Healthcare Reform Bill

[T. Scott Morgan]

Discuss...

[Nomad]

I have to admit that I haven't been keepimg up with this issue. I would love to see a good discussion though.

We need to somehow attract more people to this board.

[theatheistguy]

Although I haven't been following every change this bill has underwent, and therefore may not be able to comment on it fully, I must say that it's about time that universal healthcare was available in the States. So now there is a public option as well as private ones, there will be a some sort of public-private comparison market in the future, insurance companies will no longer be able to withdraw/refuse coverage due to previous illnesses/conditions. All sounds good to me.

What's the objection then? That it'll cost too much in a time of recession? So we would rather let people die then? Also, the fact that everyone will now be paying medical insurance will bring in more money. Or perhaps that there is already enough strain on the few medical staff and supplies America has? Where do you think this aforementioned money is going?

So what do people think? To agree with Nomad, we need people back on this site, I miss the debates.

[theatheistguy]

Ah...my apologies, there is no longer a public option. Granted this is a step in the right direction, but not quite as big a one as I'd thought. Pity really.

[T. Scott Morgan]

I haven't kept up with this issue much myself either really; I've been too busy lately, and next month is looking even worse. I'd like to spend some time over the next few weeks trying to encourage some new visitors to come jump in though.

[T. Scott Morgan]

After a quick Google search I ran across this short article by Ron Paul: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-prob ... nal-2010-3

This article briefly reiterates the arguments I have heard against the new bill, and I tend to agree, though again I haven't kept up too much with this. But I can see the potential for some sort of tort reform solving the problem of high health insurance costs without at the same time giving even more power to the federal government. There's a few hundred health insurance companies in the US. If they were permitted to extend their business across state lines so that they would all compete with one another, in all likelihood (as history has shown us) we'd see the cost of services decrease while the quality of them would increase. One of the issues that does really bug me about this is that, if I recall correctly, surveys have shown that the majority of US citizens no longer back Obama, and yet Congress is still managing to pass these bills, seemingly without giving possible alternative solutions any serious consideration. And that does raise the question, is the US government really a representation of the people anymore, which was historically considered to be its central duty?

I'm not at all against the idea of universal health care if it can be provided and still maintain good quality service. But from what I understand it doesn't sound like we are moving in the direction that could someday lead to the best achievement of that goal, and it doesn't appear that Congress and the President are too interested in hearing the other options that so many (and again I stress the apparently decreasing number of Obama supporters) are proposing ... options that will both decrease health insurance costs while potentially increasing quality, rather than potentially decreasing health insurance costs while also decreasing quality and granting an unconstitutional amount of power to the federal government.

My immediate thoughts at least.

[baby blue]

my immediate thoughts are that universal healthcare in the US is a good thing.


I can't quite understand how anyone would have an objection to this.


But, I admit I am a broadly liberal Brit from a bohemian family .... not very popular with the majority of the Christian American Right.
It seems to me that Jesus was in favour of love for all; this could be seen as in agreement with free health care for all (but paid for by taxes of course) (tongue in cheek ).

[xapis]

bb,
I think "liberal" is a misnomer these days. The statist political philosophy it describes doesn't really do justice to the word itself. Ideologically, I consider myself a "classical liberal" and am very much opposed to a government-run health care system. However, I also distance myself from much of the American "Christian Right" because of the religio-statist fundamentalism and neo-conservatism to which the movement is usually tied.

Understanding the framework of classical liberalism should give you greater insight into how having a government-run health care system is so utterly appalling to me and to a growing number of other liberty-minded Americans.

Check this out: What is classical liberalism?

For some lighter reading, see the Wikipedia article: Classical liberalism

I think we can get into big trouble making Jesus the poster boy for any government-run "universal health care" system. It blurs the role distinctions between the institutions of family, church, and state in an unbiblical way.

A key question here, too: At what point does the state's taxation of its citizenry's wealth become organized and institutionalized theft? I seem to recall a certain problem with this sort of thing between the Yanks and the Brits a little over a couple centuries ago.

[baby blue]

bb,
I think "liberal" is a misnomer these days. The statist political philosophy it describes doesn't really do justice to the word itself. Ideologically, I consider myself a "classical liberal" and am very much opposed to a government-run health care system. However, I also distance myself from much of the American "Christian Right" because of the religio-statist fundamentalism and neo-conservatism to which the movement is usually tied.

Good to hear that you distance yourself from the "Christian" Right" xapis


I read the article you posted. I think that your last question is hard to answer. It seems that Brits and Americans (broadly speaking)just can't understand each others POV on this issue. hmmm I don't think ppl want handouts, but there should be some basic healthcare. The work ethic is all well and good, but these days as we know, there are not enough jobs to go around. And I seriously doubt anyone would disagree with that. The American dream is just that; a Dream. Something to aspire to, but not all can achieve it.
To look after the weakest in society is a financial burden we all should carry IMO.
It is ethical.

[xapis]

Well, I admit that I am an idealist ideologue.

If you give those in power a milligram, they'll take a kilo (converted to metric for your convenience ). Honestly, I am not liking the ROI on my tax dollars at the moment; and I don't see it getting any better. If we had politicians with an ounce (back to standard measurements for my convenience) of economic acumen, I might not be so concerned. But payday has to come sooner or later for the 24-7-365 operation of the printing presses of our fiat paper currency. When it does it's going to be global in impact. Even you, my friends in the mother country, should be prepared for the worst due to these shortsighted central banking policies. The wages of debt is...?

I'd say the U.S. already has what you're asking for in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, and other state programs. But I would even challenge the benefit of these programs for society as a whole. The current economic policies of the West (not just the U.S.) are unsustainable. Wealth (and that's what I think we're really dealing with at the bottom of the health care debate) is not created by government. But government can (and does) destroy it. Only when free markets are allowed to govern themselves (i.e. by the people) will they (the people) be able thrive.

Charity and the ethics of helping the helpless are ideally left to the institutions of the family and the church. Also, with individual freedom comes individual responsibility. Freedom is negated when it is given up for security of any kind. This is especially true when said "security" is forced by the government upon the governed without their consent. My freedom and ability to go into the health care market, for example, and choose what coverage best suits me and my family is stymied by the exorbitant tax burden I have to bear. The aforementioned government programs are already forcing good doctors and hospitals to close their doors because they're not being paid for the services rendered to the growing number of government-covered patients. These programs are insolvent, but somehow they are essentially going to be expanded universally? I don't see how. This is the kind of unsustainability I am talking about; and most of the problems are due to incompetent, colossal bureaucracies created and fed by equally incompetent and self-serving politicians looking for votes, influence, campaign funding, and more votes.

What fills the vacuum of freedom negated but slavery?

The political philosophy we espouse comes down to the things we value most. I value life and liberty as the two greatest things we can all share as human beings on this side of eternity.