The Problem with the Kennedy Health Care Bill–in a Nutshell
There is much to fault in Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s bill mandating that employers provide health insurance while increasing the role of the federal government in our national health care system. But, the AP article on the expansive and intrusive legislation betrays its primary problem: ”The draft doesn’t address how this would all be paid for.”
The same problem that plagues all policies in President Obama’s Brave New America, ever bigger government, ever greater federal mandates, ever less freedom. And no means to pay for it.
If the Democrats had bothered to put a price tag for their policies in front of the American people, they would do what citizens of California did last month–vote them all down.
Democrats are acting like a man showing his generosity by taking everyone out to eat, only after the meal does he bother to tell us that he doesn’t have the wherewithal to pay for it.
92 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I read just a few days ago that “progressive” special interest groups are already prepared to spend $92 million trying to dupe the public into nationalized, single-payer health care.
And so far, I’ve only been able to find one conservative group opposing it. Patients United Now has run anti-socialized health care TV ads in some key states, but they don’t have anywhere near the money these liberal groups do from unions, soros and the usual scofflaws. Hope everyone will check them out and consider donating if you are able.
Comment by American Elephant — June 6, 2009 @ 3:26 am - June 6, 2009
The fact that it is not paid for is not my biggest concern. Americans will figure that out very quickly. What I am concerned most about is that the Kennedy plan (or any other plan Democrats put forth) is designed to poison the private system and make single-payer, Democrat run, nationalized health care inevitable.
Democrats dont give a rats ass about your health (they are already discussing ways to ration care), what they care about is the power it gives them.
Comment by American Elephant — June 6, 2009 @ 3:34 am - June 6, 2009
It’s all about ramming it through without Americans truly knowing what’s going on. It’s all about painting anybody who opposes/questions it as “uncaring” just as they painted anybody who opposed/questioned Obama as “racist”.
Get ready for the fear putsch.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 6, 2009 @ 4:30 am - June 6, 2009
It’s all about ramming it through without Americans truly knowing what’s going on. It’s all about painting anybody who opposes/questions it as “uncaring” just as they painted anybody who opposed/questioned Obama as “racist”.
Get ready for the fear putsch.
Sorry, forgot to add great post! Can’t wait to see your next post!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 6, 2009 @ 4:37 am - June 6, 2009
I think that healthcare is as much of a right as military protection, food safety, and public education. It is part of our social contract as Americans. Therefore, I think that the only effective way to provide healthcare for all is to use the same model we use for our military, food inspection, and education system–we pay taxes and the government we elect provides it. I think the only possible solution consistent with America’s founding values of providing a society where all have the means to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is single-payer, government-run health care. We have a single-payer, government-run military–I envision a health care system run on the same lines. It would be an all-volunteer force of idealistic people who want to devote their lives to service to the country by way of giving medical help. We have the finest military in the world. If this works for soldiers, it will work for doctors. Or explain to me why we have young people willing to serve our country by placing their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan, but those same young people wouldn’t be willing to serve our country as doctors and nurses.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 6, 2009 @ 9:20 am - June 6, 2009
Ash,
You’ve not been paying too much attention to how well the idiots in the gov’t have been running things, have you?
Secondly, to be a great Doctor or Nurse, one has to spend lots of money for education.
Now, comparatively we spend TONS on elementary education, and we got what?
A seriously lacking grade of student.
You don’t have any rights that say the Gov’t MUST give you health care. Only the right to pursue the best.
And, as you likely have been ignoring, we HAVE it now. Nowhere else has the survival rates for cancers. Your “demand” is Guaranteed to be worse than what we have now.
Do not claim otherwise.
You’ve no proof of it.
Comment by JP — June 6, 2009 @ 9:32 am - June 6, 2009
We need more free market in healthcare, not less.
Since when did health care become a right???
If we allowed more insurance companies to actually make a profit from selling health insurance. If we allowed people to buy coverage from other states.
If we didn’t penalize Walmart for opening basic care clinics in their stores – we’d see a lot more people being able to get decent health care.
Another thing, as drivers we are all supposed to have car insurance. But when we get a small ding, we weigh the benefits of either paying out of pocket or having our deductible go up because of a small expense.
What would be wrong with basic healthcare – average Dr. visits being affordable so you could pay for those out of pocket and keep the insurance for the larger item issues. That is what Walmart was trying to do, but congress tried to shut them down.
The government wants to own our lives, not give us freedom.
Comment by Leah — June 6, 2009 @ 11:45 am - June 6, 2009
Thanks for linking to the PUN website. Upon looking at a few pages of it, I knew immediately that it was too professional / slick looking to be a “grass roots” run organization. Sure enough, a web search finds that PUN and it’s parent site, Americans for Prosperity, are simply large corporate funded sites (ie private health insurers, drug companies) whose massive profits are threatened by this plan. Appalling that they hide this and are begging for handouts (not to mention taking a lot of care to assert their non-profit status).
I also notice the highlighted patient (Shona Holmes) doesn’t say in the ad that she went to the Mayo Clinic (although she did so on Fox News). People from all over the planet go to the Mayo Clinic for specialized treatment. Also, nowhere did I find any mention of how her services were arranged, paid for, etc.
What I find very funny is their “about” page. Every item they list is the problem Americans have with private insurers. People in this country are routinely denied care or proper care, are told to wait, have walls thrown up so these companies can avoid paying out claims.
What choices do most Americans have for health care? Even if you work for a company with a health plan, chances are that there is only a single provider. In most cases, that will be a for-profit company.
Comment by Kevin — June 6, 2009 @ 1:01 pm - June 6, 2009
What I am concerned most about is that the Kennedy plan (or any other plan Democrats put forth) is designed to poison the private system and make single-payer, Democrat run, nationalized health care inevitable.
Absolutely agree with this. The democrats realize that they can’t just go right out and create a government run, nationalized system, so they are opting for incrementation. Once they kill the private system, then it will be easier for the public to swallow government run.
And if anyone points out the military system or VA system as a model, I have experienced both and they both completely and totally suck. Thanks but no thanks, I really would prefer that my healthcare not be some version of either system.
Comment by just me — June 6, 2009 @ 1:09 pm - June 6, 2009
Neither the government nor employers should be responsible for american health care insurance!
We all know how inefficient is anything run by the government. Do we really need another bureaucracy and its attendent costs, political interference, etc.? Those who complain about insurance company interference, and many complaints are right, haven’s seen anything yet!
But putting the burden upon employers isn’t the answer either. How can an employer know what is right for you and your family? One size simply doesn’t fit all. In addition, this costs business human resource departments unnecessary costs, liability, and time. Not to mention the required premium co-payments made on behalf of employees.
And what about self-employed and unemployed persons?
I believe the correct answer is for all citizens to choose their own insurance package, and to pay for the premiums with tax-deductible dollars, regardless of marginal tax status. Surely each family or person knows its own needs better than the government, a business, or anyone else.
The insurance companies have recently conceded that they will accept all persons, regardless of existing conditions, if the insured pool is large enough. If all persons are encouraged to participate, that requirement will be fulfilled.
