Health Reform Legistlation

Satya

Satya

C'est la vie
Retired Staff
MBTI
INXP
Frankly, I don't think most people who dislike the health care reform know what the hell they are talking about. But I want to give them an opportunity to prove otherwise.

Why doesn't anyone actually provide some specific arguments for or against the bill? Most of what I have been hearing is just ideology rants. Something that pretty much everyone agrees on is that there needs to be health reform, it's just what shape that health reform takes that people differ on. So why not look at the actual bill that is before us right now, see what changes it is likely to cause, and make some concrete arguments as to whether those changes would be good or bad for America. For example...

-Should health care reform include requiring most Americans to buy health insurance? If someone uninsured ends up sick and in the emergency room, then the cost is spread out to everyone else anyways, so why is this a bad option? We have mandatory car insurance and that seems to work out fine. And a benefit is that the market will have millions of new customers. How would you make health care reform work if you didn't require everyone to buy insurance?

-Insurance companies would face new federal regulations, such as no denying people for preexisting conditions, but why is that a bad thing? Would it be such a bad thing that they can't raise an entire state's premiums 30% overnight?

-Medicare is full of waste and fraud, so you would think people would be happy to hear that there are going to be cuts that would force hospitals to be efficient, but I'm hearing complaints. Why?

-Medicaid would be expanded to include low income people. Since the public option is off the table, and the private insurers have no interest in serving those who can't afford their service, what other option would there be?

-There will be new taxes on the health care industry among others. But we have to get the money to pay for health care reform from somewhere no matter how we go about it. What other options are available? Why not tax the health care industry?

-There are a lot of benefits to this bill. It could reduce the federal deficit. It could eliminate the prescription coverage gap. Ect.

The only alternative options we have to cut costs are a public option or a complete privatization with the option to refuse treatment. Both of those are morally abhorrent to the right and left wings of society respectively, so that leaves us with the compromise of exchanges, mandatory health insurance, and increased regulation. If anyone can think of a practical option that we could come up with in the next 100 years that would satisfy everyone, then please have at it, but this is probably the best we will come up with no matter how many times we go back to the drawing board.
 
The reason compromise is impossible in this situation is because the two competing camps are polar opposites. One side, the liberals and progressives, demands equality of outcome; the other side, conservatives and libertarians, champions natural liberty.

Hardship and pain are an unavoidable part of the human experience. Liberals and progressives claim that if citizens sacrifice enough of their liberty to the government, then those hardships can be washed away by the efficient and compassionate bureaucratic regime. Conservatives and libertarians, however, reject the claim that hardship can be reduced by sacrificing our natural liberty in exchange for an administrative dictatorship.

The pains and sorrows of life will exist at all times and for all people, no matter what; however, those of us who cherish our freedom prefer to meet those challenges with our liberty and our reason intact.

I've never been politically active, but for the first time in my life I'm working to mobilize support against the federal government's surging encroachment. I'm going to begin by writing to my state's legislature and encouraging them to reaffirm state sovereignty as an essential component of a federal-republican form of government. Secondly, I've begun contacting friends and family and asking them seriously to consider defying the insurance mandate, even in the face of the government's friendly IRS ramp-up.

I never thought I'd live to see the end of something great and God-willing I hope I never will. But it seems very likely that I'll belong to the pitiful generation that witnessed the demise of the world's last free republic.
 
I think the biggest chatter against this is just a fear of change. I am not completely up in the times with whats going on, but I know in my household the debate has always been about the fact that the politicians put a rider in the bill that says they dont have to use it...If its not good enough for them, why is it good enough for the american people?

What does this say about how the health care system will treat the poor?

I think healthcare reform needs to happen, and I support it, but it still has flaws.

as for mandatory health insurance...well There are too many who cant even afford their work place discounted services...How are we to expect everyone to be able to afford it? sure Car insurance is required, but many still drive regardless of their insured status. If they cant afford it they dont pay it...

Insurance companies NEED to be regulated BIG time! But then so does the inflation in the health care industry. Dr.s charge an inflated rate for insured people. because they know its the only way they will get enough money to cover their services. EG: You get a bill for a service provided my Dr A he submits his cost for the service his base line minimum cost: 60 dollars, Ins co B decides he is only allowed to charge 30% of that charge, so he gets 18 dollars, when 60 was already his bottom line...So next time he charges 200 dollars so he can get his bottom line. I have been told this by a friend who was uninsured. He got a bill for like 6 grand. He called the doctor said that his bill was absolutely ridiculous. When pressed about insured status, he told the doctor he wasn't covered. The dr chuckled and said, Oh then you only have to pay 600 bucks...I gotta overcharge just to make ends meet with insurance. I am sure this is probably an illegal practice, but I am positive it happens.
 
Nik said:
The reason compromise is impossible in this situation is because the two competing camps are polar opposites. One side, the liberals and progressives, demands equality of outcome; the other side, conservatives and libertarians, champions natural liberty.

Hardship and pain are an unavoidable part of the human experience. Liberals and progressives claim that if citizens sacrifice enough of their liberty to the government, then those hardships can be washed away by the efficient and compassionate bureaucratic regime. Conservatives and libertarians, however, reject the claim that hardship can be reduced by sacrificing our natural liberty in exchange for an administrative dictatorship.

