As the health care reform debates settle for a holiday break, only to resume again shortly after, I am left to ponder the question: what are the Democrats really after? Do they care about the millions of Americans without health insurance or is this a scam to take over our entire health care industry? Is this about saving lives or controlling lives?
The government already has programs to assist the elderly, poor, and our vets and in many cases our children, however, their effectiveness and financial stability is of much concern and debate. The focus and distress should be over those who do not have access to health insurance. That number is floating around is 46 million, but if you analyze that figure you will find out that many millions of the uninsured are actually eligible for existing government programs like Medicaid and SCHIP. You will also find that some of the uninsured can afford it, but choose not purchase it. Many would rather buy material objects rather than health insurance or anything to do with their own health and wellness for that matter. As the government promotes the 46 million figure in order to move their agenda, the health insurance industry sees it closer to 8.2 million. For the sake of argument and propaganda emerging from both sides –– government and the health insurance companies – –lets say the real number lies somewhere in the middle, and that nobody is denying that we should help the uninsured and fix our health care system. Despite the price tag, most would like to see health care reform done in an efficient manner and without trampling on American liberties and putting our "unalienable rights” at risk.
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –– Thomas Jefferson, July 4, 1776
Life:
Nancy Pelosi used restrictions on abortion coverage to pass the Democrats' health care reform bill through the House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid thus far has not. John Boehner cites many disturbing facts about abortion in the Senate bill: “Senator Reid’s plan would levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans in the government-run plan: the government will determine when an abortion is allowed under the government-run health plan; and Reid’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.”
Last I checked, other than when a woman’s life or health is at risk, abortion is an elective procedure and is not part of health care –– care that saves lives not terminates them. If the Democrats are willing to sacrifice the unborn in order to provide health insurance to others, this should be a non-starter for anyone that cares about the sanctity of life. And considering us pro-lifers see abortion as “the shedding of innocent blood” and those on the pro-choice side already have the right to choose to terminate, we should have the right to choose NOT to pay.
Article comments
1 - Arch Conservative
What I don't get is how the left can claim that they know what it takes to create jobs and keep the economy going when they are so hostile to business as a matter of general principle.
Even a fourth grade understands that when you raise taxes on businesses they pass those taxes onto the consumber by raising the price of theirs goods and services. You also discourage new businesses from forming.
History has show that lowering taxes actually generates more tax revenue for the government than raising them as lowering taxes has as a result new businesses being formed and existing businesses expanding.
Beyond that it appears that we have become a nation full of spoiled, whiny little pussies waiting for the next handout from mama Pelosi.
2 - Glenn Contrarian
A couple months ago, my brother - a libertarian who continually argues against socialized health care - had half his left leg amputated. Why? Because he's diabetic, and when he first saw the ingrown toenail he didn't go to the doctor to take care of it...because he couldn't afford the doctor visit.
The ingrown toenail became infected...and as is often the case with untreated injuries for diabetics, it became gangrenous, and my brother (who couldn't afford the doctor visit for his ingrown toenail) had to have his lower leg amputated just below the knee.
Now which would cost the taxpayers more? Paying for a podiatrist to take care of an ingrown toenail? Or paying for the amputation and all the associated care (including the vocational rehab)...AND the loss of tax income from my brother's inability to work until he's able to get around on his own? Because the taxpayers paid for the amputation and all associated care.
Just before I read this article I got off the phone with my mother who informed me that my brother has an infected bunion on his other foot, and that the next available appointment isn't for four days from now - next Monday. I said to take him to the emergency room...and what was her reply? "But that costs $400 just to walk inside and we can't afford that!" I asked which costs more, the emergency room visit or another amputation...and she went on to say how the total cost of an ER visit would be upwards of $3000, and that they'll just have to wait till Monday.
So if my brother has another amputation, everybody gets screwed again - he gets screwed because he can't afford the ER visit (and no HMO would take him ever since the late sixties), and the taxpayer gets screwed because doctors can't refuse the amputation when it's his life at stake, but he can't pay for it (and neither can I).
THAT IN A NUTSHELL IS WHY UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE (like the rest of the modern democracies in the world) COSTS FAR LESS THAN THE JOKE OF A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
I only wonder if after this, my libertarian brother will see the light when it comes to universal health care.
3 - Silas Kain
I'm with you Glenn. My primary care doctor is from China and Chinese educated. I asked him his take and he summed it up "health care for profit is immorality". He's right. In what is supposed to be the greatest society we suck when it comes to taking care of our own. We've been seduced into believing that anyone can achieve the American dream. Truth be told, that's bullshit. To truly achieve the American dream is to insure that every citizen gets to SHARE in the American dream. Redistribution of wealth? You betcha, in certain cases there is a necessity in doing so.
4 - Cindy
Silas, I made it in time. Happy Birthday! :-)
(p.s. I hope you don't mind if I put Silas' birthday here Christine...This is the last place he posted. I will read your article shortly.)
5 - Silas Kain
Thank you, Cindy! That was the best ending to a completely stressful day!
6 - Christine
Silas: Happy Birthday!!! And that is fine Cindy, we are all family here on BC!
Happy Thanksgiving to you and all of BC friends. PS: I am not to sure you will like my article but that is OK. Luv ya anyway!
7 - Silas Kain
Thanks, Christine. We may not agree on everything but at least we respect each other. And to all BCer's, a Happy Thanksgiving!
8 - Christine
xo
9 - Christine
And that goes to you too, Glenn and Arch..xo
10 - Christine
Cindy and Silas and the rest...and to all a good night!
11 - Roger B
Who will pay? Why, US citizens will pay. Who else?
A better question is: who will be paid?
A large part of the payout is to private insurance companies, who, by virtue of the monopoly status they enjoy as a consequence of the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson act, are able to demand whatever pay they wish. Expect the cost of private insurance to rise from 18% of GDP to 30%, shortly.
A large part of that payment to monopoly insurance companies will be profit distributed to shareholders, and since foreigners may own shares, a good bit of US citizens money will go to foreigners.
Just like the Wall Street bailout, where hundreds of billions were paid out to foreign banks.
Of course, simple UHC would amount to Americans paying Americans. Looks like a better deal, to me.