We're back from Tennessee, and just when I thought I've been out of the loop, a quick update of the news told me that the healthcare challenges continue for Obama & Co. The Democrats are working overtime to try to sell their universal healthcare agenda to the American people, but the American people aren't buying.
But beyond that, it's very troubling to see the rhetoric that is being aimed at those who are speaking up at the townhall meetings. For example, in an editorial in today's USA Today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) describe the scenes as "un-American". And in an article in The Washington Post, Democratic Congressman Baron Hill (D-Ind.) describes those speak up at the meetings as "political terrorists".
These are very strong words, to say the least. Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with all of the tactics used at these townhall meetings. And were I to attend one, I would probably be inclined to attempt a different means of accomplishing the goal of voicing my concerns over this ill-conceived healthcare legislation. But to label those who are exercising their constitutionally-protected right to free assembly and free speech as "un-American" and "political terrorists" is completely innapropriate.
And as I said in last Thursday's post, it is also ironic, considering the track record of liberals who attempt to disrupt events. For example, when Code Pink attempted to shout down Sarah Palin here in Indianapolis last October, no one used such lambastic rhetoric concerning them. As someone wrote in today's Indianapolis Star,
Why is a liberal protest an expression of free speech and a conservative protest an unruly mob?
Good question! 
UPDATE: Chuck Colson brings a very balanced perspective on the "angry mobs" at the townhall meetings. Worth the read.
it is because, of course, republicans are by and large themselves unruly.
you all are a self-selecting group, and the people who would show up at these townhall meetings in order to disrupt -- not to have real discourse -- are exactly what you called them: a mob.
and you know it.
the FUD surrounding this whole issue is absolutely astounding.
i mean, look at the paragraph in this article about stephen hawking:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877
i mean, holy crap.
surely you have heard some of the many many good explinations of what this healthcare reform is actually trying to accomplish, right?
surely you're not just watching FOX for information about all of this?
you are aware that we as a country have socialized police, military, schools, electricity, food & drug inspecitons, space exploration, swimming pools, roads, fire departments and parks, right?
all of these services are things that are provided to us, the people, by us the people, paid for by our taxes, because this is stuff that the market does not do well.
deciding what treatment sick people get should NOT be the job of insurance companies who are in the game for profit.
it should be the job of that individual person's physician, and that physician should be paid a generous salrary and get bonuses based on how healthy her patients are.
and the money to pay for that should come from out tax dollars.
the VERY wealthy can certainly afford to chip in a little more in order to ensure that the bottom 90% of wage earners in this country can afford quality medicinal care.
it seems like it should be a no-brainer to me.
all this talk of "socialism" is just mind blowing.
i do not get it.
Posted by: chris corwin | August 11, 2009 at 03:26 AM
Chris,
I guess that I have a completely different view than you. I have chosen to hear both sides of both "extreme" media sources. It is quite obvious that all major news networks are on the far-left and FOX is on the far right. If you turn on the network news at any time, who knows if what you're getting is accurate, the same goes for Fox. Since they are all skewed for a specific political party, then neither one of them can be fully trusted. However, I believe that there are some pretty basic concepts and thoughts here that are facts and I believe.
A couple of quick points here.
1) Why on earth would anyone think that it's ok to tax the life out of the wealthy? Why should they be punished? So, you're saying that if I work my butt off to provide for my family, take the risks of starting my own businees and doing a great job and as a result, I make good money, then I should be penalized and taxed to death to pay for insurance for those the lazy who choose not to work and go on welfare, for those who chose not to work hard to become educated, for those who just choose not to have insurance. It's all American laziness at its best and is starting to define our country. If you want insurance, then you will find a way to get insurance. Don't penalize me because I work hard to get ahead in life and am blessed. If I want to give to help people out, then that should be my choice and I shouldn't be forced to do it by my government. It's like two kids, one has worked really hard; mowed grass all summer and saved his money to buy a new Nintendo that he really wanted. But, there is another kid in the neighborhood who also really likes the Nintendo, but he didn't do anything to try and earn the money. Well, since the other kids don't have a Nintendo, the neighborhood association steps in, takes the Nintendo away from the kid saved up for it and says that he now has to give up the Nintendo and allow each of the neighborhood kids to use it because they don't have one. That's a view from someone who will be living in this world...MINE! I work my butt off. I regulary put in crazy hours, educate myself on my own time to stay ahead of the technology curve so that I can be successful in the world. I save my money, pay my bills and, yes, I do have some "stuff" that I've accumulated. I don't think that it's anyone right to take away from what I've worked so hard for. Especially those who choose not to work like I do.
