Get E-Mail Updates

The Cost of Doing Nothing About Health Care

After nearly a year of our work for health-care reform, the debate seems to be reaching the end. News reports indicate that the president will propose his plan for moving forward, and climactic votes could come soon.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

So what are we to make of the current bill? While it is deeply flawed, it nevertheless does extend coverage to 30 million people currently without insurance and provides subsidies for them to purchase it. And despite many disappointments with what a real health-care reform bill could have been, covering 30 million more people is still a big deal. But the most telling argument for finally passing something is that the cost of doing nothing about health care is far greater.

A New York Times report summed up, very starkly, the likely consequences of doing nothing. With no action by Congress, "The unrelenting rise in medical costs is likely to wreak havoc within the system and beyond it, and pretty much everyone will be affected, directly or indirectly."

Nearly every mainstream analysis calls for medical costs to continue to climb over the next decade, outpacing the growth in the overall economy and certainly increasing faster than the average paycheck. Those higher costs will translate into higher premiums, which will mean fewer individuals and businesses will be able to afford insurance coverage. More of everyone's dollar will go to health care, and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid will struggle to find the money to operate ... The higher premiums will also persuade more businesses, especially smaller ones, to decide not to offer insurance. More people who buy coverage on their own or are asked to pay a large share of premiums will find the price too high.

If this happens, estimates are that the number of people without health insurance would increase by more than one million per year (on top of the 49 million currently without coverage), and result in as many as 275,000 deaths over the next 10 years. Do we really want as many as 60 million Americans to be without health insurance in a decade? More families will go deeply into debt, and many will go bankrupt.

I am forced to conclude that while this very flawed legislation may be the lesser of evils, the consequences of inaction to America's families would be far greater. So rather than issuing a moral clarion call to action, let's just hope this finally passes, and then immediately get to work to make it better. If this effort fails, most observers think that Congress might not get back to health care for ten or fifteen years; and all the terrible costs and consequences the Times article analytically predicts are very likely to come true.

portrait-jim-wallisJim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

+Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: homerj1

03-04-2010 @ 5:45pm

I've been completely factual. I've noticed the hypocrisy of those who
shout "scare tactics" when they lose based on the facts.

Protecting innocent life has everything to do with Christianity and
the God-assigned role for gov't.

Voting to have Caesar take other people's money by force to give to
others does not qualify as charity. You can argue that the health care
bill is good public policy (but it is horrible), but under no
circumstance is it biblical giving.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-02-2010 @ 4:56pm

I understand argument. However it doesn't really make sense to say Congress could go about fixing problems tomorrow if they pass a bad bill; but if the do not pass a bad bill they could not go about fixing problems until 15 years pass.

by: barbmilam

03-04-2010 @ 5:42pm

I don't understand why a public option is opposed so radically. The Post Office is and option to other postal services and the competition is healthy. BUT the insurance companies are making a mint. It is mind boggling. When they claim that we need tort reform, I agree. BUT I do not agree that that is what is draining the insurance companies from profit. I think it is their salaries and bonuses. It is complicated and messy but doesn't have to be.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-02-2010 @ 4:59pm

It also doesn't make sense to argue we ought give them responsibility for something they are not assuming responsibility for crafting good legislation about.

It is like me arguing you should let me take care of your car even though what I propose doing will actually harm your car; and I just say, "But if you let me take care of it--then I can fix the problems i caused."

by: NMRod

03-04-2010 @ 5:41pm

So, even with such an amendment, you don't want the bill at all, no way, no how.

Therefore whatever the merits of the bill, the truth of the matter is simply that your addon is an obstructionist power ploy, rather than a sincere attempt to stop or even reduce abortions.

Once again, abortion is a convenient political football, useful only within that context, rather than actually changing the status quo - when it would no longer be useful for just about the only thing politicians are interested in aside from influence-peddling - getting re-elected in order to continue to do so.

Where is your bill to outlaw insurance companies preferring the abortion option for those whose health care they hold hostage? It will NEVER happen, because insurance companies see cheap abortion as preferable to their bottom line, rather than doling out premium dollars they already have for expensive live births. They naturally thirst to invest what used to be your money in Wall Street peculations and billion-buck bankster bonusing instead.

by: barbmilam

03-04-2010 @ 5:37pm

I don't have to list the number of ways I have helped we are not in a game of keeping score of kindnesses. And I know Jesus would not "force" anyone to give but He did say give up all you have and follow me...But I do think as Christians our "faith" is played out by how we treat the disadvantaged. That is why I have spent much of my life and taught my children that with blessings from God comes responsibility to others.
If the health care bill has nothing to do with Christianity why did you spout about it and abortion...this bill does no more than what is already allowed. I think sometimes these issues are scare tactics that only give people, who do not check up on the facts, misinformation about what is actually being presented.

by: barbmilam

03-04-2010 @ 5:28pm

I hate to be cynical but you may be right. I hate it that most Americans think of only the Republican Party as the moral majority, when you are right, abortion is their only issue. They do not help the poor, see immigrants as a drain on society and yet pass laws that make almost impossible for them to work in this country legally. I get very frustrated. BUT I do not see Democrats without their own agendas and idiocy. And I do think it started with Ronald Reagan when the democrats where demonized. I don't get it. I do not see the the sense in it.

by: liberalinlove

03-04-2010 @ 3:56pm

I guess if we all saw this through the eyes of Christ's desciples and with the Lord's mandate and mission, it would be, "silver and gold have I none, but such as I have give I you, in the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk."

Wouldn't that do away with the need for any health care!

by: NMRod

03-04-2010 @ 3:28pm

The insurance companies - really just another incarnation of the Wall Street bonus blowout financial aristocracy that has a lockhold on the influence-peddled political process - won't be for any changes except those that move in the direction of an even bigger piece of the national financial pie for them.

So that the status quo - paying more for less - is the foregone conclusion as the banksters hold health care hostage - just what the "Homer cases" here are plumping for.

The larger problem is that the country, with its wars made on Wall Street, grows ever more hardened and callous to human suffering in general. A population largely comfortable with killng large numbers of human beings in service of desperately trying to maintain unsustainable lifestyles is going to be increasingly inured to the sufferings not just of those outside its borders, but to those of identical human beings inside its borders, too. And anti-abortion planks will be just beams in hypocritical eyes with a callous disregard for really doing anything except politically profit from it continuing.

The religious manifestation of this is precisely found in the analogy to the story of the Good Samaritan - where a victim in need of medical attention was ignored and patronized by that day's version of a "religious right" and had his dire needs unmet by his fellow countrymen - some of whom had actually robbed him.

Shall we follow Jesus, or no? Obviously, for most "Christians" who consider themselves "fundamental" - but are not - the answer is NO.

Like the Beck-inspired "tea party" "patriots" outside the gun store vigil for a slain child, they drown out the very prayers inspired by the Holy Spirit and commanded by Jesus - The Lord's Prayer - with their cruel rag worship war chants - with guns strapped to their sides. That is one Hell of a religion.

