Obama's Health Plan

[ageofknowledge]

More resources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 86752.html

No reason to guess or argue about what will happen. ObamaCare has been running in Mass. since '06. Romney instituted a universal healthcare policy there that has been touted by the Obama Administration as a good model of their own. Just look at the effects there.

Excerpt:

Gigot: All right, James, let me ask you about this--the public option. Because the president says, Look, all this is, is going to compete with the private plans, keep them honest. The insurers are making a lot of money right now. We need to keep them honest.

Freeman: Right, and I think the beauty of this is we don't need to guess or estimate or just posit what might happen, because the people of Massachusetts since 2006 have been running the experiment for all of us, and we can go to school on it.

Gigot: Thanks to Mitt Romney, former Republican governor.

Freeman: That's right.

Gigot: Or no thanks to Mitt Romney.

Freeman: And it's very clear what happens. Private insurance goes away, more people go on the public plan, costs explode, more costs go onto small business, and people lose their jobs or they get salary freezes.

McCaughey: That's a very important point that more and more people are losing their jobs in Massachusetts. I was reading about an employer just today, who had to close up part of her business, close one office, sell a couple of trucks, and lay off an employee in order to meet the government requirement to pay for health insurance.

Massachusetts does not have a universal health plan (200,000 of it's citizens are uninsured) but merely a dysfunctionally structured state run one that certainly is not like Obama's. It does almost nothing to lower the costs of health insurance and has holes all over the place. Paul Gigot's right wing bias comes through clearly in that article as he tries to paint a false picture of Obama's health plan being like Massachusetts simply because Obama expressed a desire to understand what Massachusetts had done as he was working with his team to develop the best plan possible. That's called due diligence and smart leaders practice it. Obama's plan is much better and addresses both costs and waste.

[ageofknowledge]

Who says I believe taxes should be used to pave roads or that there should be (or that I take advantage of) public medical care? I believe all roads should be paid for with toll dollars, and I reject the notion of public health care at all. I reject social security. There are some things that we, as a society, have to pay for, but those are limited to things that we are not capable of doing for ouselves--as a society. National defense is one such example; police and firefighters are another; but things like public education, welfare, etc. . . . no, sir. It's nothing more than people stealing from others.

In short, you have no right putting a gun to my head and taking money from me to meet your needs, which is exactly what you are doing when you insist a law is passed that pays for your services by my tax dollars. That's theft. Plain and simple. Taxes go to services that benefit ALL, not a few. If we were to get back to that simple system, then everyone would have FAR more--including you--to take care of themselves and the people we love. But so long as greedy people insist on using the power of government to steal my children's money, we're forever be a society that is build on basic theft, which is why, as I already said, the game is over for us. We're done. THIS is why we are bankrupt--not because the greed of Madoof, but because of the greed of the kindly old man next door who insists I pay for his heart medicine.

Sounds like a nice cause. There are lots of nice causes. That doesn't give you the right pick someone's pocket if they don't agree.

Wrong. Things would not get better for the poor, sick, and disabeled by stripping away every safety net they have and leaving them to exist on alms. What would happen is a lot of people would die. Where would we put the millions and millions of emancipated bodies that would result from your model? Would we burn them or just dump them in landfills? Still some one has to be taxed for even that so I suppose under your plan we just leave them where they die. At least they won't be thieves in your view. The suffering and the horror of watching millions upon millions of untreated dying and starving men, women, and children makes me think that Jesus isn't smiling on your approach. I think it would be far more humane to simply manage health care properly and implement reform. Obama is aiming to do just that and I hope he hits a bullseye!

[Byblos]

Obama's plan is dead for now, pending some Republican support (and for that to happen it would need to be drastically altered).

[ageofknowledge]

Tragic. Jesus was right. The poor will always be with us.. unemployed, sick, and deformed dying slowly without proper medical care. Many, like myself, after being exploited for years by corporations that kicked them to the curb after decades of profiting from their hard work and dedication when they hit middle age to avoid having to pay benefits. Then they got seriously ill and were left to twist in the wind. A real victory for the conservatives. They can now celebrate with champaign and a nice cheese and fruit spread as they plan their next vacation and real estate purchase. Where to next? The South of France is nice this time of year I've read.

[cslewislover]

I didn't think I should've been required to explain this.

In any case, I go back to my unfounded point. When people think that freedom (not anarchy) is a bad idea, I get deeply concerned, especially when they say that here in the USA.