2) Insurance companies working for a profit? Wow, what a novel concept. A company that actually charges to try and make money to pay for the salaries of employees. This is where there is some misconceptions, I believe. Insurance is a business. Companies selling goods and services. If there is no profit. No purpose for staying competitive, then there is no need for innovation, no need for advances in medicine. No need for many various types of insurance companies and no need to employ lots of people. See, everyone lives in this dream world of unicorns, rainbows and fairy dust. The world's not fair. Sorry! Capitalism works. We're the strongest, most powerful country because of it. The approaches that are being taken right now is absolutely Socialistic and follow the approach of Marxism. Don't believe me, read it for yourself...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
Posted by: Jason W. | August 11, 2009 at 08:01 AM
Chris,
As hard as it may be to believe, I don't actually get all of my views on anything from FOX News since we don't have cable (or at least, we didn't until yesterday--so now I can finally become as brainwashed by it as you've assumed on here all along :). My views on healthcare have been shaped by an MD father and an RN mother who have worked in the healthcare field for nearly 45 years.
It is true that the government has encroached in many areas, but the simple question, "Is that really a good thing?" You assume it is. I don't. I believe, as our founding fathers did, that government is a necessary evil that should be limited to a few select areas (e.g. maintaining a national military for defense, as just one example). They advocated for a limited government, because they fully understood the potential for the abuse of power.
The question in this debate is whether or not universal healthcare is a right or a privilege? Depending on what a person believes about that shapes what they think the government should do. I agree with Jason W.'s contention that we should help those who *genuinely* cannot help themselves, but that such a decision should be ours to make. When the government steps in and imposes that decision, that is a problem. The goal throughout (no matter what issue is being debated) should be to create greater independence for people, rather than furthering dependency (which was one of the glaring problems with government-run welfare, for example).
What is not being acknowledged by the media and by the Obama administration when they throw around the statistic that 45 million Americans are uninsured is that the majority of those people fall into two significant categories: 1.) those who have the means to get insurance but who have voluntarily chosen not to do so, and 2.) the millions of illegal aliens who are uninsured. Certainly, that still leaves a great many people who are in need of insurance. But forcing the wealthy to pay for it doesn't seem fair.
While it may seem fair to "share the wealth" from the perspective of those who don't have it, would it seem fair by those who have worked hard to earn it? Jason W's. Nintendo analogy applies here. The assumption in that whole line of thinking is that somehow the wealthy acquired their wealth by unfair means. And thus, taking from them to give to the poor is some form of collective justice for all. And that certainly doesn't seem to be a fair assumption. If the wealthy want to help the poor, that is certainly their right--and I know a great many who are currently giving literally millions away to do just that. But it is their choice, not something the government has compelled them to do. And that is as it should be. (Furthermore, what is also not acknowledged by Obama & Co., is that given the cost of what they are proposing, taxing the wealthy isn't actually going to cover it all. Which means that the burden of "spreading the wealth" will fall on the middle class too.)
Furthermore, a government-run healthcare program will eliminate the natural competition in this field which will ensure that the quality of healthcare will actually go down in the long run. (But that's a discussion for another time.)
Posted by: John | August 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Well said, Jason and John. It's awfully easy for those 'without' to assume that those 'with' didn't sacrifice for it. I don't see health care as a right. One should have to earn it.
I would say this; there seems to be a difference between the war protestors and the people angry about health care reform. The pictures I saw of war protestors were mostly of people trying to chant over someone speaking from an opposing point of view. I find this distasteful. The videos I have seen of the health care folks seem to be mostly of (older) individuals that are pissed, but are trying to engage in a conversation. That is perfectly fine to me. The big difference being, one is trying to stifle discussion, the other is allowing it (albeit in angry tones). I've never found lack of communication to solve any problem.
