Facebook & Healthcare reform

The following is copied from a Facebook conversation and deserves your quick perusal before wading through another response from yours truly... here you go.


Mike Loehr
Health care reform is a moral issue... how about a change in America? C'mon congress, you can do it!


Kathie Iorizzo
So are you for the health care reform?

Robb Brunansky
Change, yes. Just not this change.

Leah Finch
I don't think congress can do it... they are corrupt and evil since they don't follow or know God as a collective whole. I hope you find what you're looking for, but I doubt it.

Kathie Iorizzo
How is God a part of our government? Shouldn't reglion stay out of politics?

Leah Finch
Never! God is truth and justice, and we want those things in our government. You are right though, God isn't part of our government, which was my point above.

Kathie Iorizzo
I believe in separation of church and state. I don't feel God belongs in my goverment. Not every American beleves in God.

Leah Finch
How unfortunate for you. I hope you find what you're looking for.

Kathie Iorizzo
I didn't say I didn't.

Mike Loehr
I'm not sure what the comment "find what your looking for" means, maybe you can clarify. However, I think if it means justice for the poor it is BOTH Biblical and humanist (either way I support it); and either way giving to those who cannot "afford" insurance in a wealthy country like the US isn't just sensible, but a moral imperative. Also, no, this bill isn't the change we need: mandatory insurance, but no mandate to make it affordable... sounds like the same old rich men staying rich scheme to me.

Kathie Iorizzo
Mike, I like your view.. good points.

Robb Brunansky
Yep, I agree. I think this will make our system worse, not better. Reminds me of Amos 6. We need to deal with all the greed that has ruined health care. Unfortunately, the people making the laws are just as greedy as the insurers/doctors.

Mike Loehr
It's not the doctors... it is the unregulated insurance companies and "the in their pocket politicians." Maybe someone with morals should run. Maybe we should make changes, it's our government. Maybe that's why I posted this.

Kristofer Rasmussen
Leah: that's silly. people can be good and not evil without a knowledge of god. being the christian that you are, i'm sure you believe that the knowledge of good and evil now exists within the minds of men because of the fall and that men were created in the image of god. that sounds like it leaves room for men to be pretty good on their own without god, in a sense. and i thought goodness was never a problem, it was perfection that was a problem that required god's grace. i could be wrong though.

Mike: scheme indeed. fml. although passing bullshit legislation like this wouldn't be a problem if the scope of the government were more limited. i'm not saying i agree with this idea, but i am considering it.

Mike Loehr
If the scope of the govt were limited it would be worse Kris... including the abuse, misuse, exploitation of currently semi-protected populations (i.e. children, minorities, GLBTQ, etc.).

Leah Finch
Kris knowing good and evil doesn't make one good. Everyone is depraved and evil because everyone has broken God's law, and this is why we need Jesus. He's the olny one who has paid our debt.
Mike, we do need change in our government and you're right, we need to have a leader with morals, but the changes they want to make now will make things worse, not better.

Mike Loehr
Leah, I respectfully disagree. How does the American government helping people live longer make things worse? Uninsured people are 40% closer to death than those without. Not to mention the fact that the American government could DECREASE spending by providing "preventative care for all vs. emergency care only" for the poor (notwithstanding the the fact that psychiatric illnesses could be much more adequately provided for; that is if every one of these disabled persons had insurance to start with, and thus had a chance for continuity of care as a result)... therefore healthcare reform would not only promote human rights, it would also be fiscally responsible. It seems to me to be a more loving and more morally responsible act than punishing the poor and rewarding the ALREADY rich people/companies under the philosophy that currently exists.

Leah Finch
Mike, we don't disagree. I'm only saying that the current plan they're suggesting isn't the best option. What I meant when I said "I hope you find what you're looking for" is in response to your status. You were asking for a moral change in America through Congress's decision. I hope that Congress finds a moral solution, but I'm not counting on it since they're not moral.

Curtis Crossland
Mike I feel preventative care is a good thing, but greed is still the main issue with any kind of legislative reform. Why no tort reform? Preventative care may have the ability to spare some people future expense but not others. When does it end? With insurance, the persons that use it have their costs offset by other paying insured. They basically rotate claims, but there are many individuals that may never make a claim or have a high medical cost. They continue to subsidize others and keep seeing rate increases. For people with limited to no money, whats to stop a doctor from "prescribing" preventative care that isn't necessary and just charging it to insurance? With a mandate, you are simply increasing the available pool of insureds. And a lot of whether or not prices will decrease is if there is a major cut back on claims. Like it or not this is a supply and demand issue, not a moral one. I'm all for helping people in need, but so often good will gets preyed upon.

