Not surprisingly every Republican is united against tonight's vote. I am listening to the GOP's weekly address and will explain why several of the things they list in the beginning are wrong.
- They say that this health care bill would "increase taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars." This is true taxes will be increased. However the problem with that is the main way the health care bill is going to be paid for (besides cutting Medicare) is through taxing couples making above $250,000 a year and taxing individuals making over $200,000 a year. That means an increase in taxes for right around 2% of us. They make is sound as though everyone is going to have massive tax increases but that is just not the case.
- The health care bill will "cut medicare for hundreds of senior citizens by hundreds of billions of dollars." Again this is true however they conveniently leave out the fact that there is a whole new system being proposed that the senior citizens would be eligible for.
- The health care will will "grow the Federal Government by over 2.4 trillion dollars." Once again the GOP is "right". The plan will increase the debt of our country no doubt. They somehow came up with the number 2.4 trillion dollars over ten years however the official bill and the one being debated only costs $849 billion over ten years. That is $84.9 billion dollars a year. However CBO has recently stated that the Senate health care bill would:"Cut the federal deficit by $130 billion in its first decade, more than any other bill. It would cut the budget deficit by as much as $650 billion in the second decade."(ABC news) So the deficit is going to go down in the long run.
- The health care bill will "push the needy uninsured into a failing Medicaid system." That was a big one.Without arguing about the assumption that Medicaid is a failing system (my grandparents would say it isn't) I will simply say that the poor probably prefer something instead of nothing.
- The health care bill will "leave millions of Americans uninsured." That one is funny. The GOP was trying to block the bill from entering the debate phase of passing. They don't even want to change it. And now they are unhappy because the health care bill is not the universal health care bill that they called socialist?
- Finally the health care bill will "establish a massive governmental intrusion into management of our health care economy." I don't know about you but I would much rather have the government (whom I elected) have control over health care than a group of CEO's who see me as a bag of money. I also do not like the fact that here health care is labeled an economy. It is upsetting that we label people's lives as simply part of an economy.
Thoughts? Comments? post them below.
22 comments:
Wow. That was terribly wrong. If you actually believe that a government takeover of health care is a good thing then you are probably socialist. When are the people in this country going to wake up and smell the coffee? Obama is turning the U.S into the USSR! This article didn't even mention that medicare is being cut by 200 billion dollars! That will put our seniors on the streets!
Please explain and elaborate.
How does believing that the government should control the cost of healthcare in this country - and make sure that nobody is bankrupted by it - make them a socialist?
And from your tone, I take it that you are quite opposed to socialism in any form, and worried about the size of government - and yet you defend Medicare, a massive government program that interferes greatly with the private sector and the allegedly free market.
I find this puzzling, and wish to know more.
Thank you for being polite and refraining from profanity and pointless name calling.
The government take over of health care is a very socialist move. The government is invading the private sector and denying the private market the freedom to compete and advance. Big government is leftist small government is on the right. Basic politics.
Medicare does not actually interfere with the private market. The government gives people money to be spent in the private market. In the system being proposed the government will compete directly with the private market. The private market is not capable of competing with a government entity. This means that given twenty years the private market will be gone and the government will be supplying everyone with health care.
Jake, to clarify...
Are you against any interference with the private sector? I would assume you support child labor laws, food quality regulation, and public education?
You do agree that doses of socialism are absolutely, fundamentally necessary to the functioning of society, right? It's all a matter of balance. I know this is broadening this beyond just healthcare, but it seems like you have a deeper objection to healthcare than just a problem with the degree of public interference with the private sector.
I real like the post, and I agree with pretty much everything that you said. You did say something like "the healthcare companies see us as a bag of money" though, and while this is true I would like to clarify that rising healthcare costs are do mostly to the doctors and patients who are ordering much more expensive procedures and medicines. Healthcare companies really do try to lower our costs and monthly premiums even if it is not a solely selfless reason. If you want to know more I suggest listening to the two 'this american life' episodes explaining US healthcare. They are extremely informative, and easy to follow.
Jake,
You say "The private market is not capable of competing with a government entity." I would disagree. In our education system their is massive government intervention. State and federal government subsidize public colleges immensely - and yet private education thrives in this country - indeed our best private universities our widely considered the best universities in the world. So clearly it is possible for the private sector to compete successfully with the government.
You also say that "The government take over of health care is a very socialist move." That is a true statement, however, the current bill is not a takeover of healthcare. The meat of the plan is the extension of Medicaid, a mandate (and subsidies) for people without insurance to choose and buy their own insurance, and the creation of exchanges were insurance companies compete for the those people to buy their plans. I wouldn't call that a takeover.
To Dusty: I would say that there are obvious cases for government interventionism in the private sector. Such as police, firefighters, and the like. I am undecided on the issue of education though. However this changes when there is money flowing in and out of the pockets of the American people. When the private sector competes, the consumer wins. The private sector is the most efficient method of ensuring economic growth and the transference of money from those who have it to those who don't. I am not sure if I answered your question to "clarify" let me know if I didn't
To Gray: Public broadcasting tends to lean fairly leftist in their explanation of things. While they do have lots of good objective reporting they always slip in a liberal mindset.