Businesses who provide health care benefits receive tax benefits, but not enough to cover all their costs. But what about self-employed and unemployed persons? Currently they fall through the cracks. And if they do purchase health insurance, unlike other businesses, they receive no tax benefits.
Health care costs, including insurance should be a tax-deductible item, regardless of marginal tax status. That allows the individual or family to make the health care choices right for him/her. Most will opt for health care, but perhaps others may opt to pay for costs from his/her pocket. Either way, it’s fair, without government intrusion, and without the additional costs to businesses.
Comment by man — June 6, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - June 6, 2009
I was once exposed to government “health care” (Indian Health Service) and, believe me, we don’t want to go there.
Nationalized health care will finish off this country… we will become just another basket case like the UK where mediocre healthcare is rationed to subjects (not freeborn citizens) at the whim of local councils. Kevin – did you ever wonder why British dentistry is subject of humor?
Where I live, the government can’t synchronize traffic signals a block apart (they’re busy telling me to limit my carbon emissions) – so why would I want these people involved in my healthcare?
Can anyone imagine what healthcare will be like when expensive procedures are doled out by committees only after considering quotas and diversity? Once the UAW, SEUI, ACORN and LaRaza get places on health boards?
How about companies that provide drugs and medical devices… run like General Motors? What sort of doctors will be have when medical education is directed by the same diversity committees that ration our care? Ever wonder why the UK imports so many doctors and nurses?
We certainly have issues with our current system but following a course of guaranteed failure isn’t the answer.
Gummint healthcare? Just say no.
Comment by SoCalRobert — June 6, 2009 @ 2:29 pm - June 6, 2009
Slightly off topic, but relevant to the dangers to our liberties is the following article from the Wall Street Journal, wherein Chrysler executives complained that the government was forcing them to surrender to Fiat, without due diligence. Hope the link works. Read it if you can.
U.S. Pushed Fiat Deal on Chrysler
Internal Emails Reveal Resentment; Court Upholds Pact
Article Interactive Graphics Comments (98) more in Auto Industry News »
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration rushed an alliance between Chrysler LLC and Fiat SpA despite Chrysler’s worries about Fiat’s financial health and its willingness to share technology, according to internal company emails.
The emails show Fiat ignoring requests for documents and trying to change contract terms late in the talks. A Chrysler adviser at one point said the deal risked looking as if the U.S. auto maker and the Treasury Department, which helped broker the pact, were “in bed with a shady partner.” In another note, an official referred to the Treasury Department as “God.”
The documents
Comment by man — June 6, 2009 @ 2:45 pm - June 6, 2009
Anyone who has ever worked in some sort of management capacity for an international company knows this: you cannot hire people abroad without providing health benefits, even in countries like the UK and Canada with “free” health coverage.
The reason why is simple. Government-run healthcare in those countries is like Medicaid here, with even less service.
Where this will be paid for is easy to guess; the Obama Party will eliminate the tax credit that businesses currently receive for providing health benefits. With fringe rates for benefits running at around 30% of a person’s salary, the math is easy: if we have 4 people now, in order to maintain the same cost structure, one of them has to go.
Chappaquiddick Teddy doesn’t understand this basic concept. He doesn’t even understand what a colossal failure the plan his own state of Massachusetts has been. All he and his Obama Party see is the opportunity to start deducting more from peoples’ paychecks that is cash now in exchange for worthless promises later.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 6, 2009 @ 2:46 pm - June 6, 2009
I’d point out if private insurance is so evil, why is it that they administer Tricare, Fed Employes, Fed Retires, and Medicare Advantage?
They know this. It’s not about ‘helping the uninsured’ it’s about maintaining power.
There’s no right to Heath Care. You don’t have a ‘right’ to my labour.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 6, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - June 6, 2009
when the healthcare rationing comes and people with cancer, aids and all the other terminal illness are told by the government that it is more cost effective to let them die and deny treatment-i’m guessing there won’t be enough rocks to hide under for the 50+ Democrats in congress that ram this throug. Those very few will be resposible for the 1000′s of death sentances people will be getting every day
I wonder just what someone that has been condemned to die due to being ‘to costly to save their life” would do? They will be walking dead anyway
Comment by BRUCE C. — June 6, 2009 @ 5:23 pm - June 6, 2009
Exactly, the government representatives, our Congress people, have provided for them FREE health care from the private sector. Why didn’t they sign up for health care thru the VA? Or medicade?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 6, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - June 6, 2009
Tell me, Kevin. What choices will Americans have for government rationed death? What choices will Americans have when doctors and nurses get out of the game because it’s not practical. We have a massive shortage of nurses in this country now. Your beloved messiah is trying to guarantee even less. Sound good to you?
We have plenty of health care choices now and could use more. And there’s nothing that says you have to use the insurance your employer provides. You’re free to get whatever insurance you want. The fact of the matter is that we won’t have ANY choices with Chairman Obama deciding for us.
Please tell me, Kevin, when did our health care become everybody else’s responsibility? Time was people handled their own medical bills. Now it’s up to everybody else to pay for it. Pleas tell me why, with the massive debt your beloved messiah is ringing up right now, we need to spend a few trillion more to destroy 18% of our economy.
I eagerly await your answer.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 6, 2009 @ 5:51 pm - June 6, 2009
And another thing, Kevin, please explain to me why we need to create millions more unemployed just so your beloved messiah can have a feather in his cap.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 6, 2009 @ 5:55 pm - June 6, 2009
I don’t know how many hours I have fought with my Mom’s private insurance trying to get her the health care and physical therapy she needed. I am now in debt because of a doctor-prescribed stress test and kidney ultrasound. I can’t get private insurance because I have high blood pressure, even though I control it with drugs–which are no longer covered by my minimal insurance, so they went up $50 this month. I have two part-time jobs because both companies I work for don’t hire full-time people. Because they save money on me, as an adjunct instructor, full-time instructors are given full benefits. I am working to provide full-timers and management the benefits which I am not given.
Please. I will wait in line in any Canadian snowstorm to get out of this.
Why is military protection a right? Why is food inspection a right? Why are highways a right? Why is public education a right? Don’t tell me how badly the government runs things–if you can read this, thank a teacher. My Mom was a public school teacher for over 25 years. We were always poor. Give teachers better salary and some dignity, and maybe public schools will improve.
Sure, you don’t want government in your lives, and then you complain about Reagan’s handling of the AIDS crisis. Do you think that the private sector willingly pays benefits to AIDS patients? Gives them drugs and therapy at affordable prices? You complain about violence against gays. Do you want a privately funded, free-market police force protecting you? Do you want to shut down public schools in favor of private religious schools? Do you really want to eat meat that’s been inspected by a private company contracted by the meat companies themselves?
Do read your Hobbes.
Conservative is not anti-government. Conservative is for efficient government which provides for the basic needs of people so we all have access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness–without having to worry about foreign attack or devastating medical bills.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 6, 2009 @ 6:46 pm - June 6, 2009
Actually Ash, I was reading at an 8th grade level, if not higher at 4. So I’ll thank my parents, not a teacher.
