Why do you think forced healthcare is immoral?

[royal_archer]

Royal Archer, just curious, do you have children?

So people should give up their children if they cannot afford health care?

So if parents are uneducated or low income, we should rip those families apart? Seriously??? I am shocked and, quite frankly, disgusted with this sentiment. Honestly, I thank GOD that our country does not share your view. There are many parents who are good, loving people who are poor and uneducated.

AGreed. But there needs to be a safety net for when they fall on hard times.

Yes I do have children.
People shouldn’t have children if they cannot afford health care.
There is no excuse for being uneducated in America but if someone is so uneducated that they can not get a job they shouldn’t be having kids.

Facilitating poverty does not break the cycle of poverty, it only promotes it.

There does need to be a safety net but not a hammock. The government could provide jobs programs, allow people to tap into their 401 K or SS funds when needed with out penalty, the government could also offer low interest loans. Un employment insurance run as an insurance program, (not with indeffinate extensions) is also a valid and moral program and not one that I would associate with welfare. I have been in dire straights before and feel that these options maintain the dignity of the person and protection of society.

 

[royal_archer]

You still haven’t shown me where it says in the bill that doctors won’t get paid. WHy do you assume they won’t be paid?

Again, why won’t they be paid? If anything this will ensure payment…many people under the current system go to the doctor and rack up huge bills and pay $5 a month. That’s what I’ve done in the past because that’s all I could afford. If I had health coverage, believe you me, the doctor would have been paid MUCH faster!

The prior laws required medical facilities to treat patients regardless of the ability to pay. Obama care does not change that aspect nor does it force all people to get insurance. it only forces those who work to get insurance those who choose not to work will still be able to use the current laws to get free treatment.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Because our Government does a lousy job of running most (but not all) agencies; Pres and Lawmakers do not follow the US Constitution.
For example, our Post Office is broke; our Social Security System is nearly broke due to Congress stealing from it (taking funds without intention of paying back) for other projects for many years

Amercians want to be able to choose doctors, health care treatments, and make their own life and death decisions rather than having the Government make the decisions based upon cost.
And unlike Canadian citizens, we don’t want to be told we must stay inside our our Country for six months each year or lose our insurance.
Let Freedom Ring.
For life threatening issues or babies births etc., those without insurance just had to go to any US Hospital and they would be taken care of for free (with costs added onto other people’s bills).

 

[Black_Rose]

Amercians want to be able to choose doctors, health care treatments, and make their own life and death decisions rather than having the Government make the decisions based upon cost.

If one does not have a lot of money or want to grovel to a charity or a means tested government program, then universal health care would be an improvement. Furthermore, those who do not have money cannot choose doctor or health care treatments because of cost constraints. Again, they have little to lose under universal health care.

 

[royal_archer]

If one does not have a lot of money or want to grovel to a charity or a means tested government program, then universal health care would be an improvement. Furthermore, those who do not have money cannot choose doctor or health care treatments because of cost constraints. Again, they have little to lose under universal health care.

As someone who works long hard hours to earn healthcare for myself and my family, I realy don’t see people who don’t work having to “grovel” as that big of a deal. If they don’t want to go through means testing or “groveling”, they can always get a job or marry someone who has a job.

Universal health care may improve life for some but it brings others down and since in reduces the incentive to work, the cumulative effect is that we as a nation are worse off.

 

[tjm190]

If one does not have a lot of money or want to grovel to a charity or a means tested government program, then universal health care would be an improvement. Furthermore, those who do not have money cannot choose doctor or health care treatments because of cost constraints. Again, they have little to lose under universal health care.

Yes, if you aren’t in the system at all you will benefit. However, if you were in the system you will pay more for less- our health care system is about to see a mass influx of new patients without a major increase in income. So, each doctor will have to see more patients, each surgeon preform more surgeries, each MRI do more tests. Unless doctors go without sleep, there will undoubtably people a decrease in quality of care given to those who are actually paying their fair share- and the fair share of others.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes, if you aren’t in the system at all you will benefit. However, if you were in the system you will pay more for less- our health care system is about to see a mass influx of new patients without a major increase in income. So, each doctor will have to see more patients, each surgeon preform more surgeries, each MRI do more tests. Unless doctors go without sleep, there will undoubtably people a decrease in quality of care given to those who are actually paying their fair share- and the fair share of others.

You mean the obama health care fairy won’t just wave his magic pen and make everyone instantly healthy???

