Bend Over – Here It Comes Again
We have seen our nation in turmoil. The thirties was nothing to sneeze at as the depression lasted eight years longer then necessary. Today we have a different beast in office. The one now is far worse than the one we had back then. Yes I am referring to Mr. Obama and his administration.
In the thirties people lost approx 0.3 percent of the general wealth in this nation. During this fiasco we have lost over 26 percent in this decade. In the thirties, the government plan only affected 1.2 percent of the nations GDP. During this fiasco, the health care alone affects 6 percent of GDP. In the thirties, the government printed half again the amount of money in circulation. In this fiasco, the government has already doubled the supply. In the thirties, the national debt increased by approx 75 percent. In this fiasco, we have increased our national debt by 300 percent. How are we better off this time around?
While the health care reform bill is not yet signed it certainly looks like dim hope for the American people. We are about to take one where the sun does not shine. I sure hope the people have their protection on because this one is going to hurt for a long time to come. Anyone who thinks what is being proposed is good for the country needs to learn a lot more about what is going on. Anyone who thinks it will be better than universal health care in other countries really need to open thier eyes.
Once this passes, we will be required to pay taxes on it. However, no one will be able to use the health care bill changes until 2014. That means we are paying for it now but cannot use it for four years. Does this even sound right to anyone? That is akin to you purchasing a house, paying for it for the next four years while someone lives in it before you can claim it is your house. If you truly believe this is OK, please contact me, I have a house I would like to sell to you.
Why is it so important that we pay money now and not receive services for four years. The answer is really simple. Tax revenue. The monies collected do NOT go toward health care, if they did you would receive the services right away, they will go toward the general fund. The same fund all your other taxes get pooled into so that the government can do anything it wants with them.
Have you ever wondered why these things are taking place at night, in the dead of winter, with a push to get it all done right away. The answer is simple again. Congress knows you are busy with Christmas and all that. They are hoping that you are so busy with it that you are not paying attention to what is going on in Washington. They are so sneaky about what they are doing they will have a vote for this bill on Christmas Eve.
The secret negotiations that were carrying on should be worrying everyone. The ones that come to light right away are the ones for the senators that were holding out. The 100 million given to Landrieu (D-La) and the 45 million per year forever that is going to Nelson (D-NE) are the two I can think of right away. I wonder what Lieberman received for his vote. How many other back room deals were made to seal this deal?
There has been so much going on in secret that Obama is actually being sued over it. Larry Klayman, the guy who fought corruption in the Clinton Administration, is now suing President Obama to make those deals known to the public. He is the one that bought to light all the back room deals that shut down the Clinton health care reform and he is at it again with this administration. I only fear that he is too late.
Downsize DC has long been calling for a Read The Bills Act. An act, that would require every line of a bill to be read. Congress has refused to pass such an act. Why? Because they realize that if they passed it and voted on a bill that wasn’t read they could be held accountable. I find it hard to believe that in all the back room deals, debates etc that anyone even had time to read the more then 2,000 pages of legislation (let alone the 700 pages of amendments) to the health care bill.
It will be very unfortunate for us if this bill passes. Be prepared to have stuff outsourced to other countries. Be prepared for the long lines, red tape and for other people to make your medical decisions for you. Be prepared to pay for insurance three times now. Yes, three – once for your private insurance, once for the Medicare/Medicaid and now for the new health care as well. If that doesn’t worry think of it this way, you are paying for three insurance policies for the rest of your life but you can only use one. If you think this is good, I am glad you can afford to pay for three polices and only use one, would you like to pay for mine as well?