I can’t help it that you decline assistance, you know, people helping people. I also don’t have any obligtation to help anyone, I choose to.
Last time I checked, the common defense was one of the enumerated powers in the constitution. So is interstate commerce.
There’s nothing stopping you from taking another job that offers benefits. As I mentioned elsewhere, here in Ohio we have cities threatening to cut police forces. At least with private police, I’d be able to put my money towards paying for them, instead of paying for busses I don’t use.
You contradict yourself, you say you can’t get ‘private insurance’ but have ‘minimal insurance’ is it you can’t get insurance or you can’t get the benefits you want at a price you want? My metatoprol is a $4 generic, my antidepressants are more expensive. I’m lucky I have minimal side effects from the generic wellbutrin, I’ve a co-worker who has to take the ‘real’ thing. In both cases, we budget accoringly to pay for it.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 6, 2009 @ 6:58 pm - June 6, 2009
Ash – policing and national defense are functions that individuals cannot do unless we want vigilante justice and a mercenary defense force.
On the other hand, medical care is something we can do for ourselves.
As I wrote above, it’s obvious to anyone paying attention that we need to restructure our healthcare delivery system – I just don’t think the government is the place to do it (unless it is to get out of the way – e.g. allow interstate sale of insurance and promote MSAs).
Sometimes I wonder if the whole problem is insurance itself what with its $20 copays and benefits including contraceptives. If car insurance were like medical insurance, you’d have $10 oil changes and $20 copays at the shop – but no one could afford it.
Comment by SoCalRobert — June 6, 2009 @ 7:32 pm - June 6, 2009
What we have now is vigilante health care and mercenary doctors–how is it different? We have insurance companies and hospitals who are out for nothing but themselves. They make a profit on denying benefits. Capitalism can only work if people are healthy, protected, and educated. If your employee can read, eats beef and survives, drives to work, and isn’t killed in a terrorist attack, then you owe the government for providing you that employee.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 6, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - June 6, 2009
“If we’re going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenry”. – - Thomas Jefferson
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 6, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - June 6, 2009
I’ll remember that tomorrow when we go out for breakfast at the mercinary Bob Evans before we hit the vigilante Krogers for grocery shopping.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 6, 2009 @ 10:28 pm - June 6, 2009
Much of the cost of medicine is a tort system which is always perched on the edge of the deep pockets in the health care sector. Many drugs are tested and approved, but never manufactured because the risk of lawsuits far outweighs the profit potential. Hospitals perform endless tests and redundant tests just to build the case file to protect them from John Edwards and his brother rats. Malpractice insurance costs have driven top notch physicians completely out of some specialties.
I make no case for shoddy medicine, but the actual costs of medicine could be cut by 40% if patients would assume the risk involved in treatment. If you want to get sick, spend a protracted time in a hospital in a weakened condition. Any idiot should know that when your immune system is down that you should not be hanging around where the exotic infections are being concentrated.
The hospital I serve has seven buildings and five of them have surgical units. We try to do as much day surgery and home the same day as possible. This is to get the patient out of the infection zone. However, it is very costly to run so many surgical units and the patient pays for the redundancy. Most of our patients are intelligent people who don’t come calling for gunshot wounds, stab wounds or a broken leg that they nursed on their own for a week.
If the highly vaunted government could figure out an arbitration system to lessen the impact of constant overkill to avoid litigation it would go a long way toward taking a big chunk out of medical costs.
As a side note: I left a restaurant an hour ago on Broadway in NYC. A man in front of me fell flat on his face on the sidewalk. Another man and I checked him and immediately discovered that he was falling down drunk. We got him to his feet, but he was so out of it that we could not steady him or get him pointed in the right direction. I went into the restaurant and asked them to call the police, but in the meantime, the drunk went down for the second time. When I got back to him, I realized that he had really suffered from the second fall. I stayed with him until the police got there. One of the cops asked if I knew the man. He took me aside and told me vamoose before I got tangled up in some sort of lawsuit. I took his advice.
That is a slice of the problem with the cost of medicine.
Comment by heliotrope — June 6, 2009 @ 10:28 pm - June 6, 2009
We already have government run health care laden with billions of dollars in fraud that all of us have to pay for. We already have government run health care that delights in finding ways to deny claims. We already have government run health care that won’t pay for tests without a diagnosis and sometimes, you can’t get that diagnosis without the tests. We already have doctors who won’t take patients, or limit the number, who have the government run health care because there’s no money in it for them.
So why the hell would we want even more of the same? What’s so great about “free” health care if you can’t get in to see a doctor?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 6, 2009 @ 11:54 pm - June 6, 2009
Why not?
If they can do a better job, private schools for example, what’s wrong with that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 6, 2009 @ 11:58 pm - June 6, 2009
I don’t know how many hours I have fought with my Mom’s private insurance trying to get her the health care and physical therapy she needed.
And what makes you think the government running the system would improve this? Probably what it would do is create a situation where you had nobody to fight with about it, they would just keep telling you “no.”
My daughter has a friend who is on the NH version of SCHIP. She injured her knee last fall. Her knee is still hurting her, but the government run insurance refuses to pay for any kind of soft tissue exam (MRI etc).
I really don’t get this idea that somehow the headaches involved with getting medical services will go away with the wave of the magic government run healthcare wand.
Comment by just me — June 7, 2009 @ 8:11 am - June 7, 2009
I love the “single-payer” lie. More like 306,000,000 payers (at least).
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 7, 2009 @ 8:16 am - June 7, 2009
Ash, none of those things are rights. So just said, in effect, that health care is NOT a basic civil right – a position that I agree with 100%.
Well, you’re mistaken about that. Quite mistaken.
Ash, I believe you’re confusing America with Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union. What you describe is not America or American values, at all. It’s the polar opposite, in fact.
Tell me something: What’s your approximate age? and profession? It would be interesting to know if you’re a non-tax-paying twenty-something.
Because, after all, the job of health care is *so* much like the job of killing enemies and destroying enemy cities. (Or it will be, once the government runs it.
)
Would they sing Kum Bay Yah as they worked? Seriously, can you find ONE example in the world where government-run health care has worked out that way? So what reason do you have to think your version would? Also, are you aware that you are essentially calling for civilians to live their lives in service to the State? That is a Hitlerian, Obamanian argument.
Because, again, the job of health care is *so* much like the job of killing and destroying enemies.
First, most of them are in the military temporarily – like, two to four years tops. You really want your doctors to be like that? Second, protection from terrorists and other enemies is a much more serious, real and important need; many volunteers can often see how her daily activities, in fact, protect their own family. Third and most fundamental, national defense is one of the moral and proper functions of government; “providing” economic goods and services (which really means, running them into the ground and re-distributing the meager remaining output by force) is never never ever a moral or proper function of government. A society run along those lines is immoral.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2009 @ 11:15 am - June 7, 2009
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That is our social contract. I believe providing universal health care falls under promoting general welfare. While the arguments in the above post are interesting, they don’t address the issue that as part of a society, we are to some degree responsible for each other’s welfare. This is not liberal kum-ba-yahness–this is a conservative, Constitution-based approach to health care.
