My Reaction to Obama's Speech? It's a Start, but I Want More

I found this Bill Moyers segment with David Himmelstein and Sidney Wolfe helpful in understanding the single-payer option.

Agree or disagree with the proposal I think we need to have it on the table so we can understand the varied positions and assess what we want.

Their explanation as to why the plan Obama wants is not on the table needs to be confronted (just as the reason tort reform is not on the table needs to be confronted).

Their apologetic is a critique of our current system and the reform options currently being considered.

I fear the current din in the public dialogue has an intentional or unintended purpose. It is not to simply defeat the opposition. It is not to prove the other position wrong. It is to create a massive fog that obfuscates what is going on--and when the system collapses and the smoke clears, they can all stand up and point the finger at the opposition. To a degree I share the passion of the Tea Parties. But our passion must be for that which is true and just; for a spirit of love and soundness of mind. Not to attack one side of the debate.

If Obama is truly for the best ideas from both sides--why isn't he offering his own?

Where did all that talk about mandates in last night's speech come from? I thought Obama's opposition to mandates was what distinguished his healthcare plan from Hillary's. I've heard the idea kicked around but this was the first I'd heard about Obama's support for it.

And I'm sure there are some lawyers out there, so I'll ask them: is it at all likely that an individual mandate won't be struck down by the courts? I've done a little bit of looking around and it looks like a tough sell. I wouldn't expect this Court to further expand the powers granted by the commerce clause.

I respectfully disagree with much of what Ms. Dixon writes. Many of her proposals IMHO do belong in the far-left category, and may well lead to unintended consequences.

First, she points out that 20-30% of the current premiums go toward insurance companies and their operations, and that she'd prefer that the money go elsewhere. I agree in the sense that reducing overhead would be a good thing. But a government-run system will have overhead too, and it's not obvious why it would be substantially less, except that there would be no profit motive. However, and here's where comparisons to the former USSR are most apt, removing the profit motive also removes a big (if not the!) incentive to be productive and efficient. We don't have government doing clothes manufacturing, or such, for such reasons. When one is forced to compete against other firms, one's forced to innovate and come up with efficiency gains. I don't see insurance being any different.

Consumption taxes on nonessential items that are viewed as "bad" may be a good idea, but I don't see why they have to be tied to health-care reform. They generally do not raise enough revenue to actually fund something that's as expensive as universal health care. Do we REALLY want a bottle of soda to cost $5 or more? (Even with such a hypothetical high tax, I still doubt we can fund universal health care off of soda sales.)

I want privately owned and operated wellness centers in every neighborhood where people can see a primary care physician, learn meditation techniques, yoga, Tai Chi, and nutrition. I want the government to pay for this. I want dental and optical care paid for through this single-payer plan. I want my medical records on a life card. I want medical bills to go the way of dinosaurs.

These proposed wellness centers are nice, but again, where will the money come from? As much as I believe we have a right to needed health care, I do not believe stuff like meditation techniques and yoga fall into that category.

"Now 20-30% of a dollar paid in premiums go to the administrative costs of insurance companies, including salaries, bonuses, and profits."

Government administrative costs will include compensation (salaries and bonuses). Presumably, as a profit-seeking entity, the insurance company has a greater motive to repress wages than a government agency...after all, that is the argument made against all sectors of the for-profit economy, that the "little guy" gets squeezed and depends on minimum wage laws and other worker protections. Now what is left for profit?

Yoga and Tai Chi paid for by the government? I am sorry, American tax dollars do not need to go towards faith-based activities at all, but particularly to specific religious practices. Praying the Rosary is meditative for Catholics, but taxpayers shouldn't be paying for that either.

I found this Bill Moyers segment with David Himmelstein and Sidney Wolfe helpful in understanding the single-payer option.

Agree or disagree with the proposal I think we need to have it on the table so we can understand the varied positions and assess what we want.

Their explanation as to why the plan Obama wants is not on the table needs to be confronted (just as the reason tort reform is not on the table needs to be confronted).

Their apologetic is a critique of our current system and the reform options currently being considered.