Yours in Liberty
yes we are in crisis. nice summation on our general economic woes due to government mismanagement and malfeasance. it is also good that you help in spreading information about the disgraceful- unconstitutional,discriminatory, disgusting, unconscionable actions undertaken to pass this filth on to the american people involuntarily. to this i add the observation that i read elsewhere that they are attempting(at least in the senate) not only to compel you to buy insurance but even to make that section nearly unable to be amended, and they have the gall to call this thing a christmas present(nancy pelosi) to the american people as though these arrogant bastards should be thanked for it. i hope that this article– (and comments thereto) in addition to other worthy postings in this blog as well as similar blogs or other dissemination of facts and methods that promote liberty and help challenge the out of control maladministration we are currently suffering– gets the wide exposure and positive response so urgently needed. if we can stop this train wreck that would be fabulous. if we fail(1) it must not be for lack of trying –efforts like this , the tea parties, and the pink slip campaign being notable attempts to stop this insanity (2) the message must continue to spread (3) efforts at repeal, judicial overturn, removing these gangsters from office and any part of –our yet to be restored(but unfortunately due to actions of assorted fiends badly damaged)–republic (4) throw them all out (except ron paul) beginning 2010 (2012 and 2014 each have other thirds of the senate, 2012 is the presidential election read–obama out)
there are those of us who have no intention to buy the mandatory insurance. how to effect that action (civil disobedience to oppressive, insane,unjust, unconscionable,unconstitutional so-called law) with maximum impact and minimal risk is another subject that will (unfortunately all too likely) be required information should this insane travesty, sham legislation pass.
Jimk,
Socialized Medicine is good thing:
It will ensure that insurance companies will no longer be able to ration access to health care by denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions or applying differential pricing for these people and that the creation of a public plan will add to choice of access route.
Further, government involvement in health care would reduce costs not just because of the exercise of monopsony power, e.g. in drug purchasing, but also because it eliminates profit margins and administrative overhead associated with private insurance, and because it can make use of economies of scale in administration. In certain circumstances, a volume purchaser may be able to guarantee sufficient volume to reduce overall prices while providing greater profitability to the seller, such as in so-called ‘purchase commitment’ programs. For example, Economist Arnold Kling attributes the present cost crisis mainly to the practice of what he calls “premium medicine,” which overuses expensive forms of technology that is of marginal or no proven benefit.
Don’t fight it. The facts are the facts and the facts are for socialized medicine. The truth is the truth. The truth is for socialized medicine.
Lptbruce,
Don’t forget what Obama says:
“We must fix a broken health care system to do what’s right for America and renew our economy — individuals and businesses can no longer afford the crippling cost of health coverage, and millions of Americans have no coverage at all. Health insurance must work for people and businesses, not just insurance and drug companies.”
So yes, we are in a crisis, what what we have to recognize is that Obama does have the answers. Obama went to Harvard as well!
Jonathan,
You are a dork, sarcasm will get you everywhere. If I thought for one minute you were really in favor of socialized medicine, I would come to your house and kick your butt for being so stupid and claiming that you were Libertarian – LOL.
Since you want to seem to take up the devil advocates banner on this one, how do you justify the payoff of Nelson? Once this bill passes, the state of Nebraska will not have to pay any Medicare of Medicaid costs any longer. That means they get the 45 million in savings and the rest of us in other states have to pick up that tab.
How is FORCING the rest of us to pay for his states expenses Libertarian in nature? You cannot even claim that I have any representatives in that state who are taking up my side of the argument; all of them are in Florida. Is this the beginning of the end as the cry “No taxation without representation” becomes familiar again?
Facts are facts, truth is truth. You are correct. The facts show that even though 56 percent of Americans in the polls are against this bill – our congressional critters do not give a damn about representing us any longer – it is likely to be passed. Yes that is a fact. When it does get passed, then socialized medicine will also be a fact.
Of course, so will the long lines, so will the process of government telling you what you can and cannot get, and so will the additional costs that will be coming out of your pocket to support the others who refuse to pay for it. Yes- they are all facts. And I hope that anyone who wants this will be stuck paying the lion’s share because they believe in it so much.
As for me, I will try to find a way around it or else I will just join the ban wagon like the rest of them. If I do, I would encourage every single person in the country to follow my suit. We should all drop our private insurance. Every single one of us should get out of coverage from the private side of things; this will force a public option. Then all of us should get into that public option. Of course, when this happens, the truth about how it can never be fully supported will become readily apparent in about six months.
People say that government involvement in health care will reduce costs. So, let us see if you can answer one simple question. If it is going to cost less for health care, why are we going to have to pay more money for it on an individual basis? If the healthcare industry is six percent of our GDP, and that money is currently funded by individuals, why is the government going to raise individual taxes to cover healthcare cost that will supposedly be decreasing to something less than six percent of GDP?
You say that individuals and businesses can no longer afford the costs of health care. OK, so let us remove individuals and business from the equation. Now where does the money come from? Obviously it must come from somewhere. As far as the government is concerned it WILL come from individuals and businesses. They will steal it from them in the name of taxes and redistribute it to someone else. So then what we really have is individuals and businesses, as you claim, that cannot afford health care, being charged even more money for something they cannot already afford. Really makes a lot of sense huh?
