Obama's Health Plan

[ageofknowledge]

I just can't understand what all of you are carping about, look at what a great job our government has done with social security!!

'nuff said.

When you consider the vast number of seniors and disabeled served since 1937 I would say it certainly has been a success. If the politicians (republican and democrat alike) hadn't robbed the fund for decades to pay for memorial flower gardens and whatnot in their home states SS would be just fine even with the baby boomer burden. Social Security isn't the problem. Insane politicians that were allowed to rob it are.

[Harry12345]

I just can't understand what all of you are carping about, look at what a great job our government has done with social security!!

'nuff said.

When you consider the vast number of seniors and disabeled served since 1937 I would say it certainly has been a success. If the politicians (republican and democrat alike) hadn't robbed the fund for decades to pay for memorial flower gardens and whatnot in their home states SS would be just fine even with the baby boomer burden. Social Security isn't the problem. Insane politicians that were allowed to rob it are.

I was just going to say, Social Security lifted millions out of poverty!

[Jac3510]

I was just going to say, Social Security lifted millions out of poverty!

And it put millions more into it!

Look, you guys can have your views. This is the problem with political debates. They're like the evolution/creationism thing. You read the evidence in light of your philosophy. I disagree with just about every single word you guys have said, but I have no interesting in wasting my time picking through it all, because it's not going to resolve anything. But this is my point: I could give you EVERY point you've made. I could acknowledge that your big-government liberalism is vastly superior to my small-government conservatism all day long in terms of the number of people helped, and it doesn't change the fact:

It's still based on theft.

Now, I don't think your positions are all that utopian, but like I said, concede it for the sake of the argument. Your utopianism is still morally abominable. That's why I said in another thread this isn't about big/small gov't. It's about right and wrong. The ends do not justify the means, and stealing from one person with good intentions doesn't justify the theft.

[Harry12345]

I could acknowledge that your big-government liberalism is vastly superior to my small-government conservatism all day long in terms of the number of people helped, and it doesn't change the fact:

That's funny, considering I'm not for a big government and I'm not a liberal (not a modern liberal, anyway).

[Jac3510]

If you're advocating universal healthcare, then, yes, you're a lib. You can't get much bigger gov't than that. But, again, take whatever label you want. That's not the point I'm making. The bottom line is that it is morally wrong to build a healthcare system on theft, which is exactly what this plan does.

Do we need healthcare reform? Yes. But we have two problems, not one. We have a moral problem, which is the number of people who are unnecessarily suffering; and we have a financial problem, which is how to resolve the situation in a fiscally responsible way. The end doesn't justify the means, so solving the moral problem by immoral means is still immoral.

Call yourself whatever you want to call yourself. Call me whatever you want to call me. I am not capable of caring less about labels. What I do care about is the principles underlying the policy positions, and when the principle is theft, I object.

[ageofknowledge]

I was just going to say, Social Security lifted millions out of poverty!

And it put millions more into it!

Look, you guys can have your views. This is the problem with political debates. They're like the evolution/creationism thing. You read the evidence in light of your philosophy. I disagree with just about every single word you guys have said, but I have no interesting in wasting my time picking through it all, because it's not going to resolve anything. But this is my point: I could give you EVERY point you've made. I could acknowledge that your big-government liberalism is vastly superior to my small-government conservatism all day long in terms of the number of people helped, and it doesn't change the fact:

It's still based on theft.

Now, I don't think your positions are all that utopian, but like I said, concede it for the sake of the argument. Your utopianism is still morally abominable. That's why I said in another thread this isn't about big/small gov't. It's about right and wrong. The ends do not justify the means, and stealing from one person with good intentions doesn't justify the theft.

You're demonstrating you don't understand our position Jac. We aren't big government liberals. We're independents. We support a hybrid. We believe you can have the benefits of small government in most areas with exceptions like providing for our national defense and health care/social security to citizens. In our estimation, this is what government is for... to work to ensure the survival of its citizens. There is no dichotomy.

