OK, so I'm a bit confused by some of the opposition to the proposed health care bills. I've read what the White House has to say about it, and I've read a lot of blogs dealing with the issue. What I can't seem to figure out though, is how anyone can actually be against health care for everyone. OK, I get why the big insurance companies might be opposed to it, but your average citizen? I don't get it.
Maybe I'm being overly simple about it. See, the way I see it is, we have a moral and ethical obligation to take care of our brothers and sisters. I'm not talking religion (I'll get to that in a second), I'm simply talking about being a part of the human family, and more importantly, being part of the United States of America. How can we, as citizens of this great nation, turn our backs on those of us who need help? I can't fathom it. Are we really so selfish? It saddens me to think that there are that many people out there who think that things are really ok as they are, and who would tout "personal responsibility" like it explains every person's situation. How narrow-minded.
And those who call themselves Christians? How can they truly call themselves Christian if they reject a fundamental teaching of Christ? Admittedly, I am not Christian - I believe we should take care of one another because it is right, not because of some consequence that may or may not come after I die. But for Christians, who claim to believe so strongly in the teachings of Jesus, to simply choose to ignore the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew's gospel is confusing. I could continue to indict these "Christians In Name Only" (CINO's), but I'll save that for a later post.
Now, for the argument against government involvement and control - I don't see that either. The opponents of a government-funded (read, public) option have been spreading fear and mistrust over this part of the reform. The so-called "Death Panels" - where a committee would decide on who gets what care, or who lives and who dies - are a simple fallacy. And if you really think that insurance companies aren't already deciding who lives and who dies, then you're not really paying attention. Besides, it's my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Medicare is doing fairly well, and isn't that run by the government?
And then there's the problem of paying for all this reform. Who's going to foot the bill? Hey, isn't that why we have taxes? To pay for stuff that's important? I get a kick out of people who clamor for lower taxes or for the tax cuts, but then wail about how the streets in their neighborhoods are in need of repair. Face it folks, there are things that we, the citizens of this great nation need to pay for. And if you happen to be wealthy, then guess what? You need to pay more. It's part of being part of something bigger than yourself. I know (most of) you work hard for your millions - how about giving back a little? "From those to whom much has been given, much shall be required" (John F. Kennedy).
Am I being too simple about it all? Is there anyone out there who can give me a cogent, well-thought argument as to why we shouldn't do all we can to help those who need it? Any Christians who can explain why they are allowed to cherry-pick scripture for that which is convenient? Anyone?
Note: Please, please, PLEASE comment on this post, especially if you are someone who can answer some of my questions. Please, also, respond in a mature and thoughtful way. I have tried to ask the questions with which I have been struggling in a non-threatening way (although, I know that I can be sarcastic), but I mean no offense. I would hope that we can enter into a respectful (and hopefully enlightening) conversation about these issues.
If you agree with some or any of what I have written, I'd like to hear that too. But let's be respectful to those of differing opinions, OK?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Well, I happen to agree with you, so I don't have anything new to add. I believe that we all should have health care, that the gov. should offer a public option, and that we should have higher taxes to pay for it. It's embarrassing that this country hasn't fixed this enormous problem yet. Thanks for your post!
You read my mind, Mr. P. Couldn't have said it better myself. I would add that in addition to Medicare, the government does a terrific job running a military medical system. How is it that we can support a socialist-like system for our military and neglect the rest of our nation. The government can take care of us...if we let them. Death panels?? Anyone who has been in the hospital knows that you must sign a living will--that is YOU telling the hospital what to do if you don't come out of the procedure. Working with our government ("for the people and by the people"--have we all forgotten civics class??) is the only way to support this great nation and come together as Americans. Otherwise, who are we giving our alienable rights too? Big business, for profit companies. I don't know about you but I'd rather see someone in need of medical treatment be saved than give another gigantic bonus to the CFO of another big company.
Thanks for starting this Eric!
My thoughts exactly, Mr. P. Thanks for posting this. I would add that in addition to Medicare (which works nicely, not perfect but well!) is that we have a terrific military medical system. Why would we not want to extend the same benefits to rest of our nation, especially if we see that the government can do it? They can, if we let them ("for the people, by the people"--have we all forgotten our Civics class?).