You are right Obama has answers. I think we should all follow what he says and do exactly as he claims.
Since he wants to cover ALL the uninsured people, I think we should all give up our private insurance and become uninsured, and then see what happens.
Since he wants to use monies to create jobs where it does the most political good, I think we should all quit our private sector jobs and everyone should get on the government payroll and then see what happens.
Since he wants to nationalize the banks and car industry and insurance industry, I think we should just nationalize every single business in the country, and then see what happens.
They can print all the money they want so it should be no problem for them to make payroll or solve any problems. It is their MO isn’t it; throw more money at it all the time. Well, by golly let us do that for 100% of everything in America and then see what happens.
I realize that this will not come about soon but like in previous conversations, take the truth to the extremes and see if it still holds water. For all those who think what is being proposed, take my extreme example and see if the country can withstand the onslaught. Although it has been tried in many countries, it has never succeeded to any great length. Perhaps Cuba is one of the better examples. Maybe you can go live in Cuba for a few years and see how good it is then do a comparison and see tell the rest of us what you found.
Jimk,
How do you know we would be paying more than we are now for the public option? References, examples, statistics?
Why is nationalizing an industry a bad idea? It assures the industry will always belong to government and hence the people – instead of the private sector outsourcing the industry, allowing it to become in control of another nation.
You never answered the net benefit to the public option that proposes insurance companies will no longer be able to ration access to health care by denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions or apply differential pricing for these people.
You also never answered the net benefit to the public option that proposes government involvement in health care would reduce costs not just because of the exercise of monopsony power,
[[which is a market form in which only one buyer faces many sellers. It is an example of imperfect competition, similar to a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers.]]
e.g. in drug purchasing, but also because it eliminates profit margins and administrative overhead associated with private insurance, and because it can make use of economies of scale in administration. Wouldn’t it be nice if health care was driven by joy of maximizing one’s health instead by a profit motive – at the same being hindered by bureaucratic micromanaging administrations.
Health care costs are two high. Obama realizes this and can solve this problem by understanding Economist Arnold Kling’s contention: “I attribute the present cost crisis mainly to the practice of what he calls “premium medicine,” which overuses expensive forms of technology that is of marginal or no proven benefit.”
Jonathan,
I don’t need to give any statistics. The government themselves tell you it will cost 1.4 trillion bucks across the next ten years. If it is a decrease in cost, how come it is going to cost us money instead of saving money and decreasing the deficit?
I never said nationalization was a bad idea. We should nationalize it all. It works absolutely, perfectly, great. Look at East Germany, Russia and Cuba as perfect examples of what you are talking about. It worked great there also. In Germany, the wall is still up and their government owns everything. In Russia, there are no states that broke apart from the USSR, they all are still part of it and the government still runs it all. It still works great in Cuba too. There is not one single person leaving Cuba and running to America because life is so wonderful in Cuba.
Insurance companies don’t need to ration anything. That’s a very great benefit. If you have the money you should be able to pay for anything you want on the free market. Except, of course, when it is run by the government, then you will have to stand in line and wait like everyone else unless you are the one in charge. It wont be rationed you just have to wait five or six years for a heart or liver transplant. It doesn’t matter if you die waiting, after all, government regulations say you wait and we cannot go against those regulations.
What is the difference between reduce costs and not having to pay more? See response in first paragraph regarding this issue.
High cost is not because the technology is high. It is because the government doesn’t allow lower costs to take place. For instance, we subsidize drug companies and put many restrictions on what they sell to the public by forcing them to meet FDA approval etc. We cannot even import lower costs drugs from other countries. So while we may pay $23.00 for one drug in America, we could get the same drug in a different country for $6.00.
This type of stuff is prevalent throughout the medical industry. I don’t have to tell you this. You see, you are in the field and you can tell what it is going on.
Just for the record, I am not against a single payer system so long as 100% of the people get 100% of coverage 100% of the time. If we are going to go to that type of system then that means there is supposed to be competition. Competition is a remnant of the free market not a government controlled market where they can create monopolies that work toward “political good” rather then “public good”.