You might want to take a look at this link:
http://www.righttohealthcare.org/index.htm
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 7, 2009 @ 11:40 am - June 7, 2009
Then do it, Ash. Move to Canada.
Please get this through your head: THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE YOU A LIVING. The world does not owe you, or anybody other individual, family or nation, the means of life.
Please also get this through your head: to the extent health care in the United States is painfully expensive and inefficient, government is the root of the problem. Not the solution.
You want expensive goods and services to be handed to you – by other people. Now, a good deal of medical care in the United States is actually “free”; that is, it’s subsidized, recipients aren’t expected to pay their full bills, it’s provided by charity, it’s provided by volunteers, etc. But, that’s not enough for you. You want to impose State-run medical care on everybody – with all the disastrous consequences that would result – so that *YOU* can get certain drugs, services, etc. – which by the way (1) private doctors and enterprises discovered / invented for you, and (2) only the free market can hope to provide in a way that is cost-effective. Your desire is understandable. Your desire is human. Your desire is also, at the end of the day, stupid and immoral. American health care today is unfortunately not run on free market principles, and a return to free market principles is the only thing that can make American health care better, cheaper, more available, etc. as you might wish.
Umm… THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS.
Military protection comes closest, in that it is at least a proper function of government. It’s a proper function of government, because we-as-individuals have a right of self-defense that we-as-citizens implicitly delegate to the government. But we-as-individuals do NOT have any comparable “right” to make others provide goods and services for us. Other people may want to give us goods or services voluntarily (aka charity, gifts, etc.)… but we don’t have a “right” to scoop up others’ resources and work, or force them to be redirected our way, and therefore, the government does not have that right either.
…and NOT the government.
Ash, teachers are perfectly capable of existing and having their services be paid for, without the government. I will tell you, right now, that the government generally does a horrible job of running education. Public schools in my state are a nightmare combination of high expenses and low effectiveness.
Again, the call for government to re-distribute OPM (Other People’s Money). Ash: Did you vote for Obama? Aren’t you, in fact, really a Democrat?
Huh? Who on this blog does that? Gay lefties, maybe.
Yes. If they’re ALLOWED to do it efficiently, that is, to make a profit on it (which only happens if they do it efficiently). As it happens, today’s government does not allow them to do that. Read the book I mentioned earlier.
Once again, Ash, you are confusing conservatism with totalitarian socialism. You really might be happier as a Democrat.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2009 @ 11:51 am - June 7, 2009
Well, you’re wrong. Terribly wrong.
Oh yes they do, Ash. It is your arguments that don’t. My arguments, and the United States Constitution by the way, make our responsibility for each other’s welfare very clear: we are to NOT rape or destroy each other. We must refrain from seizing each other’s life, liberty and/or property. Your arguments, Ash, violate that. As I have shown above, your arguments reflect an underlying philosophy of totalitarian socialism that is profoundly immoral; that is (and among other things) profoundly hostile toward and destructive of the welfare of others.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2009 @ 11:55 am - June 7, 2009
One last thought and then I gotta run:
…requires government to really promote the general welfare; to promote the general welfare in reality. Healthcare-by-government-force, that by its nature destroys superior private care and guts the economy as taxes (or deficits) are raised sky-high to pay for it, isn’t it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2009 @ 12:15 pm - June 7, 2009
I love capitalism, too, but capitalism doesn’t work without healthy people.
My conservatism is rooted in the seamless life ethic of the Roman Catholic church (though I’m currently a Lutheran). I believe life is sacred and must be provided for from conception to natural death. I believe this concept finds a home in our Constitution in providing for general welfare. Our social contract, and our spiritual contract, is to make sure that everyone is healthy, protected, and educated. Then, we can participate in the free market.
Is there a spiritual basis for your capitalism?
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 7, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - June 7, 2009
I love capitalism, too, but capitalism doesn’t work without healthy people.
Which is why capitalists developed health insurance, modern medicine, and pharmaceuticals.
I believe life is sacred and must be provided for from conception to natural death.
Which is why Catholics and Lutherans founded their own medical hospitals, their own benevolent associations, and their own clinics, paid for by donations out of their own pockets and/or time.
The Good Samaritan did not sit down and fill out Medicaid forms for reimbursement. He bound up the man’s wounds, took him to the inn, and made the payment for his care. Indeed, the fact that the priest (power spiritual) and Levite (power temporal) passed by on the other side is a direct repudiation in this parable of expecting the authorities to do what is your individual mandate.
Taxes are not charity. Making them such is a repudiation of your own responsibility to care for your fellow man.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 7, 2009 @ 2:50 pm - June 7, 2009
Hmm, a religious basis?
Well there’s free will, or as I’ve said “I evangalize with words, not the point of my swords.”
And of course “Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.” – Optimus Prime.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 7, 2009 @ 3:14 pm - June 7, 2009
Fortunately Ash, the Founding Fathers didn’ believe thatt. That is why they constituted an American government that would do as little as possible and why, at least up to now, America has been the most economically and medically progressive country in all of human history.
Ash, you can try to dress up your views as “sacred” all you want, but let’s bottom-line them:
1) You want the State to complete its decades-slow, slow-motion takeover-and-destruction of one-seventh of the American economy. And,
2) By your admissions at #18, you want it for personal, selfish reasons: so *YOU* and your family can get expensive medical benefits, that you haven’t otherwise provided for yourselves.
Mind you, I have no objection to (2) – that is, I have no objection to people having personal, selfish reasons for things. What I object to is point (1): the idea, Ash, that you get to rape other people pocketbooks to provide for your desires. It is un-American, it is destructive, it is un-Christian and immoral.
Very much so; look at the Ten Commandments; or at Jesus’ Great Commandment to LOVE (not to financially pillage) your neighbor.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2009 @ 4:31 pm - June 7, 2009
Exactly. Thank you, NDT.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2009 @ 4:35 pm - June 7, 2009
There are many conservatives, such as Dinesh D’Souza, who suggest America was founded as a Christian nation. It’s only lately we’ve become one of the biggest Muslim countries in the world.
In the parable of the sheep and goats, it was the nations, not individuals, that were judged. Throughout the Prophets, you find nations, not individuals, being judged for their treatment of the poor and helpless. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their selfishness. You’ll also notice that neither Jesus nor His disciples charged for their healing. They also told people to pay their taxes. There is nothing wrong with being required to pay out part of your income to support the general welfare of the nation. Unless you want to say, “Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?” and risk being visited by 3 ghosts on Christmas Eve.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 7, 2009 @ 6:11 pm - June 7, 2009
Well since the prisons and poorhouses were government ran, I think you just shot yourself in the foot.