Death Panels? Anyone that has been in the hospital knows that you sign a living will on arrival--YOU telling the hospital what to do. If we don't support our government in making this a better nation that serves and cares for our people then who are we living this too? Big business, corporations who already rule most of our lives? Would you rather see someone in need of medical treatment get taken care of or another gigantic bonus given to a Wall St. Suit? You decide... WE created this nation and all of a sudden WE don't want to work together? I am with Eric--just basic human principles...we care for one another because we are one nation. About time we all step up to the plate.
Thanks for starting this Mr. P.!
I initially started writing this with, “I don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to make some quick hit points.” Then I ended up writing so much that Blogger won’t accept the comment because it’s too long. So, in two parts:
First, the moral argument does not hold sway with me as I don't believe that the government should be in the business of legislating morality, whether in the name of social justice (health care) or religious beliefs (gay marriage). Then again, as a small government classical liberal, my definition of government largely differs from both Democrats and Republicans.
Now, a blanket statement that others may disagree with: the current health care system is irrevocably broken. Only those who believe that the status quo is fine should oppose health insurance reform (that's the key, by the way: it's not health care reform, it's health insurance reform) and those people have not paid attention to the key indicator: budgets.
Health insurance is a budget-buster these days, for both private business and state and local governments. They face double digit percent increases in their health care costs each year, which'll eventually bankrupt the system. For instance, in Melrose, Mass. (the city I cover as a reporter), the city budget faced a 15 percent insurance increase for 2009 - an additional $1.5 million, and a year-to-year percentage increase that has stayed pretty steady this decade. That doesn't sound like a lot of money - because we're so used to hearing about $700 billion bailouts and $800 billion stimulus packages - but at the local level, that's a lot of police officers, firefighters and teachers. Massachusetts fortunately passed a law allowing local municipalities to join the state's Group Insurance Commission (GIC) - through which all state employees and retired teachers receive their health insurance - and the unions voted in favor of the move. The larger pool resulted in lower premiums and the city saved about $1.2 million this past year in health care costs. A reasonable reform - larger pools, what a concept.
Unfortunately, health care reform can also be a budget-buster if we're not careful. Massachusetts is another example of that. Some proponents hold up Massachusetts' mandatory "everyone must have health insurance law" as a model for the rest of the nation. The problem is - and don't let anyone tell you otherwise - that the law has handcuffed the state budget. When the law took effect, the state had to request from the federal government billions of dollars over three years in the form of a Medicaid waiver. Expected, but the problem is last year, the three year waiver was running out - due to expire on June 30 - and was extended repeatedly over the next two months while state and federal officials negotiated a new waiver. The reason for the delay? The state was requesting a 14 percent funding increase - $11 billion over three years - because they couldn't afford to pay for all the low-income people now covered through MassHealth. The feds were only offering $9 billion. Massachusetts has faced budget problems over the past few years where its "universal" health care program, for lack of a better term, has been a major factor. It has forced the state to cut in other areas to balance the budget as required under state law. Ironically, much of those cuts were in other health and social service areas - mental health clinics, services for the elderly, etc.
(More below …)
(Continued from above …)
Here's one concern that I have not found an answer to yet: last year, 58.5 percent of Americans received their health insurance through their employer. If the government begins offering a public option - essentially the same coverage as private plans, but cheaper because of less overhead costs - what's to prevent all those employers from switching their employees' health insurance to the public option? Almost overnight, health insurance companies would be on the brink of closing. That's less competition and that's a bad thing, because the creation of an option ultimately results in less options for everyone.
As I opened with, there's no question that the health insurance industry needs reformation. The question is still how large of a role government should play in that. Obviously, only the federal government is powerful enough (or authorized) to affect how health insurance works (i.e., regulation), so it must play some role in the reformation. However, and color me skeptical here, the federal government has proved one thing over the years - it is costly and inefficient compared to the private sector.
Regardless, now that August Health Care Madness has ended - it's not even worth addressing "death panel" and similarly ludicrous assertions - I'm pleased to see that the debate as shifted to the nuts and bolts. I have no doubt that most in Congress who currently oppose reform are sincere in their opposition on non-ludicrous grounds, but they must negotiate in good faith. Here's another point - public opinion is largely split because the vast majority of Americans don't understand what health insurance reform actually means. It's extremely complicated and even for some who reads a lot of wonky blogs (like me), it can be overwhelming trying to make heads and tails of it. That's why we have a representative republic - because we entrust our elected officials to do that dirty work for us. Hopefully the Joe Wilsons of the world will start to realize that and not talk down to their constituents, but instead offer principled, reasoned opposition to health reform, because when reform ultimately passes - and it will - that opposition will lead to a better bill.
- Dann
Post a Comment