.
“My stance isn’t popular because it requires personal responsibility and acceptance of what we can not control, and people *hate* being told they can’t control something. Almost as much or more as they hate being told they need to be responsible for themselves and only are ‘entitled’ to what they can manage to obtain.”
No, your stance is unpopular because it’s sick and heartless. You rank human life and welfare on how much money they have. That has nothing to do with personal responsibility, seeing as many people are not able to afford expensive treatments are not in that spot because they screwed up. Curable illnesses that are expensive to treat are numerous, and you are willing to have poor people die for them. That’s sick.
What do you think about poor people in places where they have no access to healthcare? How dare they be born impoverished and in the wrong country? But, whatever, I am sure you don’t care as long as some missionaries run over there to shove a Bible down their throats. As long as they have Jesus, dying of malaria and AIDS is just dandy, eh?
“ And those who trust the State and disregard private virtue — or have given up on it — actually worry me some.”
Well, I don’t trust the State. But people like Jespren are a prime example of why I think humans are generally selfish, cruel creatures and relying on charity and benevolence for something like healthcare is stupid.
Paladin
– I have blown up the post where you agreed with me, and am bringing it to be framed in the morning!
– On the last point – I’m all for collection jars to help people out. I’m just pointing to the statistics that says it doesn’t happen. You are (kind of) in my area if I remember right – scroll up and see the stats from Mayo Healthcare in La Crosse. That’s a big gap that gets passed on through higher costs. It is simply a spiral that ends in either the government taking over all healthcare, or hospitals having to turn people away. I don’t see another way.
Mary – this is the best article I could find on it:
http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U-S-get-health-care
Regardless, what does this prove? We have American citizens now that don’t get routine services because of costs. Or specialized services. And how much more do we pay than canada? I’m just not sure the point you are trying to make. Google ‘us citizens going to india for health care’. Does that mean India has the model to strive for?
Rasqual -
You are dancing around words again. In fact, I have no idea what sort of health care system you support – you seem to be simply attacking what others say.
What sort of system do you support?
Jack – in your regards to your statements at 7:33…spot on.
If a pro-choice person came on this board and said such things, placing so little value on human life, the pro-lifers on this board would jump on them in a heartbeat.
And now? All I hear is silence. Glad you would at least step in.
“If a pro-choice person came on this board and said such things, placing so little value on human life, the pro-lifers on this board would jump on them in a heartbeat.”
See, that’s the thing. People on the pro-life side that talk like this really do seem like what the pro-choicers always accuse us of being. Pro-fetus, pro-birth. Not pro-life. You are not pro-life if you are fine with letting children die if they can’t afford chemo, or surgery, or whatever. If you don’t even care, if you are actively looking for a system that allows these type of things to happen with regularity, I don’t see how you can claim to be “pro-life” without a trace of irony.
I wonder what makes an unborn child so much more deserving of life than a born child?
To Jack and Ex-RINO the poor stealing what they need is morally acceptable but the rich paying for what they need is immoral because they owe it to the poor. Jill needs to get a flashing pop-up for her hime page ‘Liberal mind-bending on display here’. lol
“To Jack and Ex-RINO the poor stealing what they need is morally acceptable but the rich paying for what they need is immoral because they owe it to the poor. Jill needs to get a flashing pop-up for her hime page ‘Liberal mind-bending on display here’. lol”
Conservative heartlessness and deliberately missing the point on display here.
Rich people can pay for whatever their little hearts desire. Private hospital rooms, in-home nurses, the works, whatever.
Poor children don’t deserve to be sentenced to death because they were born into poverty. It’s really pathetic that someone would even suggest it.
Proverbs 22:16 “He who oppresses the poor to make more for himself or who gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.”
1 Timothy 6:7-10
“For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”
Deuteronomy 16:17 “Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you.”
Proverbs 3:27 ”Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it.”
Proverbs 21:26 “…the righteous gives and does not hold back.”
Proverbs 28:27 ”He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses.”
Luke 3:11 “And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.””
Luke 6:30 “Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.”
Luke 6:38 “Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”
Acts 20:35 ”In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than receive’.”
James 2:15-16 “If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?”