That said, I don't care for the scare tactics that the conservative talking heads seem to be promoting. I think there is a lot of intentional misinformation about euthenasia and taking away services that is trying to confuse and scare the elderly. That isn't helping the debate at all. This legislation should fail because of its cost, not because of unlikely effects on service.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | August 11, 2009 at 12:40 PM
> 1) Why on earth would anyone think that it's ok to tax
> the life out of the wealthy? Why should they be
> punished?
If someone is bringing in more than $10 million dollars a year, paying an extra $300,000 a year in taxes is hardly "punishment".
it is an extra 0.03% of their income -- even if they don't employ and "tax hacks" and pay a full 40% they would have nearly six million and dollars left with which to buy ferraris and organic soy milk.
on the other hand, for someone making $28,000 a year, say as a night manager at a non-chain restaurant, paying the $250 -- $400 a month they must cough up for health coverage is many times the $250 a month they need to spend on food and school clothes, and so they must choose.
that is where the real punishment is.
> 2) Insurance companies working for a profit? Wow, what a
> novel concept. A company that actually charges to try
> and make money to pay for the salaries of employees.
can you imagine our world if basic human services were all provided by for-profit companies?
some things are best left to the people, because they simply care about each other and want everyone to have a shot at being happy and healthy.
we have fire trucks and safe food because of these socialized services.
healthcare should be no different.
i am amazed that any thinking person can hold this opinion:
> I don't see health care as a right. One should have to earn it.
this is...
jaw-dropping.
a human being born in the 21st century should have to EARN the right to be healthy??
i refuse to accept such a position.
every human being has a fundamental right to these things:
being happy
being educated
being healthy
being in love
being alive
being free to pursue the above things
whether any given country's law admits such a right, such a right is there, simply by nature of being born with intelligence.
every single human being has the right to these things.
anyone who would willfully withhold those things from someone is...
i don't have the words for it.
mean.
just plain mean.
it's so easy to sit here in our middle class (even lower middle class) chairs and sip our coffees and discuss these "rights"
but the above sentiments, that the very wealthy would somehow suffer under a nationalized system,
that the inherently selfish system that is capitalism is the best way to do altruistic causes, and
that some people are more worthy of being healthy than others
again, i am shocked.
saddened, and shocked.
if there IS a god, she vehemently disagrees with the evil i find here.
:(
Posted by: chris corwin | August 11, 2009 at 03:40 PM
also:
the healthcare system is not a nintendo.
it is not a thing to be divided up and handed out.
this is simply not an apt analogy.
it is created in a vacuum, and we can *all* be well taken care of.
the kid with no nintendo can have one *and* the kids who already have them can keep theirs.
the huge bureaucracy that is the insurance system we have in place now is not working -- not even for those who *have* insurance.
we are the the *least* healthy industrialized nation in the world, and we as a country spend more per person on healthcare than all of those above us.
and we have millions of people who simply can't afford to buy into the system at all.
and millions more who are in the system, but just barely --- if they get cancer, they're screwed.
you people act like we're trying to steal the gem out of your doughnuts.
don't you realize that we can, each and every one of us, work together to put a gem in everyone's doughnut?
Posted by: chris corwin | August 11, 2009 at 03:50 PM
Chris,
I must confess, some of your condescending rhetoric makes it difficult to genuinely consider some of the good points you're trying to make.
I would simply respond on a couple of points. First of all, it's easy to suggest that taking a wealthy person's $300,000 dollars is hardly punishment when it's not your money they're talking about taking (unless you have much more money on hand than I would assume you have). After all, it's not the amount, nor the percentage of one's gross, that is the point. It is the principle of having the government tell anyone what they should or shouldn't give to help their fellow citizens. That is the point behind Jason W.'s Nintendo example.