Your assertion that it is theft for the government to tax it's populace to ensure their survival (e.g. national defense and health care/social security) is a false one. Government has the responsibility to do exactly that. That's one of its primary responsibilities.

What's abominable is watching if fail to accomplish this because Christians, in a very unChrist like fashion, insist that not to do so is both good and right.

[Jac3510]

I understand your position perfectly well. I simply disagree with it. I've already noted the moral and fiscal problems. You are focusing on the former to the exclusion of the latter, so I actually think I understand your position better than you do.

What you, apparently, don't understand is mine. The moral principle is "The end does not justify the means." To argue that it does is an ethical system called teleology, promoted by John Stuart Mills, and is the system that is employed to justify such evils as slavery (and, as an aside, abortion). When you accept that the end does not justify the means, then you recognize that the means of achieving a moral goal have just as much moral importance as the achievement of the goal itself.

You may not think what you are advocating is theft, but it is. It is the taking of what is mine BY FORCE to support a cause that I neither agree with nor one that will benefit me. Healtcare is in a different classification than things like police and firefighting services or the military, etc. In short, these things cover defense.

The healthcare problem you are citing, however, is an insurance problem. Now, I agree that we have a moral mandate to see to it that this problem is solved. But doing it in a way that works by theft is NOT the solution, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT MONEY WILL GO TO MURDER CHILDREN.

Now, none of this really matters, because, thank God, it looks like, for the time being, the bill is dead. Maybe somehing more sensible can be created now. And hopefully, whatever they come up with, won't be based on a fundamentally immoral proposition.

[ageofknowledge]

I understand your position perfectly well. I simply disagree with it. I've already noted the moral and fiscal problems. You are focusing on the former to the exclusion of the latter, so I actually think I understand your position better than you do.

What you, apparently, don't understand is mine. The moral principle is "The end does not justify the means." To argue that it does is an ethical system called teleology, promoted by John Stuart Mills, and is the system that is employed to justify such evils as slavery (and, as an aside, abortion). When you accept that the end does not justify the means, then you recognize that the means of achieving a moral goal have just as much moral importance as the achievement of the goal itself.

You may not think what you are advocating is theft, but it is. It is the taking of what is mine BY FORCE to support a cause that I neither agree with nor one that will benefit me. Healtcare is in a different classification than things like police and firefighting services or the military, etc. In short, these things cover defense.

The healthcare problem you are citing, however, is an insurance problem. Now, I agree that we have a moral mandate to see to it that this problem is solved. But doing it in a way that works by theft is NOT the solution, ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT MONEY WILL GO TO MURDER CHILDREN.

Now, none of this really matters, because, thank God, it looks like, for the time being, the bill is dead. Maybe somehing more sensible can be created now. And hopefully, whatever they come up with, won't be based on a fundamentally immoral proposition.

Where you get it wrong is where you assert government doesn't have the right to tax it's citizens to ensure their survival. They do. It's not stealing when a government does that but rather government fulfilling a responsibility to its citizens. Therefore there is no inappropriate application of the end justifies the means. The result of mistaking a government responsibility to ensure citizen survival for stealing results in a lot of problems some of which we've already discussed.

And I'm still trying to get my mind around this position of forcing low income teen mothers to give birth to children, who in your model, would grow up in hideous abject circumstance birthing future criminal monsters or die on the street from malnutrition and a lack of medical care enmasse as perfectly just and reasonable from God's perspective. I think it is a result of your first error. If you implemented the means properly and ensured that didn't happen, then you wouldn't have that end.

[Jac3510]

1. Taxation for survival, yes. Not for comfort. Doc's are paid based on the numbers of patients they see. They aren't gov't empolyees. Soliders and cops are in a totally different class.

2. You picture abortion as a mother being forced to have a child. I picture it as a person not being allowed to murder another. The fact that proponents of this plan are willing to justify murder speaks volumes to me.

You really want me to be ok with the gov't taking money that could be used to take care of my daugther so they can use it to kill other children while stripping others of their freedom. And then you have the audacity to say it's not theft.