"Luke 10:30-37 Jesus answered, 'A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return. Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?' He said, 'He who showed mercy on him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'"

To act otherwise is the sin of Sodom.

by: homerj1

03-04-2010 @ 2:20pm

I am truly interested in what the other "issue on deck" is that you
accuse the pro-life Democrats of having if the Stupak amendment is
added. Maybe you are right. Maybe these Democrats are lying and will
still vote against the bill even if it is added. I'm not sure what the
real agenda is of these Democrats, but you claimed to know.

by: homerj1

03-04-2010 @ 2:10pm

It is so easy to demonstrate how Democrats will risk the whole health
are bill rather than add the Stupak amendment.

by: homerj1

03-04-2010 @ 2:08pm

Patricia, stop lying. You are changing your story. If you believed
what you claimed you'd shout for the Stupak amendment to be added.
Best case would be your beloved bill would be passed with 2,002 pages
instead of 2,000 with absolutely no change on content.

Of course that assumes that the Stupak amendment truly is superfluous
and that you don't understand the plans of Planned Parenthood et al,
because they don't agree with you.

If you want to accuse the pro-life Dems of lying -- which is what you
are doing by saying that they'd still oppose the bill if the amendment
was added -- then maybe you are right. So go ahead and call their
bluff. What could be easier than just adding his amendment?

I'm being perfectly transparent here. The bill is unaffordable and
will drive down the quality of health care and will result on taxpayer
funde abortions. I'm just enjoying pointing out the disingenuousness
of those who claim to want to limit abortions.

by: Patricia

03-04-2010 @ 1:36pm

Patricia's response is that making law may be political theater, but political theater does nothing but muck up the law itself.

Patricia's further response is that we ought not to make accommodation to ignorance and lies in crafting our laws. Doing so only encourages further ignorance and bigger lies.

There are already specific provisions in the health care bill which prohibit using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Insurance companies that offer abortion services are specifically prohibited from providing those services in plans for those receiving taxpayer funding. We do not fund abortion with taxpayer funds now, and the health care bill continues that prohibition.

Patricia's FURTHER response is that you are being less than truthful in asserting that this is the only issue preventing health care reform from passing. Were the Stupak amendment to be incorporated into the legislation, there is another "issue" on deck waiting to take its place to prevent reform from occurring. Patricia believes homerj know this is true. Patricia believes homerj is lying.

Patricia's final response is that, while making accusations of fakery and ease of unmasking, homerj must have been looking in the mirror :).

by: cwendt64

03-02-2010 @ 5:19pm

The only reason a clear majority doesn't want what is being proposed is becasue it doesn't contain a public option that would create real competition. Once the public option is passed via reconciliation the majority of Americans will be on board again.

by: homerj1

03-04-2010 @ 10:40am

Ha! You take credit for making health care available to all but you
do it with other people's money -- and the money of future generations
at that. If you think it is good public policy then argue it that way
but don't pretend you are being generous. Oh, and it is lousy public
policy because it will result in more rationing, taxpayer funded
abortions, worse care, more corruption, etc.

I'm old fashioned: I give away my own money, not yours, and not your
grandchildren's.

I'm still waiting for you or Patricia to explain why you aren't
shouting from the rooftops for the Stupak amendment. That
"superfluous" couple of pages is all that stands between getting the
plan you insist you want AND preventing the taxpayer funded abortions
you claim to oppose, instead of the delays and likely failure you're
going to have.

What fakes you are! You are so easy to unmask.

by: NMRod

03-02-2010 @ 5:10pm

I read nothing for five months when I saw how things were going. I've completely lost faith in the leadership of the country - both that of the financial aristocracy and those who so obviously serve them, the politicians. In this society, money talks - and since the growing number of unemployed and uninsured is growing so massively, they have even less power to influence anything, since it is money alone that talks in the American marketplace.

I felt then that nothing will occur whatsoever to address the problems until more than a majority have no health insurance. I see nothing to change my opinion many months later. Change will come, but it will be a long time in coming, and it will come on an emergency basis, which as always will have unforeseen and unintended consequences.

This is a nation for the rich, ruled by the rich. Everyone else gets whatever is left that serves their interests - which these days, is less and less, because offshoring and outsourcing make so much more sense to the elites' own interests.

Yes, I have lost faith. The Republicans are completely bereft of ideas - they were in power when the rot set in for good - and have nothing to offer except to criticize. The Democrats, given that politics is all about influence-peddling, are pretty well loathe to make any positive changes that could result in less bonusing for a completely out of control financial elite.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.

by: homerj1

03-04-2010 @ 10:27am

Let me know when you stop making things up, then maybe I'll take you
seriously. Thanks for visiting from stereoype land.

by: Ngchen

03-02-2010 @ 5:38pm

The biggest problem I see with the current bill is that it DOESN'T really have anything that would address the net costs. Net costs are out-of-control, and no amount of insurance reform (although certainly needed) will solve the problem.

by: homerj1

03-04-2010 @ 10:25am

I have all sorts of practical answers. Add the Stupak amendment. Allow
insurance to be sold across state lines. Tort reform to reduce the
huge costs of defensive medicine. Portability of insurance. Tax
benefits for the employee instead of the employer. And on and on.
These are far superior to handing over more health care to a gov't
that can't run what it has today.

by: liberalinlove

03-02-2010 @ 5:59pm

Well I could be wrong, but in my opinion, the rising cost of health care is directly proportional to, a few paying for many who can't pay.
Take my uninsured friend, who fell down and hit his head after his blood sugar dropped. Grant it, he'd been out partying. He is a seasonal worker and the cost of his juvenile diabetes is already more than he can afford. A large and dangerous blood clot from his fall, kept him in the hospital for 10 days. You guessed it, the hospital wrote most of his bill off, because he wasn't working during the winter months.
I can't help but think that, like laws passed for uninsured motorists who drive cars, the laws could be tweaked to expect some type of catastrophic insurance policy required of everyone as soon as adulthood is reached. When the uninsured, don't pay, the insured's premiums and the overhead and cost of doing business for health care climbs.
Why should doctors and hospitals not be reimbursed for doing an honest day's business?
Yet it is easier to write off these uncollectible bills, then to stay with a person and require repayment, over the course of a lifetime. Needless to say, this young man, has no feeling of remorse that his actions, affect all of us. He's just grateful he's lived another day to party.

And for those loved ones, who must declare bankruptcy, because a catastrophic illness has wiped out a life time of hard work and responsible behavior due to outrageous health care costs, the rewards of doing the right thing are a lesson for the young man mentioned. Why bother! Party now, you won't have to pay later! Be responsible now and save for retirement and you may lose it all anyway.

by: homerj1

03-04-2010 @ 10:23am

If you really think abortion is wrong an innocent human being then
you'd want it to be illegal.

by: Ngchen

03-02-2010 @ 6:10pm

Yes, one effect that covering nearly everyone that admittedly would lower total costs would be to drastically reduce the number of people who let treatable situations deteriorate to the point where they wind up in the hospital, or even the ICU, at which point they cost a fortune to treat. Examples abound such as the friend you bring up, and the child who died after a dental cavity went untreated for too long.

by: liberalinlove

03-04-2010 @ 4:14am

Oh my goodness! You seem like an extremely angry person, willing to lump everybody into the same category of either/or. I'm about problem solving and looking for solutions that work. Throwing out babies with the bathwater will never get the job done. I'm neither familiar with Glen Beck's proposals, nor interested in them, so much in that I saw something clearly working in a town where I lived and was fascinated by the dynamics of it. It doesn't matter to me where the solution comes from as long as it works.

