BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND TWITTER BACKGROUNDS

Monday, March 22, 2010

Questions regarding Obamacare

For those of you who received yesterday’s news from the House of Representatives with celebration and rejoicing, I sure would love some accountability and serious responses to the following questions. Please, no pathos or obfuscations.

I hereby candidly but respectfully call you out! Your silence may speak volumes about your position.

1. Based on principle, how can you justify infringing on the inalienable rights of many in order to enhance what you consider to be the rights of others?

2. Defend the premise that free access or government mandated lower costs to health care are inalienable rights.

3. Given our current economic situation combined with our debt obligations to other countries and our total national debt, how do we pay for this? How will we pay for a single payer system, which is the president's desire and the desire of many others in power?

4. How is it not selfish and unconstitutional to require by law that everyone else satisfy your individual wants and needs regarding health care?

5. Just because advancements in medicine extend the average human life span longer than ever before, why should you or anyone else get free access to the benefits of those advancements when they were innovated and developed by the hard work of others?

6. How is it an infringement on someone's rights when those who provide medical care require compensation proportionate to their skill, experience, and expertise?

7. How is it not an infringement on someone's rights when the government requires you to purchase a service or product at the threat of penalties, fines, etc?

If you were bent on the passage of this bill, then I don't think some well thought out answers to these questions are too much to ask.

23 comments:

Scott said...

I'll be happy to give some answers to how I came to the decision to support health care reform.

1. "Based on principle, how can you justify infringing on the inalienable rights of many in order to enhance what you consider to be the rights of others?"

I don't see the "infringing on the inalienable rights of many" you speak of. To me, it is quite clear that we, as taxpayers, are being taken advantage of by both the government and the insurance companies. 16.2% of our GPD goes to health care. Of the wealthy nations, that is by far the most. The next closest country is Canada, who spends about 11%. Because we spend so much more, we obviously live longer, right? Well, our average life span is 78 years while Canada has us beat living to an average age of 80. I always thought, speaking strictly as if I were running a business, if you are spending more something which is substandard, you ditch that and find something else. To me, that is simple economics. For decades, the government has let this slide while falling behind to countries who recognize they could save their taxpayers money in the long run with this option. True, the bill which was passed leaves out the public option and is several light years from becoming an actualized Glenn Beck panic attack, but it is a step in the direction that lets the taxpayers know that while the free market works wonderful for most of the things in life, when it comes to human life, a person is more important than a profit margin.

2. "Defend the premise that free access or government mandated lower costs to health care are inalienable rights."

For many decades, the same question was raised about slavery and was the freedom of a man of color an inalienable right. Sadly, people still dispute this after over 150 years of it on the books. It's a simple matter of human decencey and morality that the government should step in and say that one person should not own another person. The same goes for health care. Imagine if your wife or one of your children gets cancer while you are in between jobs and your cobra ran out. You get a policy, but they see your family has caner history. The insurance company deems them not human beings, but liabilities which are simply not profitable. So, now you have to sell everything you own, go into hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt and destroy any hope of coming out the other side with more than the shirt on your back. Before this bill, that was the norm and if we didn't like it, we had no power to stop it. Like most things in the free market, if it doesn't work, we don't buy it. But how can you justify not buying insurance? This is why the free market philosophy doesn't work in this situation.

3. "Given our current economic situation combined with our debt obligations to other countries and our total national debt, how do we pay for this? How will we pay for a single payer system, which is the president's desire and the desire of many others in power?"

I view this as paying down a credit card. Remember that insane 16.2% of GDP we currently spend on health care? There is a 5% gap between what Canada pays and what we pay. That 5% would go a long way annually to paying off some of this debt we got ourselves in. Keep in mind, with this bill there is no single payer system, so that is a moot statement refering to what was just passed.

Scott said...

4. "How is it not selfish and unconstitutional to require by law that everyone else satisfy your individual wants and needs regarding health care?"

If by "individual wants and needs regarding health care" you mean that if suddenly my job gets eliminated and I am unable to find a new one when my COBRA ends, any pre-existing condition that I may have won't be used against me when I try to buy my own insurance plan. It's like people are trying to say "well, it was your choice to be born into a family with a history of heart disease, so either fork over your entire bank account or you can die while we laugh - your choice." Yeah, I'm kind of selfish that way when it comes to living.

5. "Just because advancements in medicine extend the average human life span longer than ever before, why should you or anyone else get free access to the benefits of those advancements when they were innovated and developed by the hard work of others?"

