That’s not a fair decision to be made for us by the government, nor do I believe the cost of the healthcare will be worth the treatment received. All of this seems like a way for the government to generate more money to make up for its completely wasteful spending and irresponsible use of tax payer money.
Obama doubled the national debt and has done nothing to stimulate the economy. So now there's this program which is highly similar to taxation that has just been established. Only they are smart enough to realize that they can’t tax everyone more because people will get mad about it and they will lose votes. This way some people don’t understand the situation and think "Yay more cheap/free stuff from the government!" Even if not, it’s likely going to end up being another failure of a program much the way Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Social Security are. How ironic social security is both socialist in idea and very insecure.
On the subject of Medicare, Medicaid, etc, why are we making new programs without fixing the already horribly broken ones? Medicare and Medicaid are supposed to be setup for people who can’t afford regular healthcare and yet we are creating a secondary program that does the same thing? This alone shows the lack of responsibility of our government. Not to mention, part of the new bill passed bans healthcare corporations from denying current members insurance based upon pre-existing conditions. Basically, this means that new customers are going to be turned down instead of offered a different healthcare package based upon their condition. So now, as more people get turned down, they will be forced to choose the government healthcare. This is a sly way of taking over the healthcare industry.
We have already seen this with the auto industry and partially the banking/housing industry. This mass government intervention/take-over is parallel to socialism. Also, doctors are now getting screwed over. So much making lots of money for those 15 years of school you went through. I hope the government pays your malpractice insurance too or you’re going to be broke. This evening of income is akin to communism/socialism’s equality for all in everything.
But hey wait…aren’t rich people the ones who buy expensive cars, houses, clothes, and food and help stimulate the economy? Without wealthy people, won’t the economy suffer? Guess it doesn’t matter to the representatives in congress and our government because they don’t live under the same laws we do obviously.
AESKEPULUS ATROPOS
Posts
4 comments:
In the first place, I think it's a bit tendentious to say that "the primary idea behind [health care reform] is to force everyone to have some type of healthcare." Most people actually like the idea of being cared for when they're sick; one doesn't typically have to force it upon them.
It is correct, however, that people are being required to purchase health insurance, which does indeed need to be paid for. And that requirement, also known as the individual mandate, is a direct consequence of the perfectly legitimate and long overdue end to the practice of health insurance companies' discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Horror of horrors, now that HCR has passed, you will no longer be SOL should you lose your job after getting sick. No longer do parents need to worry about their children getting asthma and forevermore being all-but-uninsurable.
The problem is, if you don't let insurers turn down customers with pre-existing conditions, healthy customers no longer have any incentive to purchase health insurance before they get sick. Meaning the only people purchasing health insurance are high-risk or already-ill (and therefore costly) people. In order to mitigate that risk, insurers would raise prices, to the point where, once again, people couldn't afford it, sick or not.
Enter the individual mandate. (Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn has already said as much). In order to spread that risk (and cost), you require people, everyone, to purchase insurance. But, of course, if you require people to purchase insurance, and they don't have the means to do so, nobody comes out ahead. So, you push Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level. And you subsidize cost up to 400% of the poverty level. And you allow for earlier buy-in to Medicare. And you give tax credits to families so they can afford the insurance. And you give tax credits to small businesses to encourage them to get their employees insurance.
To the point that the aforementioned programs (along with Social Security) are failures, I would ask how many seniors you know who are willing to give any of them up? How many families living under the poverty level are eager to do without Medicaid or SCHIP? How many congresspersons, Republican or Democrat, are running on platforms of doing away with those programs? The answer for all three questions are the same: none. Because the programs aren't failures; to the contrary, they're astounding successes. Poverty among the elderly isn't anything compared to what it was before the implementation of the social welfare net you castigate so cavalierly. Look at the numbers previous to the New Deal. They're off the charts!
Finally, you seem to be under the impression that the recent HCR put into place some sort of "government healthcare." There is no such thing. There is no public option, though not for lack of trying on the part of liberal Democrats in the House and Senate. There are going to be government-run exchanges, on which individuals will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers, but that's the extent to which the government is expanding into healthcare.
As to the doctors, I doubt very seriously the AMA is going to decide to relax their caps on medical school students: the supply of doctors will remain very much constrained in the near future. Low supply + high demand for medical services = a very good living for a very long time.