Secondly, helping fellow citizens is the right thing to do, and has been a defining quality of the American experience, both here and abroad, throughout our history. The question is, what is the right way to go about helping them? For example, one of the other key values in American is promoting personal responsibility. Many people in need of healthcare did not get that way in a vacuum. It's difficult to reconcile the notion that certain people have a right to *free* healthcare, when for example, they've been abusing their body (with drugs, alcohol, smoking, overeating, whatever...) for years.
Just to make it personal, let's consider my own dad, for example. In recent years, he has had to go in for multiple surgeries--including bypasses--to correct clogged arteries. While my dad is an extremely disciplined person where physical exercise is concerned, he also ate at McDonalds almost everyday over a 30+ year period, a habit which has severely affected his cholesterol levels and subsequent health problems. It may be his right to healthcare, as you suggest, but that right cannot be separated from his willingness to make good health decisions over the course of his life. And he is not a smoker, drinker, chronic overeater, or couch potato. But imagine if he was, as many people are. The issue of whether or not others (who have been more responsible with their own lives) should pay for his care is not a matter of blind indifference to the plight of the less fortunate. It strikes at this fundamental issue of personal responsibility.
The fact is, we are a nation who has gradually moved farther and farther away from helping people accept the consequences of their own behavior. And we are not better for it (and neither are they).
I wonder, from your perspective, Chris, where does personal responsibility come into play? Where money and health are concerned, I would concur with what President Woodrow Wilson said, "All any American should desire is a free field and no favors." That is why people, yourself included, work within the capitalistic system. I find it interesting that you would automatically categorize capitalism as "the inherently selfish system", and yet, you yourself benefit from it, and don't seem to mind that reality. It is always ironic to me that those who denigrate the free enterprise way of life are quick to laud the merits of what is essentially a socialistic alternative, without having actually lived in any of the countries who have suffered under such regimes. Moreover, those critics of America are hardly willing to move out and go live in the very governmental systems they so readily applaud. Why is that, if such systems are so much better than our own?
Do we need to help other out when they are in need? Most certainly. Is giving them free anything the best to do it? Not always. The fact is, capitalism is an incentives-based idea which actually promotes less dependency on handouts and more independence for an individual. And that, I would argue, is a much greater loving act than moving people into a system that encourages them to embrace their own dependency on others.
Posted by: John | August 11, 2009 at 04:31 PM
Thanks for the math lesson, Chris. Percentages are a nice equalizer, but there is no justification for going to a percentage based system (let alone a graduated percentage base system). That's like saying some of us get the privilege of being 'more patriotic'. A dollar is a dollar. It shouldn't matter how many times you've earned one before. When I go buy a car, they don't have different prices based on how much money I make...that's because we are all supposedly equal.
If you don't think $300K is a lot of money, then feel free to donate it, but penalizing someone for being successful seems patently un-American to me. Sadly, a lot of America is becoming un-American to me.
There are certainly improvements that can be made to the health care system, particularly where all parties are incented to overuse care. There are places where the government should help regulate and facilitate, but those savings should go towards reducing the costs for those who pay for it...not have a tax slapped on top to pay for those who don't. Then even the poorest should be able to afford it.
You may think of me as mean. Guilty as charged. The fact is that there are a lot of people out there soaking up oxygen and other precious resources and not contributing a darn thing to our world. If someone can't get their shit together enough to pay for medical insurance, then I got no love for 'em. (Not talking about special cases.) Make room for someone who can.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | August 11, 2009 at 04:47 PM
> I must confess, some of your condescending rhetoric makes it difficult
> to genuinely consider some of the good points you're trying to make.
Irony - noun - having the qualities or consistacy of iron.
"This anvil diselicious! It's so irony!"
> The fact is, capitalism is an incentives-based idea which actually
> promotes less dependency on handouts and more independence for an
> individual. And that, I would argue, is a much greater loving act than
> moving people into a system that encourages them to embrace their own
> dependency on others.
Ought we, then, suck the yoke of our already nationalized and/or socialized services?
When my neighbor's house caught on fire, ought they have refused the help of the fire department, out of principle?
Isn't a greatly subsidized national postal service simply allowing us to embrace our dependancy upon others?