Just because advancement in police tactics to protect your civil rights and liberties have led to more swift and accurate enforcement of the laws of the land, why should you or anyone else get free access to the benefits of those advancements when they were innovated and developed by the hard work of others?

The ironic thing is that most of the scientific breakthroughs were backed by government grants, so since we payed for it, we should get at least a little something, right? :)

6. "How is it an infringement on someone's rights when those who provide medical care require compensation proportionate to their skill, experience, and expertise?"

I did not realize that this bill would reduce our doctors' salary to that of teachers. They are really only going to be making $30,000 per year? I think they should make at least enough to visit a doctor once a year.

All joking aside, I have a skill that I've worked long and hard for that I bet a lot of people don't have. I can identify many different types of wines blind, pair them extremely well with gourmet foods, and I know based on history, geography, geology, and vintage which wines will gain the most complexity with proper aging. This is a skill I've worked extremely hard to develop over the last 8 years and I am damn good at it. Do I deserve a $250,000 salary for that skill? I certainly think so. I have the schooling and the proper credentials for most all personal sommelier jobs and I've worked as hard on this as many doctors have on their respected degrees. We all think we're entitled, right? And just for the record, ask any doctor which would pair better with rosemary and lavander leg of lamb - 1989 DRC Echezeaux or 1999 Guigal Cote-Rotie.

7. "How is it not an infringement on someone's rights when the government requires you to purchase a service or product at the threat of penalties, fines, etc?"

Kind of like auto insurance? I mean, they require you to get that and if you don't, there's a fine. Look - I'm a good driver, just ask my wife. I've only had a couple fender benders and none were serious. Just trust me - I won't have an accident that involves you. Kind of like, if I get something contagious, I don't need insurance to go to the doctor. I'm a good sneezer and I promise not to sneeze that close to you.

These were fun questions to answer. Really made me think about these issues and I'm very confident in the idea of what we're trying to get accomplished. You keep alluding to the fact you don't believe that health care is an inalienable right. The way I've heard it explained by other neo-cons, it sounds like having health care should be kind of like dining at the French Laundry. If you can't afford it, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

mush said...

The government infringes on the rights of “evil” insurance companies when it mandates that they can’t discriminate against anyone when it comes to issuing policy. And again the argument that they see people as liabilities and not humans is so heavily based in pathos that it neglects the important fact that insurance companies simply can’t afford to cover the costs of everyone’s health care. Pretty soon there’s no insurance company left to which the infirm can file claims. As for Canada, their system is already in the business of rationing care. I’ll go bankrupt taking care of my needs and the needs of my family right now as opposed to waiting for services that may be too late once I’m deemed eligible to receive them then. If a person is more important than a profit margin, then what about the people in the insurance industry who will most certainly lose their jobs via this government expansion? That’s not hypothetical but fact given that no private entity can compete with one that doesn’t have to turn a profit. That’s one of the things I mean by restricting the rights of some because a government bureaucracy deems the supposed rights of others more important. We violate that principle, and we violate the principles upon which this country was founded.

It’s a non sequitur to link the rights once denied to persons based on race, and people having to pay for health care or being denied coverage. If someone’s wife or child gets cancer while he’s between jobs, then hopefully he applied for Medicaid as soon as he lost his job. Isn’t that the purpose of that government entitlement program anyway? Your argument here resounds the one by Obama when he says that no one should go bankrupt paying for health care. In my field of therapeutic expertise, this kind of statement is a cognitive distortion, a thinking error. It mirrors the same distortion people have that bad things shouldn’t happen to good people. No matter how much we affix ourselves to these beliefs and seek legislative change pursuant to them, bad things will still happen to good people. That’s the inevitability of life, but sound principles teach us what to do in spite of life’s unfairness.

This bill opens the door to single payer. That’s Obama’s priority, and that’s what he’s fighting for. He says were not going to get there in one fell swoop with this bill, but this is the start he and many others want. How else does he get Kucinich on board when Kucinich vows to never vote for a bill that omitted single payer? Look, I don’t want all the baggage that comes along with a system like Canada’s. And if Canada’s system is the subject of so much envy and adulation, why not just go there? I’ve always hated that argument, thinking it too simplistic, but why not? If Canada, England, etc are already engaged in these systems, why don’t the people who want it here just migrate? Isn’t that easier than changing the charter and framework of this country.

mush said...

Again, if you lose your job, then go straight to Medicaid. If there are problems with Medicaid, which there certainly are, then why not fix Medicaid? Why change the whole system? If 46,000 die each year from lack of coverage, then why not just foot their bill? It would be cheaper than changing the whole system.

