A
- Status
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
You can’t put a queen-size blanket on a king-size bed. If you cover those that are uninsured, you will have to reduce coverage for those that are already insured.
J
Julian0404
Guest
If reform succeeds in it’s current state through reconciliation, we will all be footing the bill for abortion, which is unnecessary for insurance, so chose:
Do you want to be responsible or the continued murder of innocent babies
or
Do you want to be responsible for Insurance that does not include abortion,
at the moment it is all inclusvie so the only choice we have is to say no to the current plan.
And the fact that you are not even focused on the abortion aspect should shame you.
Do you want to be responsible or the continued murder of innocent babies
or
Do you want to be responsible for Insurance that does not include abortion,
at the moment it is all inclusvie so the only choice we have is to say no to the current plan.
And the fact that you are not even focused on the abortion aspect should shame you.
T
Timbothefiveth
Guest
If reform succeeds, I’m paying to kill people. I can make a difference in helping those uninsured now, if it passes, I have no say in paying for abortions.
F
feargalmac
Guest
49 MILLION AND RISING: The number of unborn babies killed in the USA since Roe v Wade. The consequence of Obama’s “Healthcare” package will accelerate this figure. Every other statistic pales in comparison.
H
hollyangel
Guest
So true!
B
Biggie
Guest
First you are going to have to define what you mean by “uninsured people”. What is the number of illegal aliens included in that number? What is the number of people who chose not to be insured?
Second, you are going to have to defend the concept that the goal is to insure people rather than to treat people, since those who are uninsured do have the ability to receive essential treatment.
Finally, you are going to have to defend that changes in the system will not be undertaken that effect both the number of insured and the number treated. If the goal is to insure people, then explain how changes that reduce the overall cost of medical treatment will not increase the number of insured? Or a system that shifts the responsibility for insurance from the employer to the individual? Or a system that opens the insurance enterprise to free market principles, etc…
In short, the statement is either false or deceptive, and even if taken on its face does not make the case for state run health care.
Second, you are going to have to defend the concept that the goal is to insure people rather than to treat people, since those who are uninsured do have the ability to receive essential treatment.
Finally, you are going to have to defend that changes in the system will not be undertaken that effect both the number of insured and the number treated. If the goal is to insure people, then explain how changes that reduce the overall cost of medical treatment will not increase the number of insured? Or a system that shifts the responsibility for insurance from the employer to the individual? Or a system that opens the insurance enterprise to free market principles, etc…
In short, the statement is either false or deceptive, and even if taken on its face does not make the case for state run health care.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The actual number of uninsured people is at best a tiny fraction of 46 million, which is A FUTURE GUESSTIMATE.
This is sooo bogus.
Anyway, there are about ten posts already on CAF about how this is bogus and gives the true number at around 3% of the population. with no insurance. but they do have healthcare. so the whole notion is just a bunch of word spinning.
Read this:
The general welfare comment does not give the government free reign to do whatever our bureaucrats and elected officials want to do.
Amendment 10 specifically states that all of the powers not specifically mentioned are for the states and for the people. Period.
And there is a specific list of what the Congress is allowed to do. So that over-rides the notion that general welfare lets the government to any old thing it wants.
If general welfare lets the government do anything, then we could just delete the rest of the Constitution after the words “general welfare”.
But apart from that, there is NO NEED for the government to get involved in health care.
Apart from the government doing a generally terribly poor job of everything it touches, we don’t want the government postal clerks deciding who gets what.
AND it is the government that CAUSED the health care problems to begin with.
THEY CAUSED IT AND TO FIX IT THEY WANT 3000 MORE PAGES OF LAW. That is so bogus.
Here, read this:
Actually, if left to free and open interstate competition, the insurance companies serve us just fine.
But what has happened is that we, the citizens, are not permitted to purchase things like HSA [Health Savings Accounts] and catastrophic insurance. The government(s) [Federal and state] outright prohibit them from being sold, except in very limited situations.
The Congress makes these laws and also makes tax policy.
So our government is causing the unnecessarily high costs. And THEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS AROUND AND BLAMES THE INSURANCE COMPANIES for problems that the government created.