 

[sharmin]

They have every right to get a job or otherwise rightfully earn money and pay for it. They do not have a right to take from others.

So long as you feel the same way about public school education. If you do, I’m fine with it. If not, I have to admit it sounds a bit hippocritical.

By the way, having a new Caddy convertible will improve my life; do you think I have the right to steal on? Obviously not, so the arguement you stated is not valid.

So driving a Caddy is on the same par as ensuring even the poorest families have access to education and health care? If that’s how you feel, maybe that’s why we continue going 'round and 'round, huh?

 

[sharmin]

Yes I do have children.
People shouldn’t have children if they cannot afford health care.

What happens if people COULD afford health care until the bottom fell out, like what happened to so many thousands of American families?

There is no excuse for being uneducated in America but if someone is so uneducated that they can not get a job they shouldn’t be having kids.

I’m not talking about being so uneducated that you couldn’t get a job. If you remember correctly, we were talking about people educating their own children (rather than utilize public, tax payer funded schools). I said many are not educated enough to properly educate their own children. So what do we do with those kids?

Facilitating poverty does not break the cycle of poverty, it only promotes it.

Making the poor educate their chldren and keeping poor kids from proper health care also promotes poverty, in even worse ways than helping them become educated and healthy. I’m baffled as to how you can believe otherwise.

There does need to be a safety net but not a hammock. The government could provide jobs programs, allow people to tap into their 401 K or SS funds when needed with out penalty, the government could also offer low interest loans. Un employment insurance run as an insurance program, (not with indeffinate extensions) is also a valid and moral program and not one that I would associate with welfare. I have been in dire straights before and feel that these options maintain the dignity of the person and protection of society.

But we are talking about the rights of healthcare. Many with jobs still cannot afford healthcare. I work full time at a Catholic school and to provide my 2 children with health care costs me $1000 a month out of pocket. Believe me, I do not make enough money to afford that.

 

[sharmin]

The prior laws required medical facilities to treat patients regardless of the ability to pay. Obama care does not change that aspect nor does it force all people to get insurance. it only forces those who work to get insurance those who choose not to work will still be able to use the current laws to get free treatment.

But if it forces them to be ensured, the doctors would only be paid more money than they are now. From what I am reading from your post, this has already been going on. Why are you blaming our new plan? Like I said, if anything, doctors will e paid for more services under this plan because people will be required to buy insurance.

 

[sharmin]

As someone who works long hard hours to earn healthcare for myself and my family, I realy don’t see people who don’t work having to “grovel” as that big of a deal. If they don’t want to go through means testing or “groveling”, they can always get a job or marry someone who has a job.
.

Why do you assume that people who have jobs can afford health insurance? MOST people I know can not afford health insurance whether they have jobs or not.

I think your experience has led you to feel this way, but quite honestly, it sounds like you’ve led a very lucky life as have others in your social circle. And yes, I say lucky because there are many many people who have worked hard, even gone to college, but still cannot afford health care in this economy.

 

[aspawloski4th]

That comment was not appropriate.

No that comment was an understatement. The only other person I know of who is enthralled with economics and money oriented as you is my wife’s younger brother. Basically he is now an island because no one can stand him. I don’t know what you look like, but in thought and priorities you are his twin. I hope there isn’t a triplet out there I’ll come across someday. Two of you is nerve wracking!

 

[royal_archer]

So long as you feel the same way about public school education. If you do, I’m fine with it. If not, I have to admit it sounds a bit hippocritical.

My opinions are formed from a set of universal truths and beliefs formed from the teachings of the church (including the catechism and bible) as well as the laws of nature and personal oberservations. Personal desires and conveiniences may cause me to revaluate those beliefs but not to make exceptions. As a result I have beliefs I don’t “like” but I have to align my will with God. I would like to jump on the liberal band wagon and tax my wealthy neighbors to provide for all of my needs but that just isn’t right.

So driving a Caddy is on the same par as ensuring even the poorest families have access to education and health care? If that’s how you feel, maybe that’s why we continue going 'round and 'round, huh?

I did not say having a new Caddy was on par with more basic necesities.I also didn’t say “things that will improve their lives”. I am just demonstrating the application of that logic. Since that logic leads to silly results, I have to disagree with the assertion that improving someones life is sufficient rationale to take something from someone else.

 

[Arandur]

But we are talking about the rights of healthcare. Many with jobs still cannot afford healthcare. I work full time at a Catholic school and to provide my 2 children with health care costs me $1000 a month out of pocket. Believe me, I do not make enough money to afford that.