I am glad that Obama and his ilk have found a solution. Now, we all just need to get on board with the program. Everyone should stop paying their private insurance. Everyone should get on the government plan and let Obama help them. Even you should do it. Tell your dad you don’t want to be covered by his insurance anymore and join the Obama plan. It is wonderful. You would love the benefits of his health care plan.
Oh, as a side note, if we all dropped our private insurance, then all the things you say are bad about them would disappear. I mean, if no one is paying for it then the insurance companies wouldn’t exist any more so all the problems go away right? That should be a great to bring about the reality of Obama’s plan. You should encourage everyone to do it too.
Jimk,
Your still non-responsive to how you know it would cost me more to pay for the public option rather than a standard private health insurance policy. What does it matter that government will be paying x amount of dollars for the public option. What if that x amount of dollars is less than the Y amount of dollars citizens pay for private health care.
and
You say nationalizing industry is bad by citing unsuccessful countries like Cuba and the USSR, yet this is unresponsive. Which industries did Cuba and the USSR industrialize? How did this industrialization lead to the these countries down their unsuccessful paths?
Jonathan,
You are being a real dork with this question aren’t you? OK, maybe I shouldn’t say that. Maybe you really are too dense to understand. First, are you paying for private insurance? If so that cost is X. Second will you be paying for government insurance, the answer is yes, through taxes as they themselves state. That cost will be Y. Now if you can prove to me that X dollars coming out of your pocket plus Y dollars coming out of you pocket is equal to less then X dollars I might believe you have an argument.
Mathematically, in your terms, that would mean X + Y = <X. I don’t see how this is possible if both X plus Y is being removed from your pocket. For this to be true you would have to get a rebate. Based on the idea that taxes are removed I don’t see the government giving you money to take their insurance – do you?
You ask what if the government’s Y is less then the private insurance cost of X. Yeah what if it is. That’s still X plus Y coming out of your pocket. If X is 100 for your private insurance and Y is 50 for the government insurance, that’s still 150 out of your pocket. How is 150 less than 100?
So hopefully, you understand what this means and you quit being idiotic with things like “you are being non responsive”. Out of respect, I give you some level of intelligence. I would expect you to use it. If you want me to treat you like an idiot say so.
I didn’t say nationalization was bad; I said it was great and we should do it. I never said those countries failed, I said their nationalization works great and we should follow them. I at least I thought that’s what I said; we should follow them and nationalize it all. Did I say something other then that?
More over, I was being sarcastic, as you were. Again, a little intelligence use here, unless you really want to get into a chastising mode against each other over nothing.
jim k said “And I hope that anyone who wants this will be stuck paying the lion’s share because they believe in it so much.” i couldn’t agree more.
jonathan says ” Economist Arnold Kling’s contention: “I attribute the present cost crisis mainly to the practice of what he calls “premium medicine,” which overuses expensive forms of technology that is of marginal or no proven benefit.” i say this is related to our over litigious sociey and is part of the reality of government run amok.
jim k says ” High cost is not because the technology is high. It is because the government doesn’t allow lower costs to take place. For instance, we subsidize drug companies and put many restrictions on what they sell to the public by forcing them to meet FDA approval etc. We cannot even import lower costs drugs from other countries. So while we may pay $23.00 for one drug in America, we could get the same drug in a different country for $6.00.
This type of stuff is prevalent throughout the medical industry. I don’t have to tell you this. You see, you are in the field and you can tell what it is going on.
Just for the record, I am not against a single payer system so long as 100% of the people get 100% of coverage 100% of the time. If we are going to go to that type of system then that means there is supposed to be competition. Competition is a remnant of the free market not a government controlled market where they can create monopolies that work toward “political good” rather then “public good”.
i agree with jim k on the above except for any ok of the single payer set up. however the qualifications for 100% MUST include Congress, The President, Court etc — and none of whom under any circumstance to be favored or allowed treatment denied the rest of us.
JImk,
In a world with the public option, x would be removed from the model you described above…hence, people would not buy private insurance and be paying the taxes for the public option. So, you are unresponsive in that regard. Please don’t take me saying unresponsive as me being “dense”, or “idiotic”. I’m just trying to expand the discussion here to my satisfaction. If you were running for Governor, and you were in a debate with a democrat whom is bringing up the points I am here, your not going to called him dense and an idiotic for arguing standard points supporters of the public option are making – for you will surely loose the debate and look like you have no idea what your talking about.
There is no chastising mode mode here – everything here is in good fun and education.