By the analogy of being born with heart disease and the issue of slavery you mentioned earlier, are you willing to equate that birth defect with that of being born into a different race? Is it an unfair defect to be born black? Of course not. We don’t and never should discriminate against skin color, it being no defect, but insurance companies have to discriminate to some extent if they are going to remain in existence. You buy a policy to protect against catastrophe, not to fully fund your health care needs. The latter was never the purpose of insurance companies. If it was, we wouldn’t have any today. These companies are not bottomless wells of money. They have to turn a profit to prolong their own existences.

And so if discriminating against certain health defects is on the same level as discriminating based on race, then race is to be considered a defect with logical grounds for discrimination. Since being born into a different race is by no means a defect, then discrimination is unconscionable. A health defect may make you uninsurable, but it doesn’t keep you from fulfilling your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You’ve a weak logical connection between health care and police protection. The constitution provides for a police department to protect our rights from those who would take away our life, liberty, and right to pursue happiness. It does not and should not make provision to protect us when natural causes or otherwise make us sick and infirm. Look, people live, and people die, and they do so in my life and in everyone else’s. It sucks, but no amount of government intervention is going to change that inevitable reality. We do our best and make do.

You absolutely deserve compensation proportionate to your expertise, and if you can in the spirit of entrepreneurialism find a way to convert your expertise into a big pay day, then more power to you. But no, your expertise in your field of study doesn’t inherently entitle you to a doctor’s average salary. We rightly so place higher value on the skills and expertise in medicine over those that enhance our culinary experiences, and we naturally pay more for the former than the latter. If your pairing of the right wine with the meal I choose to eat cures my cold, then you’re on to something.

I’m pursuing a career as a school counselor and therapist, and I too am working hard and have worked hard to get there, but even I recognize and value the skill sets and expertise in other fields of intelligence over those in which I’m currently involved. I’m entitled to what I work for and earn, nothing more.

If I don’t buy auto insurance, I can choose not to drive but still find ways to get from point A to point B. However, if I don’t by health insurance under the current legislation, what other options do I have? None, hence the infringement.

Many on the left seem to have creating this straw man on the right that is blind to the plight and sufferings of those around him. It's just not true. However, our solutions are centered around certain principles, not the endless pursuit of trying to make life fair.

Parker said...

The United States has (had) the best healthcare system on the planet. The best doctors, nurses, researchers, and technology is here. This health care is provided to anyone who can or cannot pay for it. This bill was not about insuring the uninsured. If it was they could have used a fraction of the yet unspent stimulus plan money and subsidized insurance for all those who wanted but couldn't afford health insurance. No this bill was about power and expanding the federal government. If this bill were about lowering costs, it wouldn't cost so much. Interstate competition for insurance companies and tort reform would have lowered costs without spending a dime. The federal government has no standing in the constitution to mandate that Americans purchase anything. If this is not repealed--single payer in 5 years because there will be no more insurance companies. This is pure socialism and budding communism. Those aren't labels they are descriptors of policy, pure and simple. The United States of America and its constitution protects the God given rights of the individual, not the welfare of the collective. America is a place to take care of yourself, your family, and if you choose, your friends and neighbors. This bill strips liberty, erodes freedom, and limits success.

Scott said...

I didn't post to change your minds. They are made up and, I will admit, so is mine. We can go around and around like this, but I would rather find some common ground with your idealism. Let's start with this, shall we:

I believe in supporting people who work hard to achieve great things in their lives.

Let's start there and see where it leads.

Cheers!

annie said...

couple of things that bother me:
1. you think that this has to be black or white. you either agree with 100% or agree with 0%. I'm sorry, that is barely, if ever the case. might i reference the '04 election? lesser of two evils.
2. you seem to think that the longer your response and the bigger your words, the better your argument. i have to respectfully disagree.
here's how i see it:
my child is in remission from cancer. she is uninsurable. 6 weeks ago, i was pregnant. also uninsurable. my husband left his job last november. we are on COBRA--do you have any idea how much that costs us? well, i'll tell ya-$1100 a month.
so we've got a 2 year old with regular appointments with her oncologist, a pregnant woman with (as you know) lots of dr. appts. and an unemployed (now self-employed) "bread-winner".
please tell me that you can see why i think this is a good idea.
i do believe that is the right of every american to have health insurance. it is humane. it is fair. is this bill totally error free? no. but i am happy about it. only time will tell if i am wrong to feel that way.