I fear the current din in the public dialogue has an intentional or unintended purpose. It is not to simply defeat the opposition. It is not to prove the other position wrong. It is to create a massive fog that obfuscates what is going on--and when the system collapses and the smoke clears, they can all stand up and point the finger at the opposition. To a degree I share the passion of the Tea Parties. But our passion must be for that which is true and just; for a spirit of love and soundness of mind. Not to attack one side of the debate.

If Obama is truly for the best ideas from both sides--why isn't he offering his own?

There are lots of people who practice Yoga and Tai Chi without it being related to faith.

No faith involved when my 70 year old Evangelical mother does it. She's merely trying to prevent arthritis. Lots of Athiests in China perform Tai Chi as a wellness exercise as well..

In any case, there are practical reasons for using both activities as they promote joint health and cardiovascular health.

Regardless of what happens in this current health care debate, the United States does need to have a greater emphasis on wellness. The growing numbers of kids with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, the growing number of teens who are getting type 2 diabetes (the type that is strongly tied to lifestyle factors,) are going to be a massive strain on whatever health care system America has, over and above the strain the aging babyboomers are going to put on the system.

The individual mandate has drawn much commentary from legal commentators, and they're split on whether it's constitutional. Its defenders point to government's broad powers to tax what it wants, and that the mandate can be construed as a tax.

Well, my take on it is that it would be something along these lines. Either purchase health insurance, OR there will be a $XXX tax on you. Maybe this tax money would go toward paying for whatever charity care you'll end up needing due to not having insurance. We can even turn it around and think of the $XXX that one would buy insurance with as a tax credit, and that those who refuse to buy insurance would simply be ineligible for said credit.

BTW, I remember that writ.news.findlaw.com has articles by various law professors on this very topic.

"I want a universal single-payer system paid for through a consumption tax."

This is one of the very most regressive taxes that can be imposed. If you truly cared for the poor, you would not advocate for this sort of tax.

My main problem with a single-payer system is the following: American culture is not the same as European culture. We tend to be far more judgmental in domestic programs, especially if our tax dollars are used. Look at how the welfare and food stamp programs are run. And even the Unemployment Insurance system. I've dealt with all of these in the past; these systems are very intrusive and degrading. Even when the caseworers are very sympathetic, the degrading factors are built right into the system.

Then we get to our Social Security Disability system. Where the policy -- under both Repubican and Democratic administrations -- has been to deny benefits to most applicants. Then the applicants have to hire lawyers and appeal. Two or three years later, after the appeal, most finally get their disability benefits. There is an entire industry of lawyers built strictly on denials of SSA disability claims.

The process of applying for welfare, foodstamps, Unemployment or Social Security disability benefits -- I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

A single-payer system would give a virtual monopoly on the government. And thus the government could deny health care i.e. "he is fat and obese and brought it upon himself," or "she smoked too much" or else "they're drug addicts; they should 'just say no' rather than try and get treatment." Or else some bureaucrat decides that a certain treatment is "experimental" or "unneeded."

The private insurance companies act in similar ways because of the lack of regulations. We need the sorts of regulations that President Obama advocated for private insurance companies i.e. no denial or withdrawal of benefits due to pre-existing conditions or because of getting sick. What we do not need is to hand the entire process over to a government monopoly who would act similarly -- if not worse -- than the private insurance companies.

"Now 20-30% of a dollar paid in premiums go to the administrative costs of insurance companies, including salaries, bonuses, and profits."

Government administrative costs will include compensation (salaries and bonuses). Presumably, as a profit-seeking entity, the insurance company has a greater motive to repress wages than a government agency...after all, that is the argument made against all sectors of the for-profit economy, that the "little guy" gets squeezed and depends on minimum wage laws and other worker protections. Now what is left for profit?

Yoga and Tai Chi paid for by the government? I am sorry, American tax dollars do not need to go towards faith-based activities at all, but particularly to specific religious practices. Praying the Rosary is meditative for Catholics, but taxpayers shouldn't be paying for that either.

I also respectfully disagree.

Ms. Dixon said: "I want a universal single-payer system paid for through a consumption tax. I want privately owned and operated wellness centers in every neighborhood where people can see a primary care physician, learn meditation techniques, yoga, Tai Chi, and nutrition. I want the government to pay for this. I want dental and optical care paid for through this single-payer plan. I want my medical records on a life card. I want medical bills to go the way of dinosaurs."