I dunno, where in your Bible does it say “Thou shalt let poor people die, and call them thieves when they ask for help for you who are blessed”? Eh? Oh, it doesn’t? I always find the Bible a bit frustrating, but one thing I KNOW that it preaches against is the greed and elitism displayed by this type of rhetoric. I am not saying that everyone who is a conservative has this attitude, I know Xalisae doesn’t, I know Carla doesn’t, but damn Jespren and truthseeker might want to crack the Bible you are supposedly all about.
Seriously, you want to preach and preach about the sanctity of human life and treat something as serious as people lacking in healthcare with this cavalier “who cares” attitude, that’s like the definition of hypocritical. You look down on atheists, liberals and pro-choicers, when I can guarantee that a good portion of them display much more compassion than I see from a lot of people on this board. I know I am ranting but this is ridiculous.
Amen, Jack.
Oh, I almost forgot my favorite verse:
James 5:1-6 “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure! Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.”
Poor children don’t deserve to be sentenced to death because they were born into poverty. It’s really pathetic that someone would even suggest it.
Jack, what is pathetic is suggesting that without Obamacare people in the US are being sentenced to death cause they are born into poverty. You sound like a fantasy drama queen. If anything sentences the poor to death it is Obamacare. Pregnant women already get care without insurance. The only new thing Obamacare adds is the free contraceptives and abortions which pay for themselves due to fewer children needing health care. Now just who is passing out the death sentences here Jack?
I don’t even think Obamacare is a good thing, truthseeker. I think it fails to actually address the issues that we face with our healthcare system and may even make things worse.
I can respect some conservative arguments for changes to the healthcare system, just as I respect some liberal arguments. What I have absolutely no respect for is people insinuating or even flat out stating that poor individuals, especially children, are somehow less deserving of healthcare and medical assistance because they can’t afford it. It’s heartless and certainly not pro-life. And saying that the poor wish to ” steal” from others because they have the stones to ask for help for treatments they can’t afford, well that’s just stupid.
Jack,
at least we can agree that the poor should not feel ashamed to ask for help. Liberals want a government mandated single payer health system help so they don’t have to feel the shame of asking for help.
“the poor stealing what they need is morally acceptable”
Is that comment supposed to make the poor feel warm and lovely about needing help to get what they need? By implying they want to steal it?
ACA isn’t single payer healthcare. I do think that single payer would probably be the best bet to get everyone covered and keep costs lower, but apparently wanting to save people money in the long run is wrong.
And Jack. You missed one of my favorites;
Then Jesus said to his disciples,
“Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Mt 19:23-24
“the poor stealing what they need is morally acceptable”
Is that comment supposed to make the poor feel warm and lovely about needing help to get what they need? By implying they want to steal it?
No Jack. I actualy know liberals who feel it is justified for the poor to steal. And the comments made by you and Ex-RINO gave that same appearance.
My mom used to book-keep for a doctor’s office. Government intervention has only made things more expensive. Private charities should’ve been left to help this situation in the first place. More government intervention isn’t going to fix a problem that government intervention created. How about we start trying to figure out why the average cost for a strep test is about $50 dollars, when the test itself costs $2, and then fix that, so that more people can afford to pay for things themselves. As a poor person with no insurance, what I’d really love the most would be being able to pay for my own care out-of-pocket if I had to, not getting the government to pay for something for me.
“No Jack. I actualy know liberals who feel it is justified for the poor to steal. And the comments made by you and Ex-RINO gave that same appearance.”
Hey Ex, are you pro-stealing? No? Neither am I.
And X I would agree with you, but I have no idea how that could be implemented. Require companies to only charge a certain amount, so they can keep their profit margin without bankrupting people? Whatever we do is going to take government intervention in some form, because I really don’t see pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies suddenly being like “oh yeah, you are right, this is ridiculous”. I would rather pay for things myself too, if it were at all possible.
Ex-GOP: I’ve said over and over — insurance for catastrophic coverage — not quotidian items such as birth control. If states wish to mandate coverage, fine. Federal? No.
During the Obamacare debate our representatives voted to remove the provisions that would have reigned in the cost of pharmaceuticals by allowing the US citizen to buy pharmaceuticals on the global market. I wouldn’t put too much faith in the interventions of those same representatives who sold us out two years ago.
Jack – Nope – I’m not pro-stealing either!
