Wednesday, July 15, 2009

A Quick Glance at the Nanny State Empowered

Let's just start with links to my sources (and any links within these are game). - Health care policy page - Obama Tells Congress to 'Buck Up,' as Clock Ticks on Health Care Reform - The House Health Care Bill: A Blueprint for Federal Control

Now here's what I've found out.

First, the House has a version of the bill that has an estimated price tag of $1-1.5 trillion over 10 years. And that's if congressional estimates hold (insert raucous laughter here). The Senate however, cam up with something that they figured would cost half that over the same time (insert choking from laughter here). And of course, this means the ol' "tax the rich" plan is how we're going to pay for it (standard eye roll initiated).

The public option would be designed to be "competitive." Of course the private plans that have to "compete" will have to do so under the rules Congress decides, whether the private companies can make a profit under those circumstances or not. Oh, and if they can't they'll stop providing plans, or be taken over to be forced to keep losing money.

The Hose bill requires that everyone has to be covered under terms that Congress decides are "acceptable coverage." That means you have to get coverage (even if you don't need it (either financially or medically)), or if you're below a certain level (4x the poverty level was the last figure I heard), the government will make you pick a plan and they'll pay for it by taking someone else's money (fyi, that's what will happen to my family).

And on the subject of coverage, you get penalized if you don't sign up for a plan. And if your employer doesn't offer one (with an exception for small businesses), they get punished. So it's forced coverage, even for people who don't want it. Shall I even make a "land of the free" crack here?

Well, the question for all of you who want the "public option" or just National Obamacare is a simple one: How do you justify essentially raping freedom under the guise of "providing"health care for all?

And of course, there's no time to debate this. Congress is trying to rush this through before anyone can really digest the bill. Or before they can read it all through. Their track record on that alone gives me the shivers.

But I guess it's not really socialized medicine....


Anonymous said...

I also did a post on health care although it didn't focus on this bill they are trying to push through. I just don't see how getting forced to get health care = freedom in any way, shape or form.

"How do you justify essentially raping freedom under the guise of "providing"health care for all?"

The answer is quite a simple one in this case, you just can't!!

TRUTH 101 said...

We get it in the you know what somehow or another. The right says it's a crock that welfare and medicaid recipients get theirs for nothing. The left says we're getting it from the rich insurance and drug companies.

I'm a single payer guy that wants the cost shared by everyone. We all get it. Single payer shrinks the penis.

And what do you mean by "raping freedom" anyway? How is wanting all Americans to have affordable and good health coverage a rape of freedom. It's patriotic and the right thing to do.

I will never complain about a decent American like yourself that needs help getting it. I'll gladly pay more in taxes to see that those who aren't as fortunate as I am. I ask that when things get better they also would gladly contribute more so that those still in hard times know their Country is ready to help.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"How is wanting all Americans to have affordable and good health coverage a rape of freedom."

Make no mistake about it, there is an absolute corollary between one's pocket book and one's freedom.

At the point where a portion of an individual's pocketbook is sacrificed (by force) for another individual chosen, not by the individuals themselves but instead, by some bureaucrat in Washington, freedom is sacrificed on the part of the individual who earned that wealth.

It's quite simple really. And that you either do not understand this or just plain refuse to understand it is a testament to your grotesque perversion of compassion not to mention your false altruism.

Patrick M said...

Jenn: When you say "I also did a post..." you're supposed to drop a link to start shit on your site too. :)

101: And what do you mean by "raping freedom" anyway?

When the government compels us to buy coverage and companies to offer it or be punished.

To clarify, I'm not opposed to safety net measures. But mandating the types of care all Americans HAVE to have is raping freedom.

Soaps: What you said.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"To clarify, I'm not opposed to safety net measures."

If they're ones implemented by the government and upheld through coercion I most definitely.

You want to be compassionate? I won't stop you. But, let me be perfectly blunt about this.

There is nothing "compassionate" about spending someone else's money no matter what the virtues of its intent."

If I acost a stranger on the street, take their wallet, and then proceed to give that money to a soup kitchen, an orphanage, etc. I am by definition a thief.

That we elect politicians in suits to carry out the practice does not the practice then make just.

dmarks said...

Now I find out that this bill is laden with pork. Like road money.

dmarks said...

With single-payer, we all "get it". And "it" is a one-size-fits-few monopoly with no accountability. No escape from it other than leaving the country or death.

TRUTH 101 said...

As usual, the righties hide behind their false snuggie of patriotism and bastardization of the word "freedom."

Are you guys for freedom to let those unfortunate enough to not have health insurance die? You guys talk of "the safety net." The citizens of this Country who pay taxes are the safety net. On one hand it's okay for the poor to get some. But then it isn't. Make your minds up. You want a society of those that have health insurance and those that don't. I choose health coverage for all.