Ought not we take the proper responsibility and either deliver our own post, or be willing to pay what it would cost in a fully free market?
What about, as I mentioned earlier, food safety?
Do you boycott foods sold by those who recieve inspections from the FDA?
You have bemoaned reliance upon "the government" (we the people) for such services, and you have pointed out that I myself enjoy the benefits of living a consumerist society, suggesting that I ought to "love it and leave it".
When you get in conversations with police officers, do you ask them how they can sleep at night, knowing that they make it too easy for everyday average people to rely on others for thier familiy's protection?
Ought we not, rather, simply band together and enforce the rules of our society as volunteers, rather than rob our citizens of thier hard earned money to pay for such trivial services?
No, we ought not, and you know it --- which is, I suspect, why you've ignored this line of thinking completely.
This healthcare thing is a bogeyman, being pushed to the forefront by those who are either too stupid to think through the issues or smart enough to manipulate others for their own gain -- no matter the harm done in the process.
I am ashamed of the discourse I have seen in this country over this issue.
Posted by: chris corwin | August 11, 2009 at 06:27 PM
> Thanks for the math lesson, Chris. Percentages are a nice equalizer, but
> there is no justification for going to a percentage based system
When I buy a hamburger, I spend a percentage of my total wealth on that hamburger.
Let us say I spend $2.16 on it.
When Bill Gates buys a hamburger for $2.16 he pays the exact same amount -- but the percentage of his total wealth expended is much, much, smaller.
That hamburger is *less expensive* to him than it is for me.
Buying that hamburger is a bigger personal sacrifice for me than it is for him.
A system where the very very wealthy and the very very poor are forced to spend roughly the same amount of money in order to recieve basic medical care is inherently unfair, in that it becomes logarithmically more expensive, the less money one has.
This is the justification for going to a system where healthcare is simply free, to any and to all who need it.
Not because they have earned it.
Not even in spite of whether they have "earned it" or not.
But simply because it is the right thing to do.
It ought to be embarrasing to you that this is not how it is now.
That this is not embarrasing to you is embarrasing to me.
Posted by: chris corwin | August 11, 2009 at 06:33 PM
Chris,
The reason I have ignored aspects of your comments above does not have to do with an inability or unwillingness to entertain them. But simply, because if I were to address everything you have brought up in your comments, the response would get so long that I wouldn't get anything else done in the day. :)
"This healthcare thing is a bogeyman, being pushed to the forefront by those who are either too stupid to think through the issues or smart enough to manipulate others for their own gain -- no matter the harm done in the process." This is exactly the kind of denigrating rhetoric directed toward those with whom you disagree that I was talking about in my previous comment. That are so quick to demonize the "unruly mobs" at these townhall meetings because of similarly divisive rhetoric tends to undermine the arguments you are attempting to make.
That said, if I'm going to be consistent--and in keeping with the point of this original post--you have every right to express yourself in whatever way you choose. I just don't think it's helping your cause.
Posted by: John | August 11, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Once again, Chris, I think everyone here understands percentages. The fact is that the hamburger ISN'T less expensive to Mr. Gates. It's exactly the same price. Currency is the great equalizer. $2.16 is the same to Mr. Gates as it is to me, because we can both get a hamburger, or a pair of socks, or a new pen for that money. The fact that he can also buy a few billion more pens is irrelevant. He came up with a world-changing idea and deserves to be rewarded for it. The world agrees by giving him its money. You seem to think that the amount of pain felt by all should be equalized, rather than the amount of dollars, regardless of the fact that some have worked harder to create that wealth.
And save your embarrassment for yourself. Consider aiming it at your condescending and patronizing tone. I'm quite comfortable in my views, and the fact that I don't think everyone deserves high quality care just means I'm less compassionate, not stupid.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | August 11, 2009 at 09:35 PM
I would've weighed in sooner, but I've been working all day- in the healthcare field! =)
Bottom line for me is this, capitalism works, because we are all inherently selfish. As difficult as it is to admit, if I don't get paid for my time, do you think I'm gonna work extra just because I love my job? Sorry, no. I admit it's selfishness, but it's the way we are all wired.