Rasqual – sorry, I missed the one other time you mentioned it this thread.
My biggest issue with catastrophic coverage is, why should we wait until a health issue has become a terrible thing? Why not deal with it early on? In a sense, we have catastrophic coverage now for the uninsured. We say “don’t come in when you have a tiny issue – wait until it gets really big, come in for emergency care, and if you can’t pay, we’ll raise the rates for those who can”.
I’m a much bigger fan of a primary care model and model where things like well baby checks, regular physicals, and routine things are covered so that we catch things when they are small, cheap issues, and not when they are life and death issues that tend to be much more expensive.
In your perfect health care plan, would pregnancy visits be covered? Costs of having a baby, and well baby checkups?
“During the Obamacare debate our representatives voted to remove the provisions that would have reigned in the cost of pharmaceuticals by allowing the US citizen to buy pharmaceuticals on the global market.”
Truth – could you provide a link to this – I’d like to read up more on this topic.
EGV wrote:
Paladin – I have blown up the post where you agreed with me, and am bringing it to be framed in the morning!
:) You can add the fact that, for the first time in my memory, I clicked “like” on one of your comments! We may actually get an eye-witness chance to see whether death truly rides a pale horse, or not…
– On the last point – I’m all for collection jars to help people out. I’m just pointing to the statistics that says it doesn’t happen.
Understood… but there’s the small issue of “cause and effect” to consider; you *are* making that observation after the fact (of the use of “health insurance” becoming nearly ubiquitous), you know. More on that, below.
It is simply a spiral that ends in either the government taking over all healthcare, or hospitals having to turn people away. I don’t see another way.
I agree: the state of affairs is an alarming and dangerous one. But even those extreme pressures do not give us moral license to choose any old apparent solution, willy-nilly, without regard for concrete moral principles (and not simply political expedience of the moment). For example:
1) Before the introduction of health insurance, per se, medical costs were handled (and calculated) rather differently; unfortunately, the advent of wide-spread health insurance was at least somewhat concurrent with advances in research and technology (and pharmaceutical companies being rather ruthless with patents and prices), so it’s difficult to tell exactly how much the “insurance phenomenon” affected things.
2) It is, I think, a self-evident fact that any government subsidy (much less a government take-over) of any commodity will inflate prices beyond all sane proportion. As an illustrative anecdote: my father, who was injured while on a federal job, was required to visit a physical every year to confirm his disability; when my father noticed that the doctor was charging roughly $800 for a minimal doctor visit (10 minutes, not even a full physical), and when he conscientiously reported this cost inflation to the federal government, he was “rewarded” by having the mindless bureaucracy freeze his disability pension “during the time of investigation”… which ultimately took personal intervention by a politically powerful senator (Proxmire) to “un-freeze”! This is the red-tape-laden process which encourages costs which are orders of magnitude beyond any sane estimate of a procedure’s real value. People have this tendency to think: “The government has lots of money, and it’s too cumbersome to track down every detail, so I’ll inflate the price and get more $$ for myself!”… and they are, unfortunately, correct in their estimation. The best thing the government could possibly do for health insurance (or any other commodity) is to minimise its own role in it.
3) Again: the “government” does not exist as an actual moral agent (save, perhaps, on paper); it is made up of fallen, fallible humans who often have no sense of self-restraint (especially when they shake off any and all influence of Judeo-Christian ethics… but I digress), and who can be corrupted when given great power over the lives and property of others. As the founding fathers had said repeatedly: our system of government is not designed to endure while its people are morally corrupt; without a solid and objective moral foundation (they especially mentioned the Law of God), it will ultimately crumble. This is a key reason why I do not trust our “government” (which is an artificial construct, anyway, and incapable of trustworthiness) with decisions regarding morality. “The blind leading the blind into a pit” comes to mind…
4) Even on a practical level (and as I mentioned before): your hopes of having the government “make the problem better” is an illusory one; at very best, it makes the symptoms of the disease better (in the short term); and at worst, it makes everything far worse (and commits moral outrages in the process). Any government attempt to take over (in fact, if not in name) health care will ultimately implode; it is simply not sustainable. It is a bureaucracy-laden version of “throwing everyone else to the alligator, in the hopes that he’ll eat you last”. In the end, the freedoms which allow meaning in our lives (and which give purpose to health care, etc., at ALL) will have been sacrificed… and in vain. This is sheer insanity, and it must be stopped.
