Government Shutdown and the Affordable Care Act

[glunn]

As a Christian, the first thing I need to clearly state is that your understanding and use of Scripture is incredibly poor. Proper exegesis always takes the passages in question within their appropriate context. Jesus's commands to Christians to take care of the poor do not obligate Christians, non-Christians, or otherwise to forcibly remove wealth from the people to redistribute it to others. These passages are not a call for a government sponsored healthcare or anything of the sort... as a matter of fact, they have nothing to do with government at all. They are a personal call to sacrifice.

 

Likewise, the call here says nothing of forcing everyone to make sacrifices. As a believer, I give a large portion of my income to various Christian charities, so much so that it hurts, which I do in large part because of the passages above. This does not obligate you to do the same, nor does it obligate me to support the government's attempt at doing this.

 

I get the need for social justice, and I will not argue if you were to state that the church has been lacking in this area for some time, but to conclude that because Jesus says we should give means that we should support a deeply flawed program that does nothing to address the actual causes of this mess (and greed plays a real big one here as the health system has been engineered in such a way to allow for several groups of people to create and take advantage of cash cows) is beyond silly.

 

 

 

 

Nothing is free. The first problem I have is what is being assumed here and in a few of your other posts. We do not have a right to healthcare. We have a right to exist, and in our nation, we have a right to liberty (at least that's what our propaganda says, reality is a bit different)... Liberties, I'd add, that are being stepped on both by the Affordable Care Act, and walking into emergency rooms and demanding free care. What's not being said here is that there's a cost problem.

 

Costs have spiraled out of control, and no one is looking into why it is that this is the case. There was a day, not all that long ago, where people paid for a doctor just as they paid for a plumber. You didn't have a 3rd party payer, and if you couldn't pay, you typically worked something out with the doctor. Medicine wasn't all that expensive. Something has changed. Having worked in the pharmaceutical industry personally, and having family members involved in various parts of the medical industry, I can tell you for certain that this is a system that is in desperate need of reform from the inside out. There are large groups of people benefiting from it in ways that make them very rich and have done so on the backs of everyone else. They can do that because they've created conflicts of interest, barriers to entry, unnecessary regulation, etc. in order to increase their profits... and they've been able to act unchecked.

 

 

 

 

They are all socialistic, and personally I'm against all of them. Of course I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat.

 

I still don't understand how people can call themselves Christians when they choose to ignore what Christ said that they should do. I understand what you are saying about Jesus viewing this as a personal decision, but I am finding it difficult not to conclude that many of these people are insincere about their religion.

 

I think I understand your point about having no right to healthcare but am wondering if you really believe that someone whose life may be in danger should be turned away from an emergency room if he or she has no ability to pay. Would you make an exception for someone who will die without immediate treatment?

 

Finally, imagine a country where some of us are Christians and those who are not Christians agree that helping the poor is a good idea. Why not use government to get this done? Would you really like to eliminate Social Security and go back to having old people living on the street? Would you really eliminate Medicare and let old people die from curable illnesses? I am still unclear how you could explain to St. Peter that you did these things knowing that they would hurt so many people.

[glunn]

I agree with your premise that capitalism needs to be regulated, but the ironic thing is that what we have going with the affordable health care act does nothing to actually regulate it. As a matter of fact, the regulation that exists is setup in such a way as to make it more expensive and allow for certain individuals to pillage the system. Regulation has stopped being about right and wrong and is instituted in a way to make people rich at the expense of others. Neither party is regulating it in a healthy way.

 

As for your second premise, Jesus went out of his way to avoid political issues. His enemies tried on more than one occasion to trap him there. His only advice on politics was to pay Caesar what is Caesar's and to pay God what is God's.

 

My understanding is that there is some good regulation here, including caps on insurance company profits and penalties to be applied to hospitals with higher than average infection rates. There is also some effort being made to make rates available on the internet so people can better shop for particular procedures.