Andrew Taylor
The "moral" issue gets tossed around a lot in this debate with a lot of certitude. Has anyone considered the morality of passing on crushing national debts to our children and possibly grandchildren? And please, please don't fall for the "deficit neutral" blather from Washington politicians.

Sean Kevin Walsh
First of all, I would like to thank Curtis for his contribution. As I seem to remember from back in the "college group days" he always was full of interesting perspective. I also would like to point out that how wealthy someone is has very little to do with greed. Some of the greediest people I know are poor as the day they were born. I also have met millionaires who were, bar none, the most generous people I have ever heard of. Just for the record, I plan on being absolutely, flat-out wealthy beyond what most people even think is possible. As such, I resent the fact that anyone wants to take the privilege of helping people out of my hands and put in the hands of politicians who have proven themselves to be irresponsible with money and character. The answer is not bigger government, but bigger personal accountability. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. The problem with capitalism is Capitalists. I personally plan on taking responsibility for my wealth and how its spent. Who's with me?

Charity Carothers Andreyka
There are MUCH better ways of providing affordable insurance than with government interference!!! For one, get the lawyers OUT of the pockets of our doctors!!!!! True health care reform calls for LESS legislation and MORE private sector solutions!! The government can't balance a budget; I don't want them rationing my healthcare!!!!

Sean Kevin Walsh
Touche! Well said Charity!

Curtis Crossland
"For one, get the lawyers OUT of the pockets of our doctors!!!!!"

That would require tort reform. Many of the lobbyists and most powerful democrats are lawyers and the one option that I feel would have a tremendous impact on all of this is the tort reform. Doctors in most cases can't just slash costs. Liability insurances as well as the massive debt they take on to practice are ridiculous. Ambulance chasers and other shady characters have put us where we are more than anything, but its the 800 pound gorilla lawmakers wont address because they wont get re-elected.

Mike Loehr
1) If your a Christian (and really, I could care less yeah or nay)... but if you are, it is a moral issue. There are literally hundreds of Biblical passages for your reference, if I post them the site will blow up. No, not all the passages speak to the exact topic, but YES it is obviously an issue/theme (thus the reason for including hundreds of passages regarding the topic). Unfortunately I don't hear you preaching about removing injustice or noting your great disappointment regarding the fact that the US is the only industrialized nation without national healthcare.

2) Tort reform is a good step toward lowering medical costs... and is an important part of this discussion. But I don't think it should be to the exclusion of discussing reform for the people that get dropped because they have an "expensive disease?" How about we hold systems/companies that are based on greed accountable, not just doctors/hospitals (or most sadly patients) ?

3) If you care to do some reading you might be able to comprehend a medical system that MOST CERTAINLY will save money if unfunded people (who are going to get treatment regardless and at your expense anyway; or steal, murder, or cause other forms of economic strain in the long run). Here's some research if you would like to be informed:

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Insuring-Americas-Health-Principles-and-Recommendations.aspx

4) Regarding spending: I never got a single response from any of you when I made comments regarding the 600 BILLION unrestricted dollars congress gave to banks. What about those BILLIONS of dollars of waste? What about the estimated cost of war currently at $943,490,957,342? I don't hear any protests from this panel, why? Are you telling me the US not insuring people (so they can live longer regardless of income) is AMORAL and these 2 wars we are involved in are MORAL?

5) Regarding the comment "The answer is not bigger government, but bigger personal accountability" Why don't you pontificate about this personal responsibility and the implications? If I apply this theory to something like racism what would happen? The government would have no reason to butt into personal or business forms of segregation and therefore would be a smaller government, right? So, with this smaller government would things be better... hmmm probably not? Furthermore, should I attempt to commit a crime against you (because your smaller government isn't there to create a system of laws and ways to implement those laws to protect you) you might be slightly upset and/or dead, right? So you really want the government out of the healthcare business... then shut down medicare, since it is so obviously a flop, right? Or do you not plan on using it when it is your turn?

6) Also consider the following when: Total spending for health care accounted for 16% of US GDP, the highest share among the OECD and almost double the OECD average, the public share of health care expenditure in the USA (45%) is less than any other OECD country and despite spending the most, the U.S. provides health care coverage for only the elderly, disabled and some of the poor people. In comparison, the same amount is enough to provide universal health care insurance by the government for all citizens in other OECD countries 35% of total health care expenditures is done by private health insurance which is the highest In OCED

http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_34631_12968734_1_1_1_37407,00.html)

Obviously letting a supposedly "free market" run this thing called healthcare hasn't worked so well thus far. What makes you think we should let it run amuck some more? Also, what part of a FOR-PROFIT system (i.e. a system that is built to make more money by denying you services) sounds like a good idea.