5) More to the point of Obamacare, specifically… it violates at least two iron-clad principles: the principle of subsidiarity (i.e. it is a moral requirement that actions/policies be enacted at the lowest, most local level possible for the circumstances), and the principle that even the best ends cannot justify recourse to evil means. It arrogates to the federal government (the highest possible level of authority in the United States) decisions which are meant to be handled at far lower levels; and it allows (to say nothing of subsidising and promoting) objective moral evils such as abortion, violation of right religious liberty, etc. I can possibly concede that the promoters of Obamacare are genuinely concerned about promoting the common good, with respect to care for the sick, etc.; but nothing excuses the moral devastation which this program threatens to enact and promote. It would be far better for every last person in the WORLD to die of starvation, rather than deliberately target even the weakest, poorest, and most disabled baby girl (or boy) for slaughter. Otherwise, what will be the ultimate benefit of the “increased health”? At what price is our “benefit”, if we must commit heinous crimes in order to gain them (which can only benefit any given person for a few decades, anyway)?
I’m in a better signal area and my cell is kind of loading this so I felt necessary to try to respond again because my point is being so totally misconstrude, which, unfortunately tends to happen when you talk to liberals because they are more interested in how your words can be twisted than what you actually *said*. I’m not ‘cold’ or distant from my kid or family dying, I just realise I could lose them just as easily to the best care as to the worst. Did not Steve Jobs just die of cancer? Where was all his money saving his life? That’s the insanity of the healthcare debate, thinking you can steal from the rich to give to the poor to make evryone live long, prosperous, happy lives. My friend’s father in high school died of a simple infection, antibiotics *should* have been able to cure him, but he, for all his health care, insuraqnce, and treatment opions was a non compliant diabetic whose system was just too overloaded for the anitbiotics to work. W *as a government* are not responsible for the care of others. No, the poor don’t ‘deserve’ to die, is your memory so short that you forgot my previous assertion? I believe that leaving it up to willing charities, private entities, and personal responsibilities will save *more* lives than getting the government to steal from the rich to take care of the poor. They coulden’t be worse at it! While private charities are ver, very good at it! My point is, and always has been, if you just leave PEOPLE to take care of PEOPLE a lot *more* PEOPLE will get saved and obtain the care they need. I even stated that we used a charity hospital for our babe, under socialized medicine he very well may have been denied treatment, he was born with a zero apgar and had a tiny chance at a full recovery, exactly whyen government startsw talking about rationing and price and greater good and PEOPLE start talking about helping!
Ergh… typos are my nemesis, today!
“…was required to visit a physical…” should be “was required to visit a physician…”
…and I forgot to italicise one of EGV’s quotes, starting with “It is simply a spiral…”
Ah, well…
Jack,
My mom watched prices on basic services go up every year allowables for Medicaid/Medicare were increased. The government’s been artificially increasing the prices on this stuff for DECADES.
Well, this is interesting.
I keep waiting for the anti-religion marauders to sweep in and attack you for daring to quote Scripture, Jack, like they do to those of us who are believers.
But, you know, they probably won’t.
I wonder why that is. Huh.
When you increase demand for something relative to supply, what do prices do?
There’s a HUGE shortage of doctors ready to serve the exploding numbers of insured under Obamacare.
Hmm.
Tax every dollar of the despised one percent and you couldn’t pay for where we’re going.
But it makes for good political theater to pretend that taking a little bit more from them is going to help.
LOL
“My biggest issue with catastrophic coverage is, why should we wait until a health issue has become a terrible thing? Why not deal with it early on? In a sense, we have catastrophic coverage now for the uninsured. We say “don’t come in when you have a tiny issue – wait until it gets really big, come in for emergency care, and if you can’t pay, we’ll raise the rates for those who can”. ”
Yeah, that’s pretty much how it goes now. If primary healthcare is ridiculously expensive, people who can’t afford it aren’t going to be able to avoid small issues turning into big issues, and the big issues are going to cost a heck of a lot to take care of. Seriously, I could agree with only covering catastrophic illnesses and accidents if it were at all affordable to receive preventative and routine care for chronic conditions without insurance.
