Crux of the Health-Care Debate: The Role of Government

"But I don't know what the difference is between the hard-core uninsured and the other 20 million."

This is the sort of thing that drives me crazy, how Wallis, McLaren, and the like talk about misinformation in the health care debate and then keep throwing around the 47 million uninsured number without being honest about that number.

When you take out all the people who ALREADY QUALIFY for programs like Medicare but DON'T SIGN UP, illegal immigrants, people who can afford insurance (make over $75,000) but decide not to buy it, people changing jobs and temporarily without insurance, etc. you end up with roughly 10 million people who are chronically uninsured - people who legitimately can't afford it.

"It seems to me, and please correct me where I am wrong, that within these examples the federal government has stepped in to provide benefits for those groups of individuals otherwise not adequately receiving assistance from the private market. "

And they have a negative cash flow! So we want more people on a larger gov't run system that can't run a solvent smaller one?! Hmmm...isn't there something in the Bible about being trusted with more when you have proven to be trusted with little?

Obama himself (inadvertently) pointed out that the gov't is bad at running programs in competition with private industry at a town hall meeting the other week when he pointed out that FedEx and UPS compete with the Postal Service, and the Postal Service is the only one that is struggling!

Why can't we implement smaller laws and incentives than this anti-reform pro-revolution mentality?

I AM A CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN NUTJOB

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issed by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com, fox news forum and God's Politics about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
........................................................................................................

Forwarded from the Whole Foods Online Forum, edited by justintime

"I believe he is referring to the difference between those who cannot afford health insurance, and those who opt simply not to purchase it, but can afford it. He could pare his number down further by only including those who go without insurance for an entire year."

This argument doesn't make common sense to me.

Affordability is a matter of priorities. Perhaps there are people who "can afford it", but choose not to so that they can instead pay for, in an extreme case, food to eat. I distrust someone to make the judgement that other people really can afford it but choose not to. It is someone assuming that others should share their priorities. The "simply" in the quoted statement may be anything but simple.

As to paring the number down further by excluding those currently suffering a less-than-one-year gap in insurance, this also makes little sense to me. Those people who are uninsured, whether chronically or temporarilty, are ALL at risk of economic ruin should a bad health setback take place.

So let the 40 (or 47) million number stand. It represents a reality of the magnitude of the problem. Paring that number down with rationalizations that don't correspond well to real human need seems deceptive to me.

'We the people of the United States, in order to [among other things] promote the general welfare

The people who have insurance right now, but don't get necessary check-ups to prevent future high-cost conditions (like cancer), because the co-pays are too high do not count as uninsured. If a member of the family is injured, or seriously ill, insurance may cover it, or a lot of it, but who really knows? Even the hospital, the physicians and surgeons employ specialists to answer that question, and to submit bills in the right way to have the greatest chance of being compensated by the patient's "insurance", but large bills may still be the responsibility of the family--job loss is not the only reason coverage may be suddenly cut off.

When medical expenses are the most common cause of personal bankruptcy in this country, can one really see the monopoly of one or two "health insurance" companies per state as an example of healthy free enterprise? Margaret Thatcher saw nothing wrong with the NHS; she probably used the luxury private clinics and doctors who continue to have a thriving practice there now among the rich. A chance for everyone to have basic medical care, in the richest country in the world, is a basic human right--like protection from gangsters, and clearing garbage from the streets. Safe drinking water for all children is not a socialist measure to wipe out the bottled water industry.

If the market is well capable of insuring those people then why are we in this mess? Oh, because they don't want to and don't have to. That's right.

sorry about the "government" typo.

"(I heard former Republican Sen. Bill Frist say that of the 40 million uninsured, only 20 million are the "hard-core" uninsured. But I don't know what the difference is between the hard-core uninsured and the other 20 million. If you know, please tell me.)"

I believe he is referring to the difference between those who cannot afford health insurance, and those who opt simply not to purchase it, but can afford it. He could pare his number down further by only including those who go without insurance for an entire year.

"The biggest fear I hear is that by even simply entertaining a public option for health insurance, we are essentially moving away from being a democracy and are somehow moving closer to becoming a socialist state."

Somehow? We would empirically be moving closer to a socialist state. The argument that the free market unfairly consolidates health care is a distinctly socialist argument. That, literally, is what Socialism is.

"For those people who argue that a public plan is tantamount to socialism, I am left to wonder about all the other areas of America in which our government is already heavily involved, either currently or in our recent past."

That's a good thing to wonder about, and your first two examples are spot on. The Department of Veterans Affairs administers health care as part of a compensation package for soldiers, which is conceptually different, and not at all socialistic.

"So, to the current debate, if there are some 40 million uninsured in our country that the private market is not able or willing to provide benefits to, then for the government to step in and provide support seems like the correct role for the government to play."

Which, again, the market is well capable of insuring many of those people. You argument assumes that, if someone doesn't have something, then it is incumbent upon government to provide it.

As a counterargument for your consideration, note that the system of employer tax breaks for health care benefits was initiated by the government. This has had some unintended consequences, not least of which contributing to the problem of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

"But I don't know what the difference is between the hard-core uninsured and the other 20 million."