To David: The government's interference in the private sector of education is very different than their interference in Health care. First off education tends to be much more thorough when it is done by the private sector. I myself know several people who went to private schools and received a discount from the owner. The government run education sector is broken and terribly unsuccessful. Besides you kind of contradict yourself when you say that the private sector competes successfully with government because in the previous sentence you were saying how the private sector receives tons of governmental support, something that does not happen with Health Care.
I seem to recall every news station in America reporting that the current Health Care plan includes a "public option that will compete with the private market" So I am unsure what you mean by saying that it is just an extension of medicare. especially when the bill cuts 200 billion dollars from medicare...
Jake,
"The government run education sector is run down and terribly unsuccessful." I would disagree with this assessment. the quality of K-12 public education depends almost entirely on property values in the school district. Rich districts (with high property values) can afford to hire lots of quality teachers and have quality facilities. Poor districts (with low property values) cannot.
But I brought up education because I wanted to give an example of how the private market can compete successfully with the government. So I will try to express myself more clearly.
In our country there are public and private colleges. Public colleges receive massive amounts of government support, and are thus much cheaper to attend. Private universities receive much less government support, and are much more expensive. And yet they thrive despite the government competition.
How would this be possible if government competition always destroyed the private sector?
Jake,
I have split my response into separate posts for the sake of clarity.
I apologize if my summary of the current plan was unclear. It is not "simply an extension of medicare."
The plan is:
1-to extend medicare eligibility based on poverty, so that the program would cover about 30 million more people.
2- increase competition in the health insurance industry by establishing health insurance marketplaces where people and small businesses can buy insurance.
3- Attempt to insure everybody by giving a mandate requiring people to buy insurance, and offering subsidies so that hopefully they can afford it.
As to the "public option", a government insurance program, that may or may not be in the final bill. Judging from the strong negative reactions, it could very well be dead.
curses, I forgot to put a D at the end.
I must start off again explaining how even college education is entirely different than this Healthcare issue.
If the government supports the private sector then it is not real competition. The private sector would be destroyed if government grants, funding, etc. weren't there. The private sector of education relies heavily on the government so it is not real competition. If the government did not support the private colleges then they would die off. Similarly if the government has direct competition with the private sector the private sector will slowly disappear.
To answer your second argument. The article says that we need "public option" health care. I was arguing against this. I understand that reform of the health care system is needed. But it should not be a socialist takeover.
No comprendo.
Please explain how government support, e.g. subsidies, eliminates competition? The government may pay for student tuition, but universities are still competing to attract students (and their money) to them.
But let's talk about the public option. And healthcare in general. I'm going to ask a question now, and I'd like you to answer it. So I can understand where you're coming from.
What is the purpose of our healthcare system?
"how government support, e.g. subsidies, eliminates competition?"
Are you serious? Free market competition is based on just that: a Free Market. If the government picks and chooses who gets a huge lump sum of money every year how on earth are other companies (who don't receive government support) supposed to compete with that?
To put it another way: If company A makes 1 million dollars a year and company B makes one million dollars a year and both companies compete for the same customer base the price of the good they sell will fall. However if company A gets one million dollars in government support then they don't have to lower prices in order to stay competitive. As a result company B keeps their prices the same or even raises them in order to stay competitive. Thus the consumer loses because prices remain stagnant and the consumer loses.
The purpose of our health care system is to provide people quality services at minimum cost.
"The purpose of our health care system is to provide people quality services at minimum cost."
by people, do you mean everybody?
and by minimum cost, what precisely do you mean. Minimum cost for our society as a whole?
I was reading your argument about subsidies and I would like to straiten something out. When David talks about subsidizing, he is talking about American made products, not services. Jake you are right it would be impossible to regulate subsidies if they were going to the service economy.
However if the Government simply provided insurance to only those who were unable to pay the private market's steep costs, then more customers would enter the health services economy and provide more revenue to both private and public hospitals. If the "public option" has requirements (i.e.low income families) then the private insurance companies will keep their customer base and those who are uninsured will be provided for.
Minimum cost to individuals.
Thanks for letting my know what David was arguing about. I do not believe that the current public option has those requirements, but I could agree with the expansion of medicare (as you described it as long as we can still begin reducing our deficit and as long as is won't cost us huge amounts of money we don't have.
Good to see you again!
Okay, so minimum cost to individuals is your measure of minimum cost.
But do you think that providing coverage to everybody is part of the purpose of the healthcare system?
If they can afford it. However coverage will be (or should eventually be) provided to everyone through market competition and the lowering of prices.
explain.
Through competition in the free market, the price of health-care will go down and eventually everyone will be able to pay for it.
People deserve what they can afford.
"People deserve what they can afford"
I can't understand this. Or more accurately, I can't understand how that attitude is in any way ethical.
Perhaps you would be willing to share how this is morally justifiable.
As I understand it this country was built on people who earned everything they now own. If we get rid of the idea that a person must work in order to be successful then we would send the message that if you stay poor then you might be rewarded instead of encouraging the poor to help themselves first.
Post a Comment