Why do people vote against their own interests? (American Healthcare reform)

[Tom_8_0_0]

Assuming that funds aren’t shifted.

Yes, we all know if you throw enough money at something, eventually, it will succeed.

Military waste isn’t something specific to the Obama Administration. In fact, the day before 9/11, Rumsfeld was vowing to declare a “war on waste” because the Pentagon lost over $2 trillion.

Yes, there should have been less waste. That’s no excuse to spend even more money on new bills.

The States can’t deal with it by themselves because they can’t afford it. Many States, mostly Red, already rely on more Federal funding and grants than their tax base can account for.

Yes, they CAN afford it. That’s the point: state governments get money from their people; it would be painfully inexpensive for a state government to insure the uninsured.

And we all still pay for Medicare/Medicaid even though the majority of us don’t use it.

Correct. So what is the use of Medicare/aid if it doesn’t cover the people who aren’t covered?

When talking about early American history, the term “oppressive” often gets used to describe the British rule of the colonies. We weren’t as bad off as other colonies in the British empire, or other countries in the world at the time. But our forefathers found what others might be willing to accept as not so bad, to be so very oppressive that they were willing to fight and die for the liberty they believed in. Patrick Henry cried, and the American people echoed, “give me liberty or give me death.”

Our Constitution was written with that burning desire for liberty in mind. I don’t know whether the courts will uphold the constitutional challenges to the Obamacare legislation, but I do think they are constitutional challenges well worth making. The USA split from the UK more than 200 years ago, and things that work in the UK may just not work here because of the completely different foundations of our governments.

The extremity of the British oppression is debatable, but ideas such as taxation without representation, and the exercise of martial law concerning the laws and taxes that were enacted without the representation of the people.

It’s actually an interesting point you make about the different foundations of our governments; one of the most frequently-made arguments FOR Obamacare is that it works in England, Canada, etc.

 

[CMatt25]

LemonandLime,

Have you even heard what’s happening to people’s premiums sense this bill was enacted? Everyone’s premiums are going up. So not only are you having to pay more in taxes but you are also having to pay more in premiums. How does charging us more for the same level of service (or worse service in some cases) help us? The more money we have to pay out for this the less money we will have to pay for bills, food, clothes and anything else we might need.

This is not what the American people wanted. We wanted REAL health care reform. We wanted the problems in the system to be fixed. This plan will not do that, this is not what the American people signed up for.

Tom is right something like this needs to be done on a state/local level, not on a national level. Health care should be tailor-made to the individual and not just lump everyone into one system.

From my experience, premiums, co-pays and deductibles go up anyway. But you make a good point. Exactly why there should have been stronger safeguards/limits to prevent this greed from occuring in anticipation of something which will not be fully implemented for nearly another 4 yrs down the road. The credit card companies were given time as well to raise their rates before the credit card law took effect.

Correct this is not what most wanted. I just googled “polls on public option” and saw all sorts of polls showing the majority favored a public option.

And an option wouldn’t have lumped everyone together.

 

[estesbob]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8474611.stm

Last year, in a series of “town-hall meetings” across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama’s proposed healthcare reforms.

What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.

Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.

But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.

Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?

Why is that Americans are voting against steps to provide free healthcare when its in your own personal and financial interests?

Before anyone argues about my use of the word “free” - the healthcare is free. You pay tax yes, but it doesn’t increase when you go into hospital therefore you’re not being charged for the care you’re recieving, therefore it is free TO YOU. It’s like paying the postage on what you order but not actually paying for the order itself.

The article might be from earlier this year but it discusses the reasons why people have been against it, from an outsider’s perspective (British). This is where I’m coming from as a British person - I just can’t understand why people are against attempts to make it “free.” The issue of “Obamacare” is very much topical at the moment in the USA, and it’s got us Brits talking again too.

I wondered the same thing when the Democrats forced through a health-care bill that is going to result in higher costs and lower quality health care. As they’re going to find out today voting against the country’s best interests is harmful to one’s position as a congressman.

 

[estesbob]

The US has by far the most inefficient healthcare system in the developed world, spending 2/3 times as much as comparable countries on healthcare yet having some of the worst outcomes. If it adopted a system similar to those in Western Europe or Australia it would likely slash costs.

Simply not true. Countries with socialized medicine are able to hide the true cost of their health care by spreading them throughout their budget If people really knew how much the low-quality healthcare they received cost the would be a revolution’ It is no accident that United States has the highest cancer survival rates in the world

I have great healthcare and the only problem I’ve had ever had was a recent 25% premium increase due to the passage of Obama scare.

 

[estesbob]

You’re forgetting the bureaucracy of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which bring in far greater inefficiencies since their entire purpose is to maximise profits/increase costs. For example the US is the only country I’m aware of where the government by law cannot even *negotiate *drug prices, pushing costs completely off the chart.

It is no accident that the overwhelming majority of new life-saving drugs come from US drug companies. These very evil pharmaceutical companies that people like to rail against are the ones prolonging their lives. I, by the way, never pay more than $15 for any prescription

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Yes, there should have been less waste. That’s no excuse to spend even more money on new bills.