 

As for Jesus avoiding political issues, I don't understand the relevance. Caesar was a dictator. Today, we each have an equal vote. Collectively, we are Caesar. With power comes responsibility, and we no longer have a Caesar to blame for policies that screw poor people.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't like all this moral sledge-hammering. Too many god awful, crippling policies have been built on that premise. We should care that we are doing the right thing but we should care even more that we do it the right way. Not just do something or anything regardless of consequences so we can feel good about ourselves.

 

just look at student loans, the housing crash, and even the medical system - all examples of pious good intentions that caused enormous harm.

[Frozented9]

I don't like all this moral sledge-hammering. Too many god awful, crippling policies have been built on that premise. We should care that we are doing the right thing but we should care even more that we do it the right way. Not just do something or anything regardless of consequences so we can feel good about ourselves.

 

just look at student loans, the housing crash, and even the medical system - all examples of pious good intentions that caused enormous harm.

 

 

Flashback: Private Sector Not GSEs Triggered Crisis | The Big Picture

 

The housing crisis wasn't caused by the government.

[TheLeviathan]

Flashback: Private Sector Not GSEs Triggered Crisis | The Big Picture

 

The housing crisis wasn't caused by the government.

 

It absolutely was. Without the loosened credit requirements of the early to mid 90s, these private banks could not have legally done this. Ultimately the chief abusers were in the private sectors (much like college universities are), but their abuses were only possible because of changes to regulation meant to give everyone the American dream of owning a home.

 

Part of good policy is anticipating and stemming the tide of abuse.

[Frozented9]

It absolutely was. Without the loosened credit requirements of the early to mid 90s, these private banks could not have legally done this. Ultimately the chief abusers were in the private sectors (much like college universities are), but their abuses were only possible because of changes to regulation meant to give everyone the American dream of owning a home.

 

Part of good policy is anticipating and stemming the tide of abuse.

 

Credit requirements are set by the lenders not the government unless you are are talking about FHA loans.

 

The government didn't say you have to start doing ninja (no income no job approved) loans. They didn't tell banks that you should have fake pay stubs and bank statements on loan officers computers to make anyone qualify for a loan.

 

This was all because of packaging of the loan by the private sector and because of individual and collective greed. Read the lost bank about WAMU. Or just actually look at the numbers from 2000-2007. Loan originators started making a killing on subprime any really any type of mortgage and since they didn't have to care about accepting the risk down the line they approved everyone. Check out the rise in subprime lending since 2000.

 

Now remember subprime was something that freddie and fannie had no imput on it is the closest thing to a true free market in mortgage industry during this time. As we know subprime loans were the biggest driver of the crisis.

 

 

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Subprime_mortgage_originations%2C_1996-2008.GIF

[PseudoSABR]

It's not our morality per se that has driven us astray in terms of student and housing loans, and even healthcare, rather it's that certain private institutions have advocated and successfully implemented policy that benefits them far more than it benefits the actual public good. Even worse, we too eagerly let those who profiteer from a public morality write the damn policy itself. Our cynicism should not be located in trying to ensure some moral good or equitable opportunity, but rather our methods of guaranteeing such outcomes. I'm always widely cynical of these public/private hybrids that can address a public good or a systemic inequality--if there was any real profit to be gained from such transactions the market would have supplied us with such. It's that things like public good must be taken at short term profitable loss (and maybe even long term, though things like healthcare and education you could argue are investments), hence the need for a government and a body of tax paying citizens to organize and provide such non-profitable services.

[TheLeviathan]

Credit requirements are set by the lenders not the government unless you are are talking about FHA loans.

 

there are an abundance of laws that relate to this as well. It was the relaxing of federal regulations during a booming economy that got the ball rolling. That doesn't excuse the private banks, just gives proper due to poorly thought out policy as well.

[TheLeviathan]

Our cynicism should not be located in trying to ensure some moral good or equitable opportunity, but rather our methods of guaranteeing such outcomes. .

 

Fine by me, as long as we are actually worried about that. Too often the moral sledgehammer gets out and the nuance needed to guarantee is lost in the scuffle for high ground. I want good moral policy. Not just more policy. Too much of this thread ignores the "good" in the name of the moral. It's rampant in here much like in society.