So, I know you were being sarcastic with your nationalization response – but all sarcasm aside, you are against nationalization, correct? And you argue that nationalization is bad because of unsuccessful countries like Cuba and the USSR, correct? Yet, this is non responsive in that you don’t explain which industries Cuba and the USSR industrialize and how this industrialization lead these countries down their unsuccessful paths?
Remember, you don’t have to answer if my devil’s advocate tone is making you upset. I’m just having fun. If you wanna answer, do it with a smile!!!
jonathan i know that you had the opportunity through time to get educated as to many real facts via jim k (and for that matter to a degree through your affiliation with libertarians, generally). you are lucky to have had that mentoring and the knowledge thus acquired. in addition i know that you train for debates and i guess have some means of researching various legal cases (school, the net, a network of people that are in the know, etc), opinions, precedents and so forth. you may (or may not) some day practice law. in any event remember statist thug lawyers virtually grow on trees or in the pond scum. libertarian/voluntaryist oriented lawyers are the rare jewel. now it is good to hone your skills arguing both sides of an issue. that skill development is commendable. what i have been finding worrisome of late is that it has been seeming that your focus has gone over to the dark side (of the force). i surely hope (in the above last statement) that i am wrong.
Lptbruce,
Not to worry, jonathan has not gone to the dark side, he I splaying devils advocate to get some thought provoking conversations started. He is actually doing a great job of it until he makes it personal – LOL. I am glad he is putting these articles here as it gives us a chance to throw idea together and hash things out in a public forum. He is doing us a favor at times taking on the role we ourselves are not prepared to play.
Lptbruce,
Hahaha, thank you. I do value Jimk’s mentoring, I have learned a lot, and it is good to learn how to argue both sides of an issues.
However, don’t worry about me crossing to the dark side just because I am arguing for the other side – like you said, we need to learn to argue both sides of an issue. As of now, libertarianviewpoint.com does not have too much traffic flow, leaving all the arguments and discussions pretty one-sided. I don’t like one-sided. So, I threw a little something something into the mix to expand the discussion.
I am very much a Libertarian or Libertarian Constitutionalist.
Jimk!!! I’m not making it personal!!! Promise! I swear I am not trying to sound like a jerk! Its just debater rhetoric lol.
Jonathan,
OK –if you want to play it that way I will see what I can find out for you so that you don’t think I am being “non responsive”. In the mean time I guess I can ask you the same type of questions then correct?
You state:
It will ensure that insurance companies will no longer be able to ration access to health care by denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions or applying differential pricing for these people and that the creation of a public plan will add to choice of access route.
If I understand this correctly, then it’s the same thing as saying that if I am handicap, every single car company needs to supply me with a method for me to use their car and they all have to cost the same. Car Company being insurance company, handling my handicap being the medical service, and no price differential being your requirement. Does this happen today? If not, are you going to go after the car companies to make it happen? If you don’t, they why would you go after the insurance companies? Are you just going after the insurance companies because you want to go with the flow or is there a real reason why you would single out one industry over another? If you are making laws to single out just one industry and exempt another, then it Is not really a valid law since justice is supposed to be blind.
You state:
In a world with the public option, x would be removed from the model you described above…hence
This is not true. When I wrote the article I was speaking of America and the health care reform debate going on right now – I was not speaking of some hypothetical world as you imply. In America, under the current reform being considered, there is private insurance, which we will be “allowed” to keep, and public taxes we will have to pay, for those without insurance. So, yes, you are paying more out of your pocket.
Not withstanding the fact that anything the government does always costs three times as much as originally planned, always hurts the ones it is supposed to help and becomes a burden on the taxpayer that for some reason never seems to go away. If you want proof of those facts, go look them up yourself, I am not gong to spend my days looking for stuff you should already know.
If I was running for governor, yes, I would call my opponent an idiot if he was acting or talking like one, because he would be one. However, I wouldn’t be using sarcastic stuff in my debates for him to take the wrong way either.
I didn’t realize that we were supposed to be in a debate here. I tried to use a little friendly humor and sarcasm like you but evidently it is only supposed to be done by you and no one else. Sorry for not understanding that point, I will keep that in mind from now on.
hahaha, I accept your apology for not understanding that point…haha
just dont make the same mistake again
LOL
Jimk!