If the church, as in Christians, seem to have tons of money to build huge buildings and create mega programs for entertaining the masses, why can't they learn how to utilize some of their proceeds to properly invest and build income for insuring their members. Why does the world get to problem solve. Why does the church have to depend on anyone when we are supposed to have wisdom.

It all sounds like one of those loops you get into that runs the same track over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....

I'd love a good public policy and a government that gave a flipping fig newton about all of her people. Meanwhile, I hope and pray I don't miss the rescue boat God sends my way by virtue of some other solution, because I'm just too mad to see straight.

by: fundamentalist

03-02-2010 @ 5:54pm

Actually passing the healthcare bill will cause premiums to rise faster because it will increase the demand for healthcare without increasing the supply, as Mass has discovered with its healthcare policy that is similar to the President's:

"

by: scat

03-04-2010 @ 4:00am

I find this new format a little clumsy to follow so I will just make a couple general comments.
As to potential for abortion to be covered in the proposed bill, although I believe abortion to be morally wrong, this issue is just an attempt to do through the back door what cannot be done directly. Abortion is a legal procedure and attempts to carve out laws that make it more difficult for people to have access to that legal procedure is probably unconstitutional since it is based on a particular group's religious beliefs.
And whoever said that the issue is just one used by those in power to manipulate and fire-up the religious right is absolutely correct. It is well-documented. It they suddenly did not have that issue to cloud up all other issues, they would lose mu;ch of thier support. It is strictly a political tool. The other hot-button issue, gay rights, doesn't have nearly the impact.
WE all are paying for abortions. When you pay your health insurance premium, you just as much paying for abortions as you would through paying taxes for a government program. Yet, no one seems to be raising a ruckus about that.
So much of the rhetoric has been paid for, created by and scripted by the insurance industry. Having worked in that industry for a couple of decades, I can assure you that insurance companies will do anything they can legally do to keep the stautus quo. 'They are in the business to make money and part of that involves a very close relationship with our friends on Wall street. Thier intersets are the same.
As for the matter of the free market and selling insurance across state borders. Most people don't seem to realize that most insurance regulations and rules are governed by the individual states. For Republicans who claim they want more local control and less federal control, it is curious that they would even begin to make this argument. But the primary problem is that we have a very heterogenious population from state to state and widely varying cost of living. The cost of medical care in Mississippi will not be even close to the cost in California. There is also a wide variation in many of the other legal areas that touch on the practice of medicine from state to state. As for letting the "free market" takte care of the need for competition, this may work for some consumer goods but the average person is not going to sit down and start reading various policies to pick one out. IT's not like buying a pair of shoes.
I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like we will have to be teetering on the edge of becoming a third world country with the vast majority of the population without health care before anything happens. People are just too gullible when they are fed easy to remember slogans -- like -- we need to start over -- this is just a scheme to turn us into a socialist society -- "death panels", etc.

by: prgrs_ev

03-07-2010 @ 5:59am

The issue at hand is the Stupak amendment which, while desiring to further restrict abortions rights, holds 30 million people's access to health insurance hostage when the Hyde legislation is already in place and prevents tax-payer dollars from financing abortions. Stupak wants to stop women from purchasing riders to include more comprehensive reproductives services with their own money, which may have questionable consitutionality. He's interested in helping folks before they're born but does give a rip after their born apparently.

by: Ngchen

03-02-2010 @ 6:13pm

You have a very good point with regard to demand and supply. One thing I would really like to see are price lists at the various clinics and hospitals for what they provide. Without said lists, price competition is nearly impossible, and the normal market mechanisms that keep prices in check can't operate. Combine such with a near-monopoly status of certain hospitals, and we have the disaster we see today.

by: prgrs_ev

03-04-2010 @ 3:46am

It's interesting that Glenn Beck doesn't have conspiracy theories about conservatives...Hmmm...so righteous they are (channeling Yoda). In my decidedly liberal opinion Glenn Beck is to factual as Rush Limbaugh is to ballerina.

by: Grace|Truth

03-07-2010 @ 1:36pm

Are you familiar with the time periods the Hyde Amendment covers? Is it
permanent? No, it must be renewed. Are you familiar with what happens if
the current health care bill passes and the Hyde Amendment is not renewed?
I am: The government would be required to fund abortions with taxpayer
money. Therefore, something like the Stupak Amendment is needed. Planned
Parenthood, NOW, et al all know that.

I'm seen many claim that the amendment sponsored by Stupak -- a Democrat --
is completely redundant. If so, why don't Democrats support it? Is it
possible that they don't really "give a rip" about helping the uninsured and
just want to advance abortion rights?

Why don't they negotiate to modify the Stupak language such that it makes
the Hyde Amendment restrictions permanent while removing the alleged new
restrictions on the current destruction of innocent human beings?

by: Patricia

03-02-2010 @ 6:38pm

We have spent nearly a year working on this bill to get it where it is today.

The only reason it is "partisan" is because the Republicans, in a fit of pique over losing the election and the congress, very deliberately decided to obstruct, oppose, and deceive.

"The majority of the rest of us" want Medicare for Everyone.

"The majority of the rest of us", in the absence of Medicare for Everyone, want an open, robust Public Option available to all.

The congress as a whole, and Republicans in particular, are not even in the same book as "the majority of the rest of us" much less on the same page.

I hope and pray that a real public option is put in the bill and its passed using reconciliation, so we can get to work fixing it and expanding it.

by: NMRod

03-02-2010 @ 6:45pm

Insurance rates have to keep rising dramatically to make up for the insurance corporations' bad bets on subprime mortgages and make sure their stocks are high enough for another round of high-fivin' billion-dollar-bonussing for their super-wealthy execs. As well, since the pool of money keeps getting contributed by fewer and fewer, they simply raise premiums on everyone remaining to keep their party flyin'.

All the other players profiting from this cartel go along, because manipulating the system into scarcity by constantly raising prices, perversely makes the commodity even more valuable than ever, resulting in irresistible temptation to get in on ever more profitable dollar action.

Trickle-down water torture.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:11pm

I am so glad people want them to drop health care reform -- at least in its current form. I'm still all for tort reform and some other free market changes.

It is wildly ironic that the single-payer health care proponents have lost their cause for good because they wouldn't give up the goal of increasing abortions by requiring taxpayers to fund them.

If they weren't so perversely eager to increase abortions then the uninsured they claim to care about would already be getting more medical benefits.

If they hadn't insisted on taxpayer-funded abortions the plan would have sailed through with 60 votes and they could have saved hundreds of millions in bribes.