Who said anything about spending more money? Just shift funds from current expenditures.

Yes, they CAN afford it. That’s the point: state governments get money from their people; it would be painfully inexpensive for a state government to insure the uninsured.

If we divide the $150 billion per year it would cost by 50 we end up with $3 billion per State. The average revenue is only $14 billion per State and you expect the States to be able to pay for medical coverage for their citizens?? As I pointed out, many States already rely on more Federal funding and grants than they citizens pay in federal taxes. They can’t even afford the programs and projects they currently have let alone a comprehensive and all-inclusive healthcare program.

Correct. So what is the use of Medicare/aid if it doesn’t cover the people who aren’t covered?.

I believe they should be scrapped and replaced by the program established in the healthcare bill.

 

[Sabda]

From my experience, premiums, co-pays and deductibles go up anyway. But you make a good point. Exactly why there should have been stronger safeguards/limits to prevent this greed from occuring in anticipation of something which will not be fully implemented for nearly another 4 yrs down the road. The credit card companies were given time as well to raise their rates before the credit card law took effect.

Correct this is not what most wanted. I just googled “polls on public option” and saw all sorts of polls showing the majority favored a public option.

And an option wouldn’t have lumped everyone together.

Yes, it does go up. The difference this time is the fact that it’s going up by a substantial
amount, and not just a couple of bucks. If they where going to give us healthcare reform then it should have been something that fixed the problems in the system and not one that’s simply going to create more problems. That will help no one.

 

[shockerfan]

You’re forgetting the bureaucracy of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which bring in far greater inefficiencies since their entire purpose is to maximise profits/increase costs. For example the US is the only country I’m aware of where the government by law cannot even *negotiate *drug prices, pushing costs completely off the chart.

You’ve got to be kidding. Name one significant government program run cost effectively? [as you’re scratching your head wondering why you can’t name one, perhaps it might be because the government has no incentive to do things cost effectively.]

 

[LemonAndLime]

I have a question. Why on earth are you bothered by an increase in taxes if it meant ZERO insurance fees? Surely you’ll either still be paying the same amount, or probably less actually.
BBC News Article (the one referenced in the original post):

Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?

It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called “the paranoid style” of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.

But that would be a mistake

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.

They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.

As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.

So basically it comes down to pride?

 

[Romanova]

The extremity of the British oppression is debatable, but ideas such as taxation without representation, and the exercise of martial law concerning the laws and taxes that were enacted without the representation of the people.

It’s actually an interesting point you make about the different foundations of our governments; one of the most frequently-made arguments FOR Obamacare is that it works in England, Canada, etc.

My point wasn’t to argue about how extreme the British oppression was or was not, just to point out that the Founding Fathers led a revolution when others might not have – because liberty was that important to them.

I really dislike the argument by Obamacare supporters that it works in England/Canada/France/wherever. We are a different country, historically and politically, and our Constitution is entirely different from those countries’ constitutions. What works over there might not be constitutional here, might not be popular here, etc. I think the impetus ought to be on those who favor the Obamacare legislation to explain precisely why it would work here, and why it would be constitutional here – saying simply that it works in other countries is a cop-out.

 

[shockerfan]

From my experience, premiums, co-pays and deductibles go up anyway. But you make a good point. Exactly why there should have been stronger safeguards/limits to prevent this greed from occuring in anticipation of something which will not be fully implemented for nearly another 4 yrs down the road. The credit card companies were given time as well to raise their rates before the credit card law took effect.

Correct this is not what most wanted. I just googled “polls on public option” and saw all sorts of polls showing the majority favored a public option.

And an option wouldn’t have lumped everyone together.

price controls? have any examples where that worked? While you’re thinking of that, consider gas price controls that led to the shortages of the 70’s, and communist countries that have implemented price controls only to see massive shortages. Price controls don’t work.

 

[Tom_8_0_0]

Who said anything about spending more money? Just shift funds from current expenditures.

Such as? The DOD budget is around a trillion. If you took all of that you’d end up short of paying for healthcare. Plus… you wouldn’t have a Defense budget. So any other spending cut ideas?

If we divide the $150 billion per year it would cost by 50 we end up with $3 billion per State. The average revenue is only $14 billion per State and you expect the States to be able to pay for medical coverage for their citizens?? As I pointed out, many States already rely on more Federal funding and grants than they citizens pay in federal taxes. They can’t even afford the programs and projects they currently have let alone a comprehensive and all-inclusive healthcare program.

Yes, the current healthcare bill is too expensive for the 50 states to pay for. The 50 states should come up with their own plans depending on their own number of uninsured people, and their own revenue. An average doesn’t tell me which state has more uninsured people, or which state has the most revenue.

I believe they should be scrapped and replaced by the program established in the healthcare bill.

I believe the healthcare bill shouldn’t fine people if they choose not to go on it, and I believe people who choose not to go on it shouldn’t be paying for it through taxes.

 

[estesbob]

I have a question. Why on earth are you bothered by an increase in taxes if it meant ZERO insurance fees? Surely you’ll either still be paying the same amount, or probably less actually.