I count 6 times in one paragraph that she says "I want." And the things she wants are great. I want alot of things too. But wow... I am so thankful to live in America, to have health insurance that I can afford with the income I have (which is not much), to live in a nation where I won't be denied care if I don't have insurance. I could be living elsewhere... in Iraq or Afghanistan or some other war-torn country, or maybe China where abortions are forced as a means of population control. I couldn't been a Jew living in Nazi Germany or maybe a poor African mother dying of AIDS with little health care at all.

What I mean is.... things could be sooooooo much worse, and we are a great nation and it amazes me that all we can sometimes say is "I want, I want, I want." Are we just ungrateful? Why are we so discontent? Why do we expect such a perfect society... like some sort of utopia?

In reality... where would the money come for all these things Ms.Dixon wants?? Esp. the primary care physical at the wellness center in "every" neighborhood. Hmmm... think about that for a minute. "EVERY" neighborhood? First of all, that is completely impossible, at least right now, because there wouldn't be enough doctors and nurses. And there certainly isn't money to build the buildings, staff them, and provide all those services. It'd be great if every neighborhood had something like that...

But then... I want a world where there is no violence, where all my neighbors mow their lawns and take care of their houses. I want to live in a town where everyone is nice and friendly, where there is always blue sky, never any smog, and where everyone drives the speed limit. I want all diseases eradicated and all pain to cease.

What I'm getting at is that life is not a utopia. The Bible is clear. There WILL BE and there ARE trials, tribulations, suffering, poverty, sickness, sin, etc. And what I feel bad about is all the people who believe that Obama is going to end poverty, injustice, greed, etc. They look to him rather than Jesus and they put more hope and faith in him and in govt. than in Jesus Christ.

As Christians, we should know better than anyone else that these things will always be present on this earth because of sin. The Bible even says that "the poor you will always have among you," and whenever I hear some politician promising to "end" poverty, I just think "yah, whatever." In fact, Jesus never says that we are to aim to end poverty. Rather we are to minister, serve, encourage, and help. And of course, we do what we can to "end" poverty, etc... but Obama makes so many promises that he cannot keep, and I personally feel, when he talks, as if he is manipulative and deceiving.

I think there are people who truly believe that there is an "answer" to health care problems and that when/if his plan passes, we'll just all have this "free" health care and everyone will get quality care, and all the doctors will do a great job, and no one will be denied care, etc. It'll just be hunky-dorey and so much better than what we have.

But why anyone would put their trust and faith in government (the very same govt. who quickly ran out of money for "Cash for Clunkers" and is behind on payments with that small program, who has racked up trillions of dollars of debt for our children and grandchcildren to pay, whose programs are slow and burdensome due to all the beauacracy and regulations, etc) is beyond me. Obama and all the others in Congress... they aren't doctors or health care professionals. Yet, they are crafting a health care bill. They aren't in the insurance business, yet they are acting as experts on health insurance.

There is just so much that is very disturbing and worrisome about Obama's policies, esp. this health care bill. And for me, I wanted less in his speech. Less scolding, less dismissing of people's concerns, less adulation of Obama, less blaming, less finger-pointing, less promising, and less anger at his critics.

And the only thing I want more of is more people reading this bill for themselves and understanding what's really in there. More people using discernment, wisdom, and shrewdness when listening to Obama. More people seeking the Lord rather than putting their confidence and faith in Obama, who is only a man.

All those things you want would be great, but I'm looking forward to our heavenly home. We have to remember that this world is passing away, and God has not called us to just focus on the here and now. Jesus set an example for us, and his life was focused on his calling and it wasn't all about "I want, I want, I want."

Sure, let's do all we can to end injustice and make things better... definitely... but if Obama's plan passes, don't be fooled into thinking that it's just gonna make everything all better and that everyone's life will just be rosy and we'll have all the money for it and everyone will get good, quality care, etc. We are a nation with TRILLIONS of dollars of debt, and someone will suffer under Obamacare. I believe it will turn out to be one of the worst things we can ever experience mainly due to the massive govt. intrusion and control it will be in our lives, and in the area of life and death.