“My mom watched prices on basic services go up every year allowables for Medicaid/Medicare were increased. The government’s been artificially increasing the prices on this stuff for DECADES.”
That’s what I am asking, how do you think the prices will go down? How? Do you think companies and providers will just start dropping prices if you do away with government subsidized insurance?
Jespren, sorry if you felt I misconstrued your arguments. I still think your philosophy is pretty heartless. But I lost my temper and kind of went off, so I am sorry for that.
“I just realise I could lose them just as easily to the best care as to the worst. Did not Steve Jobs just die of cancer? Where was all his money saving his life? That’s the insanity of the healthcare debate, thinking you can steal from the rich to give to the poor to make evryone live long, prosperous, happy lives.”
That’s not what you said. At all. You made a comparison between an example of Jack (obviously not me, lol, I would be dead if I got cancer since there is no way I could afford it) who could afford chemo and radiation for cancer and Joe who could only afford pain meds, and specifically said “that’s life”. Then you followed it in another comment about how you have no mental problem if someone you care for dies because they cannot afford healthcare. If you can’t see why people would take statements like that and get what I did out of them, I can’t help you. I don’t think me, or Ex, or any of the dreaded liberals deny that death occurs and is eventually inevitable. What upset me about your comments is the implication that people dying of a fairly treatable diseases in a first world country is acceptable since they didn’t “obtain” enough money to treat themselves. It’s not acceptable, not to me. I have seen plenty of people sicken and die or ruin their health from treatable illnesses since they had no way of getting medical care until it got bad. It’s not acceptable, it’s not okay, and it’s not a “lack of personal responsibility”. People are getting screwed.
” W *as a government* are not responsible for the care of others. No, the poor don’t ‘deserve’ to die, is your memory so short that you forgot my previous assertion? I believe that leaving it up to willing charities, private entities, and personal responsibilities will save *more* lives than getting the government to steal from the rich to take care of the poor.”
Omg stop with the stealing stuff. Taxes are not stealing. I realize that I pay a far greater percentage of my income on sales taxes than a wealthy person, because the poorer you are the harder sales taxes hit you, but you don’t hear me whining about paying them. However, the top income bracket is paying less percentage wise in federal income taxes than they ever have and STILL whining about it. I’m sorry I don’t cry into my pillow over the wealthy possibly chipping in a bit more than they do now.
And I seriously don’t buy this “charity ” argument. Half the churches down here have “We don’t help the homeless” type of signs on them, they obviously aren’t worried about it. Sometimes people get lucky and find enough altruistic people to help themselves out. Most don’t. And really, we have over 300 million people in the US and an ever-increasing wage gap, while our middle class disappears. We aren’t going to have enough people well off to actually help in monetary ways to support the people who need it, unless something drastic happens.
Paladin
Thanks for the comments, and providing enough words for me to chew on for a while. Just a few thoughts.
On your point 2 – Usually, yes, but yearly there’s been a big fight going on in regards to Medicare reimbursements and the rates being so much lower than insurance. I think in the case of health care, the government isn’t as much to blame as the spiral of unpaid for care, and better specialty medicine. One problem is, health care isn’t a shop around type of thing – you pretty much pay for what is charged. If you need a heart transplant, you need a heart transplant – and the free markets aren’t going to do squat about that (nor are insurance companies obviously). Now, the one thing that I do like is that reform starts changing the dynamic from pay for services to pay for outcomes. Changing that dynamic has already yielded big savings in locations that have done that.
On point three – I suppose, who do you trust at all then?
On point four – take a look at most of the rest of the civilized world? How are we different? I mean, we’re fatter (on average) – but I don’t see why health care models that have produced better results at cheaper rates are automatically thrown out the window. I mean, health care in those nations are certainly not perfect – but there’s a lot of objective measures (life expectancy, infant mortality rates, etc…) that says our system is inferior. And we pay a lot more for it.
On point five – While health care certainly needs solutions at the local level (coordination of care for instance – the primary care model) – things like insurance need to be governed at a higher level. Pretend we had no regulations in place, no “bottom” in regards to what a plan could offer. No state could ever pass a law regarding pre-existing conditions, because the smart thing to do would be to not have insurance, and then move to that state when you get cancer and you’d get covered. On abortion – I think more protections need to be put in place to ensure federal money doesn’t go towards abortion. On the flip side, if you look at “reasons for people getting abortions”, one of the top ones is financial. I see nothing more unsettling then an uninsured woman getting pregnant and the long term health care costs.