Why aren't the Sojourners insisting that the Stupak Amendment be put in to the legislation? That would save lives and get the health care you claim to want.

by: Jesusistheway

03-02-2010 @ 9:14pm

Today on NPR's All Things Considered there was a segment on children and nutrition, specifically that many children are eating multiple snacks a day and most of those being full of salt or sugar and not very full of healthy things. Childhood obesity is at an all time high, partly because we have had a cheap food policy -- with the emphasis on "cheap" -- that is not creating any incentives for people to think about what they eat before filling their mouths. The ramifications down the line puts us on a perilous slope. I agreed when candidate Huckabee said in 2007-2008 that we had more of a health crisis than a health care crisis in this country. So, whether or not this bill passes, we are in a precarious position at best in this country because. as NgChen noted, the bill does little to control runaway costs, and if millions more have access to health insurance, what incentive is there to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and exercise regularly? Not saying it shouldn't pass, but warning that we should beware of what we ask for.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:17pm

If you think that the evil insurance companies charge too much, then pool your resources and start your own insurance company. Beat them at their own game! You'll either drive them out of business or force them to reduce prices and increase benefits to compete with you. Not only are you more righteous than your competition but you are smarter as well, right? You can't lose!

Quit asking Caesar to do the work of the church by taking from neighbor A to give to neighbor B.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:24pm

The "cost of doing something" about health care currently results in taxpayer-funded abortions. This means that all taxpayers will be paying to have innocent human beings crushed and dismembered. That isn't pro-choice, it is pro-abortion.

And you think Jesus in in favor of this?

by: Grace|Truth

03-07-2010 @ 7:47pm

"In fact Stupak's amendment goes beyond Hyde and that's what many Democrats
object to; that Henry Hyde didn't make the legislation permanent should not
hold 30 million people hostage."

If you really believe that Stupak goes beyond Hyde then why not push for
negotiation such that Hyde is tied to the health care bill?

Why is it ridiculous to ask why they don't support that amendment? If they
think it is merely a couple redundant pages out of a 2,000 page bill then
I'd think they would rush to approve it. The pro-legalized abortionists are
the ones holding it "hostage"

You claim the health care bill is not about abortion. Lots of pro-legalized
abortionists disagree with you -- see http://tinyurl.com/yz4xbfc :

"PP [Planned Parenthood] says, ?All versions of the health care reform bill
would expand coverage, protect women?s access to reproductive health care,
and allow women to continue to see the health care providers they know and
trust (like Planned Parenthood).?

Planned Parenthood isn?t the only abortion advocacy group that seems to
agree that abortion would be covered under the health care reform bill:

? President Barack Obama: ?Well, look, in my mind reproductive care is
essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan
that I propose?insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in
terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care?that?s
going to be absolutely vital.? Source: During Q&A session at a Planned
Parenthood Action Fund Event on July 17, 2007.)

? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: ?Reproductive health includes access
to abortion?We are now an Administration that will protect the rights of
women, including their rights to reproductive health care.? Source: In front
of House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 22, 2009. YouTube video here.

? National Abortion Federation:?NAF supports health care reform as a way to
increase access to comprehensive reproductive health care, including
abortion care, for all women.? Source: NAF website.

? Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:?Let there be no mistake,
basic healthcare includes abortion services.?
Source: An email action alert regarding health care reform issued July 1,
2009 from RCRC President Reverend Carlton W. Veazey.

? NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League): ?(I)f, indeed, we can
advance a panel or commission, then I am very optimistic about reproductive
health care being part of this entire package.? Source: NARAL President
Nancy Keenan spoke to the American Prospect about the health care debate.

? RHRealityCheck: ?health reform is the issue to insist upon for Obama for
his first term?he needs the victory. ?He needs us. Public option is key, and
using ?medical standard of care? in language instead of listing reproductive
services that will siphon off votes.? (sic) Source: A RHRealityCheck blogger
wrote this about what Wendy Chavkin, former Board chair of Physicians for
Reproductive Choice and Health said in a forum.

Of course, if that?s not enough evidence, than check out FactCheck, TIME
magazine, Obama supporter Jim Wallis and the Associated Press confirming
that the current health care reform bills include abortion coverage.
Reproductive health care, in the minds (and pens) of the current
administration includes abortion access."

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 10:29pm

Liberals have the media, the Presidency and both Houses of Congress and you think the evil Republicans can deceive everyone? Heh.

The public option is the opposite of competition. Obama and other leaders have been caught on video multiple times saying the end game is single payer -- http://tinyurl.com/ygt9v9d . They lie now and say it isn't and the media doesn't expose them. Surprised?

by: prgrs_ev

03-07-2010 @ 7:36pm

First of all your second sentence in the second paragraph is ridiculous because the healthcare bill is not about abortion. Stupak made it about abortion. In fact Stupak's amendment goes beyond Hyde and that's what many Democrats object to; that Henry Hyde didn't make the legislation permanent should not hold 30 million people hostage.

by: Jesusistheway

03-02-2010 @ 9:27pm

"Why aren't the Sojourners insisting that the Stupak Amendment be put in to the legislation? That would save lives and get the health care you claim to want."

Exactly. One can only hope that Jim Wallis, with his seeming direct access to Barack Obama and the Democratic party, is working on that behind the scenes.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:32pm

Good point. Not sure government can fix this. People need to use some common sense. Over-sized portions, endless soft drinks and almost no exercise have horrific health consequences.

by: lenlemmer

03-14-2010 @ 2:35pm

It is evident from history, that "social justice" is simply a code word for Socialism. I am sorry that you have been exposed. Your goal is socialism, not justice. It is time that all Americans understand your evil. We will not sacrifice our God given freedoms to you. We will force all who preach the surrender of our American freedoms from the pulpit.

by: hammerud

03-02-2010 @ 10:01pm

I understand Singapore is rated number 1 in the world for health care, and it is a 100% free market system. We want to fix the problem here in the US, but more government involvement only makes it worse. Government needs to get out of the way. What upsets me is my belief that liberal-progressives are not really concerned about health care at all. They have an agenda to gain control over our society to implement an anti-Capitalist, socialist system. I have a major philosophical disconnect with these people. They are using health care, which they really are not fixing, as a smoke screen for their agenda. Reagan warned about this back in 1961.

by: lenlemmer

03-14-2010 @ 2:30pm

I think that it is apparent that the term "Social Justice" is a code word for government intrusion. Socialism not justice is the end game for you. The fact that you have been found out, Mr. Wallis is indeed a great good for the American people. Those Socialists who preach from the pulpit the wholesale surrender of our America's freedoms will be exposed and forced out.

by: Grace|Truth

03-07-2010 @ 8:27pm

If I may ask, why are you conflicted about abortion? What do you see as
being wrong with it?

I oppose it because it destroys an innocent human being. It is a scientific
fact that the unborn are human beings.

If that is true, then the root causes of abortion don't make abortion OK
(other than to save the life of the mother).

Aside from the appeal to emotions, I don't see the relevance to male
reproductive rights. I know the pro-women card is a quick one to be played,
but consider that half of those aborted are female and that virtually all
gender selection abortions are done for the specific reason of eliminating
females (the ultimate misogyny).

I volunteer, donate and have been on the board of a Crisis Pregnancy Center,
so I'm pretty familiar with the role men play in driving abortions.

I do agree that we should address the root causes but not as an excuse to
avoid making abortion illegal. Some folks (I'm not saying you are in this
category) will say they are pro-life and will vote to illegalize abortion as
soon as all societal ills are fixed -- which, of course, will be never -- so
their statements lack meaning.

