The Redhunter

Tom: You are right. The only way we can win is by stopping this in its tracks. Let's keep our fingers crossed that they don't get the votes--that our Reps will actually do their job and LISTEN to the people!

Okay Tom. I think you are a bit off here. Why would anyone wish to make citizens more dependent on government?

The real issue is why is here a need for health care reform? There is a need b/c our current system does provide adequate health care to too may people.

TLGK

Comparing healthcare to icecream seems to deliberately miss the point. Icecream is an unnecessary indulgence. Access to healthcare is, to many people, regarded as a basic human right. What is the Christian humanitarian position on this?

That aside Tom, I think this is a broadly correct analysis. From the Democrat perspective, a substantial healthcare bill might be worth sacrificing a second term for. After all, if Obama can't get even get his top-priority policy through in his first term, what chance is there of him accomplishing anything in his second? In fact, what chance would such a feeble President have of even being re-elected? Clinton's "comeback" was a surprise, remember.

Of course, another interpretation for why public healthcare provision is difficult to roll back might be that, once they have it, people actually quite like it. In Britain, national healthcare is so popular with the electorate that in the current election campaign the Conservatives have promised to ring-fence it from what they've promised will be otherwise swingeing budget cuts.

Hmmm,

Want this bill passed really? Lets see. There are 2 people working at the wall. The wall does not provide healthcare. Obama say's they should provide healthcare and passes Obamacare to address the issue. The bill only fines the wall $750.00 per person for not providing coverage..Hmm A lot cheaper then paying $10,000.00 per employee. What do you Morons think the wall is going to do. But,wait. The bill mandates that the two wall employees must carry insurance????????????????????

So employee one that is making $66,000.00 a year is forced to go out on the obama exchange and but insurance. Obama care will assist in buying insurance for anyone earning under $88,000.00.

The word was assist???????Hmm The $66,000.00 worker must take $8000,00 of his own income and add it to the governments assistance. Oh yeah..I am hearing the cost to be about $14,000.00 to 26,000.00 for a policy on that exchange.

***(The second employee at he poverty level will have to pay $400.00)

Oh, but wait..the $66,000.00 employee can opt out and pay a fine 2 percent of his salary..Hmm fiqure it out more than the wall.

The opt outs can get into the system at anytime...with payment.

As a registered Indepedent I would not believe "ANYONE IN THE WORKING PUBLIC" would support this bill. It is simply a piece of "S**T" the Democratic party is saving Obama's a$ by passing.

Good Luck..when caterpiller is saying it will cost them a 100 Million..in one year.. The people with hard earned money are going to leave this country. The Dems are turning it into one big slum. Good Luck finding a job 20 years from now because "Ibama" and his administration are clueless.

I am going to kill the masses for the sum of the few...Just like liberal think. Save a dog ..kill a human

TLGK wrote "Why would anyone wish to make citizens more dependent on government?"

Mylne sees the answer, but I'll spell it out: one, to get votes in the short term, and two, to ensure a permanent progressive majority. Those are two sides of the same coin.

If you don't believe me, go and watch a public input session at you local county board of supervisors or town/city council at budget time. You'll watch a parade of government employees, contractors, and benefit recipients tell them that the world will end if their program is does not receive "full funding."

Democrat/liberal/progressive political philosophy is to increase the size of government and everyone knows it, so those dependent on government tend to vote Democrat.

So the more people who are dependent on government, the more votes for Democrats.

What Democrats/progressives aim to do with healthcare is ensure this dependency on a national scale. The more people they can get depending on government, the more the shift the debate to their favor. All politics becomes a matter of who can promise more and more healthcare goodies to a public whose appetite is never satisfied.

Let's all be clear that the debate over "healthcare" is not for the most part about care per se, but about insurance. If you get hit by a car they will fix you up regardless of your insurance situation. Ditto if you get cancer. But without insurance you're going to get a heck of a bill unless you qualify for Medicaid or a similar program.

As for healthcare being "a basic human right," says who? And if healthcare is a right, why not a widescreen TV? Or a right to cable/satellite TV? After all, I could argue that my mental health is not satisfied unless I have entertainment.

More, what is a right, and where do they come from? Traditionally, a right is negative, something that the government cannot do to you. They are an inherent part of natural law, and handed down from God, or "Providence," as the Declaration says. Thus the Bill of Rights lists freedoms from government tyranny. What's important is that these rights do not require sacrifice or payment from somebody for them to happen. For you to have freedom of speech, a speedy trial, or right be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, nobody has to pay more taxes.

But if healthcare is a right , somebody has to pay for you to exercise this right. And to get someone else to pay, coercion and force must be used. The government must use it's power to force people to pay for your health care even if they voted against it. So for you to exercise your alleged right to health insurance coverage, someone else must give up their rights; i.e. their property. This is unjust and wrong, and violates the concept of a right.