AND, Why are we making it the government's right to set the parameters for what kind of healthcare is given and gotten? It'll lessen the incentive for providers to give good care, and it'll lessen the incentive for recipients to do anything to get jobs if they've got free healthcare. The burden will continue to rise on the 'rich'/ hard-workers (and eventually the middle class)because their taxes will be paying for the healthcare of others who potentially have the ability to work themselves.
Posted by: Jean | August 11, 2009 at 10:43 PM
i'm not being condescending -- i'm being *right*
just kidding
i am being hyperbolic and blustery, because this topic deserves passion, and i am passionate about it.
if i thought i had a real "cause" here, and that anything i did or said could "help" it, i would bother being more diplomatic.
but since being a thinking compassionate person is considered to be the same thing as being wrong in these parts, i don't bother: i simply shout as one in the desert, hoping that one day the truth i gush forth here will be remembered as the wisdom it is when that terrible day comes that you can no longer deny what i have been saying all along.
you'll have to hand deliver the apologies to me, though, as you'll be so entrenched in a non-socialized system that you'll refuse to use the internet to email me, since it was developed by ARPA.
Posted by: chris corwin | August 11, 2009 at 10:43 PM
> That said, if I'm going to be consistent--and in keeping with the point
> of this original post--you have every right to express yourself in
> whatever way you choose. I just don't think it's helping your cause.
oh, good -- so my point is getting accross?
that the disruptive techniques at town-hall meetings is, after all, unamerican?
that intelligent, mutually respectful discourse, where one actually tries to listen to the other point of view is better?
we can agree on that?
oh, good.
now hopefully we can get the GOP leadership on board?
Posted by: chris corwin | August 11, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Yes, I hope we can agree on that, Chris. Which is why I keep bringing up your particular approach to these discussions. If a person keeps yelling, when everyone has stopped listening, then he/she will eventually find themselves yelling alone in the desert, because everyone else will have gone elsewhere for more fruitful discussion.
You also make it seem as though you're the only "thinking compassionate person...in these parts". Or that those who hold the liberal point of view are the only thinking compassionate people out there. I know that's the not the case. Just because you and I disagree significantly on many issues doesn't make you any more thoughtful or compassionate, nor me any less so. The goal in all of this is to try to figure out how to apply that thoughtful compassion when evaluating the issues.
And one of the ways to do that is by applying that "intelligent, mutually respectful discourse, where one actually tries to listen to the other point of view".
The fundamental question on this particular issue is, "What is the most compassionate thing to do--giving a person a fish, or teaching them to fish, as it were?"
Posted by: John | August 11, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Chris, do you think it is merely coincidence that we are the greatest nation on Earth? Other countries have more resources than us. The reason we are great is because people are rewarded for hard work, and penalized for sloth. We are gradually taking away both of those incentives. There are plenty of places in this world where people prefer to spread the wealth. Why would you want to eliminate the one place where someone can be rewarded for hard work? I'm not saying love it or leave it, but why not leave the option open for those who choose to live that way. (Think of it as being Pro-Choice... oh wait...that one is already taken.)
Compassion is fine. It just shouldn't be government mandated.
And while you're doing all that 'thinking' that all us simple morons obviously ain't capable of, why don't you ponder about how compassionate it is to imply that people who disagree with you haven't thought through their opinions. How very, very compassionate of you.
For the record, places where government could provide help on the health care issue:
-Competing public insurance option
-Regulation on pre-existing conditions
-Regulation on dropping coverage
-Tort reform
-Mandating data transfer methodology
In short, government should be in the business of making thing more efficient and standardized; not charity.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | August 12, 2009 at 12:08 AM
I take back what I said about the health care protestors being less about chanting and more about dialogue. The last couple days have changed my mind. Same garbage as the war protestors. Just different topic.
You would have to be nuts to have a town hall meeting.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | August 12, 2009 at 03:08 PM
After reading all 18 comments from the last politically charged post, mulling it over and hearing the presidents "town hall" meeting yesterday et al, I think I want to say some things. Sorry for the length.