Again, the bottom line for me is simple: the end doesn't justify the means. And even here, the end is terrible, which is compounded by the terrible means. This entire plan is an abomination. There are ways to fix the very real problems we face, AoK. This isn't it.

[ageofknowledge]

1. Taxation for survival, yes. Not for comfort. Doc's are paid based on the numbers of patients they see. They aren't gov't empolyees. Soliders and cops are in a totally different class.

2. You picture abortion as a mother being forced to have a child. I picture it as a person not being allowed to murder another. The fact that you'd be willing to justify murder says more than enough to me.

You really want me to be ok with the gov't taking money that could be used to take care of my daugther so they can use it to kill other children while stripping others of their freedom. And then you have the audacity to say it's not theft.

Again, the bottom line for me is simple: the end doesn't justify the means. And even here, the end is terrible, which is compounded by the terrible means. This entire plan is an abomination. There are ways to fix the very real problems we face, AoK. This isn't it.

Sick and crippled children, the disabeled, the elderly that cannot work nor provide for themselves and other classes of citizens that will perish without help qualify as survival. Sadly, your stance has been to do nothing for them and let them perish so as to honor God by not turning them into thieves. Are you reversing your position?

Also there is the issue of doing what is desirable. Smart versus stupid. For example, restoring and returning people to work so they can pay taxes makes more sense than watching them become permanently disabeled and leaving them to perish or become wards for the rest of their lives. Good government is smart not stupid.

And it shouldn't be. I'm against abortion. Always have been. It's murder imo. I align with the Christian Imago Dei argument. What I was pointing out to you was how your misapplication of the end doesn't justify the means to a government has no right to tax its citizens to ensure their survival as thievery results in real observable abominable results.

[Jac3510]

Show me where I've ever said that we shoud "to do nothing for [Sick and crippled children, the disabeled, the elderly] and let them perish so as to honor God by not turning them into thieves." I've spoken strongly against this. I refer you to this post as an example. Biblically, we have this mandate:

• If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1Tim 5:8)

What I have said over and over is that WE are responsible for taking care of our own, and we can, if the gov't will leave us alone and let us do it. For those who need further help, we can establish funds to do that.

What makes you think that because I firmly oppose THIS METHOD of helping the uninsured that I oppose ALL METHODS of helping them? That's a rather offensive suggestion. I've given my reasons over and over again why I oppose THIS METHOD. I've given ONE example of a method I do support--not that it is the whole solution, but it will move us in the right direction. You, then, KNOW that I believe in healthcare reform, and yet you choose to equate my moral objectio to THIS METHOD with my desire to do NOTHING for people. That's dishonest.

Regarding abortion, if you oppose it, then you should be ashamed of anyone who supports THIS PLAN, because THIS PLAN uses YOUR DOLLARS to murder children. Do you want to pay for a child's murder? I don't. If this plan passes, then you will be, and so will I. So tell me, is your good health worth the lives of the millions of children who will die by YOUR tax dollars? It's not to me. I'd rather be sick and in pain than be healed to go back to work to have my hard earned cash stolen from me and used to fund child-murder.

[ageofknowledge]

The few that choose to be obedient to Christ's teachings on this matter will have a positive effect on a few. However, the results of your model that government "get out of the way" and do nothing because they are "stealing" from you is that they perish enmasse. That's the reality of your position. By providing a justification for your position (and my position is that your argument has always been a wrong one.. that government has a responsibility to ensure the survival of its citizens and these people are not, in fact, stealing) that allows this reality to occur proves you have aligned yourself with that outcome. I understand you are saying you disagree with the results your own position results in and that some idealisitic alternative that is never going to happen because it defies economics should be implemented instead but it has no usefulness for those that are perishing. I would argue it is immoral to work to bring about a model that results in social democide because an alternative that defies economics and practically is not going to work in a population exists.

I will concede that you have a very real argument regarding taking life enmasse to save life enmasse (e.g. accepting wholesale abortion to provide healthcare and social security benefits to a society in need of them). But that's not what this discussion has been about really so far.