[Shane Wahl]

Can I share what I tell my students in Philosophy of Religion class?

 

I offer them a distinction:

 

Christian

 

vs.

 

Christ-ian

 

That is, I think it might be a wise move to actually pronounce "Christian" as Christ-ian, saying the guys name. It reminds of the imitation of Christ and what that actually entails. And I am serious about the potential effect that might have on some people who clearly distort the message with their weird moralism.

[PseudoSABR]

Can I share what I tell my students in Philosophy of Religion class?

 

I offer them a distinction:

 

Christian

 

vs.

 

Christ-ian

 

That is, I think it might be a wise move to actually pronounce "Christian" as Christ-ian, saying the guys name. It reminds of the imitation of Christ and what that actually entails. And I am serious about the potential effect that might have on some people who clearly distort the message with their weird moralism.

Religiousity and moralism need not go hand and hand; in fact, some might argue they serve opposed purposes (as ironic as it might be that one is clothed in the other).

[glunn]

So while people argue about what to do and how best to do it, children continue to die every day because they are unlucky enough to have parents who cannot afford to provide health care.

 

Our medical system is among the least efficient in the world. The Affordable Care Act includes attempts to make it more efficient, by penalizing poor results (such as hospitals that have high infection rates because staff does not always wash their hands) and by allowing consumers to better compare policies offered by competing insurance companies. It also increases taxes on people and companies who can afford to pay such taxes.

 

I understand that the ACA could be a lot better and less expensive. If not for the lobbyists, the ACA would be far more efficient. One huge example is prescription drug prices. Why do prescription drugs cost more in the U.S. than anywhere else? Check this out. Is it a coincidence that the drug companies spent more on lobbying than any other industry from 1998 through 2006?

 

To me, the supreme irony is that if our policy was created with a focus on efficiency, we could afford to take care of everyone. Other countries do it -- here is one of many articles that provides common sense ideas about how we could do it.

 

This is not rocket science. The inefficiency is deliberate. The politicians could adopt a plan modeled on the Israeli plan tomorrow, we could cover everyone and have money left over -- please check out this article as an example of many that show this.

 

While our politicians squabble, the lobbyists make sure that good things cannot happen. I would think that my Christian friends would be with me in wanting to do whatever it takes to save children from dying who can be saved by the ACA. I certainly join them in wanting to do this with the least possible expense and the best possible results.

[TheLeviathan]

I think you are following the debate too closely in your interpretation Glunn. I don't mean a "good" law in terms of being cheap or financially sound. I want a good law that is well tailored to solve the problem without rampant unintended consequences that far outweigh any immediate good it creates.

 

sometimes good solutions are expensive, but at least they are good solutions. Too often the moral chest thumping your first paragraph uses overrides the entire discussion.

[Mike Sixel]

If only our current generations were as willing to sacrifice their own wealth as the generations fighting world war 1 and 2.......but we aren't.

[Shane Wahl]

There is a fairly illuminating documentary, called "Medicine and Money" (I believe that is the title) that might be worth a watch on Netflix.

[kab21]

I'm not a fan of big social programs (and this is huge) but medical care is something that is unobtainable for far too many in the US. The ACA has its flaws and imo the Republicans have actually taken steps to make it less effective but it is still a big step in the right direction.

[PseudoSABR]

Was it worth while for Ted Cruz and the House Republicans?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RHpZHDYQD7U/T8r6AtHQCtI/AAAAAAAAEHc/1j-CBpO4Y2I/s400/willy-wonka-you-get-nothing.gif

[kab21]

Was it worth while for Ted Cruz and the House Republicans?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RHpZHDYQD7U/T8r6AtHQCtI/AAAAAAAAEHc/1j-CBpO4Y2I/s400/willy-wonka-you-get-nothing.gif

 

Don't worry they will spin this as a positive and play this game again in February.

[Riverbrian]

Anger at Ted Cruz?