I have an honest question for you: is this an employer-provided health care plan that you’re accepting? Have you explored other options?

I ask, because I have found that a lot of people seem to overlook many options and seem to not even consider the many plans out there that are actually affordable, favoring instead those plans that have very low deductibles and copays for doctor’s visits and prescription drugs, seemingly without considering just how much they’re paying for such coverage.

For example, a quick search on ehealthinsurance.com in my zip code (Independence, MO, just outside Kansas City, MO) reveals that a family of 2 (parents who are 45 years old, 1 child at 10yo, one 15yo) can get coverage for as little as $138/mo. Yes, that’s high-deductible; but if you’re saving $800 a month (since your alternative is $1000/mo, apparently), you can pay for a whol lot of other health care costs out of pocket! ($9600 saved/year).

If you MUST have a plan that has a low deductible ($2500, 20% coinsurance to an out-of-pocket annual max of $4500), and low copays (only $15!), that plan is $554/mo. I would consider those terms a “cadillac plan,” frankly. You’re now talking $5,000 a year to save for additional costs and to cover your deductible, should you ever need it.

In my experience, many otherwise-responsible people that I know simply take what is handed to them and don’t explore their options. We need to alter our expectations. If you won’t want to be troubled by much of a bill and go to a doctor whenever and for whatever you want, yes, you’re going to pay a LOT for that privilege. If you’re more realistic and only pay for the emergency coverage that you need, you can save a LOT of money and afford to pay for the majority of services out of pocket, while saving up a cushion quickly that can cover out of pocket maximums if you’re hit with an incident in a given year.

I have to buy my own insurance for my family; I have no employer coverage. I’d love for it to cost less, but frankly, the coverage we’re purchasing independently (no employer assistance) only costs as much as a modest car payment (1 car). Add the cost of car insurance and maintenance costs, and we’re talking about health insurance AND average out-of-pocket expenses that cost less than owning a car. And no, our car isn’t extravagant (2005 Hyundai Santa Fe).

Is there really something obscenely wrong with our health insurance costs if caring for our bodies costs less than owning our cars? Or is it our perspectives and priorities as Americans that is out of whack, functionally valuing our material things more than ourselves, and thus complaining when it costs more to pay for ourselves than to pay for our luxuries?

 

[royal_archer]

What happens if people COULD afford health care until the bottom fell out, like what happened to so many thousands of American families?

Like When I lost my job last year as a direct result of action from the Obama administration? Well I busted my but to get a new job and even volunteered to do jobs for free just to prove myself. I was taken up on that offer and after working with out pay for a little while I had several offers. All with out taking a dime of welfare or unemployment.

Now there is nothing wrong with unemployment insurance as a short term bridge as long as it is funded through taxes on that labor and is not mearly an earnings redistribution scheme. I also think people between jobs should have the ability to tap into retirement and Socialist Security funds with out penalties.

Also, we need to reduce excessive regulation which is artificially raising medical rates. My dog got surgery for about a thousand dollars. That equivalent surgery for a human will run you over 30 thousand dollars. That is a 30 to 1 excess in costs! Fix that and you won’t have to do the tax and spread.

I’m not talking about being so uneducated that you couldn’t get a job. If you remember correctly, we were talking about people educating their own children (rather than utilize public, tax payer funded schools). I said many are not educated enough to properly educate their own children. So what do we do with those kids?

Making the poor educate their chldren and keeping poor kids from proper health care also promotes poverty, in even worse ways than helping them become educated and healthy. I’m baffled as to how you can believe otherwise.

I am somewhat well educated but I couldn’t teach my kids. (not my aptitude) I was thinking more along the line of the parrents paying the tuition for their kids to go to a private or government run school.
If parrents had to pay, you would see parrents starting to pay attention to the cost to value ratio for their schools and their would be a mass exodus from the over priced inefficient government run schools.

But we are talking about the rights of healthcare. Many with jobs still cannot afford healthcare. I work full time at a Catholic school and to provide my 2 children with health care costs me $1000 a month out of pocket. Believe me, I do not make enough money to afford that.

You can always get a harder job or a job more in demand. (If the government were not offering tax payer subsidized education I am sure there would be a much higher demand for your services.) You could also team up with another parrent who has a job with bennefits. If my wife could work she would not need insurance or a big salary.

