Response to Facebook and Healthcare Reform

This post includes Andy's comments (in bold & italics) and my response which follows:


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?


As I explained to you earlier there are zero Biblical passages speaking directly to the issue, remember I stated:

“…not all the passages speak to the exact topic, but YES it is obviously an issue/theme… hundreds of passages…”

In response:

First
Some questions. Does the issue regarding the sanctity of life only count from the moment of conception until a child is forcefully thrust from the birth canal? Did you read my comment that someone without healthcare is 40% closer to death than someone without? Is life always life, or is life only a Christian moral issue when specific to the topic of abortion?

Secondly
Might I ask you another question? Who is your insurance company? Since I cannot presume to know the answer I will guess that very likely they do provide elective abortion as a part of your (and other buyers) insurance coverage. Do you realize that your money is going to their bottom line, their success... and they might well be providing someone with the same services you are decrying? Not something most people have considered, but certainly something to think about, especially if your making a moral argument regarding insurance for others.

Thirdly
In explanation. The House bill states individual health plans could choose whether to cover abortion (something I just explained they already do); low- and middle-income people who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance through the exchange and cannot choose a health plan that covers elective abortions; and the public plan would not provide abortion coverage. The Senate version would allow people to choose whether to cover abortion or not. But states could prohibit the coverage of abortions by health plans that are offered for sale through the new insurance exchanges; Low- and middle-income people who receive federal subsidies to buy insurance could enroll in health plans that cover abortion, but subscribers of health plans that cover abortion would have to make two separate monthly premium payments: one for all insurance coverage except abortion and one for abortion coverage. Health plans that offer abortion coverage and receive federal subsidies would be required to segregate the federal money into separate accounts and use only the premium money and co-payments contributed by consumers to cover the procedure. State insurance commissioners would police the “segregation of funds.” I don’t feel like your perception of reform is fair to the bill currently being discussed, but I understand your concern. Hopefully this clarification is helpful, and yes these things will likely change… this is the nature of all lawmaking and thus must be considered as the process goes on.

Fourth
I am in no way concocting a black and white argument here. What I am doing is applying the same logic others in my company have applied. I am appealing to the Christian population (that I am familiar with) to use their “moral thinking” in considering healthcare or other social justice issues as they do for other seemingly more important issues (i.e. abortion, gay rights). I never called anyone amoral, or immoral… what I stated was:

“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?”

This is not accusatory, but rather questions the changes in thinking we engage in as we consider one issue next to another.

Fifth
As of December 19, 2009 proposed costs by the CBO were: House Bill (approx. $1.052 trillion and is projected to reduce deficits by $139 billion over 10 years), Senate Bill (approx. $871 billion and is expected to reduce projected federal budget deficits by $132 billion over 10 years). Not really much to explain here, except to say that taking care of people’s health is both helpful to the government and to our country over the long haul. Not to mention the unanswered question: who’s paying for all this necessary medical care right now, someone has to on a federal, state, or individual level, it just doesn’t happen for free.

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?


Unfortunately I cannot defend against blanket statements like “the democrats will never…” because this is an exercise in futility, and makes for a poor argument. Name-calling and partisan rhetoric will not make the difference, but a good bill will. And yes, someone understands this 2,000 page bill… however I admit the implications of this bill are a lot more obscure and yes can sometimes turn into different problems. This being noted, would we take back Medicare laws? How about Civil rights laws? How about human trafficking laws? How about...? We must make positive changes and in so doing we must strive to ensure these changes don't fall apart or surprise us with unexpected results. This is the basis for good lawmaking and is a basis for good government.

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.


Misconception? Seriously. I thought for a minute that maybe I was exaggerating, but then I got an email reminder and recalled my own experiences in every single region/place I have ever lived in the US (such as Southwestern/suburban, Southern/rural and Midwest/urban areas) that there were examples of poverty robbing the poor and underprivileged, and no not just the “illegals” often referred to:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113928094


Furthermore as of December 19, 2009 the House bill states illegals could buy insurance from the exchanges, but could not get federal subsidies to help pay the costs; and the Senate bill states illegals could not buy insurance from the exchanges, even if they were able to pay the full cost themselves, without federal subsidies.

Also, this appeal to millions of illegals seems like a bit of an emotional appeal, something you just stated you don’t want to engage in. Without delving into a much discussion, can I ask you a question, “If American companies didn’t illegally hire, and presumably underpay and/or exploit, illegal employees, would illegals still come to the US for jobs?” There is certainly some culpability on the part of greedy Americans/American-based companies here; so the topic is certainly more complicated and more deserving of comment than with a footnote here… although I welcome the discussion, since it is another topic I am passionate about.


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

No arguments here.

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

I’m not sure I understand this, please explain.

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.

To clarify, I never stated healthcare operates in a “free market:”

First
You are correct; this is truly a market with regulations and government intervention (and thus is not free).

Second
I don’t believe in the tenants of a free market (for my own reasons), but again, call me a weirdo for trying to hold Christians to Christian values, but here we go on another ride. Do you believe un-saved people are born into sin and are in need of God’s intervention? I am familiar with this and learned it as the “doctrine of human depravity.” I assume your familiar with this as well (although there are some varieties involved here, ranging from total depravity to blah, blah, blah…)? This being true then, tell me this, “How do we believe that corrupt/depraved people will allow a social/financial system to create competition and not somehow find ways to lie, cheat and steal from the powerless and unprotected in a depraved power-grab? This shift from Christian thinking (i.e. depravity) to Reagan (i.e. trickle down) economics is a logic that truly escapes me! Let’s pick a worldview here: either people are bad and will do things to keep themselves on top, or they won’t… otherwise we are being inconsistent in our application of religious doctrine. Albeit, there might be another perspective I am missing… but it seems to me that in addition to lying to ourselves, we are also refusing to look at the monopolies insurance companies have created and will continue to create when they buy our politicians and thus our laws in the future.

Third
A small and uncomplicated suggestion: why don’t we create different anti-trust laws, maybe insurance companies would then be forced to compete (at least more than they do already).