The pains and sorrows of life will exist at all times and for all people, no matter what; however, those of us who cherish our freedom prefer to meet those challenges with our liberty and our reason intact.

I've never been politically active, but for the first time in my life I'm working to mobilize support against the federal government's surging encroachment. I'm going to begin by writing to my state's legislature and encouraging them to reaffirm state sovereignty as an essential component of a federal-republican form of government. Secondly, I've begun contacting friends and family and asking them seriously to consider defying the insurance mandate, even in the face of the government's friendly IRS ramp-up.

I never thought I'd live to see the end of something great and God-willing I hope I never will. But it seems very likely that I'll belong to the pitiful generation that witnessed the demise of the world's last free republic.
Click to expand...

That is a nice ideological sentiment, but it is dead wrong. I'm liberal and I don't believe in equal outcome. I believe in equal opportunity, which is the contrast of equal outcome. Most liberals that I know believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcome. If we believed in equal outcome, then we would be socialists, not liberals.

Nothing in this legislation guarantees anyone equal outcome. Nobody is even pitching that idea.

However, the Republicans have already come up with a nice trick to fight the insurance mandate. Since they can't stop the legislation on the federal level, they are passing laws on the state level that make it illegal for the government to force people to buy insurance. They will then take it to the Supreme Court where they will fight the insurance mandate on the grounds of protecting state sovereignty. The irony is that if this move works, then the same method could be used to overturn several federal laws. For example, the Defense of Marriage Act could be overturned if Massachusetts creates a law making it illegal for the federal government to define marriage.

I'm disappointed though Nik. You avoided every question I asked and went right for ideological grounds to argue this.
 
Nik said:
The reason compromise is impossible in this situation is because the two competing camps are polar opposites. One side, the liberals and progressives, demands equality of outcome; the other side, conservatives and libertarians, champions natural liberty.
Click to expand...

Anyone paying attention to the way the federal government spends money is aware of two dangerous trends. One is the soaring costs of entitlement programs (whose very name "entitlement" irks almost every American) and secondly is the never ending spending on the military. As a Nation we have to look seriously at how and why we spend this money. Short of ending all entitlement spending (social security, medicare, medicaid), reforming those programs to make them economically viable, without overburdening those who are currently paying into the systems (while not benefiting {directly} from them), is imperative.

I for one do not expect a "la la land" where all citizens live burden and pain free lives, those who believe progressives even think this is possible are puffed up by their own rhetoric.
 
Why are we doing this in the first place? Are we not in an economic depression? I keep hearing that job loss is going up. And with job loss comes less people on insurance. Not to mention the illegal aliens flooding into the country using up health services and housing services. There are a lot of people taking money out of the system right now. What we need is solid jobs and a solid recovery. I am against this bill because I believe in my heart that it is the wrong thing to do right now. It is not time for this to happen. We don't have the money for it. Hell we may never have the money for it if we keep spending it all. All of the cookies have been taken from the jar and now there are only IOU's left behind. We need to pay those IOU's and start putting cookies back into the jar. We need A WORKING ECONOMY AGAIN. Not a BORROWING ONE! We need to pay for what we ask for.
 
Satya: Most of your questions presuppose that increased government control of our lives is necessary. I reject that supposition on the grounds that a free federal-republican form of government is best suited to preserve our liberties and safety. As such, any "compromise" that involves destroying our original form of government is unacceptable to me. Be careful not to confuse political opinion with your own definition of what it means to be superficially ideological.

We already have equality of opportunity in the form of liberty. Even if you cannot afford to go to an expensive hospital, local public facilities are available. But because liberals perceive an unjust distribution of resources, they want to redesign the structure of society so that the wealth of others is used to better the situation of the less advantaged, in this case, for the purpose of making medical "outcomes" supposedly more equal. But even access to the most prestigious hospital cannot guarantee a similar outcome from patient to patient.

I'm glad that you mentioned the drive by some states (Utah and Oklahoma, so far) to reaffirm their rights as sovereign states. One of the defining features of American federal-republicanism is the existence of a union of political units separate from the national government. The state legislatures that are preparing to challenge Obamacare are more in line with the spirit of American constitutionalism than those who would relinquish their sovereignty. Once the federal government exerts a power that can command citizens in the several states to purchase a product or service, there is very little chance that future generations will be able to reclaim that power. More frighteningly, there is nothing that prevents the federal government from making additional commands to purchase other products and services.
 
Nik said:
Satya: Most of your questions presuppose that increased government control of our lives is necessary. I reject that supposition on the grounds that a free federal-republican form of government is best suited to preserve our liberties and safety. As such, any "compromise" that involves destroying our original form of government is unacceptable to me. Be careful not to confuse political opinion with your own definition of what it means to be superficially ideological.
Click to expand...

The constitution laid the framework for a partially dynamic system that was meant to change when needed. One can argue if this is needed or not but it is not compromising the core belief of the founding fathers. The amendments are a good example of why/how it isn't static.

