Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:If you're advocating universal healthcare, then, yes, you're a lib. You can't get much bigger gov't than that.

Only if I advocated single-payer health care or socialised medicine, of which I support neither.

Byblos wrote: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.

I think a Netherlands-style universal health system is the most practical, for the USA's situation. Actually I think the Netherlands-style system rocks full stop.

Harry, a Netherlands-style health care system would probably not be practical in the United States.
You need to consider the population comparisons as well as the fact that people are not flocking to live in the Netherlands, legally or otherwise.

rodyshusband wrote:Harry, a Netherlands-style health care system would probably not be practical in the United States.
You need to consider the population comparisons as well as the fact that people are not flocking to live in the Netherlands, legally or otherwise.

The USA has a larger population than the Netherlands, but there are also more insurance companies, so it would balance out.

There are a number of reasons people flock to the USA over all other countries in the world: its reputation mainly. If you lived in Europe, you'd see how the USA is made to seem extremely glamourous in the media. I doubt it's the health care system over there that makes it so attractive.

I thought this video was very interesting given what I've been arguing in this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMJw_afa ... r_embedded

Bottom line: Obama's main medical advisor believes that diabled people should not get health care. Other issues are brought to the fore as well, but the communitarianism (to use his word) that guides this plan will exclude, as I've argued before, the very people who need it the most (the elderly and the disabled).

My opposition isn't a matter of being heartless or greedy. Just the opposite. This, I believe, is what happens when you adopt inherently immoral methods of dealing with genuinely moral problems.

Just FYI, for those who are interested.

You're primary argument has been that people who need healthcare and cannot afford it's high cost out of pocket and are not fortunate enough to be insurable or have access to it through their employer should go without regardless of the human and economic cost to them, their dependents, and society because God doesn't want governments to manage medical care for its citizens as that violates the eighth commandment "Thou shalt not steal."

A secondary theme has been the Obama plan (which is a work in progress) will be unable to offer these Americans healthcare for whatever reason.

You're wrong on both counts.

I've never argued that people who can't afford health insurance should go without, AoK. I said that I oppose government based insurance as a solution to this problem. There are plenty of other solutions. My reasoning for that lies on the moral basis of government.

I've argued, secondarily (and repeatedly), that even aside from the moral/philosophical issue, it's just a bad idea. Rationing will keep people like you from getting healthcare. The video is just another example of that.

It's amazing to me how much faith you are willing to put in this government. We have to do something (morally speaking), but that doesn't mean that we have to do whatever is put on the table, no matter what it is or how morally repugnant it is/pragmatically impossible it is. YOU are the one who is going to be hurt by Obamacare, AoK. Not me. I'd be covered under universal healthcare. They'd pay my bills in a heartbeat, because I'm young and healthy. You, however, would be rejected on a cost-benefit analysis. So think of me whatever you will, but I have a second moral problem with Obamacare, namely, that it will deprive the people of coverage who most need it (the elderly and disabled).

Be careful not to judge, my friend.

Well.. please share with us what your solution is to ensure that all Americans have access to health care? I, for one, welcome any practical solution for healthcare that actually achieves that goal.

I believe you have a misunderstanding regarding the elderly and disabeled who will continue to be covered under existing programs like SSI, SS, and Medicare. That's why there is no reason to include them into Obamacare version 1.0.

I run across people that have a distortion of the separation of church and state. While secularists want to lock religionists up in their own holy huddle with no influence on society with the exception meeting felt-needs while they co opt government as a tool to spread their ideology, right wing Christians want to co opt the government as well to spread their ideology but without the benefit of meeting the health needs of the citizens. Our country's founders assumed that religion, not a particular state-run Church like the country they fled, would influence the state and vica-versa. As a Church, we are called to not just preach the gospel, but to "do good to all men" as Galatians says. Since Rom. 13 says the government is a means of good, we need to be a part of this huge area of influence and that means in the area of healthcare for Americans which is desirable not a sin.

Harry12345 wrote:

rodyshusband wrote:Harry, a Netherlands-style health care system would probably not be practical in the United States.
You need to consider the population comparisons as well as the fact that people are not flocking to live in the Netherlands, legally or otherwise.

The USA has a larger population than the Netherlands, but there are also more insurance companies, so it would balance out.

There are a number of reasons people flock to the USA over all other countries in the world: its reputation mainly. If you lived in Europe, you'd see how the USA is made to seem extremely glamourous in the media. I doubt it's the health care system over there that makes it so attractive.

I'm sorry, Harry, I don't understand how it will balance out.
America's health care is very attractive to the rest of the world, yet another reason to come here...legally or otherwise.

rodyshusband wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:

rodyshusband wrote:Harry, a Netherlands-style health care system would probably not be practical in the United States.
You need to consider the population comparisons as well as the fact that people are not flocking to live in the Netherlands, legally or otherwise.

The USA has a larger population than the Netherlands, but there are also more insurance companies, so it would balance out.

There are a number of reasons people flock to the USA over all other countries in the world: its reputation mainly. If you lived in Europe, you'd see how the USA is made to seem extremely glamourous in the media. I doubt it's the health care system over there that makes it so attractive.

I'm sorry, Harry, I don't understand how it will balance out.
America's health care is very attractive to the rest of the world, yet another reason to come here...legally or otherwise.