Jac, you don't seem to be understanding that the concepts behind the laws are the same. That was my point. Whether it's a law dealing with disrupting the peace or with money laundering or whatever, the basis for having to pass the laws are the same. Selfishness and/or greed. It seems that the farther our society has gotten away from Christian values, the more need there's been for laws to be passed. I don't agree with all laws or regulations, however.

And as far as I can tell, your deep concern is unfounded. You seem to assume things about people that you don't know, and don't ask for further details about their thinking or beliefs. Some people may not even be able to formulate well an inner held belief or conviction, until questioned or by some other means (they may not use your terms, either). And, there is a difference between freedom and liberty.

[Jac3510]

Jac, you don't seem to be understanding that the concepts behind the laws are the same. That was my point. Whether it's a law dealing with disrupting the peace or with money laundering or whatever, the basis for having to pass the laws are the same. Selfishness and/or greed. It seems that the farther our society has gotten away from Christian values, the more need there's been for laws to be passed. I don't agree with all laws or regulations, however.

And as far as I can tell, your deep concern is unfounded. You seem to assume things about people that you don't know, and don't ask for further details about their thinking or beliefs. Some people may not even be able to formulate well an inner held belief or conviction, until questioned or by some other means (they may not use your terms, either). And, there is a difference between freedom and liberty.

But that's just it, CSLL. The philosophy underlying the laws are not the same. In the case of murder, we have laws against it because it directly harms another human being. You are violating their God given right to life. But that isn't the case with healthcare reform. There should certainly be laws against intentional deception, but we have those already. There should be laws against not honoring contracts. But we have those already. But to say that there should be laws that take money from one person and give them to another so that that other person's needs will be met? That's NOT the same philosophical grounds as preventing murder.

Protecting freedom is very different from guaranteeing comfort. Our laws are built on the former, not the latter. The answer to all problems is more freedom in the first sense of the word. The answer is never to entitle comfort, because, but nature, such a demand will necessarily require taking away what someone else has gotten for themselves. Freedom is always the answer, and to the extent you deny freedom, you impose tyranny.

[ageofknowledge]

You throw that word comfort around Mr. Scrooge as if it were the difference between someone going out to a nice restaurant or getting a tv dinner. What we are talking about here are sick and crippled children, the disabeled, and elderly people who cannot work anymore. Leaving them with nothing would be a death sentence for many of them. We are also talking about the wisdom of allowing people who have been stricken with a condition to be treated so they can return to competing for work or to write them off to join the ranks of the disabeled. This law of the jungle you expouse strips them of whatever freedom they have left. All of which appears to be exactly as things should be and exactly as God wants it to be from your perspective. Expect the first spirit's visitation this Christmas at the stroke of midnight.

This thread is revealing what is inside the typical American Christian heart and it's black, selfish, and ugly in there. Not like Jesus at all.

[Jac3510]

You don't know anything about my heart, AoK. I also recall Jesus saying something about not judging someone until you remove the log from your own eye.

I don't oppose helping the poor. I oppose forcing people to help the poor who don't have that in their heart. What I choose to do with the wealth God has given me is up to me. For all you know, I could be giving every spare penny I have to help people in your situation or worse. Don't be so quick to judge what you don't know.

Jesus said to help the poor. He never said to use the power of government to do take from someone else to do it.

[ageofknowledge]

You don't know anything about my heart, AoK. I also recall Jesus saying something about not judging someone until you remove the log from your own eye.

I don't oppose helping the poor. I oppose forcing people to help the poor who don't have that in their heart. What I choose to do with the wealth God has given me is up to me. For all you know, I could be giving every spare penny I have to help people in your situation or worse. Don't be so quick to judge what you don't know.

Jesus said to help the poor. He never said to use the power of government to do take from someone else to do it.

I know what the results of your model would be if implemented and that is nothing for the sick and crippled children, disabeled, or elderly that cannot work except for whatever crumbs a small minority of Americans chose to loose. That's not going to have a material effect on these people. They would be exactly in the condition I have been arguing and historically the condition they always end up in when such insanity is made real; namely, suffering and perishing enmasse.

Now I'm not judging you personally, want you to be angry with me, or saying I'm better than you. No. What I'm doing is striving with you to see what the results of your beliefs, which seem to be pretty standard amongst Christian conservatives in American today, if enacted, would result in. It's pretty obvious if you leave them to exist on nothing but alms they would suffer and perish enmasse. Which is exactly why some aid programs do exist. But it's not standardized well yet. It's a messy hodgepodge that needs to be reformed and then expanded.