 

To me that's like getting angry at Charlie McCarthy or Bubba J for his actions. It's political contributors like the Koch Brothers who are controlling the strings and that is the sad state of our political machine.

 

It's going to get worse until we can get the money out of politics with some comprehensive campaign finance reform. Until then... The Koch Brothers and the like are calling the play. Ted Cruz is just a face who needs money to get re-elected.

 

We the people have the strength in numbers but there is no strength in numbers when the numbers are distracted and informed by 10 word answers and catch phrases.

 

Statesmanship is gone and it will not return. The executive and legislative branch is a cesspool and I'm pretty sure the judicial branch is probably infested as well. Nearly 7 Billion dollars was spent on federal elections. The Majority of the 7 billion dollars was for the purpose of influence. 7 billion dollars that they could have been spent or invested elsewhere.

 

I don't care if people have a conservative view on things or if people have a liberal view on things. I think things are supposed to be that way.

 

The only thing I care about is the answer to this question:

 

1. Why are corporations or wealthy individuals contributing large sums of money to political campaigns. Why Indeed?

 

These guys are not in the habit of giving away money and getting nothing in return. They invested nearly 7 Billion dollars for something.

 

The answer to that question leads to the answer of how you fix this. I don't have the strength to be passionate about any party or anything political until Campaign Finance is truly reformed and that includes the closing of all loopholes and the new loopholes that spring up.

 

Until that happens... I'm on the sideline and a boat floating on the tide...

 

It's up to me to become wealthy enough to influence things for myself. Until then... There ain't much I can do but cast a vote for the person who has the best chance of getting elected and is also closest to supporting what is important to me. I just can't find one that wants to cut off their funding and give the other guy a chance at beating them.

 

Hang on... It's only gonna get worse!!! Shutdowns... Political Games of Chicken... Oh Yeah... There are more to come.

[PseudoSABR]

I think you're probably right, RB, but there MAY be another path through the dollars-to-democratic-power stranglehold. (Though this take is totally rose-colored). We can already see it happening to some extent (with the public reaction to the Shutdown), but if a significant voting majority grows so disenchanted by ideological politicians and that same significant majority remains totally cynical of political advertising, that that majority might begin doing their own independent research (thank god for the internet!) and form their own opinions on the actual issues.

 

With each generation of voters/consumers, the capacity of which media and technology can manipulate that generation decreases. Throwing money on somehow creating an echo chamber won't work as the populace gets more and more cynical of echo chambers altogether. That combined with the traditional (dated) core beliefs of the extreme right, shrink their ideological appeal twofold.

 

The connection between right wing politics and Christian ritualism can't be ignored; so much rightwing polictical headway is made from the preacher's bully pulpit. However, I do take some solace, that at least in Catholicism, the new pope seems to be moving towards the center (if not being outright progressive). Now, I don't believe any one priest changes their tune because of a new pope, but I do think it will allow for more progressive priests to gain sway within the church and even for progressives to have a calling to the church, which in turn, might affect their partitioners rejection of an ideology that works against their own interst.

[stringer bell]

Thanks, TDers! This was a far better discussion than I read anywhere else. You all demonstrated more knowledge and more civility than I have witnessed in any other threads regarding the ACA/Government Shutdown. I probably am closest to Brock in this matter, in that I see the ACA (Obamacare) as cumbersome, confusing and somewhat ineffective, but I think that the far Right is way out-of-bounds in their vitriol and the extremes they have resorted to in order to short circuit the Affordable Care Act. I, too, hope they are punished for their disrespect.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I still don't understand how people can call themselves Christians when they choose to ignore what Christ said that they should do. I understand what you are saying about Jesus viewing this as a personal decision, but I am finding it difficult not to conclude that many of these people are insincere about their religion.

 

I think I understand your point about having no right to healthcare but am wondering if you really believe that someone whose life may be in danger should be turned away from an emergency room if he or she has no ability to pay. Would you make an exception for someone who will die without immediate treatment?