We need to vote out the Democrats in November. It was people like Ted Kennedy who wrote in the prohibitions for free and open sale of HSA’s. Well, he has passed on and “his seat” is now in Republican hands [Hopefully, the Republican will do a better job.]
Free and open interstate competition without mandates. That is #1 and that is what the Democrats do not want.
Automatic investigation and audit and prosecution of Medicaid fraud. The Democrats do not want that because it is being done on an organized basis. That is #2. The cost is in the tens of billions. There are legitimate cases of need and a lot of them. But the fraudsters are organized with doctors and lawyers sharing office space. They are known but the politicians won’t prosecute or investigate because of campaign contributions.
Tort reform, particularly caps on lawsuits. That is #3 and that is what the Democrats do not want. Guys like Edwards make and made tens of millions and cause good drugs to be pulled off the market.
Tax policy that allows full tax deductions for all medical expenses. That is #4. That is what the Democrats do not want. They put in limits. And when I say “all”, I mean all. That includes my being able to pay my mother’s expenses and being able to deduct them.
Tax policy that allows refundable tax credits for all medical expenses for people with low incomes and high medical expenses. The paperwork would be done by the hospital, all would be fully vetted. There are some, not a lot of, people who have posted here, like Pathia, who were born with medical conditions that require extensive treatment. That is #5.
There are many other reforms that could be undertaken at no cost to the taxpayer and with reduced costs to everyone with higher quality service and better innovation. Such as letting hospitals advertise to their local residents that the people can buy insurance from the hospital. AND that could include regular visits, and all sorts of levels of coverage to include pap smears, mammograms, prostate exams, blood and fluid lab work [which is a really cheap way to get a physical] and that can be done as part of a blood donor program.
I have often asked blood banks why they don’t provide an incentive to donate in the form of a “drive-by” physical. They have all the lab facilities and can do every kind of blood test. [For a test requiring fasting, you would need a separate visit, or fast first and then they would provide a snack in their snack bar before you donate blood.]
The blood banks already do a blood pressure test. They have your height and weight and medical history and what meds you are taking. That tells a lot. And they could very easily do a body mass evaluation. Very simple to do.
This is sooo bogus.
Anyway, there are about ten posts already on CAF about how this is bogus and gives the true number at around 3% of the population. with no insurance. but they do have healthcare. so the whole notion is just a bunch of word spinning.
Read this:
The general welfare comment does not give the government free reign to do whatever our bureaucrats and elected officials want to do.
Amendment 10 specifically states that all of the powers not specifically mentioned are for the states and for the people. Period.
And there is a specific list of what the Congress is allowed to do. So that over-rides the notion that general welfare lets the government to any old thing it wants.
If general welfare lets the government do anything, then we could just delete the rest of the Constitution after the words “general welfare”.
But apart from that, there is NO NEED for the government to get involved in health care.
Apart from the government doing a generally terribly poor job of everything it touches, we don’t want the government postal clerks deciding who gets what.
AND it is the government that CAUSED the health care problems to begin with.
THEY CAUSED IT AND TO FIX IT THEY WANT 3000 MORE PAGES OF LAW. That is so bogus.
Here, read this:
Actually, if left to free and open interstate competition, the insurance companies serve us just fine.
But what has happened is that we, the citizens, are not permitted to purchase things like HSA [Health Savings Accounts] and catastrophic insurance. The government(s) [Federal and state] outright prohibit them from being sold, except in very limited situations.
The Congress makes these laws and also makes tax policy.
So our government is causing the unnecessarily high costs. And THEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS AROUND AND BLAMES THE INSURANCE COMPANIES for problems that the government created.
We need to vote out the Democrats in November. It was people like Ted Kennedy who wrote in the prohibitions for free and open sale of HSA’s. Well, he has passed on and “his seat” is now in Republican hands [Hopefully, the Republican will do a better job.]
Free and open interstate competition without mandates. That is #1 and that is what the Democrats do not want.
Automatic investigation and audit and prosecution of Medicaid fraud. The Democrats do not want that because it is being done on an organized basis. That is #2. The cost is in the tens of billions. There are legitimate cases of need and a lot of them. But the fraudsters are organized with doctors and lawyers sharing office space. They are known but the politicians won’t prosecute or investigate because of campaign contributions.
