Thought for the day on the health care (insurance) debate

This mess is being sold as universal health care. Everyone will be protected. Actually, what the bill says is that everyone will have to BUY insurance coverage. There’s a huge difference.

Do you really really think you’ll be able to afford health care insurance any more in a year after the mandate than you can now? Really?


  1. While you do make a good point Cindy, take a look at car insurance, which 49 out of 50 US states require (50 out of 50 in July 2010). If you own a car, you are required to have insurance.

    Everyone has to buy car insurance, and it doesn’t seem like a problem with most people. So why should health insurance cause problems? Especially if Obama’s plan works out as he originally told the public.

    While health insurance and car insurance do differ greatly, and while the health insurance plan applies to the entire nation, it’s food for thought.

  2. One must buy the health insurance – it’s not given freely as many assume. There will be a cost to the individual where none was mandated before now.

    If you buy a car, you assume there are costs associated with that ownership. Not everyone owns a car.

    I wouldn’t compare the two.

  3. I’m not in favor of the individual mandate. Also not in favor of required auto insurance.

    My view is that everyone should have access to affordable insurance, but no one should be forced to purchase it. And no, that doesn’t mean I’m not in favor of single payer. Health care should be treated like schools and fire protection. Everyone gets it regardless of their means.

  4. And as we currently do it, everyone does have health care. I’m still paying for it – but it’s through my increased hospital and therefore insurance costs. At least this way a whole new bureaucracy is not created.

  5. That’s an interesting way to look at it. Is the bureaucracy your main concern?

  6. In that another layer of bureaucracy would inevitably add more expense, yes. The change as proposed will be more expensive to all involved – especially those of us already paying our own way.

    Health care is NOT a free market system, although you’ll hear many a liberal advance the current “free market system” has failed health care. If this were a free market I could pick my doctor and drugs according to price. No doctor and pharmacist would stand in the way of my needing a particular drug. The current way of paying for indigent care, by putting the cost into current hospital treatment, is the best way the handicapped market system has figured out to handle the problem.

    I once had an pediatric ER doctor go on and on about how this new system would change her requirement to treat all the indigents that flow into her ER. When I challenged her, she began to realize there was a problem with her argument. All those new patients would have insurance, but there was still such a culture of treatment on demand they would still be crossing into her waiting room. Once there, her obligations as a doctor dictated they be treated. (I.e., you don’t give indigents even free health care and expect them to follow the same 9a to 4p rules to see a doctor the rest of us use.) The hospital would simply be able to bill for reduced reimbursement, not clear the use of the very expensive emergency facilities.

    Yes, some of you will undoubtedly call me racist (again!), but really, our health care hang ups are really centered around cultural problems, not access problems.

  7. Fair enough. I agree with your sentiment. But the fact is that single payer cuts down on bureaucracy.

    I won’t call you racist, but i’m interested in what the cultural problems are? Laziness? Attitude of entitlement?

  8. That’s the way their momma done it. Nothing more.

  9. All those new patients would have insurance, but there was still such a culture of treatment on demand they would still be crossing into her waiting room.
    One of the things that got the rightoverse all het up about earlier incarnations of the reform was the provision that sent “community organizers” out into communities to change that culture and get people to start seeing GPs and family practice doctors.

    I don’t know if such a provision still exist–I just don’t have the will to look anymore–but if it is gone, you can tell your ER doc friend that Palinites killed it.

  10. Randy in Richmond says:

    You gotta love it. No matter what the issue or conversation, those of you on the left manage somehow to negatively weave Sarah Palin into the debate. Even though you say she is stupid and not qualified and could never win an election, and the polls say such and such about her–you continuosly refer to her to bolster your arguments.

    I will give away a little secret because I know it will not change how you on the left treat her. We on the right love it when you rebuke her–it strengthens our resolve and assures us her beliefs generally reflect our own and many others in this country. And we know too that you lefties do it to keep your standing with fellow liberals as a ‘preaching to the choir’ tactic.

    By all means, keep it up.

