Just returned from vacation. Classes start next week. Time to discuss the big issue of the last several weeks....
Whoa, slow down there, Obama. What's the rush in trying to pass this health (blank) bill? I will discuss why I left it blank after health in a minute. Anyone who thought Obama was any different than any other politician has to see he is exactly the same right now. He's trying to pass a bill as quickly as possible because he doesn't want anyone to read the ~1100 page jibberish. Let's slow down and think this through. I agree the system isn't perfect but these plans to overhaul everything are, well, moronic. My points:
1. Is it health care or health insurance reform? These are distinctly different entities yet Obama is using them interchangeably and blurring the distinction. Health "care" reform has more to do with the way we deal with the health of the nation and the people, such as moving from a treatment-based system to a prevention-based system. This is NOT what the Obama administration is proposing. Health "insurance" reform has more to do with how we, or the system, pays for care and who is able to access care. This IS what the Obama administration is proposing. You can't claim access to health care will improve health (see #3) because it is not a cause-effect relationship. If you are going to force a bill on us, get the terms and facts straight.
2. Why does the government need to get involved in every facet of our life? Why do we need handouts for everything that cost us more than we will ever recoup? Government helps people buy houses, cars, and now health insurance? Why? I'm not trying to be an ass wipe, but if we continue to devolve into a bunch of bleeding hearts this country is going to become the United States of China. I'm sorry, but we can't just have handouts for everyone and everything. If we are going to handout insurance, let's get rid of tax breaks for housing or rebates for cars. If your argument is that it is a basic human right to have access to health care then you can by no means argue that it is a basic human right for everyone to own a house or own a car. Try renting or take a bus. Don't get me wrong, I feel for those who are struggling but when or where do we draw the line on government assistance?
3. Will access to health care actually make us a healthier country? I highly doubt it. The US is the fattest, most out of shape, most diabetic country in the developed world. We are unhealthy. Simply providing access to care will not improve the health of the nation. To do that, you need to implement health CARE reform. The only thing this will do is increase the economic burden of the country (see below).
4. If the public option for health care passes and undercuts prices of private insurance then private insurance companies will most likely go under. Obama vows that if you like your health care plan then you can keep it. But why would an employer pay more for private insurance if the public option is cheaper? So there is no guarantee I keep what I like. And wouldn't this be considered a monopoly on health insurance? Isn't that illegal?
5. Who is going to pay for all of this? Yes, yes, we've all heard the 10-year forecast of approximately $1 trillion dollars. This is a boat-load of money but Obama apparently has worked out where he will get this money. Fine. But what happens after this 10 year forecast? He has dodged this question at the two town hall meetings I have watched. Simply taxing the wealthy will not pay for all of this. (As an aside, I have a huge problem with always palcing the burden of the country on the upper class. Everyone assumes those with money are evil but why should we punish those people who, for lack of a better term, got lucky and made their duckets? Isn't this the land of opportunity? Apparently it is, but you have to pay for everyone else as well. It isn't right.) Has Obama even considered this: providing access to more people means more people will be using medical resources and a great majority probably have more medical issues than those already "in the system." More people using more resources who have more medical concerns = greater financial strain on the system. Who is going to pay for all those physician visits and tests? Taxes on the wealthy? Not all of it. At some point taxes on the middle class will have to go up...but it won't happen under Obama's watch. He has conveniently devised a 10-year plan and budget. Assuming a two term presidency, he will be out of office after this 10-year plan/budget at which point some other president will have to take on financing this insurance reform and the taxes on us middle class will go up. Convenient, Obama. Many people use the stock market as an index of the health of the economy. Who invests the most in the stock market? The wealthy. What happens if you cut down their spendable income by raising their taxes? Less investment in the stocks. What happens to the stock market? It goes down. Then? Consumer spending goes down because people with less money pull out of the stock market and stop spending. And then? Recession. And then? More spending, more printing, more inflation. It's a vicious cycle yet oh so common sense.
Interestingly, Obama has found ways to gather ~$1 trillion dollars for health care and a bunch of money for people to buy cars (interestingly these people are buying mostly Japanese not American cars). Why not use that cash to pay down the deficit and get us out of being owned by the Chinese? Our national debt is going to continue to sky rocket, there will be more "recovery" acts, and presumably, more money printing. We're headed toward a national economic breakdown.
Overall, this issue needs to be thought out and Obama needs to slow his roll on this bill. This didn't work for Bill and Hillary in '93 why is it different now? Because Obama said so? Stupid reason. If it is such an urgent issue, why can't Obama give the VOTING PUBLIC a point-by-point concise version of the bill and let the PEOPLE VOTE ON IT. This is a complicated matter and this needs to be planned out well and not rushed through Congress just because it may ruin chances for re-election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dude, you are going to have to part with republican ideals on this one.
First, you KNOW that true prevention will NEVER work as a means of improving health. Not just in this country, but in most. We are not the fattest nation, but the 9th or 10th. The number one way to prevent heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc.? Exercise, we all know this, but it is a "no-sell" to most individuals throughout the world.
Second, do you know who pays for an individual who visits the ER (whose condition most likely would not have worsened to ER state with health coverage)? You and me, my friend in the form of taxes. The argument that it will increases taxes is fine, but weak, because we already pay for those who do not have health insurance, ultimately. Should those who make more than 250k carry more of a burden than middle-income folks? Yep, in my opinion, because I can tell you if I were taking home 20k or more per month I would be fine with paying a little more up-front to provide access to healthcare to decrease more costly visits to the Dr. that are associated with untreated disease.
I think you should look into the health of nations with access to universal care. We are about the 19th "healthiest" nation despite having some of the best hospitals in the world. Access to preventative care (which is care given to those before a disease gets out of control and costs skyrocket) will absolutely improve the health of the United States. It is not a surprise that the Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Science is behind healthcare reform. You need to step outside of our comfy world and imagine what it would be like if you were laid off, Universities decided to stop hiring, and you had to get a minimum wage job... You would not carry the 500+ dollars per month for insurance, nor would you go to a Dr. if you suspected an illness. It is truly scary to me, B-Wong, that people are arguing against Universal Healthcare in America (the last industrialized nation not to have coverage). Healthcare is not an "inherent human right" from an evolutionary perspective, but in 2009-2010, you better believe we can take care of our people better than we are now. I am against many government-backed plans that tend to make it a comfy world for individuals who do not decide to work hard and get ahead, but this one is not one of those. It will help us as a whole to have universal coverage.
Why is Obama in a rush? Look at the ridiculously childish outbursts that republicans and their supporters have been making at town-hall forums throughout the nation to try to block this. They look like fools, and they are trying to prevent ongoing debate about this issue. It has to change, and it will change, it is disgusting how the dialogue for how it will be paid for has been overshadowed by people who claim that we will turn into a communist nation with this, or that Obama is like Hitler. No one with a brain thinks these things. Are the Dems innocent on this? Not in the least it is there job to disseminate the facts of a bill that they believe in… because, I, like you, would rather keep my insurance, given the option.
If you are against government dictating personal benefits, I think you should give back your LRP (a government handout, albeit competitive), after all who is the government to decide that your education costs should be reimbursed by taxpayers (a move that benefits no one but yourself… it is not like an R01 that can advance science) vs. someone who got an MBA and went into business? You know I love you Brett! Word to your mother. E
Post a Comment