What we need is universal care, not tied to employment. I don’t see how the richest country in the world can be fine with people dying because they don’t have health insurance. Furthermore, it kills us on a global competition level tying health insurance to work. Time to change that dynamic. I think the fastest way to change that dynamic is to overturn health care reform- but I think it is inevitable either way.
Rasqual -
I do think that we need to change the doctor model and have more primary care and family physicians and less specialists. You are right – more people need care – but of the variety of primary care and preventative care – not the specialist care when somebody gets stage four lung cancer, or advanced breast cancer – something that could have been caught earlier.
Ex-RINO,
Here is cbs article on the topic you requested a link for. I remeber big pharma winning this battle and it miffed me to no end. Such an obvious way to cut health care costs at no cost to the US citizen and congress wouldn’t even do that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5967799-503544.html
Truth – thanks for the article – found a few more on it, and it’s the prefect example of power and money in politics. Big Pharma had negotiated that only $80 billion in savings would come from them – so if this was implemented (projected at $50 billion in savings), it would push over the edge the total money spent.
In 2007 phama lobbying was $168 million…I’m sure it has topped $200 million since then.
It looks like Obamacare is gonna get deep sixed by the supreme court. I am glad to see it go away even though I could have watched the Democrat party die a long painful death if it if it had survived. We need to find a solution that lowers health care costs. The big pharma and all the other buyouts and back-room deals prove that Obamacare was not about lowering costs; it was all about gimmicks and quid-po-quo and passing the bill at any cost…any cost except taking free contraception and abortion out of the deal that is.
It’s tough to say based on the hearings – a recent huge case – you can just skim the first paragraphs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13wed4.html
The predictions based on the tone of the questioning were wrong when the vote came down.
We’ll see what happens. Either way, the world won’t be saved or the world won’t end. I’m honestly torn – if it passes, I think some good comes of it – but the ultimate goal of separating insurance from employment, and covering all Americans – isn’t much closer through this reform. If this does go out the window, a few million people who recently got insurance won’t have insurance, and I think that flip will put a lot of pressure on congress to come up with some new solutions. We’ll see what happens.
Either way, the world won’t be saved or the world won’t end.
It depends how you look at it. The world from the perspective of a US citizen living free in a country whose courts respect the constitution more than politically driven ideology would be ending if Obamacare stands.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
On your point 2 – Usually, yes, but yearly there’s been a big fight going on in regards to Medicare reimbursements and the rates being so much lower than insurance.
That may well be; I do not say that insurance companies are not also “bilked” by dishonest medical professionals, perhaps even on many occasions. I asserted only that, in the face of an apparently “blind cash-cow” such as a state or federal government, the temptation to “get as much money as I can get, regardless of sane proportion, consistency, and/or honesty” becomes rather greater. The fatuous and dishonest idea that “the government has lots of money, and they won’t miss it!” is far more common than is healthy for any attempt to involve lumbering bureaucratic behemoths such as the federal government in that sort of programme.
I think in the case of health care, the government isn’t as much to blame as the spiral of unpaid for care, and better specialty medicine.
Well… I was not speaking of “blame” in the culpability sense (though perhaps you meant it simply in the sense of “being caused by”); but surely you can see that “unpaid care” is directly related to the cost of those services? A poor person would be far more likely to leave a $500,000 medical bill unpaid than he would a $50 medical bill, yes?
One problem is, health care isn’t a shop around type of thing – you pretty much pay for what is charged.
That’s largely true, I think (though there may be exceptions; I’m not at all an expert in such data).
If you need a heart transplant, you need a heart transplant – and the free markets aren’t going to do squat about that (nor are insurance companies obviously).
Well… yes, and no. For example: my wife and I eschewed health insurance altogether, in favour of a health-sharing ministry (www.samaritanministries.org); and the members have found (sometimes to their great surprise) that those who are treated as “uninsured/self-insured” are usually given dramatic price reductions, when compared to the claims filed against insurance companies (who suffer from the same vulnerability to fraud and “quiet price inflation/mark-up” as does the federal government, albeit on a much smaller scale). One might argue that such discounts are enabled only by price-increases for the insured patients; but one might also argue that this merely reflects the absolution of an already-existing and artificial “mark-up”.