We already have equality of opportunity in the form of liberty. Even if you cannot afford to go to an expensive hospital, local public facilities are available. But because liberals perceive an unjust distribution of resources, they want to redesign the structure of society so that the wealth of others is used to better the situation of the less advantaged, in this case, for the purpose of making medical "outcomes" supposedly more equal. But even access to the most prestigious hospital cannot guarantee a similar outcome from patient to patient.
Click to expand...


Not every local public facility is equipped to deal with every type of medical case. Case and point my old boss' daughter needs to go to Boston for her chemo. Also certain treatments are expensive period. If you believe it's there problem then I ask you to go to your local health care facility, and volunteer to tell every patient that cannot be treated either due to being denied coverage or that they cannot afford it, "Sorry, come back with the money." Word play is at hand here and a streak of Social Darwinism came out in this paragraph. You said in a previous post suffering is part of human life. You are correct, but why not ease it?
I'm glad that you mentioned the drive by some states (Utah and Oklahoma, so far) to reaffirm their rights as sovereign states. One of the defining features of American federal-republicanism is the existence of a union of political units separate from the national government. The state legislatures that are preparing to challenge Obamacare are more in line with the spirit of American constitutionalism than those who would relinquish their sovereignty. Once the federal government exerts a power that can command citizens in the several states to purchase a product or service, there is very little chance that future generations will be able to reclaim that power. More frighteningly, there is nothing that prevents the federal government from making additional commands to purchase other products and services.
Click to expand...

By your logic that states have the right to reaffirm their sovereignty President Lincoln was WAY out of line for the invasion of the confederate states and there should rightfully be 2 nations instead of one. Duly noted.
 
The arguments currently being made on the floor are awfully vacuous. Just pass it and get it over with.
 
TheLastMohican said:
The arguments currently being made on the floor are awfully vacuous. Just pass it and get it over with.
Click to expand...
I'm away from a TV... are they on par with 2+2=fish?
 
kavalan said:
I'm away from a TV... are they on par with 2+2=fish?
Click to expand...
The Republicans are more on-track from what I've seen, actually bringing up numbers and coherent arguments. The Democrats are using most of their time to bring up individual sob stories, instead of talking about the large-scale, long-term advantages.

My guess is that relatively few of them really know the material.
 
Kavalan: As I understand their work, the Founders did not intend for the federal government to have the sort of dynamism most progressives think of today. I mentioned in another post (to you, I think) that the federal government
 
efromm said:
Why are we doing this in the first place? Are we not in an economic depression? I keep hearing that job loss is going up. And with job loss comes less people on insurance. Not to mention the illegal aliens flooding into the country using up health services and housing services. There are a lot of people taking money out of the system right now. What we need is solid jobs and a solid recovery. I am against this bill because I believe in my heart that it is the wrong thing to do right now. It is not time for this to happen. We don't have the money for it. Hell we may never have the money for it if we keep spending it all. All of the cookies have been taken from the jar and now there are only IOU's left behind. We need to pay those IOU's and start putting cookies back into the jar. We need A WORKING ECONOMY AGAIN. Not a BORROWING ONE! We need to pay for what we ask for.
Click to expand...
'

this
 
Hardship and pain are an unavoidable part of the human experience.
Click to expand...
O,rly? Let me guess, there's also "no free lunch". (only in google ^^)
Struggle, struggle, work, work, work - when we die, we're gonna regret we haven't worked more...
 
Last edited:
enfp can be shy said:
O,rly? Let me guess, there's also "no free lunch". (only in google ^^)
Struggle, struggle, work, work, work - when we die, we're gonna regret we haven't work more...
Click to expand...
Or: Live within your means; find happiness in life, even if it isn't filled with an abundance of wealth and luxury; find happiness even in hardship, because there's something honorable and praiseworthy about fortitude and self-determination; learn to appreciate your family and friends more than your possessions; always be prudent; be charitable when you can and care for your neighbors who deserve compassion, but do it freely and not because you're commanded to by some bureaucratic decree.
 
Who gave anyone the means to live within, in the first place? It's never clear. What if someone is born within no means, or negative means. Shouldn't exist?

I also wonder, are members of the government administration better protected from its interference with their personal liberty? Why would they want to participate in something which makes their own lives so horrible? The government / state is made of other people of flesh, with real families, not some demons. What is their special gain in doing this, if it harms them?
 
If the idiots who've called in to C-Span all night represent our nation, we're a nation of idiots. Some people had interesting/educated opinions, but most people seemed to have no idea what they were talking about.
 
If this passes there will be hell to pay. I will not pay a dime. I would rather be killed by my government than pay them a red cent. They get enough of my money and they have squandered it all on bullshit programs that have gotten nowhere. Is anyone better off? The entire country is on the verge of an economic collapse and these idiots want to tax the hell out of us? I for one am done with both parties may they both burn in hell for the terrible things they have done to this country out of greed and power. They have corrupted the very fabric of American society and made it the norm. They are corrupt... The shinning moment will be when others realize they have been led into slavery by their own government. To enslave their lives to work for the government to pay taxes on their very own lives. To make carbon dioxide a poison which we all exhale? What lunacy..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top