I can see both sides. Chris makes a few good points. I think you others also make some good points. But I think that none of us really know what we're fully talking about or what the truth of this health care bill is (what's in it vs. the fear that's being spread around). In my experience it's usually somewhere in the middle.
Things I think we all can agree on are (1) something needs to be done with the healthcare payer/payee system, and I think RA hit on those points. (2) none of us want to see a rationing of healthcare or see healthcare diminish in quality. (3) right now we have the best quality health care (actual physical care, not cheapness) in the world. (4) we've got a ton of people who in spite if wonderful care, mistreat themselves through diet, lack of exercise, drug use etc.
Anywho, to sum my comments down a bit. I think Chris' argument for healthcare reform using other government agencies as a promotion for his cause is laughable. Mainly because most of those agencies he mentioned are run at the local level (police, fire, schools, parks etc.). The others (FDA, Military, et. al.) would require a whole other discussion to translate into a plus for the Feds. running healthcare.
That said, some of the opposition wants to label those uninsured as lazy. I'll give you that there may be quite a large percentile of that. Personally I'd rack it up as being ignorant more than lazy (not ignorant in the sense that they are stupid, ignorant in the sense that they just don't know how bad they need it). I take care of uninsured ALL the time, they just had no clue something this catastrophic could happen. They were focusing on the good times, not preparing for the honest future. Call it niavete?
There is one more point I'd like to make. It is regarding the nintendo. :) There is a point there to be made, mostly about availability. I'll go from personal experience here. I work for a large hospital system, I pay about $400 per month for health insurance for my family of 5. But my employer pays way more, in the neighborhood of $1k per month. So 16,800 per year for health insurance for a family of 5 total. But it's also income based at the company level, so someone making less than me will pay less, and the company will pay more of it. [I'm not sure what congressman and senators pay for their plan, but I'm sure it's less, and it's the same company (Anthem)]. There are two discrepancies here. 1) Anthem sets rates differently not necessarily based on cost of insuring someone. (this is completely guesswork on my part) 2) It DOES cost more for people who are poor/uninsured to get coverage because they will have to pay for what the employer normally pays (the full $1400 per month, verses $400).
So, is this really all it's come down too? Who pays for the extra $1000 per month for a family, or for my single co-workers, the extra $500 per month? OK, so break it down, 46 million pre-sumed uninsured people at $500 per month (them paying their share of $200 or so per month). Yikes, 276 Billion per year. Yeah, write that one down, 276 followed by 9 zeros.
That's just to insure them. Who knows how much it actually costs. I think it's just too darn unrealistic on the practical level.
I have yet to touch on the philisophical
Posted by: andy | August 15, 2009 at 03:24 PM
Ok, on the philosophical side of things, I'll make this brief. Do you think it's time to stop the experiment called the constitution? I mean, our country for all practical purposes looks nothing like the country described in that document displayed at the national archives. And our "representatives" surely don't follow it anymore.
Posted by: andy | August 16, 2009 at 12:51 PM
We do away with the Constitution and we open ourselves up to a pure democracy, which is a Pandora's box of possible problems. It a Republic which gives us the rule of law. The democracy, on the other hand, is ultimately the rule of the majority, regardless of the law. (Consider, for example, that Rome was a republic. And yet, Jesus, who was not found guilty in their court, was still given a death sentence. This was because Pontius Pilate did not choose to follow the dictates of Roman law, as he should have. Instead, he gave into the demands of the democratic mob.)
The rationale to do away with the Constitution sounds similar to the suggestion that we should pass out condoms at school because kids are having sex anyway.
Why does acquiescence seem to be the default position on such issues? Why does it seem to be the best alternative? It certainly is the easiest, but is it the best?
Rather than giving in to what appears inevitable to many, can't we redouble our efforts to shore up the crumbling foundation? There are still enough vestiges of our republican form of government to make it possible to do that. One being education about the Constitution and why it matters. And two, the ability to vote out the bad apples and vote in fresh blood who, hopefully, would follow the Constitution as it was intended to be followed. Granted, these are not easy solutions, but they are possible solutions, with enough perseverance.
Posted by: John | August 16, 2009 at 03:34 PM