[Jac3510]

We've never gotten into a wholesale discussion of what my plan is. I've given a sample of part of what could be done. This is a discussion of OBAMA'S plan (look at the title of the thread).

Now, I appreciate that you don't think it's theft. I do. On multiple levels. I think that both the moral problem you have been talking about and the moral and fiscal problems I have been talking about CAN be solved, but they CANNOT be solved by Obama's plan. His will make BOTH WORSE.

To the extent this thread has been about his plan and why I reject it, based on its underlying philosophy, I concede nothing. It is immoral. It promotes murder and theft. It restricts freedom, thereby defying God's purpose for humanity. Above all, it saddens me to see Christians support it. It does not sadden me to see Christians speaking out against the moral problem we have today. I am with you on that. It does sadden me to see them embrace this clearly evil plan as a way to fix the recognized problem.

[ageofknowledge]

We've never gotten into a wholesale discussion of what my plan is. I've given a sample of part of what could be done. This is a discussion of OBAMA'S plan (look at the title of the thread).

Now, I appreciate that you don't think it's theft. I do. On multiple levels. I think that both the moral problem you have been talking about and the moral and fiscal problems I have been talking about CAN be solved, but they CANNOT be solved by Obama's plan. His will make BOTH WORSE.

To the extent this thread has been about his plan and why I reject it, based on its underlying philosophy, I concede nothing. It is immoral. It promotes murder and theft. It restricts freedom, thereby defying God's purpose for humanity. Above all, it saddens me to see Christians support it. It does not sadden me to see Christians speaking out against the moral problem we have today. I am with you on that. It does sadden me to see them embrace this clearly evil plan as a way to fix the recognized problem.

It's not theft. It's smart government which saves lives and restores people back to work where they can continue paying taxes for many years to come and provide for their dependents rather than leaving them to become permanently disabeled and die prematurely while their dependents languish as is happening right now because of people who think like you. Your hyper-idealistic perfectly moral solutions will never occur in this world to provide a viable solution and I don't think you want them to anyways. Or not until it all goes bad and you're all twisted up in a cheap Salvation Army wheelchair wishing you had a bowl of beans. Then we'll see what you're made of. Until then, you're perfectly content to watch others perish.

Abortion is happening enmasse in every town and city in this country. You can use that as a chip to propigate the needless suffering and death of those that are already born but you're not fooling anyone. We know they're all just thieves, in your estimation.

What saddens me is to see conservative Christians use their system of belief as a reason to villify and actively fight against a workable plan to stop the holocaust that's going on this country leaving tens of millions of people to twist in the wind. There's the real evil and it will cost many lives.

[Byblos]

As to why Obama's plan failed as it was envisioned (and why it will need major overhaul before it's enacted), contrary to popular belief, it wasn't from the Republicans or blue dog democrats. It was at the hands of none other than the Congressional Budget Office that delivered not one, not two, but three fatal blows, just as predicted by sane economists.

NY Daily News columnist Charles Krauthammer writes the reasons in today's paper as follows:

1) On June 16th the CBO determined that the Senate Finance Committee bill would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years, delivering a sticker shock that was near fatal.
2) Five weeks later, the CBO gave its verdict on the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, Dr. Obama's latest miracle cure, conjured up at the last minute to save Obamacare from fiscal ruin, and consisting of a committee of medical experts highly empowered to make Medicare cuts. The CBO said that IMAC would do nothing, trimming costs by perhaps 0.2%. A 0.2% is not a solution; it's a punch line.
3) The final blow came last Sunday when the CBO euthanized the Obama "out years" myth. The administration's argument had been: Sure Obamacare will initially increase costs and deficits. But it pays for itself in the long run because it bends the curve downward in coming decades. The CBO put in writing the obvious: In its second decade, Obamacare significantly bends the curve upward - increasing deficits even more than the first decade.

It's a bad idea from all sides and I'm glad it's dead in its current form. We can do better, we must do better. I have no doubt Obama will pass some version of health care reform by the end of the year; he staked his presidency, his reputation on it. My hope is that it's a version everyone can live with.