 

Finally, imagine a country where some of us are Christians and those who are not Christians agree that helping the poor is a good idea. Why not use government to get this done? Would you really like to eliminate Social Security and go back to having old people living on the street? Would you really eliminate Medicare and let old people die from curable illnesses? I am still unclear how you could explain to St. Peter that you did these things knowing that they would hurt so many people.

 

First, I'll reiterate, there's no command from Jesus to support universal heathcare. Your premise is flawed from the start. My biggest complaint as a Christian, and a teacher, is people who use the Scriptures to back whatever viewpoint that they want to espouse, regardless of what the writers were attempting to say. This is a real good example. The Bible doesn't weigh in on it.

 

Now to answer your question, this is not your decision or my decision, it's a hospital's decision. And since you ask the question, what would Jesus do, what do you think he'd say to them? You've asked what he would say to me, but he speaks to multiple audiences does he not? Another point I'd make is that for the longest time, this was never an issue. People who couldn't afford to pay got put on payment plans and what not. Insurance was cheap because it covered things like catastrophic items and not every day visits. The system is setup in such a way now that it encourages this.

 

I think my biggest problem with your argument here is that it can so easily be reworded to make you look just as extreme. That multi billion dollar hospital isn't having problems paying their bills, and the doctors that work there are millionaires many times over, yet you and I are now being taxed so that their profit margin isn't squeezed. And then of course there's a few more pragmatic questions. What of that guy who needs immediate treatment because he chose to abuse his freedoms. Why should I take care of him? There is a huge slippery slope here and I'm not sure people have thought through all of the ramifications. When the government starts footing the bill, how long do you think it will be until they start telling you what you can and cannot eat, how much you should exercise, etc.?

 

I don't have a problem with Christians and non-Christians helping the poor. I have a problem with the government compelling people to do it, and I have a problem with the naiveté that goes with it to think that they can somehow make this more stable than the free market system. They cannot. Look at Social Security and Medicare. They are perfect examples. Both programs are great ideas on the surface, but your politicians took the money from these trust funds and spent it. Then, to mask it, they game with the inflation numbers (a problem they also created), entitlement benefits, etc. so that a person living on social security and medicare are still broke. And now these same people are in the hands of your great government to care for them, and that doesn't work well either. I have little memories of my one grandfather who died in a VA hospital due to gross negligence. My wife's father served his country in Vietnam and sustained a brain injury the prevented him from ever being able to support a family. They convinced him while he was in the hospital to sign away his benefits and he finally got them back about 10 years ago. The government will not take care of you.

 

The government isn't your savior. And eliminating medicare won't suddenly mean that old people will be dying all over from curable illnesses. What it will do is force the price of the cure to drop, and given the current environment, pharmaceuticals and hospitals have zero incentive to lower prices as they have little competition. A real good example of this is a non-life threatening procedure. Lasik isn't covered by insurance. When it came out, it was insanely expensive, and because it wasn't insured, the price dropped to the point where it became fairly affordable. That's how supply and demand works, and in so doing, it makes charity a lot easier. The market will dictate what the price is actually worth, and when you artificially subsidize it, it doesn't seek to lower the price... It never does. It always makes things more expensive, which leads to more subsidies.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Flashback: Private Sector Not GSEs Triggered Crisis | The Big Picture

 

The housing crisis wasn't caused by the government.

It most certainly did. It was the federal reserve who enabled our Government's debt binge by lowering interest rates to create a debt bubble in the economy in the first place. It was the government that chose to repeal the glass steagle act that created the TBTFs in the first place. Yes, the private sector jumped in there too, but pretending that it was one without the other is absurd. None of this happens if the gov leaves glass-steagle in tact and kept rates where they belonged... none of it.

[glunn]

Anger at Ted Cruz?

 

To me that's like getting angry at Charlie McCarthy or Bubba J for his actions. It's political contributors like the Koch Brothers who are controlling the strings and that is the sad state of our political machine.

 

It's going to get worse until we can get the money out of politics with some comprehensive campaign finance reform. Until then... The Koch Brothers and the like are calling the play. Ted Cruz is just a face who needs money to get re-elected.