I don't know what kind of HMO you belong to Dmarks that rivals me for kindness and benevolence that you defend this system.

47 million people don't have it. Single payer under my proposal covers everyone and everyone helps pay for it. I'd suggest you folks read and understand before resorting to the usual array of right wing talking points.

dmarks said...

"And on the subject of coverage, you get penalized if you don't sign up for a plan."

The first part's pretty outrageous, and is bullying. How can anyone defend this?

"And if your employer doesn't offer one (with an exception for small businesses), they get punished"

So, except for small businesses, business are encouraged by this bill to cut wages and other benefits in order to offer healthcare.

Small businesses are exempted, so watch this loophole to encourage businesses to organize in such a way that they meet the government definition of "small business".

It's only reasonable that when you have policies like this that punish business for being too big, they will try to get around them.

Truth: I favor reforms. Reforms that would make even more payers. Truly competitive, with reduction in the factors that tie people to one "payer" and make it difficult to switch.

That's much better than forcing everyone into the "my way or the highway" monopoly that is single-payer.

Right-wing talking points? The left-wing talking points against there being monopolies apply at least as well.

TRUTH 101 said...

We have laws requiring auto insurance so responsible people don't get stuck paying for the actions of the irresponsible.

Should someone be able to afford health insurance but says screw it. When and if that person needs health care the rest of is pay their bills.

If everyone was law abiding and responsible, we wouldn't need mandatory insurance laws. Hell. We wouldn't need laws at all.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

"We have laws requiring auto insurance so responsible people don't get stuck paying for the actions of the irresponsible."

And yet, not everyone carries auto insurance for one.

Secondly, auto insurance is no more a public "benefit" than is universal healthcare and yet we don't subsidize auto insurance now do we?

It amazes me that anyone can honestly think this present government capable of administering such a program.

I can afford my healthcare. Just because you can't or aren't willing to pay your cost for using more services, don't come to me looking to make up the difference.

Patrick M said...

101: Without rehashing every damned other point/counterpoint, let's drop the "unfortunate" bullshit.

with some exceptions for events that are out of our control, most every adult is in the place they are because of their choices.

I'm a perfect example of this. Much of my inaction, coupled with some really bad choices in the woman category, has dug me one hell of a hole. And while some bad choices by other (my parents) has helped me extract myself from some of the problems, my financial circumstances are my own.

So while I'm willing to compromise on some points (unlike the venerated and insane Soapster), in no way is insurance, or lack thereof, a matter of "fortune."

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Insane or not, I happen to beleive there can be no compromise on basic principles nor can there be on moral issues.

Patrick M said...

(Venerated AND insane) Soapster: Fair enough. The problem is when morality and principle conflict, as well as the need to compromise to pull the country back from the brink. I realize that's not a problem for you (especially because I can't see you compromising. But temporary and slowly lessening government involvement may be the only way to get real improvements passed.

That's what my plan is about: compromising on things that are already compromised to return closer to the principle.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

If it's true healthcare reform we want, we can start by rewriting the tax code. Allow individuals to purchase their own plans across state lines and removing the government regulations that prohibit you from doing so. Then, we can remove the government mandates that force my provider to offer me a plan covering things that I do not need thus driving up the cost.

On both morality and on principle it is unjust that the government should come between the contract established between me and my doctor or healthcare provider.

Trust me, it's going to be much easier to operate on me once we first remove the boot of government from off my chest.

Patrick M said...

No argument on getting Government out of the proctologist's office.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

It's amazing the balls of Americans to continue to refuse to see that the US has the shittiest healthcare among industrialized, civilized nations.

The US also has the only non-universal healthcare system among those industrialized, civilized nations.

But oh hell no! God forbid we should take a lesson from someone else, because that would mean we aren't THE BEST at something already.

Wake up.

Patrick M said...

It's amazing the balls of Americans to continue to refuse to see that the US has the shittiest healthcare among industrialized, civilized nations.

I call BS! We happen to be the place that most people from around the world come when they need the biggest, and the hardest medical procedures. They generally don't go to Canada. They don't drive over to the UK.

So while our delivery system is kind of hodge podge, our culture oriented toward not going to doctors until we're half-dead already (the reason for all your stats saying we suck), and paying for medical needs is a mess and a half, going the way of the dodo (or Canadian) is sure as shit not the way to go.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

Double bullshit Saty. Ever heard of a medical outfit called the Mayo Clinic???

No, I'm referring to the shit you put on your sandwich.

World leaders from around the globe travel to this well known outfit located in...wait for it....

Rochester, MN (that's in the United States).