Tort reform, particularly caps on lawsuits. That is #3 and that is what the Democrats do not want. Guys like Edwards make and made tens of millions and cause good drugs to be pulled off the market.
Tax policy that allows full tax deductions for all medical expenses. That is #4. That is what the Democrats do not want. They put in limits. And when I say “all”, I mean all. That includes my being able to pay my mother’s expenses and being able to deduct them.
Tax policy that allows refundable tax credits for all medical expenses for people with low incomes and high medical expenses. The paperwork would be done by the hospital, all would be fully vetted. There are some, not a lot of, people who have posted here, like Pathia, who were born with medical conditions that require extensive treatment. That is #5.
There are many other reforms that could be undertaken at no cost to the taxpayer and with reduced costs to everyone with higher quality service and better innovation. Such as letting hospitals advertise to their local residents that the people can buy insurance from the hospital. AND that could include regular visits, and all sorts of levels of coverage to include pap smears, mammograms, prostate exams, blood and fluid lab work [which is a really cheap way to get a physical] and that can be done as part of a blood donor program.
I have often asked blood banks why they don’t provide an incentive to donate in the form of a “drive-by” physical. They have all the lab facilities and can do every kind of blood test. [For a test requiring fasting, you would need a separate visit, or fast first and then they would provide a snack in their snack bar before you donate blood.]
The blood banks already do a blood pressure test. They have your height and weight and medical history and what meds you are taking. That tells a lot. And they could very easily do a body mass evaluation. Very simple to do.
M
mikev
Guest
I’m not sure what the answer is, but it can’t be to do nothing. Does it really matter if 10%, or 2% are uninsured? Tax credits do little for someone who doesn’t have the money to pay for treatment in the first case. Sure, you can deplete everything and become destitute; then you might get minimal treatment.
If you need it, health care isn’t optional. Free market forces don’t apply; unless you choose not to get the care you need, and just die.
I agree abortion is wrong; but that always seems to mean that we can’t provide our citizens with basic health care. Where’s the morality in that?
Why didn’t the right do anything to help when they were in power? Why does the left have to insist on including abortion? They are BOTH wrong and we will probably just continue on our merry way and NOTHING will get done; depressing, isn’t it?
If you need it, health care isn’t optional. Free market forces don’t apply; unless you choose not to get the care you need, and just die.
I agree abortion is wrong; but that always seems to mean that we can’t provide our citizens with basic health care. Where’s the morality in that?
Why didn’t the right do anything to help when they were in power? Why does the left have to insist on including abortion? They are BOTH wrong and we will probably just continue on our merry way and NOTHING will get done; depressing, isn’t it?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Let us not mix apples and oranges.
Congress can structure the tax credits so that once a person’s income is vetted, the IRS will issue a full refund for medical bills. A hospital can fill out the person’s 1040 tax form and bill the IRS for a refund and get paid. The patient pays nothing.
The present proposed healthcare bill will not cover everyone; that we already know.
It is really important to get our words and expressions straight.
And it’s important not to exaggerate. Exaggerating to the point that what you say is a falsehood is a lie and a serious sin.
If you are sick enough that you think you might die, then you immediately go to the emergency room and they will take care of you. Period.
The person responsible for healthcare is YOU. If you smoke, drink excessively or do drugs, not wear a seatbelt, your health will be impaired.
What do YOU mean by basic health care? That you live at the hospital and the minute you get a sniffle, they admit you to the ER?
Seriously, WHAT DO YOU INCLUDE AS HEALTHCARE?
If you are sick you can go to the hospital and they will take you. Period. No questions asked.
if you want something in between, you have several options. You can go to a clinic and free mammograms and blood work. Or you can donate blood and they will do basic blood work. Or, if you don’t want to go to a clinic, you can call around and ask how much they charge and save up and pay cash.
It depends what you mean by healthcare.
The Congress has gone out of its way to make life difficult. What we want is for Congress to get out of the way.
if you have read the 3000 page proposed healthcare law, you know it has huge problems. How a bunch of lawyers and policy wonks think that they can draw up a law such that one size fits all, is beyond me. No one is that smart.