As a vaguely-related anecdote: when I was at college, I helped to distribute Macintosh computers to the incoming freshmen, and Apple Computers “took us all out to eat” as a gesture of thanks for our help… to an extremely expensive restaurant, with “free open bar” for all (I, as a teetotaller, didn’t partake… :) ). When my conscience was bothering me about the extreme cost that we must be inflicting on Apple Computers (I’m the type to order the cheapest pleasant thing on the menu, when someone takes me out to dine), a friend replied: “Seriously, don’t worry about it! Do you have ANY idea what sort of mark-up is on these computers? They sell for $1500, and they cost roughly $300 to make. They’re not hurting for money; eat up.” I’m loath to believe that such things don’t happen in the medical field (especially when competition is virtually non-existent, as you say), where medical providers can largely set their own prices.
Now, the one thing that I do like is that reform starts changing the dynamic from pay for services to pay for outcomes. Changing that dynamic has already yielded big savings in locations that have done that.
:) You’ve just become responsible for the release of the second horseman/horse of the Apocalypse, friend; I just agreed with you again! (Perhaps it’s pestilence who was released, this time…) Two more, and the responsibility for the end of time will be squarely on your shoulders!
But in all candour: I see no way that a universal health care system could possibly work in our country, given the staggering inefficiency of the various state governments (to say nothing of the federal government), and given the cultural poison which we in the west have imbibed (i.e. a loathing of self-sacrifice, of children, of commitment, of generosity, etc.; in short, an embrace of utter selfishness, on a scale hardly to be imagined). Perhaps if we had a fertility rate of 4.0 or above, it might be more possible; but our 2.1-and-less level (mostly due to immigration from Mexico) simply can’t sustain a model such as you mention. We simply can’t keep trying to print money which has no basis in commodity/reality; we simply cannot yell “we can’t let people die, we must pay for care for everyone!” when there’s no money to pay for it! All you would do is delay the final cataclysm a bit, and then make the final collapse much more horrific. When the economy implodes completely, who will pay for all the suffering poor?
The principle of subsidiarity exists not only for moral reasons (which are the most important), but for practical reasons, as well. That’s a truism for all true moral laws, actually.
Paladin
Hope you are having a great weekend. Just finished my first lawn mowing of the year.
So I think we do have a couple of areas of agreement. I think we both agree that a fundamental shift in how payment works in the system would be welcome. I think we also both agree that people shouldn’t be left to die (which would require overturning EMTALA – now, I’ll admit I’m just assuming this – some on this board might be okay with it, but I don’t feel based on your writings that you would think it should be gone).
I think we both differ on the solution.
The problem I see with a free market solution is that I don’t think there is a free market with health care. I think the group you are in is an interesting model, and I’m all for exploring interesting models. In general, my feeling on health care is that it doesn’t match normal free market principles like other goods. I can decide not to buy a volvo, and if enough people do the same, prices fall. I can’t just decide not to get a bypass surgery (unless I really want to take one for the free market, and, well die!).
The problem I see with government stepping in and controlling everything is that they don’t have a good track record, and the system will invite even more fraud. Furthermore, Americans have this attitude that they should get what they want, so saying, for instance, that certain procedures and drugs aren’t going to be covered (even if there’s not much medical benefit) – seems to fly in the face of American freedoms. Grandpa might be 90 and the $50,000 surgery will only prolong his life for 6 months, but heck, we’d really like Grandpa to see one more Cub game…
I’ll just say this in regards to reform and future solutions – I hope they focus on:
1) Preventative care and wellness programs are betters places to spend money than waiting until it is a serious issue.
2) Pay for outcome, not for services.
3) Require personal responsibility through everyone having skin in the game
I’d also LOVE to see health care separated from employment – I think there’s huge benefits in regards to global competition, mobility of workers, and stability of families (during rough economic times) – but I see this only coming with a takeover scenario.
“Pay for outcome, not for services.”
How would this work? Outcomes often rely on patient compliance with doctor’s orders.