I’ll go back to my point earlier. You’re neither ‘poor’ nor ‘helpless’ Ashpenaz, nor are you entitled to my labour.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 7, 2009 @ 6:53 pm - June 7, 2009
You are able to labor because you ate breakfast without dying, you weren’t attacked on your way to work, you were able to read the news, and you weren’t infected by any of coworkers because they had access to healthcare. You are not entitled to claim sole responsibility for your freedom to labor when many other people have contributed to your freedom. I am not personally entitled to your money, but the society we share is entitled to a portion of both of our money to use for the general welfare. Part of that general welfare is the health of its citizens.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 7, 2009 @ 7:53 pm - June 7, 2009
So, Ash, if we accept your bastardized definition of “general welfare”, why didn’t the founders create national hospitals and clinics? Why wasn’t there calls for them until recent years? Where does the responsibility of the individual lie?
Better yet, why did the founders insert the 10th Amendment?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 7, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - June 7, 2009
Really? Wasn’t He crucified for his opposition to Rome and taxes?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 7, 2009 @ 9:24 pm - June 7, 2009
No, He paid His taxes.
Why did we need the 13th Amendment if the 10th Amendment was so effective?
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 7, 2009 @ 11:28 pm - June 7, 2009
A bizarre non-sequitur. Not least because America is not remotely one of the world’s significant Muslim countries. (Hat tip Michelle Malkin)
Another bizarre non-sequitur, since no one in this thread has suggested otherwise. Earlier I cited the military as a proper function of government in protecting the general welfare. But having government grind the medical system into a fine dust for the convenience of Ashpenaz, and as he experiences fraudulent moral superiority from it, is not a legitimate function of government.
Another bizarre non-sequitur. Ash, do you seriously think I can’t eat breakfast without dying, without the help of the State? I mean, are you *that* much of a worshipper of State power?
Exact quote: Mark 12:17, And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” In other words: My question is answered. After first setting up spirituality / godliness as the standard, Ash there implicitly confesses that what he proposes to have the government do (seizing other people’s money for his and his family’s convenience) is, in fact, of Caesar, not of God. End of argument.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 7, 2009 @ 11:46 pm - June 7, 2009
I’m guessing you mean at Capernum. If you go to the 17th chapter of Matthew, you’ll find that Jesus rebuked Peter.
What are you talking about???
Why not explain to me why the founders didn’t establish national hospitals and health clinics? Tell me why health care wasn’t a “right” until lazy bastards decided so within the last few years.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 8, 2009 @ 4:24 am - June 8, 2009
How about responding to the fact that we already have government rationed death, in the form of Medicare and Medicaid, at the cost of billions of dollars to every person in this country? Why the hell do we want more?
Why would you, the liberals and Chairman Obama demand that people seek out quality health care in back alleys?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 8, 2009 @ 5:22 am - June 8, 2009
I’m not sure that was a rebuke, and the taxes got paid. Both Peter and Paul went on to tell people to pay their taxes as well.
If the states were doing so good on slavery, why did we need to have a national policy? Because the insurance companies are equivalent to the plantations, we need a national policy on healthcare. I’m all for an amendment requiring healthcare. See the above link.
If you want to overthrow DOMA, or you support hate crime legislation, then you are asking the national government to take over where the states have failed.
Please feel free to eat uninspected meat from Mexico. Enjoy.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 8, 2009 @ 10:38 am - June 8, 2009
The insurance companies are the same as…
Wow, ad hominim much?
Comment by The Livewire — June 8, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - June 8, 2009
Please feel free to eat uninspected meat from Mexico. Enjoy.
Do you ever go to the store much, Ash?
Because if you did, you would notice these things like Certified Angus Beef and whatnot — all meats that are raised and inspected to a higher standard than the Federal government does — and yet the companies that sell them make money. Why? Because people will pay more for it.
The market would immediately fix the problem of uninspected meat from Mexico; it wouldn’t sell. Consumers would choose to pay more for the guarantee of quality, like they already do.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 8, 2009 @ 1:01 pm - June 8, 2009
NDT, you’re right again. To go a bit farther: Ash appears to suffer from a real lack of imagination about human beings’ ability to create or do things without the State. If we abolished the FDA tomorrow – and, we ought to! – then private standard-setting mechanisms would kick in soon enough, and actually do a better job.
Economic libertarians have a couple of sayings that are pertinent here. One is, “Bad regulation drives out good regulation.” In other words, when the government steps in to regulate something, it creates rather more hazards than it solves. It lulls consumers into a false sense of security. Simultaneously, it forces producers to focus on *buttering up the regulators* and on *appearing to comply with the law*, rather than on *doing the right thing*. In short, it drives out good self-regulation and all the market incentives that had been in place for it. Then people like Ash forget that there had ever been or could ever be natural incentives for self-regulation, and insist (quite wrongly) that their beloved State is the source of moral discipline.
Bernard Madoff is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Because the SEC exists, people told themselves, “Madoff must be on the level… if he weren’t, the SEC would be on his case.” So they didn’t ask Madoff for detailed statements, for real information about his methods, etc. In the 140 years before the SEC, American investors were far more suspicious. They did their own “due diligence”. I’m saying that if the SEC didn’t exist, Madoff couldn’t have existed either; that is, motivated investors would have exposed him and shut him down way back at the $50 million level or even the $5 million level; the existence of an SEC lulled people and is what enabled his fraud to get to $50 billion or whatever it was.
Another pertinent saying from economic libertarians, or really a parable, is the following. Suppose the Founding Fathers had said, “Every citizen must have shoes. It is the government’s job to provide shoes!” and established a national shoe monopoly. What would the shoe market be like today? The most basic shoes would be $400 a pair and there would be only one kind, or at most three kinds, per gender. And they’d be ugly. And people like Ash would be *unable to imagine* that the shoe market could ever be different, or cheaper or better – if only it were privatized and made truly free. People like Ash would be going “See? If you have shoes, get on your knees and thank the State!” They focus on what they see – the government shoe monopoly; not on the lost opportunities that it cost everyone – the lack of a vibrant private shoe market.
Ash, I got another book for you: http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 8, 2009 @ 2:30 pm - June 8, 2009
I want to underline something: the ‘parable’ I just told about if the government had a shoe monopoly should be applied directly to the government monopolies or near-monopolies that we know about – like education – and the markets that the government interferes with and prevents from functioning – like health care.
We should abolish government education, today, and let private enterprise do it. The results would surely be a wonder to behold. But Ash can’t imagine it. Because the government’s near-monopoly in education is all he knows, he can’t imagine that things could ever be different and cheaper and better in education, and that the government is holding us back.
We should abolish all government interference in the health care market, today. Government hasn’t taken over health care, yet – but it has been regulating health care to death. Private health care is ‘private’ in name only, in this country. The government-created mess has been gathering in various forms for 50 years, and (per the book I referenced earlier) is the fundamental reason why health care has gotten less accessible in that 50 years. We need to reverse course. But Ash can’t imagine it. The government rapes the private health care market and stops it from functioning, and Ash, as a worshipper of State power (see my analysis at #45), blames the victim.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 8, 2009 @ 2:57 pm - June 8, 2009
Third time, Ash.
Why didn’t the founders establish a national hospital system and medical clinics?
We have government rationed death now with Medicare and Medicaid. Why do we want more of the same for everybody?