 

[Arandur]

But if it forces them to be ensured, the doctors would only be paid more money than they are now. From what I am reading from your post, this has already been going on. Why are you blaming our new plan? Like I said, if anything, doctors will e paid for more services under this plan because people will be required to buy insurance.

Part of the funding gymnastics undertaken to claim that this bill would cost less than $1 trillion was to require that health care professionals be paid LESS than they currently are under Medicare and Medicaid. Already, many doctors quit providing Medicare service where possible because they are not being compensated for their costs. And now we’re going to pay them less?

"

Again, even without the 21 percent cut, Medicare already underpays doctors significantly. That’s why MDs are dropping out of the program – leaving elderly patients with “insurance” but no doctors.

Last year, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that 28 percent of Medicare patients looking for a new physician were unable to find one

Read more: nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/medicare_not_fixed_HxdiJCU1sIq20UB5jw7WwL#ixzz0pB0FiC5u
"

"My 25 years as a practicing physician have shown me what happens when government attempts to practice medicine: Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.

For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients’ access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.
…
If the bill expands Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level, that too will lead to rationing. Because Washington bureaucrats have created a system that underpays doctors, 40% of doctors already restrict access to Medicaid patients, and therefore ration care.
…What happens, for instance, when savvy consumers commanded to buy insurance realize the penalty is the de facto premium? It won’t take long for younger, healthier Americans to realize it’s cheaper to pay a $750 tax for coverage instead of, say, $5,000 in annual premiums when coverage can’t be denied if you get sick.
Tom Coburn: The Health Bill Is Scary - WSJ"

As an additional admission that the new bill, there was a whole debate about a “doctor fix” to try to make sure doctors get paid enough that they won’t have to deny service (or go out of business). But this would have added over $200 billion to the cost of the bill, so it was axed as part of the “fuzzy math” going on to sell the lie of Obamacare.

 

[royal_archer]

But if it forces them to be ensured, the doctors would only be paid more money than they are now. From what I am reading from your post, this has already been going on. Why are you blaming our new plan? Like I said, if anything, doctors will e paid for more services under this plan because people will be required to buy insurance.

My point is that the law does not require the people who can not afford health care to buy insurance! it only requires people with larger salaries to buy insurance those who can’t afford their medical bills don’t have to buy the insurance.

The new legislation does not fix it. The legislation simply spreads the injustice. I will now have to work more hours to get the money to reimburse the doctor who was forced to offer care to the person who got health care they could not afford. This shell game does not change the fact that the government is forcing people to give their labors to others.

 

[royal_archer]

Why do you assume that people who have jobs can afford health insurance? MOST people I know can not afford health insurance whether they have jobs or not.

I think your experience has led you to feel this way, but quite honestly, it sounds like you’ve led a very lucky life as have others in your social circle. And yes, I say lucky because there are many many people who have worked hard, even gone to college, but still cannot afford health care in this economy.

There are jobs that do not provide a sustaining level of income. These jobs offer other bennefits such as entertainment, sense of accomplishment, training, social opportunities. Many people are satisfied with those jobs, those who are not need to work their way into the better paying jobs.

Not everyone I know is in a stable job. I know several people who do not have good jobs and are in bad situations. Most are in that situation because they are spending more time complaining about the opportunities they didn’t get instead of taking advantages of the opportunities they did get.

 

[royal_archer]

No that comment was an understatement. The only other person I know of who is enthralled with economics and money oriented as you is my wife’s younger brother. Basically he is now an island because no one can stand him. I don’t know what you look like, but in thought and priorities you are his twin. I hope there isn’t a triplet out there I’ll come across someday. Two of you is nerve wracking!

Please refrain from personal attacks.

 

[Arandur]

I am somewhat well educated but I couldn’t teach my kids. (not my aptitude) I was thinking more along the line of the parrents paying the tuition for their kids to go to a private or government run school.
If parrents had to pay, you would see parrents starting to pay attention to the cost to value ratio for their schools and their would be a mass exodus from the over priced inefficient government run schools.

I recently heard an interesting EWTN radio program where a lady (who had spent decades in education) had extensively studied and advocated for various solutions to our education problems in this country gave her opinions. She pointed out that lower enrollment in Catholic schools (which makes it harder to keep them open) was significantly influenced by the government subsidies that drive people to public schools, and by competition from charter schools. Vouchers or parents having to pay for schooling would presumably greatly increase enrollment in Catholic schools and enable them to compensate teachers more fairly.