Most of our immigration is from the poorest in Mexico and and the poor of other poor countries like China and a good share of it is illegal. Medi-cal is better than nothing. Cross a border, have a kid, and get on Medi-cal. So that's not saying much. Europeans are not immigrating here in material numbers to take advantage of our superior health care. No European country even makes the top 10 and that's a fact.

Another article on the subject from my favorite NY Daily News Columnist Charles Krauthammer (why this guy is not president I'll never know, perhaps too much self-respect).

He basically outlines a health care solution that makes a ton more sense than the one being shoved down our throats. Two simple steps: 1) Tort reform & 2) Tax employer-provided insurance. I can already hear the collective gasps at 2) but do read the article, it makes so much sense. The only problem is Obama will never advocate a plan his opponent (John McCain) came up with, so here we are.

Just for the record, that economic recovery was marred by increased Republican deficit spending (though not as bad as the Carter administration engaged in) as well as an expanding trade deficit which they, along with the Democrats, oversaw.



More worrisome, is the article's authors asserting that if we simply redid what Ronald and Bill did again regarding their domestic economic reforms we would see the same result. They should know better. Between 1981 and today the earth has flattened considerably. At the least what would be required to get anywhere near the same result would require renegotiating all those trade agreements back to our interest so manufacturing and industry could happen here once again. Otherwise all you have done is make it easier for the investors, bankers, and corporate officers to get richer without actually hiring more American workers in material numbers. That's why it wouldn't have the effect it did back when we used to make things here. The authors make false correlations assuming that small businesses will prosper and all of the results will be the same and they won't. The people that were hired to innovate and build the products fed those small businesses and they won't be around this time to feed a recovery. All of the dependencies are off. It's a fallacy that won't remake the U.S. Economy and tens of millions of poor uninsured/underinsured unemployed/underemployed citizens will continue to go without the healthcare they need just as they do now. Even if you made all of the adjustments necessary, such as creating an environment where people innovate and build things here again rather than overseas, millions upon millions would still be uninsured/underinsured. Just not as many. Problem not solved.

We've already addressed why simply removing malpractice suits won't cause most unemployed uninsured people to get the healthcare they need and we've also looked at why Mass system is not a model for ObamaCare despite conservatives lying that it is because it benefits them politically to perpetuate that myth and why so.

The result of doing all of the author's recommendations would make things somewhat better than they are (some trickle down would occur) but would not have anywhere near the impact they think it would and is not good enough. Tens of millions in this country would continue to suffer and die unnecessarily.

However, while no substitute for a good government run medical care program that controls costs and ensures everyone has access, modifying the author's original proposition so it becomes realistic and workable (beyond simply giving rich people a way to make more money off the backs of Chinese and Latino slave laborers and doctors more profit without doing anything other than what they are doing) would benefit our economy and provide another stream of income to pay for the health care.

rodyshusband wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:

rodyshusband wrote:Harry, a Netherlands-style health care system would probably not be practical in the United States.
You need to consider the population comparisons as well as the fact that people are not flocking to live in the Netherlands, legally or otherwise.

The USA has a larger population than the Netherlands, but there are also more insurance companies, so it would balance out.

There are a number of reasons people flock to the USA over all other countries in the world: its reputation mainly. If you lived in Europe, you'd see how the USA is made to seem extremely glamourous in the media. I doubt it's the health care system over there that makes it so attractive.

I'm sorry, Harry, I don't understand how it will balance out.

Well, the Netherlands health care system is basically that everybody has to get health insruance, by law. Insurance companies may not charge more for disabled or elderly people or people with pre-existing conditions. Hospitals are privately owned and operated, and the patients have a lot of choice in that they can research the waiting times, success rates etc. Poor people get help from the government to pay their insurance.

This system is much cheaper than most other health care systems in the world, since most of the costs are not covered by taxation, but by private payments.

So, how will it balance out?

• It's very "American", the hospitals and insurance companies are still private and for-profit
• It's cheap... probably about the cost of Medicare/ Medicaid/ EMTALA etc...
• America has a larger population than the Netherlands, but that also means that more people pay taxes, and there will be more insurance companies. I don't see how population size is relevent to what kind of health care a country has.

America's health care is very attractive to the rest of the world, yet another reason to come here...legally or otherwise.

I don't hear anybody in the Netherlands lobbying to adopt the American health care system... however I do hear an awful lot of people in America lobbying for Universal Health Care. Also:

• Netherlands = Dutch, America = English
• More people speak English than Dutch, ergo:
• More people move to America than the Netherlands... legally or otherwise.

Harry, you stated your case very well.

I hope I'm not put on the "fishy" list.

rodyshusband wrote:Harry, you stated your case very well.

I hope I'm not put on the "fishy" list.

Lol, what's the "fishy" list?

If it's something bad you're not on it.

Harry12345 wrote:

rodyshusband wrote:Harry, you stated your case very well.

I hope I'm not put on the "fishy" list.

Lol, what's the "fishy" list?

If it's something bad you're not on it.

The Obama administration is encouraging supporters of the health care initiative to report e-mails and websites that are challenging the plan. This way, the admin can refute any "disinformation". The contrary commentaries have been referred to as "fishy".
Some feel this in violation of the Constitution and that the admin will "keep tabs" of dissidents.