The big question is why would you want someone who works at the post office to make your healthcare decisions. Because that is what you would get: a bunch of clerks reading and rereading the 3000 page law plus the millions of pages of rule books and policy and procedures manuals to decide what you should get.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The issue of 46 million being uninsured has been answered over and over. 46 million is a false number. YOU MUST READ WHAT St Francis POSTED.
St Francis
Regular Member
Re: Should Government Take over Health Care?
That is just because the ‘few’ don’t have the same access to cable news to have their voice heard!
46.3 million are uninsured news.aol.com/article/number-o…surance/664816
nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
Here’s a breakdown of those 46M )I rearranged them)
Non-Citizens: This figure of 9.3 million (20.3 percent of the uninsured) includes both legal aliens-many of whom are not eligible for federally-subsidized coverage for five years after their arrival-and undocumented immigrants.
Medicaid Undercount: 6.4 million (14 percent of the 45.7 million uninsured in 2007) were enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP, but did not report such coverage to the Census Bureau.
Eligible for But Not Enrolled in Government Coverage: An additional 4.3 million (9.4 percent) were eligible for public programs like Medicaid and SCHIP but not enrolled in them. As a 2003 CBO report noted, “Some policy-makers…believe that such people should be regarded as insured, because they can apply for Medicaid when they require care and receive retroactive coverage for their expenses.”
Over Three Times Poverty: Many of these 10.1 million individuals (22.1 percent of the uninsured) may be able to afford coverage, as their incomes are above 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four in 2009), but choose not to purchase such coverage.
“Young Invincibles:” An additional 5 million uninsured (10.9 percent of the total) are aged between 18 and 34; while many likely could purchase coverage at affordable rates, some may choose not to do so-because they feel they do not need it, and/or do not perceive it to be of value to them.
I don’t know enough about the first category listed here to comment, but they are 20% of the uninsured.
We have an additional 25% who are either on or eligible for Medicaid.
Ten percent are the young, who are presumed pto choose not to be covered because they feel invincible and want to buy I-Pods instead. And the last 22% are those who are not eligible for government aid, but who are not covered elsewhere.
So that’s 15 million people, or one-third of the original estimate of Americans without insurance who are actually without health coverage.
First of all, some of them do not have coverage because they are currently unemployed. In this difficult economic time, they may have chosen to save their money rather than spend it on COBRA (which can be terrifically expensive) so that they can feed their family longer if it takes a while to find a job.
Another set is self-employed and have decided not to pay for coverage for various reasons: uneven compensation, high rates due to pre-existing conditions, inability to obtain due to pre-existing conditions, and, despite being 300% over the poverty level, maybe not being able to afford it due to any number of things such as student loans to pay back, child support payments, etc.
And there are probably those who choose not to buy because insurance is a gamble–a gamble that you will get sick. If they perceive their chances of getting sick as being very low, then they may decide to pass on the offer, the same way I don’t play the lottery.
Quote:
If we are pro life - we are pro health care / health coverage reform -
Per the USCCB
There are simple things which could be done to aid those who are not currently covered or eligible for the aid given to those in poverty. One is to break the bond between employment and insurance–that is just crazy. People should be able to have medical accounts which would be taken off their taxes. Right now, the tax system favors the employer-provided model because those payments are considered expenses and the money used for them is not taxed. However, those who pay their own premiums are paying from income which has already been taxed. Evening out this inequity by allowing premium payments to not be counted as taxable income would help those in this situation, as would a system similar to the EIC whereby some would get an actual credit for what they have paid out.
For those with pre-existing conditions, the current programs could be expanded to cover them as well, or the EIC–like system above could help them out.
There is really no need to turn our whole system inside out just because 5% of the people here have no insurance and are ineligible for government assistance.
A happy Catholic homeschooling mom
St Francis
Regular Member
Re: Should Government Take over Health Care?
That is just because the ‘few’ don’t have the same access to cable news to have their voice heard!
46.3 million are uninsured news.aol.com/article/number-o…surance/664816
nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
Here’s a breakdown of those 46M )I rearranged them)
Non-Citizens: This figure of 9.3 million (20.3 percent of the uninsured) includes both legal aliens-many of whom are not eligible for federally-subsidized coverage for five years after their arrival-and undocumented immigrants.