Question, can you respond to this person’s argument please? Her argument reads:
“You bring up a lot of good points. I respectfully disagree with most of them. As an environmental engineer, I have seen that it is sometimes necessary for an authority to regulate the behaviors of parties who do not wish to act in the interest of society by polluting common spaces. This is one of the main purposes of any government — to protect its citizens from harm. In this particular scenario, insurance companies have decisively chosen not to act in the interest of human welfare in favor of maximizing profits. This is an unjust system that must be fixed. Because I see access to medical care as a right, rather than a privilege, I believe that the American government is the only realistic authority to which we can entrust this service to society. Perhaps if insurance companies were run as non-profit agencies, that would be best since they already have the infrastructure in place to do that type of work. However, you are correct in saying that we don’t live in a fantasy land where all ideas are perfectly created and perfectly executed. The point here is that private insurance companies continue to discriminate against people and violate their contractual obligations because their main goal is profit. Therefore, the incentives of the business must be changed or the party responsible for health care must be changed.
Okay, now I will respond to your argument line by line.
{{{However, isn’t there an inherent danger in the proliferation of government controlled industries (in a sense, socialism?), does that not curtail the freedom of the American people?}}}}
I don’t know if you can make a general statement about the effect of the proliferation (or contraction) of government services. For example, the creation of national parks by Theodore Roosevelt was “good” for everyone who breathes oxygen. However, this act was best for the interests of scientists and tourists but worst for the interests of loggers and farmers.
I don’t see a danger from government. I see danger from a system that is run without proper oversight. This danger can occur within government or within a corporation.
As for curtailing freedom, to what freedom are you referring? For example, fire codes curtail design freedom of buildings but keep people from dying needlessly. You could keep more of your money and design a much cheaper building without sprinkler systems but at what cost to all of the workers in the building? The insurance companies have already taken away my freedom to live an otherwise healthy life. Do you see this as a more just system than the one we are trying to create?
{{{Will this new bill not put your health decisions in the hands of the government?}}}
Medicare, Medicaid and the various GI bills are completely run by the government and have served our citizens well for generations. The EPA and FDA already regulate the chemicals that are imported and distributed in our stores that we use every day in our homes. Would you rather have your health care decisions made by a government worker whose reputation and salary rests on the public or by an insurance bureaucrat whose reputation and salary rests on turning a profit at all costs?
{{{Does this new bill not discourage continued research into medicine?}}}
The National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), all American government agencies, award more money for medical research than any other public or private groups in the world. Do you know of any insurance companies that directly support or promote scientific research, even on a fraction of this scale? The only type of information insurance companies are interested in is financial cost/benefit analysis to increase their profit margins.
{{{The fact is that universal health care is a matter of economics as much as policy.}}}
I agree. It is in the direct interest of the government to maintain the health of its workforce. It is in the direct interest of an insurance company for its consumers to become ill to a certain point so that all annual deductibles are paid but not greatly exceeded. ”
Thanks Jimk,
Appreciate your perspective
sorry, continuation:
the following is her responding to my friend – my friends’s arguments are in the quotes – she is responding on a line by line basis still
” I see this as a reckless play by the powers that be for increased control over this country. As with most situations, less (government) is more (for us)!! ”
More for whom? I don’t understand your slogan. Can you please expand this thought.
“…and the word equality always is a sore point. If everyone were “equal”, nobody would be exceptional or special. We would be clones of each other. The Constitution grants us “equal rights” or opportunities, but much of what we have in life is a PRIVILEGE.”
The Declaration of Independence states “that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Life, itself is not a privilege. It is an unalienable right. Therefore, it follows that citizens have a right to health care. Health care should not be discriminatory, especially against the sick and chronically ill.
“I take issue with increased insurance premiums and taxes to foot the bill for the next person.”
Given that the majority of the American population holds Judeo-Christian beliefs based on the Bible, I think a lot of people would disagree with your opinion. A central question of the Bible is “Am I my brother’s keeper?” and all of the allegories are written as an affirmative to that question. Jesus healed the sick and did not ask for an insurance card before doing so. 44,000 Americans die needlessly every year due to lack of health insurance. (American Journal of Public Health, http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/).
That’s startling and disgusting. Is the expectation of profit more sacred than these lost lives? No.
Even if you do not want to consider the moral or ethical arguments, the economic argument is in favor of reform. A Thompson-Reuters report written by Robert Kelley found that “the U.S. health care system wastes between $505 billion and $850 billion every year.”