 

We the people have the strength in numbers but there is no strength in numbers when the numbers are distracted and informed by 10 word answers and catch phrases.

 

Statesmanship is gone and it will not return. The executive and legislative branch is a cesspool and I'm pretty sure the judicial branch is probably infested as well. Nearly 7 Billion dollars was spent on federal elections. The Majority of the 7 billion dollars was for the purpose of influence. 7 billion dollars that they could have been spent or invested elsewhere.

 

I don't care if people have a conservative view on things or if people have a liberal view on things. I think things are supposed to be that way.

 

The only thing I care about is the answer to this question:

 

1. Why are corporations or wealthy individuals contributing large sums of money to political campaigns. Why Indeed?

 

These guys are not in the habit of giving away money and getting nothing in return. They invested nearly 7 Billion dollars for something.

 

The answer to that question leads to the answer of how you fix this. I don't have the strength to be passionate about any party or anything political until Campaign Finance is truly reformed and that includes the closing of all loopholes and the new loopholes that spring up.

 

Until that happens... I'm on the sideline and a boat floating on the tide...

 

It's up to me to become wealthy enough to influence things for myself. Until then... There ain't much I can do but cast a vote for the person who has the best chance of getting elected and is also closest to supporting what is important to me. I just can't find one that wants to cut off their funding and give the other guy a chance at beating them.

 

Hang on... It's only gonna get worse!!! Shutdowns... Political Games of Chicken... Oh Yeah... There are more to come.

 

Because of the Supreme Court's rulings about campaign finance reform, it is going to take a constitutional amendment or some changes in the court to reduce the influence of billionaires and corporations. A constitutional amendment would require a huge grassroots movement, because most politicians nowadays don't seem to want to cut the flow of cash and perks. And a change in the court that favors this could take decades.

 

Did you see 60 Minutes last night? They did a segment about how politicians can legally use campaign funds to take luxury vacations and pay family members to work on their campaigns. I think that this system as a whole comes pretty close to outright bribery in cases where the politician plans to use a lot of the money to line his or her own pockets.

[glunn]

I think you're probably right, RB, but there MAY be another path through the dollars-to-democratic-power stranglehold. (Though this take is totally rose-colored). We can already see it happening to some extent (with the public reaction to the Shutdown), but if a significant voting majority grows so disenchanted by ideological politicians and that same significant majority remains totally cynical of political advertising, that that majority might begin doing their own independent research (thank god for the internet!) and form their own opinions on the actual issues.

 

With each generation of voters/consumers, the capacity of which media and technology can manipulate that generation decreases. Throwing money on somehow creating an echo chamber won't work as the populace gets more and more cynical of echo chambers altogether. That combined with the traditional (dated) core beliefs of the extreme right, shrink their ideological appeal twofold.

 

The connection between right wing politics and Christian ritualism can't be ignored; so much rightwing polictical headway is made from the preacher's bully pulpit. However, I do take some solace, that at least in Catholicism, the new pope seems to be moving towards the center (if not being outright progressive). Now, I don't believe any one priest changes their tune because of a new pope, but I do think it will allow for more progressive priests to gain sway within the church and even for progressives to have a calling to the church, which in turn, might affect their partitioners rejection of an ideology that works against their own interst.

 

I am hoping that you are correct about an independent movement evolving to make the world a better place.

 

I also am encouraged by this new pope. It seems to me that of all the popes during my lifetime, this one comes closest to saying things that Jesus would say if he were around today. It seems to me that Jesus was trying to teach people about love, empathy and generosity, not hate, prejudice and saving taxes.

[glunn]

Thanks, TDers! This was a far better discussion than I read anywhere else. You all demonstrated more knowledge and more civility than I have witnessed in any other threads regarding the ACA/Government Shutdown.

 

If only we moderators had the power to enforce the TD rules in Congress, there would be a lot less gridlock and a lot more respectful discussion. Yes, we might have to issue some bans, but it would be worth it.