Personally I am tired of rhetoric and empty arguments... every week I see numerous homeless and oppressed people struggle to get healthcare, through no fault of their own. If they don't get healthcare they will either die sooner and/or cost this wonderfully free market more strain in the long run... both which are sickening to me in a country where we spend a lot on entertainment, food, pets and of course protecting ourselves and so little on providing for the defenseless and poor, go team america!

Sean Kevin Walsh
Let me be clear. I do not trust the government, whether functioning under so-called conservative or liberal ideas, to do for me things that i can choose to do for myself. This is why to me the answer is not bigger government. People who believe that the government is run, or should be run in their best interest probably also believe in the tooth fairy. We would not expect our parents who took care of us as children to continue to take care of us into our adulthood. At some point we realize that the best way to ensure that we are taken care of is to grow up and get things done. To demand that anyone take care of you is unreasonable. To desire to affect change in my world without the threat of law is noble. To refuse to take personal responsibility for the poor around you and hide within a system that is inefficient, outdated, and operating in the red is naive and foolish. To say that the way our economy is run today is "free market" is equally foolish. You will notice that I did not cite any policies or political stances in my post. This is because the problem is fundamentally in the mindset of the American people. I agree that rhetoric alone accomplishes nothing (as Mr. Obama has shown us clearly thus far). So I will leave you with a bit of wisdom that I picked up from the band Thrice, and from Jay-Z.

Rhetoric can't raise the dead
I'm sick of always talking, when there's no change.
Rhetoric can't raise the dead
I'm sick of empty words
Let's LEAD, not follow!
(Thrice)

And i can't help the poor if i'm one of them.
So i got rich and gave back- To me that's the win, win
(Jay-Z)

Since we now agree that rhetoric is worthless, this will be my last post on the topic at hand. If you need me, I will out and about changing my world without asking for help from my country's worthless, top heavy, bankrupt government.

Mike Loehr
Without taking time to debate with you, since this was you last post, I would like to inform you that you are purporting a political perspective. Namely that of the Libertarian Party, which goes something like this: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." And toward this end they (and you) will obviously push for less government and more individual control.


Andrew Taylor
Mike, you are a great guy, and I appreciate your passion on this subject. This is a very important debate and you express you side very well. Thanks for bringing it up……..

1) I understand your point about the Bible, however I would be extremely impressed if you could find a scripture that directs Christians (and yes brother, I proudly am one) to support a massive government entitlement that will cover abortions (the Senate bill will still make people in some states fund abortions in other states). I don’t know if you intend this, but in your stridency to make this a black and white moral issue, you are inferring that people who don’t agree with you, are amoral and un-Christian. I don’t think you intent this, but that is the way it sounds. Additionally, you must be more than a little aware that much of the Bible warns against fiscal irresponsibility (Nancy Pelosi, are you listening?). Isn’t that important to remember too?

2) I am glad you agree with the need for tort reform, but we both know that this issue is dead. The democrats will never do anything to harm one of their greatest supporters: the trial lawyers (where do you think John Edwards got the money for his mansion, $300 hair cuts, and philandering?). I agree that our health care system needs reform, I am just very concerned over what the current legislation will eventually lead to--- a massive, inefficient, bureaucratic, socialized single-payer system (how many times have you heard “first step” regarding the current legislation?). Does anyone REALLY understand these 2,000 page bills?

3) Regarding the uninsured, I believe there is a misconception about the “uninsured” in this country. Some people would have you believe that the “uninsured” are a pathetic, helpless morass of the permanently needy and destitute (the reason for this of course, is to play upon your emotions, and ultimately to secure a new generation of blindly loyal democrat voters). Yet, upon closer examination, it is not that simple. It is a well known FACT that a significant portion of the 45 million uninsured people are illegal aliens. Does anyone want to pay for their health insurance? Even President Obama has vowed that he would not sign a bill that covers illegal aliens, right? Another portion are people who actually already qualify for Medicaid, yet have not registered. Another portion are people who make easily enough to pay for health care, but choose not to (got to get that new system or those new spinners for the ride, I guess). Yet another portion are young healthy people who do not want health insurance or are only temporarily without insurance. In reality, there are only a few million people that can not pay for their own insurance and make too much to qualify for Medicaid on a permanent basis. Surely our current system (you know, the one where people from all around the world come HERE for treatment) can be tweaked--not scrapped--to help these people.

4) I agree with you that the federal government spends way too much. The spending is ridiculous and we are heading toward bankruptcy.

5) Mike, I don’t think you understood the original comment about “bigger government” or perhaps you intentionally used hyperbole in your response?

6) Our health system is not a “free market.” There is far too much Byzantine regulation and regional protectionism that prevents insurance companies from really competing against one another. Competition brings down prices, not government dictates.

Hey, just my 2 (or 4 or 6) cents folks.....