This waste is on par with the entire United States annual military budget, including two major wars. Getting rid of the profit incentive and the duplicate bureaucracies would solve the apparent economic shortage for health care.
“That is not to say I don’t have a personal conviction for altruism, because I believe that to be one of the most valuable characteristics in a human, but I don’t want a government mandate of an equal playing field.”
The government mandates that every driver has car insurance. Are people less important than their cars?
Jonathan,
Wow – there is a lot here. I guess I better get going LOL.
First, it is stated, “This is one of the main purposes of any government — to protect its citizens from harm.” This is definitely NOT true. The purpose of government is NOT to protect its people from harm. The purpose of government is to protect its people rights from being trampled upon. This means that the government is there to stop people/companies/entities etc from using force or fraud against its people – well – at least in America. So laws that are created to stop the initiation of force or fraud are OK.
That being said, if the laws she is talking about are regulating against the use of force or fraud toward the citizens. Then yes, they are OK. Are they doing that?
She stated, “In this particular scenario, insurance companies have decisively chosen not to act in the interest of human welfare in favor of maximizing profits.” What exactly is she talking about here? Is she implying that having insurance is a “right”? What kind of crap is that? The only reason she recognizes insurance companies at all is because they exist and are assuming the risk. Anyone who uses them is transferring risk to that company and paying for such a service. Those fees charged are based on statistical analysis of costs across a lifetime based on risk assumed.
While there is some profit involved at the time of sale, it is minimal to the company and barely enough to cover operating costs. The insurance company does NOT make much money off the policy it sells. Insurance companies make money when they reinvest the funds elsewhere as they are not being used. So, here, if you were paying 100 bucks a month for insurance and never went to the doctor, the insurance company takes that money and invests it until it is needed. Make sure she gets her profitability facts correct.
She states, “Perhaps if insurance companies were run as non-profit agencies, that would be best”. I hope she isn’t serious here. There is not a single non-profit entity I can think of that will assume risks financial risks for anyone. It would be impossible for this to happen as a non-profit cannot make any money to cover other peoples risk…they MUST shed their money by law and have no means to save, gain profit or redistribute anything except what they receive. If I were to give my 100 bucks a month to them, by the end of the year that money MUST be gone from the non-profit coffers. Not so with insurance companies. That is what allows them build up their coffers and lets them assume more risk at lower costs then you or I. Making insurance companies non-profit will never work. They would be doomed to fail as one.
The closest possible thing to non-profit with the ability to assume risk is the government. And they can only do it with theft. People may call it taxes and what not, but yes, it is still theft. Judging by the way the deficit is building, they are going to have to steal even more form us to cover their idiotic new deals that seem to be a never ending flow from the current administration. This health care bill alone is estimated at 1.4 trillion by government accounts. Where is that money going to come from? You got it – their legalized theft. They assume NO RISK.
She states, “The point here is that private insurance companies continue to discriminate against people and violate their contractual obligations because their main goal is profit.” To which I state.
The greater the risk the greater the reward; if she wants to call reward profitability – let her. Just make sure she gets her facts straight. The profit did NOT come from the policy sold, as she seems to think it does.
Ask her this; what gives her the right to demand I pay for her kids insurance if she doesn’t pay for it herself? Why the hell should I pay for her kids I do not even know them.
Her nonsense about the state parks is crap. Government will only spend money where it does the most POLITICAL good. Can the BS about the parks. If she wants to argue this garbage ask her something pertaining to the subject. For instance, Nelson got a deal for Nevada where the federal government picks up the Medicare/Medicaid cost for Nevada in perpetuity in order to get Nelson to vote for the Health Care Bill. In other words, he won a bribe. Now the people in all the other states will have to pay that bill.
If the bill she likes so much is so perfectly wonderful, why are they bribing Senators in order to win their vote? Why are they having secret meetings and back room deals to get this vote done and passed? The president is being sued over these stuff and at least nine other states attorney generals are looking into whether or not the deal in Nevada is Constitutional.
She states, “I don’t see a danger from government. I see danger from a system that is run without proper oversight. This danger can occur within government or within a corporation.” This is true, with one minor difference between the two of them. If a corporation does it and gets caught you can take them to court and get your money back. If the government does it – you are screwed. The danger DOES come from the government, they have the guns, the jails, the laws etc. If she cannot see that she is blind and need to get her eyes examined.