Because in the end the tax increse is going to substantially higher than the insurance premiums I pay and we will be getting substandard care.

So basically it comes down to pride?

No it comes down to common sense.

 

[LemonAndLime]

You’ve got to be kidding. Name one significant government program run cost effectively? [as you’re scratching your head wondering why you can’t name one, perhaps it might be because the government has no incentive to do things cost effectively.]

I’m pretty sure that at least one government program has been cost effective. You’re being very irriational to say that one has never ever been. Unless you can prove it first.

By the way, is this as opposed to insurance companies which are in it for a profit, and effectively deciding what treatments they pay for based on… what exactly? Whether they can get away with not paying you? You Americans have a go at the NHS for not allowing some treatments if they’re not cost-benefit effective, but your insurance companies are even more evil. At least the NHS doesn’t refuse treatment on the basis of you forgetting to mention a mouth ulcer.

 

[CMatt25]

Yeah I’ve been wondering the same thing myself for a good year now with no real answer. Common sense would say that being able to provide medical care to the population would be a good thing. Part of the governments job is to promote the well being of the population which the delivery of health care obviously falls under but as soon as we start working as a team instead of this every man for himself mentality then everyone start yelling about communism. It’s just fear mongering and people not opening their eyes to it really from what I can tell.

I’ve been wondering the same thing for years. Not only is it common sense to me but even the Church says to pay your taxes for the common good (CCC 2240). And Christ said " I was sick and you took care of me" (GNT bearing Imprimatur of National Conference of Catholic Bishops)

Christ it is my belief would not reject a govt offer to play a role. In fact Christ I fully believe would welcome any help He could get in caring for the less fortunate, for the sick, where private charity has come up short. And I will go to my grave believing so. It only takes a reading of Matt 25:35-46 for me to do so. Where Christ clearly spoke about serving Him by caring for the sick. And how by serving Him in the ways He spoke of there, we can receive eternal life. God bless us all along our journeys.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Because in the end the tax increse is going to substantially higher than the insurance premiums I pay and we will be getting substandard care.

Substandard care? Do you have evidence for that? Do you think people are going to start getting more ill? Or do you just not like the idea that more people will then be able to get treated so you’ll have to wait a week or two to be seen. Think about the alternative - people can’t afford to get seen, and die. Your country has the worst healthcare system in the developed world. I’m proud to wait knowing that at least those who aren’t as well off than me have the same chance. No wait, that’s communist, right?

No it comes down to common sense.

Nope I think it’s definately pride. People have said they do not want the government getting involved in their affairs even if it might benefit them. Seperated from the English to avoid all that, etc etc.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

price controls? have any examples where that worked? While you’re thinking of that, consider gas price controls that led to the shortages of the 70’s, and communist countries that have implemented price controls only to see massive shortages. Price controls don’t work.

Price controls are necessary. The pharmaceutical industry is the only industry that is immune from both anti-trust laws and apparently anti- price gouging laws. Would you care to explain why the medical industry should be allowed to charge $500 a pop for a bag of saline-solution (which is medical jargon for a glorified sack of saltwater) that costs them only $2-3 to make?

 

[Romanova]

LemonandLime, can I ask you a question? (This is serious, I don’t mean to sound snarky and I hope it doesn’t come off that way.)

You mentioned that you’re British. Do you know the powers of the US Congress and what the US Constitution allows them to make laws about? I think that maybe if you understood some of the Obamacare opponents’ constitutional arguments against the current healthcare reform legislation, you might have a better sense of the full scope of the debate in the USA. It’s just not as simple as the opponents voting against their own interest.

 

[Tom_8_0_0]

I think Christ would rather see help given to the sick and needy on a personal level.

When it’s just a coldly calculating bureaucratic decision, where’s the virtue or merit in that?

I say let it be done on a state level, so that the people have a hand in it. Christ didn’t say “I was sick and the government took care of me”. I don’t think Barack Obama is going to score brownie points in heaven because he “took care of people” by passing his healthcare bill.

 

[shockerfan]

I have a question. Why on earth are you bothered by an increase in taxes if it meant ZERO insurance fees? Surely you’ll either still be paying the same amount, or probably less actually.

So basically it comes down to pride?

Perhaps it is because we choose to live in free country. I don’t want to live in the nanny-state you are proposing. The sad thing is approximately 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. So 47% of Americans will be voting to have someone else’s taxes go up to pay for their insurance. Certainly not in my best interest.

Also consider that we already had two other government run healthcare programs: medicare and medicaid…both are insolvent. Also consider that the new healthcare law was modeled after one implemented in Massachusettes…costs are skyrocketing and it is becoming an unaffordable program. All efforts at running a cost effective government run healthcare program are collossal failures. So why will this time be different. [There is no such thing as a significant US government program run cost effectively].

Lastly, the new healthcare law is already a failure. If it were successful, and if it were going to drive costs down, then why is the government giving exemptions to businesses and unions? Why offer an exemption if costs were going down???

Seeing that you are a Brit, I think a British quote is most appropriate: “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” - Margaret Thatcher