Medicaid Undercount: 6.4 million (14 percent of the 45.7 million uninsured in 2007) were enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP, but did not report such coverage to the Census Bureau.
Eligible for But Not Enrolled in Government Coverage: An additional 4.3 million (9.4 percent) were eligible for public programs like Medicaid and SCHIP but not enrolled in them. As a 2003 CBO report noted, “Some policy-makers…believe that such people should be regarded as insured, because they can apply for Medicaid when they require care and receive retroactive coverage for their expenses.”
Over Three Times Poverty: Many of these 10.1 million individuals (22.1 percent of the uninsured) may be able to afford coverage, as their incomes are above 300 percent of the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four in 2009), but choose not to purchase such coverage.
“Young Invincibles:” An additional 5 million uninsured (10.9 percent of the total) are aged between 18 and 34; while many likely could purchase coverage at affordable rates, some may choose not to do so-because they feel they do not need it, and/or do not perceive it to be of value to them.
I don’t know enough about the first category listed here to comment, but they are 20% of the uninsured.
We have an additional 25% who are either on or eligible for Medicaid.
Ten percent are the young, who are presumed pto choose not to be covered because they feel invincible and want to buy I-Pods instead. And the last 22% are those who are not eligible for government aid, but who are not covered elsewhere.
So that’s 15 million people, or one-third of the original estimate of Americans without insurance who are actually without health coverage.
First of all, some of them do not have coverage because they are currently unemployed. In this difficult economic time, they may have chosen to save their money rather than spend it on COBRA (which can be terrifically expensive) so that they can feed their family longer if it takes a while to find a job.
Another set is self-employed and have decided not to pay for coverage for various reasons: uneven compensation, high rates due to pre-existing conditions, inability to obtain due to pre-existing conditions, and, despite being 300% over the poverty level, maybe not being able to afford it due to any number of things such as student loans to pay back, child support payments, etc.
And there are probably those who choose not to buy because insurance is a gamble–a gamble that you will get sick. If they perceive their chances of getting sick as being very low, then they may decide to pass on the offer, the same way I don’t play the lottery.
Quote:
If we are pro life - we are pro health care / health coverage reform -
Per the USCCB
There are simple things which could be done to aid those who are not currently covered or eligible for the aid given to those in poverty. One is to break the bond between employment and insurance–that is just crazy. People should be able to have medical accounts which would be taken off their taxes. Right now, the tax system favors the employer-provided model because those payments are considered expenses and the money used for them is not taxed. However, those who pay their own premiums are paying from income which has already been taxed. Evening out this inequity by allowing premium payments to not be counted as taxable income would help those in this situation, as would a system similar to the EIC whereby some would get an actual credit for what they have paid out.
For those with pre-existing conditions, the current programs could be expanded to cover them as well, or the EIC–like system above could help them out.
There is really no need to turn our whole system inside out just because 5% of the people here have no insurance and are ineligible for government assistance.
A happy Catholic homeschooling mom
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
So what we have is a combination of needing less expensive medical insurance and for those who are in dire straits, some form of voluntary tax-deductible charity.
There is no reason why people with means cannot contribute to a charitable fund that would provide medical insurance for the people with limited income.
There is no reason why people with means cannot contribute to a charitable fund that would provide medical insurance for the people with limited income.
M
mikev
Guest
Soon to be followed by the collection agencies. Yeah, you will get seen; when your condition has deteriorated to warrant a trip to the ER (is that what you call Health care?). Few people can afford the price of health care (especially emergency). It isn’t “given” to you.
Exaggeration?
Is this a serious question, or exaggeration?
Save up your cash? That might be OK for elective procedures; but honestly is that a serious proposal?
Postal Employees would be doing that, really? This is the kind of stuff that clouds the issue.
Do some people really think they are worth more than others? Do you deserve “basic” health care (come on now, basic health care), while other people don’t? That doesn’t sound very Christian or Catholic to me.
Again, something should be done (I didn’t say this bill was perfect). Using the ER as the primary treatment facility doesn’t even make sense (too little, too costly, too late)! Access to “free” clinics is not an option for everyone; what about rural areas? Or don’t they matter?
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Please keep in mind that this thread started with a discussion of the alleged 46 million uninsured, which we proved is bogus and falsely premised.