The Ramjab L Tron said...

I also believe in supporting people who work hard to achieve great things in their lives.
I believe Hitler did some awful things.

mush said...

Annie, obviously this is an emotionally charged issue for you (and yes, I've done the COBRA thing with my family, and it sucks).

What does the way I present my argument have to do the issue? I don't use "big" words or lengthier responses for the sake of it or because I think I'll come off looking smarter with the better argument. I like to think through things and express my positions logically and based on principle so that I'm more easily understood. Because of your judgment of me in this regard, I think you are missing my points.

I guess I can see how in your situation you're highly influenced to tell principle and logic to shove it.

Of course I see why you or anyone in your position is excited about this legislation, but do you see why I'm not? And no, I don't see this as black and white in terms of a solution, but as far as federal government expansion is concerned, my position is clear.

Why not let the states and individual communities resolve these issues on their own? Why, if they're so concerned about your situation and the 46,000 that die every year from lack of coverage, why do we have to wait three more years to see the benefits of this legislation?

I understand you have a deep vested interest in this issue. That being the case, I invite and have always invited differing input in discussions about it and other political things. But I feel like every time you respond, you seem so angry and upset and then bow out so quickly. That's frustrating. I'm not your enemy! Given the geographical distance that separates us, I'm only a voice on the internet you disagree with, so why the heat?

Anyway, I hope that damn cancer stays in remission where it belongs. And as soon as I'm in my career and not so hand to mouth with things, I'd love to be a part of the effort to help with what ever financial obligations you still have with this thing.

annie said...

well, i can't blame you for assuming i am always so "angry and upset" when i discuss things with you because my interpretation is that you are always condescending and belittling to me.
my hope is that you have no idea that you are coming across that way, but that's how i read it and i respond accordingly. thus, the "anger and heat" that you interpret. sometimes, it's just plain ol' sass.
and make no mistake, i don't bow out because i feel like you made the better argument. but, i have no desire to go around in circles and when i feel like that's happening, i have to stop before i get dizzy. i know it's drives you crazy and rest assured that is not why i do it.
i think we both know what would happen if we left it to the states. i know it's totally debatable what's fair or unfair, but i hope you see my point that it just wouldn't work. this is a problem in our country as a whole and my opinion is it should be dealt with in that manner.
i can't say for certain that anyone in washington gives a damn about my situation or anyone else's situation. it is tragic that people will die while waiting for their pre-existing condition to not matter anymore, but it is still important to me that they aren't making children wait before they can get coverage and appropriate care.
luckily, the insane amount of money we pay for COBRA gets us some pretty decent coverage.

mush said...

Sucks to feel belittled or condescended to. Not in my darkest dreams would I want to do that to anyone.

Never thought you bowed out because you were conceding anything.

Why do you think it's a bad idea and are so sure it would end bad to turn responsibility over to individual states and communities?

I missed your point on that one.

annie said...

i think it is a logistical nightmare to make it a state by state decision. moving from state to state, visiting a different state and falling ill, the difference in options you would receive from state to state--it sounds like a colossal mess to me.
if it's a national problem, i think the question is why not deal with it on a national level.

and no, the reason i answer so promptly is not because i spend all day on the internet... alright, maybe it is...

Parker and Carly said...

"i do believe that is the right of every american to have health insurance. it is humane. it is fair."
How is it fair for the government to tax me to pay for the health care of someone else? The rights of Americans are spelled out in the constitution. They are granted to us by God and not by government. Health insurance is absolutely not a right, it is a privilege that you pay for. People that think this is a good idea don't want to take responsibility for themselves. They want to be dependents of the state and that is sad.

As I said above--tort reform and interstate competition for insurance companies would have expanded freedom and liberty and driven costs down. This bill robs people of their individual responsibility.

annie said...

"people that think this is a good idea don't want to take responsibility for themselves."
dude, you don't know me and clearly you didn't pay attention to anything else that was written.
i have done nothing but take responsibility for myself and for my family.
you are entitled to your opinion on the actual issue, but please spare me the ridiculous generalizations.

mush said...