For comparison purposes, consider how broken homes can contribute to crime.
Of course, the criminals are still responsible for their actions, but the
men I meet in prison ministry almost always came from bad backgrounds.
Would anyone consider saying they can't be held accountable until we fix the
root cause of their rebellion?

by: prgrs_ev

03-07-2010 @ 8:13pm

I myself am very conflicted about abortion. I certainly don't see it as a moral good and oppose it but abortion doesn't happen in a vacuum. I don't think you can legitimately confront abortion without comprehensively dealing with the causes of abortion, from ignorance and poverty to wanton disregard. Without this I think women are not equally protected by our laws and become in essence public chatel.

If there was any legislation put forward to in any way restrict legal male reproductive rights, the collective cries of opposition would be violently and universally deafening...it's easy to deal with a problem, when it's not YOUR problem. Without dealing with this reality I think we enter into intellectual disengenuousess.

by: Grace|Truth

03-09-2010 @ 9:15pm

Hi prgrs_ev,

Glad to hear of your adoption efforts. Kudos for that. I'm adopted and
have many family members who adopted.

Re. personhood: I'm aware of those arbitrary and vague criteria. I maintain
that they should not be used to rationalize the destruction of innocent
human beings.

Here's one example re. consciousness: To legally remove someone from life
support who is not conscious you need to 1) Demonstrate that you are acting
in that person?s best interests and as they would so act if they were
conscious and 2) there must be little or no hope of recovery. Abortion
fails on both counts.

Being allowed to live is a right. Health care is not a right, unless you
redefine the term.

"What further troubles me is that you have not addressed women's rights in
this matter, or have you... "

Females have a right not to be crushed and dismembered in their mother's
wombs. They have a right to life, just like men. Gender selection
abortions are virtually all done to kill females for being female.

Oh, you meant the right of the pregnant women? They shouldn't have the
right to have their children killed, regardless of their location.

by: Jesusistheway

03-02-2010 @ 10:54pm

I hope you'll be as adamant at opposing abortion -- as the Catholic Church is -- in your unwavering support for a health care bill. And don't believe that Democrats don't have to think about payback time when it comes to the abortion industry. Where will your voice be then, one wonders.

by: prgrs_ev

03-09-2010 @ 9:01pm

PersonhoodMany medical ethicists attribute personhood to the following central principals in at least some rudimentary form:Consciousness; Reasoning ; Self-motivated activity; Capacity to communicate; Self awarenessMedical ethics is something I have studied academically. These principals raise questions for the very beginning and at the very end of life for sure. I would hold that while medical ethicists don't have all the answers they do raise important questions that need examination and consideration; and ethical thought is far more diverse than the Utilitarian argumant you presented earlier.Health care a benefit/rightWe are the only major developed country in the world that does not guarantee healthcare coverage and access; this for the wealthiest country on the planet. Comparitively, we suffer from an embarrassment of riches yet 45,000 people in the US (Harvard) die due to lack of coverage. I believe health care is a right; it is the cost of living in a civilized society. The current health care legislation is light years from being government control or take over. Health care accounts for 16% of the economy and governmant already is the payor for over 50% of healthcare; the industry is, in my opinion, in need of more regulation to assure economic fairness. I blieve this and I've worked in the industry for 36 years.Male role in abortion issueFirst, I did not accuse you os dihonesty; I asserted that separating the male role from this debate is intellectually dishonst and further it is not fair.What do I do for this cause?I have adopted two children and have been on the board of directors of an adoption agency for nearly a decade. My wife and I have been adoption activists for years.What further troubles me is that you have not addressed women's rights in this matter, or have you... The courts have addressed this matter but what your take?I continue to maintain this issue is not as simple as "make it illegal".

by: prgrs_ev

03-09-2010 @ 7:49pm

Good clarification. Thanks.

by: John Mulholland

03-03-2010 @ 12:36am

"The only reason it is "partisan" is because the Republicans, in a fit of pique over losing the election and the congress, very deliberately decided to obstruct, oppose, and deceive."

If this is true, why is it that the Democrats were bribed for their support?

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: barbmilam

03-04-2010 @ 5:42pm

I don't understand why a public option is opposed so radically. The Post Office is and option to other postal services and the competition is healthy. BUT the insurance companies are making a mint. It is mind boggling. When they claim that we need tort reform, I agree. BUT I do not agree that that is what is draining the insurance companies from profit. I think it is their salaries and bonuses. It is complicated and messy but doesn't have to be.

by: jkc1945

03-02-2010 @ 2:35pm

Who in the world is talking about "doing nothing?" Absolutely no one. Mr. Wallis, I am disappointed that you are joining in the perpetuation of this fallacy.
Many, many people are talking about doing "something else." That is what we do in a federalized republic - -we talk about all sorts of different things. But to simply imagine that, unless we pass what the current partisan bill says, we are getting ready to "do nothing" is just silly. The public clearly does not want what is being proposed. But that doesn't mean we are going to do nothing, or that we want to do nothing. It simply means we don't want to swallow this 2000+ pages of unread stuff that are being perpetrated on us. Please, Mr. Wallis. Try to at least stay on the same page as the majority of the rest of us.

by: jkc1945

03-02-2010 @ 2:35pm

Who in the world is talking about "doing nothing?" Absolutely no one. Mr. Wallis, I am disappointed that you are joining in the perpetuation of this fallacy.
Many, many people are talking about doing "something else." That is what we do in a federalized republic - -we talk about all sorts of different things. But to simply imagine that, unless we pass what the current partisan bill says, we are getting ready to "do nothing" is just silly. The public clearly does not want what is being proposed. But that doesn't mean we are going to do nothing, or that we want to do nothing. It simply means we don't want to swallow this 2000+ pages of unread stuff that are being perpetrated on us. Please, Mr. Wallis. Try to at least stay on the same page as the majority of the rest of us.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-02-2010 @ 4:56pm

I understand argument. However it doesn't really make sense to say Congress could go about fixing problems tomorrow if they pass a bad bill; but if the do not pass a bad bill they could not go about fixing problems until 15 years pass.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-02-2010 @ 4:59pm

It also doesn't make sense to argue we ought give them responsibility for something they are not assuming responsibility for crafting good legislation about.

It is like me arguing you should let me take care of your car even though what I propose doing will actually harm your car; and I just say, "But if you let me take care of it--then I can fix the problems i caused."

by: letjusticerolldown

03-02-2010 @ 4:59pm

It also doesn't make sense to argue we ought give them responsibility for something they are not assuming responsibility for crafting good legislation about.

It is like me arguing you should let me take care of your car even though what I propose doing will actually harm your car; and I just say, "But if you let me take care of it--then I can fix the problems i caused."

by: NMRod

03-02-2010 @ 5:10pm

I read nothing for five months when I saw how things were going. I've completely lost faith in the leadership of the country - both that of the financial aristocracy and those who so obviously serve them, the politicians. In this society, money talks - and since the growing number of unemployed and uninsured is growing so massively, they have even less power to influence anything, since it is money alone that talks in the American marketplace.