We also demonstrated that there are ways to take care of the small remnant of uninsured people by means of walking in to a hospital for care or to a clinic which is free.
Then it shifted again.
So, really, it comes down to what do you mean by reform? Is “reform” nothing more than a code word for a government takeover of a system that is the best on the planet? A system where people from other places come here for treatment.
A system that is only handicapped by government interference.
Obama has said “you had ten years; what happened?” The answer is that the government aggressively stopped innovation, largely led by Ted Kennedy.
People save up their money for elective surgery all the time. Lasik. Cosmetic.
For non-elective (i.e., serious) surgery, right now, you go to the hospital and they are required by law to admit you regardless of your ability to pay.
So, 99% of the reasons for socialized/nationalized medicine go away. Not valid.
Yup. Postal employees. Where are you going to get the employees to staff up all the new government agencies? [Well, maybe when they put the insurance companies out of business.]
If there is only one payer, then without competition there will be absolutely no way to get serious about innovation or better terms.
I was with a company when their medical insurance company jacked up the rates and imposed some pre-existing conditions on new employees. The employees made a bunch of phone calls and we got more than three bids/proposals from other insurance companies who were eager to get our business and without the pre-existing conditions and with much better costs.
With the government running things, where can you go?
At least with the post office, if you’re not happy, you can go to their competitors, such as FedEx and UPS and messenger and delivery services, and fax. And increasing, with the internet.
With a government monopoly that permits no competition, where can you go?
We also demonstrated that there are ways to take care of the small remnant of uninsured people by means of walking in to a hospital for care or to a clinic which is free.
Then it shifted again.
So, really, it comes down to what do you mean by reform? Is “reform” nothing more than a code word for a government takeover of a system that is the best on the planet? A system where people from other places come here for treatment.
A system that is only handicapped by government interference.
Obama has said “you had ten years; what happened?” The answer is that the government aggressively stopped innovation, largely led by Ted Kennedy.
People save up their money for elective surgery all the time. Lasik. Cosmetic.
For non-elective (i.e., serious) surgery, right now, you go to the hospital and they are required by law to admit you regardless of your ability to pay.
So, 99% of the reasons for socialized/nationalized medicine go away. Not valid.
Yup. Postal employees. Where are you going to get the employees to staff up all the new government agencies? [Well, maybe when they put the insurance companies out of business.]
If there is only one payer, then without competition there will be absolutely no way to get serious about innovation or better terms.
I was with a company when their medical insurance company jacked up the rates and imposed some pre-existing conditions on new employees. The employees made a bunch of phone calls and we got more than three bids/proposals from other insurance companies who were eager to get our business and without the pre-existing conditions and with much better costs.
With the government running things, where can you go?
At least with the post office, if you’re not happy, you can go to their competitors, such as FedEx and UPS and messenger and delivery services, and fax. And increasing, with the internet.
With a government monopoly that permits no competition, where can you go?
M
mikev
Guest
Whether it’s 46 million, or 4, doesn’t really matter. Basic health care should be a right, not a privilege. It’s immoral to ignore the health care “needs” of our citizens. The free market can be used for elective procedures.
People say “Just go the the hospital/ER; they can’t refuse to treat you”. That applies when your illness reaches a critical stage; with less chance of recovery. It still has to be paid for; not everyone without insurance is destitute, yet! Contract a serious condition though, and you will be.
I can’t help but read between the lines when people propose we basically do nothing, and everything is fine. It goes kind of like this “I got mine, you’re not my concern”! Try to put yourself in their place: What would your family do if you suddenly lost your precious insurance?
What about checkups? A routine physical can cost upwards of $1000, or more. Hospitals aren’t going to just do those out of the kindness of their hearts.
Health care should never have been subjected to market forces. In the free market, you can choose to go without, or save up til you can afford something. That’s not true with health care; unless you’re willing to just die (really); become dirt poor, or already are. That’s just heartless, inconsiderate, and certainly not very Christian. We are, after all, in this together. You get what you give; think about that.