In your "free" enterprise system, the unnamed woman goes untreated while Jairus gets the medical care for his daughter. After all, Jairus is a man of means. But the woman has no money left. Yet Jesus chose to stop and heal the unnamed woman before heading over to Jarius's house and he also rebuked a system that offered preferential treatment for those like Jairus who have power, status and money yet leave poor suffering people to suffer and die without treatment. He recognized the universality of pain and suffering and healed both the woman and Jairus' daughter. Jesus spoke continually about this disparity and it is clear would have supported a system that met the needs of both.

[Jac3510]

You are so sure "my model" would cause such evil and strife? Acts 2:42ff seems to disagree. The people there took care of one another, and people today are perfectly capable of it as well, if their means of doing so are not stolen from them. The problem you point out is not a governmental problem. It is a spiritual problem. Feel free running off and trying to save the world's hungry and poor. But you are only treating the symptom rather than the underlying cause.

If Jesus were as interested as you say in political reform, He or His apostles would have spoken as much on it. But they didn't. They all spoken uniformly on taking care of one another, not demanding Caesar do it for them. No, the model I'm offering would not end in the poor dying on the streets, and Bible history demonstrates that for me.

Against that, history tells me that your model ends in every kind of evil and oppression. It denies a man his dignity. It teaches a man that he has no concern for his brother; the government will take care of that. It teaches every man to live for himself rather than for his community, for the government will take from him what it likes and distribute it as it pleases. Your model has been tried in the USSR, in China, and Britain, and other such places, and always has been found wanting.

Most amazingly, you seem to believe that individuals are not capable of sufficient generosity but that government is. Your exaltation of human government scares me above all, for government is a necessary evil, my friend. A government powerful enough to take care of your every need is one powerful enough to crush you under its tyranny. Suppose my model does end in the poor with no help. Your model ends in totalitarianism.

I realize that you have been hurt by the church and that your personal situation has colored your view of things, but I implore you to step back and look at this rationally. I can relate to you far more than you know, and I'm saying nothing more to you than I've not had to recognize myself. It is NOT the job of anyone on this board to pay my bills for me and my family. That burden belongs to me, and I will meet it as I can, and the rest, I trust to God, not the government.

Stop turning to Egypt, AoK. Stop turning to world systems. Stop putting confidence in the flesh. Government is never the answer. Freedom is, because freedom embraces the very nature that God designed us for. But freedom comes with responsibility, and part of that responsibility is the command to take care of our loved ones. And if you won't embrace that for yourself, then embrace it for those of us, like me, who do want to take care of our loved ones. As it stands now, if you had things your way, you would rob me of the ability to protect and provide for my own. The government would be left to do that for me. Stop robbing others, AoK. Trust your own situation to God, and rather than encouraging the theft of private blessings, encourage, instead, others to give freely and generously. Then, trust God with the outcome. If they do right, they will be blessed. If they do wrong, then God will take care of His people.

Freedom is God's plan for mankind. To the extent you oppose it, you oppose God Himself.

[ageofknowledge]

You are so sure "my model" would cause such evil and strife? Acts 2:42ff seems to disagree. The people there took care of one another, and people today are perfectly capable of it as well, if their means of doing so are not stolen from them. The problem you point out is not a governmental problem. It is a spiritual problem. Feel free running off and trying to save the world's hungry and poor. But you are only treating the symptom rather than the underlying cause.

: Yes it would as history has already shown and one we can observe today. The people in the early church may have taken care of one another properly but the people in today's church do not. An example, I personally sat in my weekly Bible study while the rich doctor that led it refused to even acknowledge my situation with me as I deformed in front of him over the course of a year. When my condition got really bad (butterfly lupus on the face, deformed hands and body wracked with rheumatoid arthiritis and psoriasis), he disbanded the Bible study. The Bible study was called 40 Days of Love. That's how it works today. The people in the church are not acting like those early Christians did and there is zero indication they are about to start. There are few in this post-Christian nation that would.. only a handful materially speaking. It's a real problem and one government can play a large role in solving for the sick children, disabeled adults, and elderly. Waiting for a massive revival to maybe come around someday and change the bulk of American's hearts so they can get the help they need is not a realistic solution. It is, in reality, a death sentence for many of them.

If Jesus were as interested as you say in political reform, He or His apostles would have spoken as much on it. But they didn't. They all spoken uniformly on taking care of one another, not demanding Caesar do it for them. No, the model I'm offering would not end in the poor dying on the streets, and Bible history demonstrates that for me.