[glunn]

First, I'll reiterate, there's no command from Jesus to support universal heathcare. Your premise is flawed from the start. My biggest complaint as a Christian, and a teacher, is people who use the Scriptures to back whatever viewpoint that they want to espouse, regardless of what the writers were attempting to say. This is a real good example. The Bible doesn't weigh in on it.

 

Now to answer your question, this is not your decision or my decision, it's a hospital's decision. And since you ask the question, what would Jesus do, what do you think he'd say to them? You've asked what he would say to me, but he speaks to multiple audiences does he not? Another point I'd make is that for the longest time, this was never an issue. People who couldn't afford to pay got put on payment plans and what not. Insurance was cheap because it covered things like catastrophic items and not every day visits. The system is setup in such a way now that it encourages this.

 

I think my biggest problem with your argument here is that it can so easily be reworded to make you look just as extreme. That multi billion dollar hospital isn't having problems paying their bills, and the doctors that work there are millionaires many times over, yet you and I are now being taxed so that their profit margin isn't squeezed. And then of course there's a few more pragmatic questions. What of that guy who needs immediate treatment because he chose to abuse his freedoms. Why should I take care of him? There is a huge slippery slope here and I'm not sure people have thought through all of the ramifications. When the government starts footing the bill, how long do you think it will be until they start telling you what you can and cannot eat, how much you should exercise, etc.?

 

I don't have a problem with Christians and non-Christians helping the poor. I have a problem with the government compelling people to do it, and I have a problem with the naiveté that goes with it to think that they can somehow make this more stable than the free market system. They cannot. Look at Social Security and Medicare. They are perfect examples. Both programs are great ideas on the surface, but your politicians took the money from these trust funds and spent it. Then, to mask it, they game with the inflation numbers (a problem they also created), entitlement benefits, etc. so that a person living on social security and medicare are still broke. And now these same people are in the hands of your great government to care for them, and that doesn't work well either. I have little memories of my one grandfather who died in a VA hospital due to gross negligence. My wife's father served his country in Vietnam and sustained a brain injury the prevented him from ever being able to support a family. They convinced him while he was in the hospital to sign away his benefits and he finally got them back about 10 years ago. The government will not take care of you.

 

The government isn't your savior. And eliminating medicare won't suddenly mean that old people will be dying all over from curable illnesses. What it will do is force the price of the cure to drop, and given the current environment, pharmaceuticals and hospitals have zero incentive to lower prices as they have little competition. A real good example of this is a non-life threatening procedure. Lasik isn't covered by insurance. When it came out, it was insanely expensive, and because it wasn't insured, the price dropped to the point where it became fairly affordable. That's how supply and demand works, and in so doing, it makes charity a lot easier. The market will dictate what the price is actually worth, and when you artificially subsidize it, it doesn't seek to lower the price... It never does. It always makes things more expensive, which leads to more subsidies.

 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don't think that the government is good at running hospitals and I am sorry for your family's experiences with the VA. On the other hand, I look at the Israeli system and like the idea of spending about 50% of what we spend now, and getting better results. I would also note that prior to the ACA, some bozo who abused his freedom by not buying insurance then drunkenly wrecked his car would get emergency room treatment anywhere in the U.S., and those of us who had insurance ended up paying for that. I cannot imagine us going to a system where emergency rooms require proof of ability to pay, and I see the ACA as affirming a conservative principle that people should pay their own way when they can afford to do so, i.e. less freeloading. I don't mind being required to buy car insurance and am glad that if some maniac hits me in L.A. traffic, he will probably have some insurance.

 

It also seems to me that maybe we can agree that capitalism can provide the optimum solution. Under the ACA, insurance companies can compete, as in Massachusetts and Israel. In contrast, Medicare has no competition, but gets better rates than insurance companies because of its size and bargaining power. Maybe if Medicare could become a public option for everyone and users could instead opt for private insurance, this would create an even more robust market. I think that ot would also help if hospitals were required to post their billing rates, success rates and other relevant data so that consumers could make more informed choices. Competition is a powerful tool to reduce costs.