More, if health care is a right, then rights simply become the plaything of whatever group obtains political power. A "living wage?" A basic human right! A house of a certain size? A basic human right! A car? A basic human right! A job? A basic human right! One can argue that all of these are necessary to live. And once you head down that path, there is no end.

On the other hand, if we limit rights to "negative rights," then the rights are clear and not the plaything of whoever is in power at the moment, and whatever aggrieved group screams the loudest.

None of this is to say that it is not the obligation of government to provide healthcare, to work to ensure the economy is at peak performance, or that everyone who is able to work and does can buy a house and property.

Finally, what does it even mean to say that "healthcare" is a basic human right? In your mind, and when we hear this in the media, people assume that it means the right to receive treatment for a dread disease like cancer or to be fixed up after a car accident. But what about sex-change operations? Abortions? There are those who even today include those. And if you disagree, by what criteria?

Ah, and now we get to the nub of the matter! [Rolls up sleeves in anticipation]

There are different "traditions" as to what rights are, of course. As an atheist, I would say that these things are not set in stone at all - they are to be debated in the public sphere and (hopefully) agreed upon. Even if I was a Christian, I'd have a hard time swallowing the idea that 18th century patriots were channelling God directly when they came up with the American Constitution. Not to detract from their achievement - it was clearly remarkable. But it wasn't handed down from heaven on tablets; they came up with it themselves.

There is also a vigorous tradition of "positive liberty", dating back to the 19th century idealist philosopher T.H. Green (who was also very religious, interestingly). I suspect this is the tradition of "progressivism" which you find so distasteful. You're right in that, to some degree it, exists in tension with a pure conception of "negative liberty". But the idea that positive liberty leads inexorably to fascism is absurd. There can be a balance, and as a society we have to decide where that balance is.

A world of purely negative liberty would be a hellish place. Anyone who thinks that food stamps are a good idea, or that the state has an obligation to provide education for every American child, is demanding positive liberty to some degree. And if we as a society decide that healthcare should be added to the list of rights, then that's for us to decide. God plays no part in it.

----

Re: coverage for abortions - wasn't this explicitly removed from the healthcare bill as part of bipartisan negotiations with Republicans? It's a perfect example of the legislative process working to define the limits of public healthcare.

Mylne - just because you don't have a right to food stamps doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. Government might provide many benefits to it's citizens, and might do so for many reasons. But that doesn't mean you have a right to those benefits. I give to charity, but those charities do not have a right to my money.

I assure you that whatever health care bill passes will cover abortions. Otherwise the majority of Dems wouldn't vote for it, and the pro-abortion er, "pro-choice" groups wouldn't have endorsed it. Bart Stupak was taken for a ride.

The last word is all yours

Fantastic! Healthcare passed! A happy day for America.

What makes government programmes like food stamps, schooling and healthcare "rights" and not "charity" is that the recipients needn't depend on the kindness of others - who might or might not decide to come through. Thanks to food stamps, my right to not starve to death is not dependent on whether you decide to feel compassionate or not. Same goes for healthcare now!

Mylne, good for you! And mike, taking your example, the family making $66,000 per year paying $8000 per year for insurance--I already know families of four making less than that paying MORE than that right now. I have relatives (repubs, ironically) who make less than $35,000 per year who pay over $500 per month, just for premiums. So how is this hurting them? Sure, right now they have the "freedom" to pay nothing, and then get hit with staggering bills and lose their homes and credit rating when they get sick. What was the republican solution to this again?

It's not the government's job to provide you with health insurance, Carrie, so get over it.

That said, if you're familiar with google try "Republican healthcare plans" or something similar. There are zillions of Republican/conservative plans out there (which I've blogged on) that reform the system along true free market lines. Their result will be more affordable insurance for all Americans. And we're all for a social safety net for the truly disadvantaged (i.e. mentally or physically incapacitated). But for the rest of the population it's your responsibility to get a job that will pay the bills, and health insurance is one of them.

If I'm not mistaken (and I'm not), it's the people's job to decide what the government's job is. There is a reason the government provides certain services, such as power, police and fire protection, food stamps, etc. It's because these are such basic necessities that people might die without them. If corporations took over utilities, for example, well we all saw how well that worked out for California with Enron.

All the people in my examples DO have jobs, and yet they are paying the equivalent of a mortgage payment so they can not die from a preventable disease. All while CEO's of these insurance companies get rich. How's that for free markets?

I've read most of the Repub. ideas--mostly tort reform, which has been enacted in several states but has not lowered health care costs in those states. Tax exemptions--not useful if you cannot pay your premiums NOW. The only idea that is good is opening of markets across state lines, but I have not heard how this will drive down costs.