I felt then that nothing will occur whatsoever to address the problems until more than a majority have no health insurance. I see nothing to change my opinion many months later. Change will come, but it will be a long time in coming, and it will come on an emergency basis, which as always will have unforeseen and unintended consequences.

This is a nation for the rich, ruled by the rich. Everyone else gets whatever is left that serves their interests - which these days, is less and less, because offshoring and outsourcing make so much more sense to the elites' own interests.

Yes, I have lost faith. The Republicans are completely bereft of ideas - they were in power when the rot set in for good - and have nothing to offer except to criticize. The Democrats, given that politics is all about influence-peddling, are pretty well loathe to make any positive changes that could result in less bonusing for a completely out of control financial elite.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.

by: NMRod

03-02-2010 @ 5:10pm

I read nothing for five months when I saw how things were going. I've completely lost faith in the leadership of the country - both that of the financial aristocracy and those who so obviously serve them, the politicians. In this society, money talks - and since the growing number of unemployed and uninsured is growing so massively, they have even less power to influence anything, since it is money alone that talks in the American marketplace.

I felt then that nothing will occur whatsoever to address the problems until more than a majority have no health insurance. I see nothing to change my opinion many months later. Change will come, but it will be a long time in coming, and it will come on an emergency basis, which as always will have unforeseen and unintended consequences.

This is a nation for the rich, ruled by the rich. Everyone else gets whatever is left that serves their interests - which these days, is less and less, because offshoring and outsourcing make so much more sense to the elites' own interests.

Yes, I have lost faith. The Republicans are completely bereft of ideas - they were in power when the rot set in for good - and have nothing to offer except to criticize. The Democrats, given that politics is all about influence-peddling, are pretty well loathe to make any positive changes that could result in less bonusing for a completely out of control financial elite.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.

by: cwendt64

03-02-2010 @ 5:19pm

The only reason a clear majority doesn't want what is being proposed is becasue it doesn't contain a public option that would create real competition. Once the public option is passed via reconciliation the majority of Americans will be on board again.

by: cwendt64

03-02-2010 @ 5:19pm

The only reason a clear majority doesn't want what is being proposed is becasue it doesn't contain a public option that would create real competition. Once the public option is passed via reconciliation the majority of Americans will be on board again.

by: Ngchen

03-02-2010 @ 5:38pm

The biggest problem I see with the current bill is that it DOESN'T really have anything that would address the net costs. Net costs are out-of-control, and no amount of insurance reform (although certainly needed) will solve the problem.

by: Ngchen

03-02-2010 @ 5:38pm

The biggest problem I see with the current bill is that it DOESN'T really have anything that would address the net costs. Net costs are out-of-control, and no amount of insurance reform (although certainly needed) will solve the problem.

by: fundamentalist

03-02-2010 @ 5:54pm

Actually passing the healthcare bill will cause premiums to rise faster because it will increase the demand for healthcare without increasing the supply, as Mass has discovered with its healthcare policy that is similar to the President's:

"

by: fundamentalist

03-02-2010 @ 5:54pm

Actually passing the healthcare bill will cause premiums to rise faster because it will increase the demand for healthcare without increasing the supply, as Mass has discovered with its healthcare policy that is similar to the President's:

"

by: liberalinlove

03-02-2010 @ 5:59pm

Well I could be wrong, but in my opinion, the rising cost of health care is directly proportional to, a few paying for many who can't pay.
Take my uninsured friend, who fell down and hit his head after his blood sugar dropped. Grant it, he'd been out partying. He is a seasonal worker and the cost of his juvenile diabetes is already more than he can afford. A large and dangerous blood clot from his fall, kept him in the hospital for 10 days. You guessed it, the hospital wrote most of his bill off, because he wasn't working during the winter months.
I can't help but think that, like laws passed for uninsured motorists who drive cars, the laws could be tweaked to expect some type of catastrophic insurance policy required of everyone as soon as adulthood is reached. When the uninsured, don't pay, the insured's premiums and the overhead and cost of doing business for health care climbs.
Why should doctors and hospitals not be reimbursed for doing an honest day's business?
Yet it is easier to write off these uncollectible bills, then to stay with a person and require repayment, over the course of a lifetime. Needless to say, this young man, has no feeling of remorse that his actions, affect all of us. He's just grateful he's lived another day to party.

And for those loved ones, who must declare bankruptcy, because a catastrophic illness has wiped out a life time of hard work and responsible behavior due to outrageous health care costs, the rewards of doing the right thing are a lesson for the young man mentioned. Why bother! Party now, you won't have to pay later! Be responsible now and save for retirement and you may lose it all anyway.

by: liberalinlove

03-02-2010 @ 5:59pm

Well I could be wrong, but in my opinion, the rising cost of health care is directly proportional to, a few paying for many who can't pay.
Take my uninsured friend, who fell down and hit his head after his blood sugar dropped. Grant it, he'd been out partying. He is a seasonal worker and the cost of his juvenile diabetes is already more than he can afford. A large and dangerous blood clot from his fall, kept him in the hospital for 10 days. You guessed it, the hospital wrote most of his bill off, because he wasn't working during the winter months.
I can't help but think that, like laws passed for uninsured motorists who drive cars, the laws could be tweaked to expect some type of catastrophic insurance policy required of everyone as soon as adulthood is reached. When the uninsured, don't pay, the insured's premiums and the overhead and cost of doing business for health care climbs.
Why should doctors and hospitals not be reimbursed for doing an honest day's business?
Yet it is easier to write off these uncollectible bills, then to stay with a person and require repayment, over the course of a lifetime. Needless to say, this young man, has no feeling of remorse that his actions, affect all of us. He's just grateful he's lived another day to party.

And for those loved ones, who must declare bankruptcy, because a catastrophic illness has wiped out a life time of hard work and responsible behavior due to outrageous health care costs, the rewards of doing the right thing are a lesson for the young man mentioned. Why bother! Party now, you won't have to pay later! Be responsible now and save for retirement and you may lose it all anyway.

by: Ngchen

03-02-2010 @ 6:10pm

Yes, one effect that covering nearly everyone that admittedly would lower total costs would be to drastically reduce the number of people who let treatable situations deteriorate to the point where they wind up in the hospital, or even the ICU, at which point they cost a fortune to treat. Examples abound such as the friend you bring up, and the child who died after a dental cavity went untreated for too long.

by: Ngchen

03-02-2010 @ 6:10pm

Yes, one effect that covering nearly everyone that admittedly would lower total costs would be to drastically reduce the number of people who let treatable situations deteriorate to the point where they wind up in the hospital, or even the ICU, at which point they cost a fortune to treat. Examples abound such as the friend you bring up, and the child who died after a dental cavity went untreated for too long.

by: Ngchen

03-02-2010 @ 6:13pm

You have a very good point with regard to demand and supply. One thing I would really like to see are price lists at the various clinics and hospitals for what they provide. Without said lists, price competition is nearly impossible, and the normal market mechanisms that keep prices in check can't operate. Combine such with a near-monopoly status of certain hospitals, and we have the disaster we see today.

by: Ngchen

03-02-2010 @ 6:13pm

You have a very good point with regard to demand and supply. One thing I would really like to see are price lists at the various clinics and hospitals for what they provide. Without said lists, price competition is nearly impossible, and the normal market mechanisms that keep prices in check can't operate. Combine such with a near-monopoly status of certain hospitals, and we have the disaster we see today.

by: Patricia

03-02-2010 @ 6:38pm

We have spent nearly a year working on this bill to get it where it is today.