The question I have initially involves your statement regarding the fairness of a government imposed requirement to have healthcare. The obvious implication is that the government should not be allowed to mandate how its people spend their income. First, where do you draw the line? Consider that several if not all of our bloggers have had some degree of private education. Do we have a right to say that don’t wish for tax dollars to fund an educational system that we did not benefit from? That is actually a loaded question, because even though some of us did not benefit directly from a publicly funded education we have all benefitted from it indirectly. The monies that fund higher education also lead to research and development and technological advancement that all can appreciate. A second question, this research and development comes from government spending. Does that make it socialist? Can you define what you think socialism is? Is every socialist idea bad, or should we consider some embracing some of them? I say this because I think that universal healthcare is an idea that is consistent with socialist ideals, but it in and of itself is not a slippery slope to socialism. I also think it’s contradictory to claim that we are the greatest nation in the world when we are the only industrialized nation to not have universal healthcare. How can boast about quality of life when healthcare, such a major factor in quality of life, is beyond the financial reach of many of our citizens? The point is simply this, liberals are not idiots that to quote you, “don’t understand the situation and think ‘Yay more cheap/free stuff from the government!’" On the contrary, most are quite intelligent, but have a different worldview. This worldview values the utilitarian benefit of a healthy society over the individual autonomy of choosing where every dollar of their paycheck is funneled (I think Moses and Jesus would approve). Do we really need rich people to stimulate our economy?
That’s sounds fallacious just on the face of it. First of all you didn’t bother to define rich, which is a very relative term. Regardless, I will move forward in the dialogue. While there isn’t an ideal formula to measure economic strength there are statistical indicators that contribute pieces to the puzzle. Despite its limitations, GDP or gross domestic product has been used as just such an indicator. If you look at total GDP the U.S. even in an economic downturn beats the competition hands down. However, if you look at GDPPC or GDP per capita you have an average of how much an individual contributes to the overall picture, which accounts for efficiency. By comparison, the US is only 6th in the world when GDPPC is compared. Two of the countries ahead of the US are actually socialist democracies (Norway and Luxembourg). How then can we be the poster child for, capitalism an economic system whose very cornerstone is efficiency, and still reconcile this? Consider the average disposal income of the US, about $21,000 per person (http://wapedia.mobi/en/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income), and now consider that the two countries that beat it hands down in GDPPC aren’t even listed in top rankings of disposable income per capita. That is quantitative data that supports that the idea that you need rich people to stimulate an economy. Furthermore, they enjoy this economic efficiency while providing universal healthcare. This further demonstrates that socialist ideals and economic inefficiencies do not have to be incompatible. What many liberals in America wish for is not socialism. Instead they see that other nations, some of which happen to be socialist democracies, have aspects of their economic system that could be borrowed to improve our way of life. To your comment about doctors getting screwed-years of school does not and should not be equated with higher earning potential. Many Ph.d’s, the original doctor’s, do not necessarily make much relative to their educational investment. Yes, while money, status, and ego are at least a small part of every physician’s motivation for attending medical school, I have never met one whose primary reasoning for pursuing their profession wasn’t to help others and make a difference. Your article is entitled Healthcare Concerns and yet you offer no legitimate concerns about the substance of the healthcare proposal. You have offered vague generalities that contribute little to a real discussion on the issue.
Sorry I have been away for so long. With a baby on the way I have had little time but would like to add some thoughts.
While I will not go to the extent to say this is a socialist agenda, I will call it short sighted and expensive. First, I feel I can offer a counter point of view that will bring its own biases. As some of you may know, I work in the health care industry as a Financial Analyst. I see things many of you do not see including the impact of Medicare and Medicaid payouts for my company's services, or the lack thereof at times as well. The government already demands the lowest costs for health services when they cover an American's health care bill. For the most part, a lot of this compensation produces a loss to the company. Those familiar with accounting, consider the principle of Activity Based Cost. What this considers is not only the cost of goods sold but every other cost associated with producing the good purchased. Medicare and Medicaid too often do not cover the full extent of the cost to the company. To some states' credit, they are performing a state audit to consider how to fairly compensate companies for their services, most are not.
I say all this to point out that by implementing a system like this, it does not consider so many variables that will impact not just insurance but all healthcare companies in the US. I have heard of some doctors who will not even accept Medicare or Medicaid patients because they too often do receive payment. Yet, somehow this government program is going to work better.
Now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be change, but this healthcare reform is short sighted because it does not consider the impact down the road to companies beyond the insurance company. The city of Louisville relies heavily upon the healthcare industry for jobs. What could happen to a city like Louisville if so many of its citizens lose their jobs?
Second, I also come from a conservative biase. For me, this isn't even about Republican vs. Democrat. This is about fiscal responsibility. Obama made a platform about how government out of control spending is hurting our country and appropriately so. But how is this any different than his predecessor? His legislation has quadrupled the deficit and this healthcare bill isn't even proven across the world. Yes, some countries have achieved success, but so many have also received negative results.
Why completely overhaul a system when we do not know if it will actually work? Are we to trust a government with this kind of responsibility when it struggles with its current initiatives (i.e. the Post Office, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.)?
I believe in change, but I believe this is the wrong kind of change. Government is important but it is to serve as a guiding hand and not as the hand that feeds us.
Post a Comment