Well, my take on it is that it would be something along these lines. Either purchase health insurance, OR there will be a $XXX tax on you. Maybe this tax money would go toward paying for whatever charity care you'll end up needing due to not having insurance. We can even turn it around and think of the $XXX that one would buy insurance with as a tax credit, and that those who refuse to buy insurance would simply be ineligible for said credit.

BTW, I remember that writ.news.findlaw.com has articles by various law professors on this very topic.

I'm not informed enough on Bush's black holes and spending during his administration to really talk about it intelligently.

But I'm not concerned right now with his administration because it's in the past. I'm concerned with the trillion dollar stimulus package which is in the present. And I'm concerned with our current deficit. Obama has done nothing to bring it down. It has only gone up.

The stimulus also hasn't helped much, and I fear that a lot of it has been mispent. And then there are all the bailouts (and probably more to come) and also the health care package and then cap and trade, which I just read will cost the average family $1700/yr.

So, I think it's time we just focus on our current situations and what Obama is doing to help, or to make things worse. Bush's administration is over, and while we can learn from it, it's no use comparing things like who spent more. IMO.

I find it all to be very frightening/disturbing. How will we be able to afford much of anything in the coming years? How will our children and grandchildren afford anything? They'll be the ones repaying the stimulus.

"But who regulates the government's regulations?"

And who regulates if there are no government regulations at all? I don't get the impression that you are an anarchist who believes in no government at all.

Assuming that you do believe in government: One of government's responsibilities is to try and preserve the free market. Which we don't have any longer when it comes to health insurance. I know that the way the insurance industry is "regulating" is by setting monopoly-like "industry standards" where people with pre-existing conditions are denied coverage and people who get sick will suddenly find themselves without coverage. That certainly isn't working.

Leaving everything "as is" with no regulations results in the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Things won't stay the same. Premiums and deductibles and co-pays are going up and up and up each year. I know because I have employer-supported insurance and I know that my premiums, deductibles, and co-pays have gone up year after year. This survey just confirmed what I know I've experienced.

I'm sort of a "political orphan" in that I am a registered independent with libertarian leanings. So I'm on neither side of this "red vs blue" conflict.

I also respectfully disagree.

Ms. Dixon said: "I want a universal single-payer system paid for through a consumption tax. I want privately owned and operated wellness centers in every neighborhood where people can see a primary care physician, learn meditation techniques, yoga, Tai Chi, and nutrition. I want the government to pay for this. I want dental and optical care paid for through this single-payer plan. I want my medical records on a life card. I want medical bills to go the way of dinosaurs."

I count 6 times in one paragraph that she says "I want." And the things she wants are great. I want alot of things too. But wow... I am so thankful to live in America, to have health insurance that I can afford with the income I have (which is not much), to live in a nation where I won't be denied care if I don't have insurance. I could be living elsewhere... in Iraq or Afghanistan or some other war-torn country, or maybe China where abortions are forced as a means of population control. I couldn't been a Jew living in Nazi Germany or maybe a poor African mother dying of AIDS with little health care at all.

What I mean is.... things could be sooooooo much worse, and we are a great nation and it amazes me that all we can sometimes say is "I want, I want, I want." Are we just ungrateful? Why are we so discontent? Why do we expect such a perfect society... like some sort of utopia?

In reality... where would the money come for all these things Ms.Dixon wants?? Esp. the primary care physical at the wellness center in "every" neighborhood. Hmmm... think about that for a minute. "EVERY" neighborhood? First of all, that is completely impossible, at least right now, because there wouldn't be enough doctors and nurses. And there certainly isn't money to build the buildings, staff them, and provide all those services. It'd be great if every neighborhood had something like that...

But then... I want a world where there is no violence, where all my neighbors mow their lawns and take care of their houses. I want to live in a town where everyone is nice and friendly, where there is always blue sky, never any smog, and where everyone drives the speed limit. I want all diseases eradicated and all pain to cease.

What I'm getting at is that life is not a utopia. The Bible is clear. There WILL BE and there ARE trials, tribulations, suffering, poverty, sickness, sin, etc. And what I feel bad about is all the people who believe that Obama is going to end poverty, injustice, greed, etc. They look to him rather than Jesus and they put more hope and faith in him and in govt. than in Jesus Christ.