This is the sort of thing that drives me crazy, how Wallis, McLaren, and the like talk about misinformation in the health care debate and then keep throwing around the 47 million uninsured number without being honest about that number.

When you take out all the people who ALREADY QUALIFY for programs like Medicare but DON'T SIGN UP, illegal immigrants, people who can afford insurance (make over $75,000) but decide not to buy it, people changing jobs and temporarily without insurance, etc. you end up with roughly 10 million people who are chronically uninsured - people who legitimately can't afford it.

"It seems to me, and please correct me where I am wrong, that within these examples the federal government has stepped in to provide benefits for those groups of individuals otherwise not adequately receiving assistance from the private market. "

And they have a negative cash flow! So we want more people on a larger gov't run system that can't run a solvent smaller one?! Hmmm...isn't there something in the Bible about being trusted with more when you have proven to be trusted with little?

Obama himself (inadvertently) pointed out that the gov't is bad at running programs in competition with private industry at a town hall meeting the other week when he pointed out that FedEx and UPS compete with the Postal Service, and the Postal Service is the only one that is struggling!

Why can't we implement smaller laws and incentives than this anti-reform pro-revolution mentality?

Just curious - but do you have source data for the "10 million" number quoted above? It was my understanding that illegal immigrants were never included in the original figures, and people changing jobs and temporarily out of insurance are actually one of the key demographics the legislation is supposed to address (especially with current economic impact that people can't find jobs in less than 12 months).

Also - a huge issue related to the current negative cash flow is the funding of 2 wars during the past 8 years. So - biblically, should we spend our resources on war or taking care of the poor?

It has seemed to me that it is his primary way of communicating, which is why it is so easy to get past his disguises. It is unfortunate since sometimes he makes very goog points when dealilng with the actual subject matter.

"The people who have insurance right now, but don't get necessary check-ups to prevent future high-cost conditions (like cancer), because the co-pays are too high do not count as uninsured."

Neither do they exist. People aren't screened for cancer because the examinations are invasive, or because they don't want to find out they have cancer, or because they don't want to take the time. The $75 or so in co-pays is not the driving force here.

Anything Bill Frist says about health care can be filed under 'falsehoods'.
This ethically challenged former senator is a member of a family who extorted billions from America's broken health care system. Frist has a fortune in the millions of dollars, most of it the result of his ownership of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, the for-profit hospital chain founded by his brother and father. HCA paid over $1.7-billion in criminal penalties for Medicare fraud.
A licensed physician, Bill Frist diagnosed Terry Schiavo from a teevee clip.
Not surprisingly, his diagnosis was brain dead wrong.

How Many Americans Are Uninsured?

* Several studies estimate the number of uninsured Americans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, their latest data available.1

* The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) estimated that the percentage of uninsured Americans under age 65 represented 27 percent of the population. According to the MEPS data, nearly 54 million Americans under the age of 65 were uninsured in the first-half of 2007. 2

* A recent study shows that based on the effects of the recession alone (not job loss), it is projected that nearly seven (7) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage between 2008 and 2010. 3 Urban Institute researchers estimate that if unemployment reaches 10 percent, another six (6) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage. Taking these numbers together, it is conceivable that by next year, 57 to 60 million Americans will be uninsured.

* The Urban Institute estimates that under a worse case scenario, 66 million Americans will be uninsured by 2019. 4

* Nearly 90 million people

I would truly like to know who any of the people who are in favor of a public option thinks is going to pay for it. Have you ever explored what is going on in other countries that have universal health care. Their birth rates are significantly lower than ours and will in very short amount of time have no one to support the elderly. Why do they not have children? The few people with whom I have talked state they can not afford them. Have you considered that China who is a looming superpower offers very little to it's people? This is who we are competing against, also India. France is having riots which the mass media doesn't cover over treatment of immigrants. It's health system has been running a deficit since 1989 and can't get any movement from it's labor unions to better control cost. Interestingly, people don't live that much longer in France than the United States. What brings down our statistic is that Black Men only live to an average age of 69 but that demographic is the one that has improved the most of the last 20 years. Just to let you know, my family my soon be one of the uninsurable but I still don't want any part of government sponsored health care. There are things to be done to improve health care but the government is never the answer.

As far as my comment on education, my school taxes are now 10% of my pretax income. Once again, people will not adapt to the need for change. They just keep thinking the government needs to give the school district more money. My question always is where does the government get their money? Every special interest group is out their saying don't cut our budget. Pennsylvania has not had a budget since June 30th. Instead of cutting the budget, the governor wants to raise taxes. Where does it stop?

As far as you being Mennonite, the Mennonites I live around still drive horse and buggies and ride bikes. I do wonder if they don't have a better handle on life than I do. It is simple and they appear to accept the will of God.

I wish you the best. May you find comfort in knowing that with or without health care, there is security in the Resurrection!