The only reason it is "partisan" is because the Republicans, in a fit of pique over losing the election and the congress, very deliberately decided to obstruct, oppose, and deceive.

"The majority of the rest of us" want Medicare for Everyone.

"The majority of the rest of us", in the absence of Medicare for Everyone, want an open, robust Public Option available to all.

The congress as a whole, and Republicans in particular, are not even in the same book as "the majority of the rest of us" much less on the same page.

I hope and pray that a real public option is put in the bill and its passed using reconciliation, so we can get to work fixing it and expanding it.

by: Patricia

03-02-2010 @ 6:38pm

We have spent nearly a year working on this bill to get it where it is today.

The only reason it is "partisan" is because the Republicans, in a fit of pique over losing the election and the congress, very deliberately decided to obstruct, oppose, and deceive.

"The majority of the rest of us" want Medicare for Everyone.

"The majority of the rest of us", in the absence of Medicare for Everyone, want an open, robust Public Option available to all.

The congress as a whole, and Republicans in particular, are not even in the same book as "the majority of the rest of us" much less on the same page.

I hope and pray that a real public option is put in the bill and its passed using reconciliation, so we can get to work fixing it and expanding it.

by: NMRod

03-02-2010 @ 6:45pm

Insurance rates have to keep rising dramatically to make up for the insurance corporations' bad bets on subprime mortgages and make sure their stocks are high enough for another round of high-fivin' billion-dollar-bonussing for their super-wealthy execs. As well, since the pool of money keeps getting contributed by fewer and fewer, they simply raise premiums on everyone remaining to keep their party flyin'.

All the other players profiting from this cartel go along, because manipulating the system into scarcity by constantly raising prices, perversely makes the commodity even more valuable than ever, resulting in irresistible temptation to get in on ever more profitable dollar action.

Trickle-down water torture.

by: NMRod

03-02-2010 @ 6:45pm

Insurance rates have to keep rising dramatically to make up for the insurance corporations' bad bets on subprime mortgages and make sure their stocks are high enough for another round of high-fivin' billion-dollar-bonussing for their super-wealthy execs. As well, since the pool of money keeps getting contributed by fewer and fewer, they simply raise premiums on everyone remaining to keep their party flyin'.

All the other players profiting from this cartel go along, because manipulating the system into scarcity by constantly raising prices, perversely makes the commodity even more valuable than ever, resulting in irresistible temptation to get in on ever more profitable dollar action.

Trickle-down water torture.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:11pm

I am so glad people want them to drop health care reform -- at least in its current form. I'm still all for tort reform and some other free market changes.

It is wildly ironic that the single-payer health care proponents have lost their cause for good because they wouldn't give up the goal of increasing abortions by requiring taxpayers to fund them.

If they weren't so perversely eager to increase abortions then the uninsured they claim to care about would already be getting more medical benefits.

If they hadn't insisted on taxpayer-funded abortions the plan would have sailed through with 60 votes and they could have saved hundreds of millions in bribes.

Why aren't the Sojourners insisting that the Stupak Amendment be put in to the legislation? That would save lives and get the health care you claim to want.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:11pm

I am so glad people want them to drop health care reform -- at least in its current form. I'm still all for tort reform and some other free market changes.

It is wildly ironic that the single-payer health care proponents have lost their cause for good because they wouldn't give up the goal of increasing abortions by requiring taxpayers to fund them.

If they weren't so perversely eager to increase abortions then the uninsured they claim to care about would already be getting more medical benefits.

If they hadn't insisted on taxpayer-funded abortions the plan would have sailed through with 60 votes and they could have saved hundreds of millions in bribes.

Why aren't the Sojourners insisting that the Stupak Amendment be put in to the legislation? That would save lives and get the health care you claim to want.

by: Jesusistheway

03-02-2010 @ 9:14pm

Today on NPR's All Things Considered there was a segment on children and nutrition, specifically that many children are eating multiple snacks a day and most of those being full of salt or sugar and not very full of healthy things. Childhood obesity is at an all time high, partly because we have had a cheap food policy -- with the emphasis on "cheap" -- that is not creating any incentives for people to think about what they eat before filling their mouths. The ramifications down the line puts us on a perilous slope. I agreed when candidate Huckabee said in 2007-2008 that we had more of a health crisis than a health care crisis in this country. So, whether or not this bill passes, we are in a precarious position at best in this country because. as NgChen noted, the bill does little to control runaway costs, and if millions more have access to health insurance, what incentive is there to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and exercise regularly? Not saying it shouldn't pass, but warning that we should beware of what we ask for.

by: Jesusistheway

03-02-2010 @ 9:14pm

Today on NPR's All Things Considered there was a segment on children and nutrition, specifically that many children are eating multiple snacks a day and most of those being full of salt or sugar and not very full of healthy things. Childhood obesity is at an all time high, partly because we have had a cheap food policy -- with the emphasis on "cheap" -- that is not creating any incentives for people to think about what they eat before filling their mouths. The ramifications down the line puts us on a perilous slope. I agreed when candidate Huckabee said in 2007-2008 that we had more of a health crisis than a health care crisis in this country. So, whether or not this bill passes, we are in a precarious position at best in this country because. as NgChen noted, the bill does little to control runaway costs, and if millions more have access to health insurance, what incentive is there to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and exercise regularly? Not saying it shouldn't pass, but warning that we should beware of what we ask for.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:17pm

If you think that the evil insurance companies charge too much, then pool your resources and start your own insurance company. Beat them at their own game! You'll either drive them out of business or force them to reduce prices and increase benefits to compete with you. Not only are you more righteous than your competition but you are smarter as well, right? You can't lose!

Quit asking Caesar to do the work of the church by taking from neighbor A to give to neighbor B.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:17pm

If you think that the evil insurance companies charge too much, then pool your resources and start your own insurance company. Beat them at their own game! You'll either drive them out of business or force them to reduce prices and increase benefits to compete with you. Not only are you more righteous than your competition but you are smarter as well, right? You can't lose!

Quit asking Caesar to do the work of the church by taking from neighbor A to give to neighbor B.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:24pm

The "cost of doing something" about health care currently results in taxpayer-funded abortions. This means that all taxpayers will be paying to have innocent human beings crushed and dismembered. That isn't pro-choice, it is pro-abortion.

And you think Jesus in in favor of this?

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:24pm

The "cost of doing something" about health care currently results in taxpayer-funded abortions. This means that all taxpayers will be paying to have innocent human beings crushed and dismembered. That isn't pro-choice, it is pro-abortion.

And you think Jesus in in favor of this?

by: Jesusistheway

03-02-2010 @ 9:27pm

"Why aren't the Sojourners insisting that the Stupak Amendment be put in to the legislation? That would save lives and get the health care you claim to want."

Exactly. One can only hope that Jim Wallis, with his seeming direct access to Barack Obama and the Democratic party, is working on that behind the scenes.

by: Jesusistheway

03-02-2010 @ 9:27pm

"Why aren't the Sojourners insisting that the Stupak Amendment be put in to the legislation? That would save lives and get the health care you claim to want."