Her rambling about fire codes is preposterous. Ask her to prove it. She must have statistics that show how many lives were saved with fire codes compared to how many were lost without them. That is a bunch of crock. The fire codes were pushed through Congress by insurance lobbyist, so that a law could be created. With that law in place, they do not have to pay for damages if the building did not meet code. This was done to help mitigate some of the risk the insurance companies take. She has it all backwards. She thinks the insurance companies take away our freedoms to live via costs but that’s not how it is done. It is done via law; the very law she says is great to have.
She says “Medicare, Medicaid and the various GI bills are completely run by the government and have served our citizens well for generations. The EPA and FDA already regulate the chemicals that are imported and distributed in our stores that we use every day in our homes. Would you rather have your health care decisions made by a government worker whose reputation and salary rests on the public or by an insurance bureaucrat whose reputation and salary rests on turning a profit at all costs?” Wow, in one part she says its great then the next she says it’s a problem. Go figure. Do not the government worker whose reputation and salary rests on the public also run the Medicaid, Medicare and GI facilities she is touting. She is right that these have all been serving the public for years – and each one of them is a dismal failure and in the red ink. Just how is another government run insurance program going to be any different. Jesus Christ, are people really this stupid they don’t even connect the dots in their own sentences? Tell her to wake up.
She states, “The National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), all American government agencies, award more money for medical research than any other public or private groups in the world. Do you know of any insurance companies that directly support or promote scientific research, even on a fraction of this scale? The only type of information insurance companies are interested in is financial cost/benefit analysis to increase their profit margins” First of all, these government agencies are NOT profitable agencies. They exist yes, but they give away OUR money collected through taxes. In other words its not their money so they don’t care how much of it they give away, all they have to do is up taxes to cover the short fall. Not very economically sound. Any private company doing this would be fired, bankrupt and out of business within the first year.
Insurance companies do not give money away because they need it to cover the risks they assume. They do not collect enough through policies, so they invest elsewhere to make up the difference. ALL private companies are interested in cost/benefit analysis and profit. Without that interest they will NOT remain in business. What is this woman, a communist? Does she want everything to be government run? If she wants government health care so badly, tell her to go to England where she can get to wait for eight weeks to see her dentist when she has a toothache. Suffer through that pain and then come back and tell me how much wonderful it is then having private insurance where you can walk in and get a fix in one day instead of eight weeks.
Universal health care is NOT a matter of economics as much as policy. You are both wrong in this respect. Universal health care is THEFT. However she really goes over the deep end when she says “It is in the direct interest of an insurance company for its consumers to become ill to a certain point so that all annual deductibles are paid but not greatly exceeded. ” This just cries to differ with her early comments that they are trying to maximize profits. In her eyes, the profits come from your premiums. Therefore, for her to say insurance companies want you to become ill makes no sense. If their only source of income were the premiums you paid then they would not want you to be sick at all. If you never get sick but keep paying they would maximize their profits in her eyes. Why does she always contradict herself? Is she really that dense or does she just not read what she writes?
She says government mandates that every driver carry car insurance. She is right but it is there for a different reason. The insurance companies sold the idea to the government. She is stupid to compare people to their cars. The car insurance is there to make a person whole again if an accident occurs. Again, the insurance company assumes the risk here.
The damage to the car is the same whether you carry insurance or not. The only difference is that with insurance one can bring it into a court of law and get more money back as insurance companies sue each other. If you did not have insurance and you had no way to make the other party whole then they are screwed. Now, with the insurance requirement, they can put you into jail. So basically, not only are they screwed but also now so are you. To top it off, if you are in jail, there is no way for you to work in ordered to pay any damages either, and it costs society money to keep you in jail so the rest of us are screwed.
Here again, also, her whole treatise is to get rid of the insurance company via government run insurance, and yet here she is saying that same government is requiring you to have insurance for that company – and it’s a good thing. I wish to hell she makes up her mind if she wants insurance companies or not so I could understand her argument.
Well I hope this puts some of it into perspective for you. Please feel free to use any part of what I said in your response to her. If you need more info, call me, no problem, we can discuss it so your response is solid.
Awesome Jimk,
Thanks!!!
So what ever happened with this woman and her argument?
She gave up – everyone who read the exchange knew why lol