: Jesus lived in a theocracy of sorts. The pagan Romans were the hated overlords but the corrupt house of Herod actually ran things along with the religious leaders (the Pharisees and the Sadducees). There was a middle class of sorts but a very large disparity between the rich and poor which Jesus spent a lot of time addressing like that example I gave you. Certain professions were looked on with contempt. The Mishna (Qidushin 4:14) lists doctors as being among them. This is because they gave preferential treatment to the rich and neglected the poor exactly like we see today. I experienced it myself first hand from every doctor I've come into contact with Christian and non-Christian alike. At least back then you could barter and negotiate for service. Today you have to have insurance or a great deal of wealth to get treated. The point though is that you cannot realistically assert that because Jesus isn't recorded as having called for the Roman government to implement health care reform while spending His considerable ministry time and energy providing healing for both rich and poor and rebuking those who did not provide for the poor as proving he wouldn't be for a solution that met the needs of both. That's ridiculous. What happened during the time of Christ is a lot of people suffered and died due to lack of health care and his ministry spoke to it.

Against that, history tells me that your model ends in every kind of evil and oppression. It denies a man his dignity. It teaches a man that he has no concern for his brother; the government will take care of that. It teaches every man to live for himself rather than for his community, for the government will take from him what it likes and distribute it as it pleases. Your model has been tried in the USSR, in China, and Britain, and other such places, and always has been found wanting.

: Providing health care for sick and crippled children, disabeled, and elderly people who cannot work anymore doesn't end in every kind of evil and oppression friend. What it does is provide those people with health and life and dignity. The opposite of that is the law of the jungle and the law of the jungle is materially devoid of compassion by default. My model? I am not a communist. I am a Christian independent. It's not all or nothing. It's not leave everyone who can't provide for themself to suffer and die as a few people dole out alms as they feel like it or implement Stanlinist Marxism. Give me a break. You can have a properly run country and provide a measure of health care to sick people that can't afford it. Of course you can.

Most amazingly, you seem to believe that individuals are not capable of sufficient generosity but that government is. Your exaltation of human government scares me above all, for government is a necessary evil, my friend. A government powerful enough to take care of your every need is one powerful enough to crush you under its tyranny. Suppose my model does end in the poor with no help. Your model ends in totalitarianism.

: Economics 101 in a post Christian nation friend. People aren't go to pay the medical bills for the sick and crippled children, disabled, and elderly in this country out of the goodness of their hearts. That's a fact. I don't exalt human government. I recognize Romans 13 and that government can do a lot of good or bad depending on how it is wielded. A government that provides sick people access to health care just doesn't come down on the side of tyranny like you seem to think it does. Lol..

I realize that you have been hurt by the church and that your personal situation has colored your view of things, but I implore you to step back and look at this rationally. I can relate to you far more than you know, and I'm saying nothing more to you than I've not had to recognize myself. It is NOT the job of anyone on this board to pay my bills for me and my family. That burden belongs to me, and I will meet it as I can, and the rest, I trust to God, not the government.

: Not hurt by the church. They have done me a great favor. They have opened my eyes to see what can be seen and that is that they are never going to take care of sick and dying people. Wait until you lose your job and run through all your savings and lose your medical insurance and you and your family are left to twist in the wind. You'll come around. There's no lightening and miracles friend to pull you out of it when it happens. There wasn't for me and there won't be for you. I look at the life of Jesus, the world around me, read the Bible and easily deduce it is God's plan that government play a role in managing the welfare of the sick and disabeled.

Stop turning to Egypt, AoK. Stop turning to world systems. Stop putting confidence in the flesh. Government is never the answer. Freedom is, because freedom embraces the very nature that God designed us for. But freedom comes with responsibility, and part of that responsibility is the command to take care of our loved ones. And if you won't embrace that for yourself, then embrace it for those of us, like me, who do want to take care of our loved ones. As it stands now, if you had things your way, you would rob me of the ability to protect and provide for my own. The government would be left to do that for me. Stop robbing others, AoK. Trust your own situation to God, and rather than encouraging the theft of private blessings, encourage, instead, others to give freely and generously. Then, trust God with the outcome. If they do right, they will be blessed. If they do wrong, then God will take care of His people.