'We the people of the United States, in order to [among other things] promote the general welfare

This blatant caricature of my position doesn't deserve a response. I said what I meant to say. If you want to respond to what I actually said, feel free to do so.

The people who have insurance right now, but don't get necessary check-ups to prevent future high-cost conditions (like cancer), because the co-pays are too high do not count as uninsured. If a member of the family is injured, or seriously ill, insurance may cover it, or a lot of it, but who really knows? Even the hospital, the physicians and surgeons employ specialists to answer that question, and to submit bills in the right way to have the greatest chance of being compensated by the patient's "insurance", but large bills may still be the responsibility of the family--job loss is not the only reason coverage may be suddenly cut off.

When medical expenses are the most common cause of personal bankruptcy in this country, can one really see the monopoly of one or two "health insurance" companies per state as an example of healthy free enterprise? Margaret Thatcher saw nothing wrong with the NHS; she probably used the luxury private clinics and doctors who continue to have a thriving practice there now among the rich. A chance for everyone to have basic medical care, in the richest country in the world, is a basic human right--like protection from gangsters, and clearing garbage from the streets. Safe drinking water for all children is not a socialist measure to wipe out the bottled water industry.

Just for information, a colonoscopy runs around $3000.

I would truly like to know who any of the people who are in favor of a public option thinks is going to pay for it. Have you ever explored what is going on in other countries that have universal health care. Their birth rates are significantly lower than ours and will in very short amount of time have no one to support the elderly. Why do they not have children? The few people with whom I have talked state they can not afford them. Have you considered that China who is a looming superpower offers very little to it's people? This is who we are competing against, also India. France is having riots which the mass media doesn't cover over treatment of immigrants. It's health system has been running a deficit since 1989 and can't get any movement from it's labor unions to better control cost. Interestingly, people don't live that much longer in France than the United States. What brings down our statistic is that Black Men only live to an average age of 69 but that demographic is the one that has improved the most of the last 20 years. Just to let you know, my family my soon be one of the uninsurable but I still don't want any part of government sponsored health care. There are things to be done to improve health care but the government is never the answer.

As far as my comment on education, my school taxes are now 10% of my pretax income. Once again, people will not adapt to the need for change. They just keep thinking the government needs to give the school district more money. My question always is where does the government get their money? Every special interest group is out their saying don't cut our budget. Pennsylvania has not had a budget since June 30th. Instead of cutting the budget, the governor wants to raise taxes. Where does it stop?

As far as you being Mennonite, the Mennonites I live around still drive horse and buggies and ride bikes. I do wonder if they don't have a better handle on life than I do. It is simple and they appear to accept the will of God.

I wish you the best. May you find comfort in knowing that with or without health care, there is security in the Resurrection!

When my government makes a mistake, they make that mistake in my name.
I demand my government fix those mistakes.
I write letters to my representatives, the President, the Supreme Court
whoever is responsible.
I call their offices on the phone, I send faxes.
My public servants don't have the freedom to make mistakes and go on
like nothing happened, no sir.
If it's a big mistake I get out in the street with my friends.
I lost my tenure at a major University by demonstrating against the
Vietnam War.
I was in the streets over Bush's stolen election and his invasion of
Iraq.
I never let those responsible forget they made a mistake in my name.
I don't just say "We are the government".
I believe it and I stand by this belief.

Don't you ever do anything when your government makes a mistake in your
name?

"If you want to respond to what I actually said, feel free to do so."

What you said was that a $75 co-pay was not a deterrent to medical checkups. I disagreed. It was a pretty straightforward response, no hidden snark.

Jane

"In the phrase "we are the government," the useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the naked exploitative reality of political life. For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group on behalf of another, this reality of burden is conveniently obscured by blithely saying that "we owe it to ourselves" (but who are the "we" and who the "ourselves"?). If the government drafts a man, or even throws him into jail for dissident opinions, then he is only "doing it to himself" and therefore nothing improper has occurred. Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part. But there is no way out of such grotesqueries for those supporters of government who see the State merely as a benevolent and voluntary agent of the public. And so we must conclude that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people, but even if it did, even if 90% of the people decided to murder or enslave the, other 10%, this would still be murder and slavery, and would not be voluntary suicide or enslavement on the part of the oppressed minority. Crime is crime, aggression against rights is aggression, no matter how many citizens agree to the oppression. There is nothing sacrosanct about the majority; the lynch mob, too, is the majority in its own domain."
Murray Rothbard, "Anatomy of the State"

Why are you so deeply fearful of government involvement?

We live in a democracy and can decide to provide certain govrerment services to our citizens:

Do you believe "public" education is necessary, a right for our future generations -- or should only children with parents who can afford it send their kids to private schools?

Do you drive on "public" roads or would you prefer private toll roads and bridges?

Do you value your protection by "public" law enforcement or would you prefer private body guards for those who can pay... or vigilante justice?

Likewise for OUR "public" fire departments, OUR "national" guard...

Why are you so afraid?

Nobody has a co-pay of $75 for routine screening. It's only when there is a real risk that you incur multiple co-pays, which eventually brings you to the $75 figure. At that point, people find the money.