As Christians, we should know better than anyone else that these things will always be present on this earth because of sin. The Bible even says that "the poor you will always have among you," and whenever I hear some politician promising to "end" poverty, I just think "yah, whatever." In fact, Jesus never says that we are to aim to end poverty. Rather we are to minister, serve, encourage, and help. And of course, we do what we can to "end" poverty, etc... but Obama makes so many promises that he cannot keep, and I personally feel, when he talks, as if he is manipulative and deceiving.

I think there are people who truly believe that there is an "answer" to health care problems and that when/if his plan passes, we'll just all have this "free" health care and everyone will get quality care, and all the doctors will do a great job, and no one will be denied care, etc. It'll just be hunky-dorey and so much better than what we have.

But why anyone would put their trust and faith in government (the very same govt. who quickly ran out of money for "Cash for Clunkers" and is behind on payments with that small program, who has racked up trillions of dollars of debt for our children and grandchcildren to pay, whose programs are slow and burdensome due to all the beauacracy and regulations, etc) is beyond me. Obama and all the others in Congress... they aren't doctors or health care professionals. Yet, they are crafting a health care bill. They aren't in the insurance business, yet they are acting as experts on health insurance.

There is just so much that is very disturbing and worrisome about Obama's policies, esp. this health care bill. And for me, I wanted less in his speech. Less scolding, less dismissing of people's concerns, less adulation of Obama, less blaming, less finger-pointing, less promising, and less anger at his critics.

And the only thing I want more of is more people reading this bill for themselves and understanding what's really in there. More people using discernment, wisdom, and shrewdness when listening to Obama. More people seeking the Lord rather than putting their confidence and faith in Obama, who is only a man.

All those things you want would be great, but I'm looking forward to our heavenly home. We have to remember that this world is passing away, and God has not called us to just focus on the here and now. Jesus set an example for us, and his life was focused on his calling and it wasn't all about "I want, I want, I want."

Sure, let's do all we can to end injustice and make things better... definitely... but if Obama's plan passes, don't be fooled into thinking that it's just gonna make everything all better and that everyone's life will just be rosy and we'll have all the money for it and everyone will get good, quality care, etc. We are a nation with TRILLIONS of dollars of debt, and someone will suffer under Obamacare. I believe it will turn out to be one of the worst things we can ever experience mainly due to the massive govt. intrusion and control it will be in our lives, and in the area of life and death.

We're talking about healthcare as a right of citizens. No other developed country has such a huge proportion of its citizens without access to health care (except on an emergency, last chance basis).In other civilized countries, the phenomenon of personal bankruptcy resulting from catastrophic medical expenses is absurd. Taken in total with the relatively poor health outcome statistics, and the high medical cost statistics, these practical facts suggest that your unique system of multiple, for-profit, insurance companies paying for most of your citizens health care is turning out to be bad for Americans, bad for your economy, but very good for insurance and allied health care companies. Single payer systems such as we have in Canada eliminate a huge dimension of cost and leave private care open to the "luxury" and cosmetic market, as in the UK. Justice demands that Americans have the right to healthcare that Canadians, French, British, Irish, Germans, and so many others do. Why don't you?

Yes, I read your link, but I disagree. We work together with our brothers and sisters to control government through an attempt at democracy (it's not perfect, but we try), so that in common, services like garbage collection, police services, and health services, can be carried out for everyone. People pay taxes for this because the community benefits, and we live together, not every man for himself. You may not think this is freedom, but the rest of the world feels sorry for Americans when they are injured or sick because the system looks at them like cash machines. Our system works for us. Good health to you!!

I'm not informed enough on Bush's black holes and spending during his administration to really talk about it intelligently.

But I'm not concerned right now with his administration because it's in the past. I'm concerned with the trillion dollar stimulus package which is in the present. And I'm concerned with our current deficit. Obama has done nothing to bring it down. It has only gone up.

The stimulus also hasn't helped much, and I fear that a lot of it has been mispent. And then there are all the bailouts (and probably more to come) and also the health care package and then cap and trade, which I just read will cost the average family $1700/yr.

So, I think it's time we just focus on our current situations and what Obama is doing to help, or to make things worse. Bush's administration is over, and while we can learn from it, it's no use comparing things like who spent more. IMO.