A whole generation believed that their retirement was going to be paid for by the US government with Socialist Stupidity and Medicare, so they didn’t do their own planning for retirement. That didn’t work. Why in the hell would we want more of the same?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 8, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - June 8, 2009
Ok, at home and away from work…
Ashpenaz, do you know the margin of profit for insurance companies? How about for hosptials? Do you know what the R&D budget for failed projects is? Have you ever heard the 80/20 rule of research?
I think you have a blind spot when it comes to how the insurance industry works. Scratch that, I think you have an awe inspiring ignorance of how insurance and medical industries work.
Though the idea of you wanting to take my labour and not compensate me, then calling me a slave owner, does set off my irony detectors, and my BS detector.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 8, 2009 @ 4:44 pm - June 8, 2009
Profit is morally positive (aka “good”). Profit is fundamental to all life: when living organisms don’t make a “caloric profit” on their activities, they die. Capable, self-respecting people rightly expect to be paid good money. I am trying to think of a case where non-profit doctors, clinics and hospitals are better than for-profit ones, and the only cases I can come up with are Third World, i.e., areas where free markets are sadly not understood and not permitted to operate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 8, 2009 @ 5:26 pm - June 8, 2009
Surprised as I am that you can make it to a third time, the answer is that, as it was in the case of slavery or women’s rights, the Constitution is designed to be updated as issues become critical. Now is the time for health care.
Profit is not a good motive for many things–teaching, military service, pastoral care, food inspection–or health care. People need to be compensated adequately, but at some level, the thanks of a grateful nation should be the primary motive for public service.
I actually know a lot about insurance companies–by fighting them. I’ve been in one battle or another with an insurance company for myself or for my mother for ten years or more. I didn’t have to fight Medicaid or Medicare. Medicaid in Iowa even gave my Mom hearing aids. I would love to be able to buy into Medicare now. I would love to deposit my money into Social Security instead of a 401K. The fact that my student loans are owned by the government means I can pay them on an income contingent basis. Every part of my financial life which is run by the government works wonderfully and without hassle. While you are all in the streets because of your collapsed 401Ks and medical bankruptcies, I hope to be living on my SS and Medicare.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 8, 2009 @ 7:25 pm - June 8, 2009
Sweet Jesus! If you don’t know, just say so. If our founders intended to provide the people with healthcare, WHY didn’t they build clinics and hospitals?
The founders never intended for “general welfare” to mean plundering the people and redistributing wealth. Such a thing had already been tried in the Plymouth Colony and it was an abject failure, just as it always is.
Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but your health care is YOUR responsibility and not ours.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 12:26 am - June 9, 2009
Furthermore,
If you take RESPONSIBILITY, you don’t have that problem. What’s more, you won’t have the luxury of Socialist Stupidity because it’s been plundered and redistributed to everyone and every place else. We could have started fixing it a few years ago, but the liberals decided you’re too damn stupid to know what to do with your own money.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 12:31 am - June 9, 2009
Profit – understood as personal satisfaction and fulfillment; a gain of positive energy; wealth in the broadest possible sense; health and thriving and joy, be it financial or otherwise – is morally positive and morally desirable in ***every*** possible context.
Everyone dies sometime, Ash. Shouldn’t you know that, if your religion / spirituality is what you claim it is?
And it is not the government’s job to guarantee that your life was long enough, or worth living, or at a standard of wealth and benefits that you find meet. Guaranteeing such a thing would be impossible, and trying to is inevitably tyrannous. The Founders wanted to let people pursue happiness on their own, to the extent that they could; not let them loot and destroy other people’s happiness.
Then sign up with Obama. Either way, you needn’t bother pretending there is something “sacred” about your cheap socialism; we know better now.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 2:14 am - June 9, 2009
Food stamps?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 5:05 am - June 9, 2009
There’s no profit motive in Medicare/Medicaid, that’s why they’re the most fraud infested payers in the entire health care system.
The fact that medicaid pays for everything (including hearing aids) speaks for itself.
In fact, the Medicaid/Medicare Pt D interaction is working to remove people from their (superior) private insurance since you can’t have Pt D if your private insurance has a RX plan, and you can’t have medicaid w/o Pt D.
But now that you’ve confirmed for us, Ashpenaz, that you want the state to take all the effort out of managing you life, regardless of the flaws and ineffeciency in the system, we have a common understanding.
It is “I don’t care how much it costs, who it hurts, or what the long term effects are. I want it all! Mine mine mine!”
Comment by The Livewire — June 9, 2009 @ 7:08 am - June 9, 2009
Ashpenaz, just to give some perspective here. While growing up, we weren’t poor, but my parents struggled. When any of us had to go to the doctor, I recall it costing my mother five dollars for an appt. and a penicillin shot in the rear. This was without insurance. With insurance, it costs $20 just for the copayment.
In order to try to provide better healthcare, government got involved, and perhaps with good intentions. But things spiraled out of control, and fast. Just to get health insurance coverage without getting sick costs a lot of money. Whereas ten years ago, most companies were able to provide free or very low cost insurance to its employees, that is no longer the case, because the costs have skyrocketed. Even government employees (except our Congress and president) have to start paying for their insurance coverage.
This is where I probably differ from most here. If government could provide for health care effectively, efficiently, and at lower costs, I’d be all for it. I only see government making things even worse for health care. Why? With even more government control, who do you think has more influence? You, who is struggling paying for your mother’s medical bills? Or the insurance companies (who seem to, except for the current downturn always seem to fare very well, and can afford lobbying and paying hefty sums to political campaigns to get what they want)? Or the doctors (who despite skyrocketing malpractice costs, seem to be even more lucrative today than when my mother was paying $5 for appts.)
I’ll concede that, in the short run, it’s possible (but doubtful) this can help your situation. But someone in a situation similar to yours 20 years down the road would have it even worse. Still, any health care “reform” is going to so riddled with regulations to insure the people contributing to political campaigns will get what they want, and leave you and your mother out in the cold.
In the UK, the reason why that nationalized health care worked as well as it did for as long as it did is because the people wanted it, and at the time, Parliament wasn’t influenced by the insurance and health care industry. But health costs have risen there, just like here. This has resulted in skyrocketing tax rates. And the quality of health care has declined as well.
I honestly don’t know what the solution is. The problem is, I’m very skeptical of the solutions being offered on either side of the debate. Both sides, IMO, are disguising their selfish interests with arguments that sound rational and sound like they are concerned for you and your mother.
Comment by Pat — June 9, 2009 @ 10:01 am - June 9, 2009
And, what really sux about that is in the first sentence. The second would be perfectly fine – even downright noble – if only he did stop to think about the costs, injuries to others, and long-term effects, and turned to some rational and productive way of getting Other People’s Money. (Like earning it.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 10:10 am - June 9, 2009
Ok, name one country with nationalized medicine who looks at the US and says, “We’d rather have that!” Even Iraq has nationalized medicine–which we set up for them.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 9, 2009 @ 10:19 am - June 9, 2009
Canada. In 2005, a Canadian sued the government, claiming that Canada’s single-payer system was in itself a serious human rights violation… And he won. (Click the link.)