Do you know THE no. 1 expense of health care in the U.S.? Administrative costs to sort out all the different plans. Which means the best ways to bring down costs would be single payer or regulate insurance so it all covers the same thing (basically both the same idea). But we weren't willing to do that so we have to settle for some middle ground, so that the middle class doesn't get sucked under.

Thanks for stopping by, Carrie. You seem like a nice person and you obviously mean well for our country. You also care about your friends, also a positive trait. This speaks well of you. This said, we obviously differ in our fundamental political philosophies.

It's not as simple as saying that "it's the people's job to decide what the government's job is." For example, the people cannot decide it's the government's job to do something that is unconstitutional. Congress cannot just pass any bill it wants just because someone thinks it will help people. And as I explained in my latest post, Obama Care is clearly unconstitutional.

Further, many Americans are very upset with and oppose ObamaCare. You've seen the polls, Carrie. Many (most? not sure) Americans disagree and do NOT think that it is the job of government to ensure universal health insurance. Either way, many who voted for Obama are having serous second thoughts. Most pundits are projecting Republican victories in November, possibly a takeover of one or more houses of Congress. This should be a lesson to Democrats that you went too far with your health care legislation, stimulus, etc.

"There is a reason the government provides certain services, such as power, police and fire protection, food stamps, etc...these are such basic necessities that people might die without them"

This is a Straw Man argument. I've noticed that whenever I question any part of the liberal agenda I get accused of all sorts of things. "Question global warming? You must be in favor of polluting our streams and rivers!" Just because we're all in favor of police and fire doesn't mean we have to have universal health care. The one does not logically follow the other.

Finally, the idea that Obama Care, much less single-payer, will drive down costs is simply laughable. We will get less service at a fantastically higher cost. As currently structured, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are bankrupting us. Add to that Obama Care and we face financial Armageddon. Unless we change our ways the financial crisis in Greece will spread to the rest of Europe and eventually to the U.S. And as several congressional defenders of Obama Care have stated, it's not about bringing down costs but redistribution of wealth.

Ok, I've had my say, you're the guest so you can have the last word if you want it. And I would look forward to your comments on other posts as well.

Thanks for being a gracious host. Not getting into the merits of your constitutional argument (I'm actually not opposed to state and local rights in most matters), you and I both know that argument will never fly in court. If the Feds can regulate carrying a gun next to a school and make an argument that it affects "interstate commerce", they can regulate just about anything.

I think you missed my point about utilities and police. These types of things are regulated because if we didn't have some sort of control over them, we'd have situations like some s. American countries where water supplies were privatized, and rates were raised so high that people are spending their entire pay on water. Health care, like food, water, electricity, etc. is not the same thing as buying a TV-- you need it in order to stay alive. It's not a luxury, so we need regulation to keep people (especially children) from dying.

And look, I'm not saying I like the idea of our deficit going up any more than it has to, or taxes. But what gets me is that the right screams about spending as long as it is about actually helping the little guy. Where was all the outrage when we were putting money right in the pockets of Halliburton for "reconstruction", after they ripped off billions of dollars in taxpayer money over and over again? What about all the subsidies during the Bush years to oil companies, who saw record profits? There are so many examples of this. Sure, the dems do it too, by bailing out big banks and insurance companies. But at least they also incliude the other 98 percent of the population in the handouts. The message from the right seems to be--"go make your own money, unless you're already rich and can grease our palms a little."

I guess the main dispute I have with the so-called "free market" philosophy is that it isn't really a free market when you have corporations involved. How can you complain that government wants to regulate an entity that is, by definition, a government created fiction that gives benefits (limited liability, consolidation of wealth) to a group of people? You want no laws regulating markets? Ok, how about we eliminate the laws allowing corps. to exist in the first place? Not acceptable? Oh, ok, then there needs to be laws to make sure companies who benefit from govt. protection play fair, and don't pay their CEO's exhorbitant salaries while bilking the public on necessities, like liver transplants.

Oh btw, forgot to address the poll number issue. Slightly over 50 percent of voters are against the bill, and I haven't seen any analysis saying that those were all against it because it reforms health care. Maybe some people are against it because it doesn't go far enough--there are lots out there who wanted to see a public option.

I don't know why anyone who voted for Obama would be angry at him for pushing this through--this is exactly what he campaigned on! He did just what he said he would do all along.

Bottom line is, I don't know for sure that it will bring down costs (although it should save hospitals thousands each year in written off ER visits), but it is a step in the right direction in preventing insurance companies from taking advantage of people who are sick and have no other choice.

Nice chatting with you!