Romans 13 friend. All government is instituted by God. You're assertion that government must represent an evil worldy system of no benefit flies directly in the face of what the Bible says here. No one is robbing you friend. It's an insurance pool. If you get sick and can't pay, then you get medical care for you and your family. You keep insisting you're being robbed but you get a benefit. You get to enjoy the benefits, like everyone else, when and if you need it. You act like you never will. I did once too. But it does come up for a lot of people. And when it does.. there are no miracles than the ones we make. You can twist in the wind just like me and millions of others do.

Freedom is God's plan for mankind. To the extent you oppose it, you oppose God Himself.

: Nonsense. God imposes all sorts of conditions on humanity and so do governments he establishes. It's just that some people rebel against them much like you rebel against Jesus desire both the rich and the poor receive medical care without prejudice.

[Harry12345]

Your model has been tried in the USSR, in China, and Britain, and other such places, and always has been found wanting.

Been to Britain lately have you? By the way, you didn't mention France, which has the best health care in the world.

Freedom is God's plan for mankind. To the extent you oppose it, you oppose God Himself.

Freedom has its limits.

[Jac3510]

Been to Britain lately have you? By the way, you didn't mention France, which has the best health care in the world.

No need to go to Britain. It's problems are well documented? They place placing 16th and 15th, respectively, in male and female cancer survival rates makes you the best system in the word and still are means being"seriously over burdened, under-funded and riddled with problems." I suppose that explains why 20% of their doctors have to know someone who has been hurt or killed by the system's rationing process.

Concerning France as "the best in the world," we can let that slide for the sake of argument. I'll just point out that workers have to pay 21% of their income into the system to pull that one off, too. So let's go ahead and implement France's system, along an extra 21% income tax. That'd do wonders for the economy!

Freedom has its limits.

Of course, and I've already discussed those limits with CSLL. The statement still stands.

[ageofknowledge]

Right now we have 47 million Americans in this country without medical insurance and at least as many who are underinsured. They are dying all over the nation prematurely due to a lack of medical care. It's a holocaust of sorts. Families USA did a state by state study that estimated the number at 26,000 a year and rising (out of the 2.5 million that die each in the USA) stating:

"The number of uninsured Americans reached 47 million in 2006, and it continues to rise. For many of the uninsured, the lack of health insurance has dire consequences. The uninsured face medical debt, often go without necessary care, and even die prematurely."

They die in alleys, streets, homeless camps, as well as rooms in relatives houses and emergency rooms when it goes so far they can't be saved. The number that become disabeled due to a lack of medical care is about 167,000 a year.

Our medical system, as it stands, is fraught with errors. Many errors go unreported but nevertheless:

42% of people believed they had personally experienced a medical mistake (NPSF survey)
44,000 to 98,000 deaths annually from medical errors (Institute of Medicine)
7,391 deaths resulted from medication errors (Institute of Medicine)

So don't tell me that over their entire careers, 20% of the doctors in Britain who yearn for a pure profit free enterprise system to maximize their income and have an economic interest in talking down their system which spends the smallest share of its gross domestic product on health care expenditures far below what the USA spends, have heard of at least one person who died as a result of medical mismanagement. Britain gets a lot of value for small dollars. They need to stay focused on improving their system is all that needs to happen there.

In France the amount of GDP is less than the USA and here's the breakdown for employees and employers:

"The insurers are non-profit independent agencies not linked to the State. A premium is deducted from all employees' pay automatically. An employee pays 0.75% of salary to this insurance, and the employer pays an amount to the value of 12.8% of the employee's salary. Those earning less than 6,600 euros per year do not make health insurance payments.

To allow full reimbursement of health costs, many employees also pay a voluntary premium (up to 2.5% of salary) to a mutual insurer." http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs17.pdf

In the United States:

"Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP, second only to the Marshall Islands among all United Nations member nations. The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017." -World Health Statistics 2008: Global Health Indicators.

In other words, we already spend more of our GDP on medical care than any country in the world and costs are going to spiral upwards out of control for everyone including the government, employees, and employers if something isn't done.

A system like Britains, dialed in correctly, would allow all Americans access to healthcare for relatively small dollars and stop the holocaust.

I really don't understand you right wingers anymore. You'll allow police to beat you in the street to stop an abortion of a low income person whose baby is nothing more than a thief in your estimation for robbing you out of aid to dependent children and WIC tax money but you have no problem with the man, woman, or that very same child you would have prevented being aborted next to you dying in the street due to a lack of medical care. You're all mixed up friend on this very important issue but I want you to know that I do respect you for honestly engaging me in this discussion and I know you are in the family of God. So I guess that makes us spiritual brothers engaging in sibling rivalry as brothers will do.

[Cross.eyed]

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.