Britain – I’m sure someone else can find links about British people who say “We’d rather have that!”
Cuba. North Korea. All of the former Soviet Bloc countries.
And Ash: All of that is WITH the U.S. system as messed up as it is, from 50 years of destructive intervention by your beloved State. If the State hadn’t been intervening for 50 years and basically destroying American medicine – just imagine what we would have then! What people would be saying then!
OK Ash, next canard?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 10:54 am - June 9, 2009
P.S. To clarify my remark about Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet bloc: I was referring to the fact that people would literally die to leave those countries and get to the U.S. Clearly, they didn’t care for life under socialism – including life under socialized “health care”, as one part of it.
Canadians don’t have to die, to get to the U.S. and enjoy U.S. medicine. They just cross the border. And they do: thousands every year. Ask them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 11:00 am - June 9, 2009
Sorry, I just have to quote my own link here; it’s too good
(In terms of our present argument, that is. Actually, it’s tragic.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 11:35 am - June 9, 2009
On the flip side, tell us who in this country routinely travel to Canada, Great Britain, Cuba etc. for their healthcare? What’s more, where do you think those countries get their drugs and equipment?
My mom used to be the office manager for a lipidologist doc at St. Lukes in the Houston Medical Center. Many of their patients flew in from other countries just for an appointment.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 11:37 am - June 9, 2009
Oh yeah:
British cancer boy needs £375,000 for pioneering US care
That’s $750,000 to you and me. Now you’ll note it doesn’t say “pioneering British care”, “pioneering Canadian care”, “pioneering Cuban care” etc. etc. etc. It plainly says “pioneering US care.
Remember the story of that lady in Oregon who needed cancer medicine, but the state run health care refused to pay for it because it would prolong her life? They offered to pay for her assisted suicide though. Turns out the eeeeeeevil drug manufacturer wound up giving her the medicine for free. Can Chairman Obama promise that will never happen?
And allow me to be the second to point out your blatant selfishness here. But hey, who cares about the millions who will lose their jobs. They’ll have “free” health care though, right? They can give that to their kids for Christmas and birthdays. That and they can leave them and their future generations with the trillions of dollars of debt that your selfishness incurred.
Cheers.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 11:44 am - June 9, 2009
TGC, some in the U.S. do go to Canada to buy drugs – but, to your point, U.S.-invented drugs. They’re just arbitraging a price differential in the market, a capitalist behavior. New wonder drugs are very very difficult and expensive to develop, and Canadians have gotten themselves price breaks that they probably don’t merit. If Canadians and other foreigners paid market prices for U.S. drugs, market prices could be a bit lower for U.S. consumers.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 12:14 pm - June 9, 2009
ILC,
Those price breaks come from the ‘Sell them to us at X, or we’ll ignore your patent.’ Does anyone else remember the threats to go after the patent on Cipro after the anthrax scares? Also Canada and Mexico both sacrifice quality control for lower prices.
Comment by The Livewire — June 9, 2009 @ 2:20 pm - June 9, 2009
A lot of people go to Mexico for cheaper health care. Also, ask anybody who has come from another country whether they would rather have the health care they left. They might like the freedom here, but I bet they’re unhappy with not having free public health care. Ask around.
For every sad story about Canada, there are hundreds more about people in the US not getting the care they need because the insurance company wouldn’t pay for it. I would SO go to Canada for healthcare if I could buy into their system. Sign me up! Maybe that’s the solution–let Americans buy into the Canadian system. How many Americans do you think would pay that small tax and commute back and forth just to get health care they can afford? Lots and lots.
P.S. On another topic, still waiting for a thread–way to go, Adam!
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 9, 2009 @ 3:28 pm - June 9, 2009
I call bullsh*t. (for what seems like the fiftieth time)
Again I call bullsh*t. If Americans had to pay cost: None would. That’s the point. Canada’s system is as expensive as any in the world – and what do you get for it? Death while you wait in line. Ash, you haven’t addressed the point that *the Canadian Supreme Court called Canada’s system – specifically, Canada’s lack of private health care – a human rights violation*.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 9, 2009 @ 4:29 pm - June 9, 2009
I would SO go to Canada for healthcare if I could buy into their system. Sign me up!
So move there.
That’s the entertaining part, Ash; you whine and moan about not having free healthcare, but you won’t actually get off your butt and move to a place that has it.
What that means is simple; you value other things in the United States more than free healthcare. Why is that? Why, if free healthcare makes life perfect, hasn’t it done so for Canada?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 9, 2009 @ 5:22 pm - June 9, 2009
Hmm, ask Tom Greene about how great coverage is in Canada.
Oh, and Adam saying he’s gay is like me saying I’m fat.
Comment by The_Livewire — June 9, 2009 @ 6:51 pm - June 9, 2009
Actually, I’m working to have the sort of coverage they have in Canada set up here so I don’t have to move.
My point is this: you can be a conservative and back universal health care. Conservative is not about who is the most greedy and selfish. Conservatives can willingly pay taxes for programs which support the common good.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 9, 2009 @ 7:33 pm - June 9, 2009
My partner grew up in Nuevo Laredo Mexico. He’d rather have ours. Many people in Nuevo Laredo come across the border to Texas to get treated because they know it’s a damn sight better than Mexico’s. A friend of mine in Laredo went to Nuevo Laredo to get some dental work done to save money, even though she’s a postal worker. I forget what she had done, but she wound up in worse shape and an infection. She also refused friend’s suggestions to go to Nuevo Laredo for her breast reduction surgery.
Asked and answered.
No, a person willing to back a Socialist program resulting in millions unemployed and costs of trillions of dollars are not Conservative. A Conservative would not support abrogating freedom and handing over control of their lives to the State. A Conservative would not support government rationed death, waiting a year or more for surgery or even to see the doctor. I’d ask what’s conservative about handing over your freedom, but you don’t answer questions because you arrogantly believe you don’t have to.
And yes, that is selfish. You keep refusing to answer questions or actually addressing points made. Rather, you say over and over “I want “free” health care and F*CK everybody else!”. You give us the finger with each comment.
If we get government rationed death, you can say goodbye to the country you grew up in and hello to going to dark, back alleys for quality health care.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 9, 2009 @ 9:53 pm - June 9, 2009
I think they’re planning to include mental health services in the health care program, so I hope you get the care you need. I’m more than happy to pay my share of the cost.
Comment by Ashpenaz — June 9, 2009 @ 11:06 pm - June 9, 2009
So much illogic, concentrated in 3 sentences. Where to begin? I don’t have all night, so I’ll only touch on two possible points.
a) Anyone who is going to Mexico (and I bet you’re greatly exaggerating the situation, Ash, since you exaggerate so much) is exercising their FREE CHOICE, as ADULT HUMAN BEINGS, to PAY PRIVATELY for health care. Three concepts, Ash, that you apparently oppose.
b) What is this “free” health care you speak of? Do you really not understand, Ash, that no health care – or any other good or service – is ever free? Or else I invite you to pick it off the bush where you think it grows.
I will leave the blog’s conservatives to answer that. My point is this: Proposing to exploit your fellow human beings by government force as Obama does, Ash, and now you, is *morally* *wrong*.