When we put the government in charge of anything, we abdicate at least a portion of our individual responsibility and freedom. Even in all your efforts with all your adversity, on principle, that's still what you're doing.(no condescension intended by my use of the word abdicate)

And I'm not talking single payer in each of the states but rather allowances for the states to handle the welfare of their own people. And let the insurance companies compete across state lines. That alone would lower costs of policies without costing the tax payer anything or infringing on his or her rights.

annie said...

one of the government's jobs is to promote the general welfare of it's people. now i know you don't think this bill is going to do that, but the idea is that it will. therefore, doesn't this fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
i'm not going to pretend to know more about the intricacies of state and federal gov't than i actually do (which, to be fair, isn't a ton) but if the gov't left everything to the states, don't you think it would lead to individual states no longer desiring to work together and no longer desiring a greater good, but their individual advancement?

p.s. your attempt to avoid condescension kinda did the opposite--i know what abdicate means and i really have no problem with the words you chose to use.

nathansara said...

I may not be as well versed or or as cohesive in my arguments as any of the rest of you but I recently talked to a friend who grew up in Canada and while he said it was nice to not have to "pay" for health care he said that it was frustrating to have to schedule even routine procedures months in advance, and if you needed a specialist good luck. The "free" health care was also a misnomer in that his father was taxed at around 40%. High taxes is typical of nations with a socialized medical system.

This issue is a many headed monster with various causes and often devestating consequences for those we love. I feel frustrated with the resigned attitude of those who support this "reform" though. Its as if we couldn't do better so we'll content ourselves with the scraps. Shoot the horse, it will take to long to rehab the muscle. There has to be better solutions to these problems. None of which would involve the government (look at Amtrak, medicaid, medicare, social security, cash for clunkers, ect...) Lets fight for the right answer not just the "quick fix" (three years? Really?)And honestly, the attitude from Washington is the problem here not so much the healthcare reform.

I've never been really political, but the events of the last year have driven me to consider more closely my role in making sure this country goes in a good direction. I am not registered republican or democrat (still not sure if those 2 groups are most of the problem or not) but I am going to try to be more responsible with who I support for local and national government. The Lesser of two evils is not an option anymore, as a citizen I have a responsibility to elect good people who listen to their constituents. Yes, lets fix the problems, but lets do it right.
I don't support this reform, mostly because I felt railroaded into it, but do I agree that there are problems that need fixing.

mush said...

Can't I catch a break? I was joking around with saying no condescension intended with the use of the word abdicate. You hounded me for using big words, so I was poking fun at myself for using what I thought was another big word. I wasn't even thinking about whether or not it was a word you knew.

You are right when you say the constitution tells the fed to provide the general welfare of the people, but as far as states are concerned, it communicates that any power not expressly given to the fed is reserved for the states. I don't think we'd see the kind of troubles they saw under the articles of confederation. If the fed does its job as outlined in the constitution, not leaving everything to the states, then unity prevails.

annie said...

really sorry. i usually can tell when you're kidding. i really didn't think you were. my bad, dude.

The Ramjab L Tron said...

"one of the government's jobs is to promote the general welfare of it's people."

I think there is a difference between promote and ensure. How's that for condescending? :) Just kidding if you can't tell.

annie said...

Marshall,
I think it's important that you know that I am listening to you. I think that you probably think I'm not, but I am.
I don't believe health care should be free--I do believe it should be affordable. Accessible. When I say it's the right of every american to have it, I mean they should have access to it, and with the way things are now, some people just don't.

I feel like I need to admit that I have no idea if this is going to be the best idea for America. I don't know what the repercussions are if it doesn't work and not knowing is terrifying in general. That said, I do not agree with fear mongering and it is everywhere. I can't live my life terrified. I've done that already. I have to hope that this is best because there are things in this bill that can help my family. Particularly my little girl.
So, I'm sorry. Sorry if I'm coming across angry all the time. But the fact is, I am angry. Without getting into a super long explanation, I feel like my family has been blessed beyond measure and totally screwed. Blessed b/c my daughter received excellent care at Duke and for that reason, she is alive today. Screwed because we are practically bankrupting ourselves to keep her insured.
I want a change. I need a change. And I need to feel hopeful that there is one.

Please don't feel like you have to respond, I just feel like I may have offended you during all this and I didn't mean to. I feel like you deserve to know where I'm coming from without it being laced with sarcasm.

Parker and Carly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Parker and Carly said...

Annie, You have taken personal responsibility for your family. Why do you want to stop? It sounds like your family has had some challenges. How does that justify the federal government shifting the responsibility from you to people like me who will be paying for all this? As you said, I don't know you. Why should I be forced to provide for you? There are plenty of people to whom I would gladly donate money to if they needed help, but to forcibly take whatever wealth I have and "spread it around" is at the very core of Marxism. Again, how is that fair?