I find it all to be very frightening/disturbing. How will we be able to afford much of anything in the coming years? How will our children and grandchildren afford anything? They'll be the ones repaying the stimulus.

Did you read the link I posted?

Justice demands it? Justice demands that gov't confiscate from some to give to others? Why don't I? Because I don't think it will work long term. That's why.

The reason health care costs have risen out of control is because of gov't meddling....thus, personal bankruptcy in the face of medical bills.

Regarding "the relatively poor health outcome statistics," are you talking about the WHO statistics? If so, I don't know why this keeps coming up, since they have been shown to be VERY misleading. Read up on it at www.cato.org.

Once again, the best place to start is with a solid understanding of the mechanics of how things work. Gov't meddles, which causes problems justifying more gov't meddling and problems. Gov't systematic propaganda blames these gov't-created problems on the market and builds a case for more gov't intervention. When enough people buy the propaganda, the door is wide open for massive gov't intervention and eventual takeover of the system. It's a boon for both politicians and industry, but a total looser for the people. We're currently approaching that tipping point where a critical mass of people have bought the lie. I pray to God people wise up. There is much propaganda that needs to be unlearned, and much solid material that needs to replace it.

I do agree with many of your assertions, but the topic is healthcare, and I assume we all hold the ideal of every American being able to obtain healthcare affordably. My contribution was, how this is done in Canada and in the UK. I look forward to discussing broader government and economic questions in another forum.

If the govt didn't get involved in healthcare at all where would we be? How do you come to the conclusion that the reasons people have bankruptcies is because of govt involvment? A $50,000 surgery isn't going to go for $1000 is it? Can you imagine health insurance without any regulation?

kansasmennonite,

You ask some very good questions:
"How do you come to the conclusion that the reasons people have
bankruptcies is because of govt involvment? A $50,000 surgery isn't
going to go for $1000 is it? Can you imagine health insurance without
any regulation?"

You also seem to truly be looking for truth, rather than simply bashing
other people's thoughts. And so, I'll make a few comments and provide
you with one excellent resource. Thank you for searching for truth.

Unfortunately, the problem has more complexity than most people are
currently seeing. It is very true that reform is needed. I've looked
objectively at the "single payer" idea, honestly considering if it might
not be the best option. But in the end, I returned to core, ethical
principles, which steer me away from "single payer." Also, I agree with
liberal doctors who think Obama's "public option" plan would, in only a
few years, make things far worse than they are now.

The health care problem is, at it's core, an economic problem. Any
reform we push through must work economically. Therefore, if our reform
is to actually make things better, our perspective must be large enough
to encompass the economics of the issue. In my personal search for
answers, a came across an excellent article which spells everything out
so clearly as to answer virtually any lingering question anyone may
have....I think. Let me know if this assertion is untrue. I link to
this article below.

A word of hope. If you're looking for a clearer understanding of the
medical care delima that will enable you to clearly see the cause of our
crisis and also see the solution, this article WILL provide that for
you. It's not just about refuting what's currently being offered, but
explaining how we got where we are today and exactly the type of reform
that will work.

A couple words of caution concerning this article:

First, if you're the type of person who intentionally avoids reading
anything that may change your opinion, the first section may prevent you
from reaching the really good part....the part with the solution. Our
health care system does need reform, but we need to make sure we choose
the best possible kind of reform, lest we make things worse. So if you
can allow your ideas to be challenged, the benefit you will gain from
this article will be substantial...and possibly extend to those around you.

Second, this article is kinda long, though I'd still classify it as an
article. But if you can persist, it's well worth the read.

I highly encourage anyone interested in meaningful health care reform to
read this article. To proceed in this debate without understanding
these concepts could prove to be detrimental to us all. It is
definitely a worth while investment of your time.

http://mises.org/story/3613

I do agree with many of your assertions, but the topic is healthcare, and I assume we all hold the ideal of every American being able to obtain healthcare affordably. My contribution was, how this is done in Canada and in the UK. I look forward to discussing broader government and economic questions in another forum.

If the govt didn't get involved in healthcare at all where would we be? How do you come to the conclusion that the reasons people have bankruptcies is because of govt involvment? A $50,000 surgery isn't going to go for $1000 is it? Can you imagine health insurance without any regulation?