…except when you’re Ash, I guess, who calls it “conservative” when he greedily and selfishly proposes the destruction of other human beings’ pocketbooks and lives for him to get better medical. Again, I will let the blog’s conservatives say whether that is really conservative or not.
…said Obama and Andrew Sullivan. Ash, you really ought to think seriously about joining them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2009 @ 1:51 am - June 10, 2009
(To be clear: Of course good people willingly pay taxes for programs that *actually* support the common good, like the military. It is such an obvious point, that the only people who make it are those trying to put something over to destroy the common good – like Obama, Kennedy, Pelosi, Andrew Sullivan and now Ash.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2009 @ 2:06 am - June 10, 2009
You can take your “hope” and shove it sideways. Hope and change has brought us nothing but massive debt, massive unemployment and a blithering idiot who can’t say two words without an “uhhhh” in between running around telling us how much we suck.
You’ve fallen for demagoguic propaganda BS. The left routinely invents enemies that we all should fear, claiming they’re the only ones who can fix it. The problem is that we get ass raped instead. For example:
We pay higher gas prices because of their controls over the oil industry and then they distract you claiming it’s the oil companies’ fault with no evidence. They destroyed the housing market, yet claim it was all Bush’s fault and they provide no evidence. They destroyed the auto industry, blame Bush, no evidence. We pay higher food prices thanks to liberals. Our food is being channeled into a worthless, more pollutant fuel because a bunch of idiots believe it will save the planet. Meanwhile millions do without the food because they can’t afford it and billions more pay higher prices.
And then there’s health care. They scare you with constant harangues about 47 million people without insurance. What they WILL NOT tell you is that the majority of those don’t have it because they don’t want it. 9.5 million are not US citizens. 17 million live in households making $50K+/year. 18 million are between the ages of 18-34 and choose not to buy it because they’re in good health and want to spend that money elsewhere. They CHOOSE to spend their money HOW THEY WANT TO.
The problem that I see is that either you’re woefully ignorant of reality or you’re one of the lying bastards pushing this BS on us. Either way, you don’t want to see reality and you’ll use ZERO evidence to support your claims.
One more thing, DON’T YOU DARE insult us by insisting that your a Conservative while pushing for more government control over the people. And don’t think you can get away with hoping some less informed soul reading your lines is confused with the “Socialist health care IS Conservative” bullshit.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 10, 2009 @ 2:15 am - June 10, 2009
If you’re going to bitch about the government providing “general welfare” like health care, why not throw in food and raiment?
Since you’re willing to pay your share, I need a new truck. Ready to go to the dealership?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 10, 2009 @ 2:19 am - June 10, 2009
Now now, TGC. Ash says he never dealt with anything as dreamily efficient as the all-powerful State. “Every part of my financial life which is run by the government works wonderfully and without hassle.” That should settle it!
Lebensraumoops, I mean Hopenchange – for all! /sarcComment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2009 @ 2:38 am - June 10, 2009
I think they’re planning to include mental health services in the health care program, so I hope you get the care you need. I’m more than happy to pay my share of the cost.
Does anyone else find this darkly funny? I mean Cuba and the USSR both had nationalized healthcare and would give free mental health services to both political opponents and homosexuals, to cure them of their deviant thoughts.
Also, as I’ve said elsewhere. “I don’t suffer ADD, I enjoy every minute of it.”
Comment by The Livewire — June 10, 2009 @ 8:33 am - June 10, 2009
TL, exactly.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2009 @ 10:36 am - June 10, 2009
Speaking of which, there was another big time Socialist who designed and directed the manufacture of a car “for the people”. Name escapes me. Who could that have been. Hmmmm. (sarc).
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 10, 2009 @ 11:50 am - June 10, 2009
Look at it this way. Health care is always rationed, somehow. Ash doesn’t want to ration it with the market, nor with his own self-discipline (sticking to a budge, getting a better career, taking The_Livewire’s help when TL offers it, etc.). Ash wants the State to do it. In other words: He puts the State not only above what the market says, but above his own self-discipline and his power to improve his own life. While claiming to be a religious conservative, he worships at the altar of State power.
Now kids: what do we call people who worship State power?
(F-a-s-c…..)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2009 @ 12:04 pm - June 10, 2009
When everything liberals touch turns to shit, why would we want them to decide whether we get treatment or not?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 10, 2009 @ 11:30 pm - June 10, 2009
“The founders never intended for ‘general welfare’ to mean plundering the people and redistributing wealth.”
Indeed. In order to assert that “general welfare” means government-provided health care, welfare checks, and so on requires a gross misreading of the language of the Constitution. I would caution Ashpenaz that before he enthusiastically tout is theocratic welfare state that he pay attention to the role of Catholic theologians in the early intellectual history of fascism. (And I suppose the only thing worse than a do-everything, be-everywhere government would be a do-everything be-everywhere church.)
Comment by pst314 — June 23, 2009 @ 9:13 pm - June 23, 2009
I just found this site. I am so glad to see that there are gay conservatives who have not given up on the cause of liberty, freedom, and limited government even if there are a few crazies in the Republican party. Stay with us. You don’t have to become a socialist to have respect and acceptance. Just give us some time to move the party toward a more libertarian philosophy. Most of us are with you on the right and support your freedom and liberty too. Don’t give up on the republican party.
Comment by Dude — August 19, 2009 @ 1:44 pm - August 19, 2009
This is what we’ve been saying to everyone, if it’s good enough for the average person, it should be good enough for our (so called) leaders!!!!!!
FINALLY…THE $64,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED…
YESTERDAY ON “ABC-TV” DURING THE “NETWORK SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE”…. OBAMA WAS ASKED:
“MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW ‘UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM’ THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????”….. (BET YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER)…
THERE WAS A STONEY SILENCE AS OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER IT !!!…IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED T HE SAME QUESTION AND THERE RESPONSE WAS…”WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT.”
AND THEY DID!!!
IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE “KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL” WAS WRITTEN INTO THE NEW HEALTH CARE REFORM INITIATIVE ENSURING THAT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE 100% EXEMPT !
SO, THIS GREAT NEW HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT IS GOOD FOR YOU AND ME… IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA, HIS FAMILY OR CONGRESS…??
WE (THE AMERICAN PUBLIC) NEED TO STOP THIS PROPOSED DEBACLE ASAP !!!!… THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG !!!!!
PERSONALLY, WE SHOULD ONLY ACCEPT A UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE OVERHAUL THAT EXTENDS TO EVERYONE… NOT JUST US LOWLY CITIZENS…. WHILE THE WASHINGTON “ELITE” KEEP RIGHT ON WITH THEIR GOLD-PLATED HEALTH CARE COVERAGES.
IF YOU AGREE PLEASE PASS THIS O N …IF NOT PLAN TO SUFFER WITH THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN … WHILE OUR SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS MAKE SURE THAT THEY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES AT OUR EXPENSE., OF COURSE!
Comment by Michael Colpack — October 27, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - October 27, 2009