 

Here is the part where I need help -- the passages in the New Testament where the rich guy asks Jesus how to get to heaven and Jesus tells him to sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor. Then Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.

 

Maybe I am dense, but it seems to me that Jesus was saying that helping poor people is pretty important. I think that means that letting poor children die from cancer and other curable ailments would be a lot worse sin than the sins that the Republicans seem obsessed with, such as premarital sex, abortion, same-sex marriage, drug addiction and welfare fraud. I would be grateful if you would explain to me (in as much detail as you are willing to provide) why this does not mean that we should be doing whatever we can to at least provide health care to all children whose parents cannot afford it on their own. It's not as though this is not working in lots of other countries (some better than others). What are we going to say to St. Peter if he asks us about this?

 

My solution is straightforward -- get rid of all of the poor people -- every last one. Give them an opportunity to be productive and reduce benefits to exactly the poverty level for those who refuse to work. Reward those who work hard -- a family where both parents are working full time (or more) should make enough to be comfortable. It seems to me that if we can create a system where almost everyone works, then the extra productivity would benefit everyone and St. Peter would smile when we tell him how we got rid of poverty so that we could all go to heaven (or at least most of us, excluding, of course, Yankees and White Sox fans). Maybe I need to go see a priest or a minister, but I just don't understand how we can get out of helping poor people, especially children, until there are no more people (or at least children) who are poor.

[kab21]

I have problems with the 2 main rallying points against the ACA.

 

The first: the tax on medical devices is always brought up. I think that by adding 30-40M people onto insurance the additional sales will pay for these taxes several times over.

 

the second: Mandated healthcare: There seems to be an outcry against mandating that individuals have insurance. I can understand this but at the same time individuals are terrible at their financial planning. As a whole young people won't see a positive return on their coverage but that is the wrong way to look at it. I don't buy collision auto insurance when I buy a new car just because the insurance company requires it and I expect to profit in the long run. I buy it because I cannot afford to total a 20+K new car. The same is true with health insurance. Young people shouldn't need to visit the doctor that often but bad stuff happens. How many young people can afford a 250K operation/treatment following a severe injury? And the gov't is giving people an opt out that is not horribly expensive unless you are really rich.

 

I'm just not buying the main rallying points by the republicans on this one. I naturally align myself with conservatives and don't like big social programs (this is huge) but the republicans are fighting a losing battle on this one and they are going to look silly in hindsight.

 

FWIW - I currently have national health insurance in Taiwan. It's not perfect but it is the correct direction to go.

[biggentleben]

I am hoping that you are correct about an independent movement evolving to make the world a better place.

 

I also am encouraged by this new pope. It seems to me that of all the popes during my lifetime, this one comes closest to saying things that Jesus would say if he were around today. It seems to me that Jesus was trying to teach people about love, empathy and generosity, not hate, prejudice and saving taxes.

 

Pope John Paul II was making a lot of moves in that way as well in his final years. He was incredibly saddened by the cover-up of the cardinals with sex scandals but had little power at that time to affect change, he had discussed the idea of allowing married deacons full powers of communion of any other priest, and he was making some bold comments about financial living as a Christian years before the global financial turn.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Because of the Supreme Court's rulings about campaign finance reform, it is going to take a constitutional amendment or some changes in the court to reduce the influence of billionaires and corporations. A constitutional amendment would require a huge grassroots movement, because most politicians nowadays don't seem to want to cut the flow of cash and perks. And a change in the court that favors this could take decades.

 

Did you see 60 Minutes last night? They did a segment about how politicians can legally use campaign funds to take luxury vacations and pay family members to work on their campaigns. I think that this system as a whole comes pretty close to outright bribery in cases where the politician plans to use a lot of the money to line his or her own pockets.

 

Politicians won't touch this with a 10 foot poll. They should though. Personally, I don't have a problem with corporations giving money. I have a problem with the fact that they can give so much more than you or I. Call them a "person" and cap them at $2500 like the rest of us. Ban all pacs. Problem solved.