It’s an indictment of us as a society when we can’t even agree that people should have the same basic health care; very selfish. Don’t by into all this “Exactly what is covered, who gets it, bla bla”. Just agreement that everyone has a “right” to the same basic medical treatment regardless of their employer, would be helpful. The specifics of what is covered would be details. Health is not a capitalist/socialist thing; it’s a human thing!
Finally, another straw man is that the government never does anything right. Has anyone heard of the US military? That also is the envy of the world. The world always looks to us in that regard too. What about medicare/medicaid? Should those be eliminated? We have to start caring for others a little more and ourselves a little less.
People say “Just go the the hospital/ER; they can’t refuse to treat you”. That applies when your illness reaches a critical stage; with less chance of recovery. It still has to be paid for; not everyone without insurance is destitute, yet! Contract a serious condition though, and you will be.
I can’t help but read between the lines when people propose we basically do nothing, and everything is fine. It goes kind of like this “I got mine, you’re not my concern”! Try to put yourself in their place: What would your family do if you suddenly lost your precious insurance?
What about checkups? A routine physical can cost upwards of $1000, or more. Hospitals aren’t going to just do those out of the kindness of their hearts.
Health care should never have been subjected to market forces. In the free market, you can choose to go without, or save up til you can afford something. That’s not true with health care; unless you’re willing to just die (really); become dirt poor, or already are. That’s just heartless, inconsiderate, and certainly not very Christian. We are, after all, in this together. You get what you give; think about that.
It’s an indictment of us as a society when we can’t even agree that people should have the same basic health care; very selfish. Don’t by into all this “Exactly what is covered, who gets it, bla bla”. Just agreement that everyone has a “right” to the same basic medical treatment regardless of their employer, would be helpful. The specifics of what is covered would be details. Health is not a capitalist/socialist thing; it’s a human thing!
Finally, another straw man is that the government never does anything right. Has anyone heard of the US military? That also is the envy of the world. The world always looks to us in that regard too. What about medicare/medicaid? Should those be eliminated? We have to start caring for others a little more and ourselves a little less.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
B
Biggie
Guest
Does need create a right? For example, we need food. Do we have a right to it? We need housing. Do we have a right to it? We need to be educated. Do we have a right to it? We need companionship. Do we have a right to it?
Or does the state create a right? If yes, then the state also has the ability to take the right away or modify it. Is that what you mean?
Or does God endow our nature with rights, as the founding documents maintain? Therefore they are inalienable (cannot be taken away), and relate to our natural condition as alive, free and creative beings? If so, a right has nothing to do with our needs.
That which is a right must be given me by the state. Therefore I must be given food? I must be given a house? I must be given an education, an associate, health care?
The opposite of right is not privilege, therefore if health care is not a right, it does not necessarily follow that it is a privilege. It follows that it is a commodity, like food, housing, etc…
T
tjm190
Guest
Because not everybody who is uninsured is the responsibility of the government. The decision to buy insurance is a statistical one- if I feel I have a low chance of getting sick, I may decide not to buy it. And of course, very few illegal immigrants can afford insurance- and we’ve seen what trying to spend money on illegals has done to the once-great state of California.
And it’s yet to be demonstrated that more people will be able to be treated- just because everyone is insured doesn’t mean that there’s more health care to go around.
And it’s yet to be demonstrated that more people will be able to be treated- just because everyone is insured doesn’t mean that there’s more health care to go around.
T
tafan
Guest
Our healthcare system has problems and does need reformed. It is distorted by the fact it is employer funded (adversely affects competition among providers and insurers). The rising cost of our system as percentage of GDP is a big problem. And yes, there are too many people (although not 46 million, IMO) who are not insured.
There is absolutly, no way that either of the two congressional bills will solve any of these problems and they will likely make them worse.
On top of that, the abortion issue has to be front and center in our view of the bills. And I do not anticipate this turning out for the better if these bills pass. I hope Obamacare goes down in flames.
There is absolutly, no way that either of the two congressional bills will solve any of these problems and they will likely make them worse.
On top of that, the abortion issue has to be front and center in our view of the bills. And I do not anticipate this turning out for the better if these bills pass. I hope Obamacare goes down in flames.
P
pathia
Guest
Without healthcare, particularly chronically ill, they die. Maybe not immediately, but they die way before their time if they otherwise had care. With no healthcare, you take away the right of life.
- Status