Exactly. One can only hope that Jim Wallis, with his seeming direct access to Barack Obama and the Democratic party, is working on that behind the scenes.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:32pm

Good point. Not sure government can fix this. People need to use some common sense. Over-sized portions, endless soft drinks and almost no exercise have horrific health consequences.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 9:32pm

Good point. Not sure government can fix this. People need to use some common sense. Over-sized portions, endless soft drinks and almost no exercise have horrific health consequences.

by: hammerud

03-02-2010 @ 10:01pm

I understand Singapore is rated number 1 in the world for health care, and it is a 100% free market system. We want to fix the problem here in the US, but more government involvement only makes it worse. Government needs to get out of the way. What upsets me is my belief that liberal-progressives are not really concerned about health care at all. They have an agenda to gain control over our society to implement an anti-Capitalist, socialist system. I have a major philosophical disconnect with these people. They are using health care, which they really are not fixing, as a smoke screen for their agenda. Reagan warned about this back in 1961.

by: hammerud

03-02-2010 @ 10:01pm

I understand Singapore is rated number 1 in the world for health care, and it is a 100% free market system. We want to fix the problem here in the US, but more government involvement only makes it worse. Government needs to get out of the way. What upsets me is my belief that liberal-progressives are not really concerned about health care at all. They have an agenda to gain control over our society to implement an anti-Capitalist, socialist system. I have a major philosophical disconnect with these people. They are using health care, which they really are not fixing, as a smoke screen for their agenda. Reagan warned about this back in 1961.

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 10:29pm

Liberals have the media, the Presidency and both Houses of Congress and you think the evil Republicans can deceive everyone? Heh.

The public option is the opposite of competition. Obama and other leaders have been caught on video multiple times saying the end game is single payer -- http://tinyurl.com/ygt9v9d . They lie now and say it isn't and the media doesn't expose them. Surprised?

by: homerj1

03-02-2010 @ 10:29pm

Liberals have the media, the Presidency and both Houses of Congress and you think the evil Republicans can deceive everyone? Heh.

The public option is the opposite of competition. Obama and other leaders have been caught on video multiple times saying the end game is single payer -- http://tinyurl.com/ygt9v9d . They lie now and say it isn't and the media doesn't expose them. Surprised?

by: Jesusistheway

03-02-2010 @ 10:54pm

I hope you'll be as adamant at opposing abortion -- as the Catholic Church is -- in your unwavering support for a health care bill. And don't believe that Democrats don't have to think about payback time when it comes to the abortion industry. Where will your voice be then, one wonders.

by: Jesusistheway

03-02-2010 @ 10:54pm

I hope you'll be as adamant at opposing abortion -- as the Catholic Church is -- in your unwavering support for a health care bill. And don't believe that Democrats don't have to think about payback time when it comes to the abortion industry. Where will your voice be then, one wonders.

by: John Mulholland

03-03-2010 @ 12:36am

"The only reason it is "partisan" is because the Republicans, in a fit of pique over losing the election and the congress, very deliberately decided to obstruct, oppose, and deceive."

If this is true, why is it that the Democrats were bribed for their support?

by: John Mulholland

03-03-2010 @ 12:36am

"The only reason it is "partisan" is because the Republicans, in a fit of pique over losing the election and the congress, very deliberately decided to obstruct, oppose, and deceive."

If this is true, why is it that the Democrats were bribed for their support?

by: barbaracromwell

03-03-2010 @ 1:25am

Why is it that Republicans always come back to the abortion issue. Like that makes them the moral majority. It talks more about helping the poor and disadvantaged in the bible than it does about abortion. We need to help the children who are born to unwed mothers. Under "Clinton there were programs to help them such as daycares in public high schools, under Bush these types of programs were all but banished. If you want to know WWJD, He would help the disadvantaged. And that is what He wants us to do.

by: Patricia

03-03-2010 @ 3:38am

I'm not saying the Democrats aren't as much on the take from corporate health care interests as Republicans are - I know most of them are.

I was addressing the issue of partisanship - which was brought up by jk1945. I am simply stating the truth regarding Republicans' role in the "partisan" nature of the health care bill.

by: Patricia

03-03-2010 @ 3:38am

I'm not saying the Democrats aren't as much on the take from corporate health care interests as Republicans are - I know most of them are.

I was addressing the issue of partisanship - which was brought up by jk1945. I am simply stating the truth regarding Republicans' role in the "partisan" nature of the health care bill.

by: prgrs_ev

03-04-2010 @ 3:46am

It's interesting that Glenn Beck doesn't have conspiracy theories about conservatives...Hmmm...so righteous they are (channeling Yoda). In my decidedly liberal opinion Glenn Beck is to factual as Rush Limbaugh is to ballerina.

by: prgrs_ev

03-04-2010 @ 3:46am

It's interesting that Glenn Beck doesn't have conspiracy theories about conservatives...Hmmm...so righteous they are (channeling Yoda). In my decidedly liberal opinion Glenn Beck is to factual as Rush Limbaugh is to ballerina.

by: scat

03-04-2010 @ 4:00am

I find this new format a little clumsy to follow so I will just make a couple general comments.
As to potential for abortion to be covered in the proposed bill, although I believe abortion to be morally wrong, this issue is just an attempt to do through the back door what cannot be done directly. Abortion is a legal procedure and attempts to carve out laws that make it more difficult for people to have access to that legal procedure is probably unconstitutional since it is based on a particular group's religious beliefs.
And whoever said that the issue is just one used by those in power to manipulate and fire-up the religious right is absolutely correct. It is well-documented. It they suddenly did not have that issue to cloud up all other issues, they would lose mu;ch of thier support. It is strictly a political tool. The other hot-button issue, gay rights, doesn't have nearly the impact.
WE all are paying for abortions. When you pay your health insurance premium, you just as much paying for abortions as you would through paying taxes for a government program. Yet, no one seems to be raising a ruckus about that.
So much of the rhetoric has been paid for, created by and scripted by the insurance industry. Having worked in that industry for a couple of decades, I can assure you that insurance companies will do anything they can legally do to keep the stautus quo. 'They are in the business to make money and part of that involves a very close relationship with our friends on Wall street. Thier intersets are the same.
As for the matter of the free market and selling insurance across state borders. Most people don't seem to realize that most insurance regulations and rules are governed by the individual states. For Republicans who claim they want more local control and less federal control, it is curious that they would even begin to make this argument. But the primary problem is that we have a very heterogenious population from state to state and widely varying cost of living. The cost of medical care in Mississippi will not be even close to the cost in California. There is also a wide variation in many of the other legal areas that touch on the practice of medicine from state to state. As for letting the "free market" takte care of the need for competition, this may work for some consumer goods but the average person is not going to sit down and start reading various policies to pick one out. IT's not like buying a pair of shoes.
I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like we will have to be teetering on the edge of becoming a third world country with the vast majority of the population without health care before anything happens. People are just too gullible when they are fed easy to remember slogans -- like -- we need to start over -- this is just a scheme to turn us into a socialist society -- "death panels", etc.