  11. Once again, for all I know you are making stuff up Folkbum. You must’ve felt creative last night!

  12. Randy – excellent point about Sarah Palin and the left’s discussion!

  13. Randy, I would say that your constant need to defend Palin from the way liberals “treat her” is pretty good evidence that this sort of thing does, in fact, bother Republicans a great deal. There’s no doubt that many Palin supporters have some sort of emotional attachment to the resigned Governor of Alaska. There’s nothing unhealthy about that I guess, but I would say it’s almost on par with the same love affair people had with our current President. Just sayin’.

    As for your previous comment, I couldn’t agree more. Palin is now the figure head of a party that has nothing to say. Yet further proof that the present day GOP leadership is in shambles. It’s simply more of the same. Tromp out a “likeable” candidate in front of a waving flag, have them talk about there affections for middle America, Christians and tax cuts, while providing no constructive dialog to our nation’s problems.

    The only difference is that this candidate is better looking which appeals more to the people who vote for that sort of thing I guess.

  14. Not the way I’d have read it at all, J. Strupp.

    Isn’t it a little over the top to proclaim Palin the figure head of a party? To me it’s further evidence of an opposition’s desire to define and marginalize a national figure.

    What the hell are you so afraid of from this woman?

  15. Aw crap… I was trying to be civil.

  16. They hate Palin because she has a life, has had some success without an elitist education. This is in contrast to their guy Obama who has done nothing concrete in his carrer and won a Nobel Prize for showing up at the office. In other words she’s a contrast to the empty suit.

  17. Randy in Richmond says:

    Today’s Rasmussen tracking poll shows President Obama’s approval rating at 45% and other recent polls show Sarah Palin’s at 43-45%.

    And let me clear something up for you. It’s liberals that have emotional attachments–we conservatives tend to go for the belief systems and policy issues. And our last election proved that there are people who “vote for that sort of thing” as millions voted for Obama because of his color,their own guilt, or his personality and speaking prowse .
    The very fact that you are insinuating I and others support Sarah Palin because of her looks speaks volumes about———you.

  18. “It’s liberals that have emotional attachments–we conservatives tend to go for the belief systems and policy issues. ”

    Hahaha. Cindy just wrote a 10 paragraph blog entry stating that she likes Palin because she’s a dynamic, gun toting, anti-abortion hockey mom who probably wears the same underwear as she does. Don’t kid yourself Randy. People are emotional/irrational beings. You can bet your a$$ there are millions of Americans that will vote for Palin for precisely those reasons. Obviously, Cindy is intelligent enough not to base her vote on Palin’s image, but most Americans aren’t that smart.

    To think that conservatives think more rationally than liberals is living in wonderland. You give the average voter too much credit.

  19. You didn’t always get a perfect grade for reading comprehension JS, did you?

  20. It’s not her consistancy that’s the problem for me Cindy. I’m sure she’ll walk the walk wherever she lands.

  21. Once again, for all I know you are making stuff up Folkbum. You must’ve felt creative last night!
    But I’m not. Here, for example, is a righty Cheddarspherean who has copied-and-pasted the Liberty Council’s BS release full of lies about the original House bill, interspersed with images of the Boston Tea Party–a phenomenon I wrote about here .

    Among the Liberty Council’s complaints (and the list is long, so scroll down) is everything having to do with patient education, capacity building, and wellness & prevention. That’s all “BIG GOVERNMENT” in your life, and goldarnit the teabagophiles won’t have none of it.

  22. So once again with feeling – what is “her problem.” Why do you insist upon diminishing her when she’s not even running for anything? Are you jealous about the book deal? Come on…there’s got to be something.

  23. Folkbum, you lost me. I thought you were supposed to prove “the Palintines killed it.” I don’t see a reference to Palin in your link. Also, perhaps you can explain how offering alternative care was actually going to change the culture of care through the ER.

    Dude, you can ramble. Between “palintines” and “teabagophiles” I’m beginning to believe you aren’t much of a brain for original thought.

  24. My problem with her that while conservatives are busy defending her honor and liberals are busy photoshopping her head on other people’s bodies, we’re all missing the point. She isn’t really saying anything new. In fact, she really isn’t saying anything of substance at all (and never really has).

    Is there any doubt that when she finally gets around to articulating some resemblance of a vision for this country, it’ll be eerily familar to us all? Short-sided, heavy handed foreign policy designed upon the protection of Israel and destruction of Iran coupled with no real strategy regarding domestic issues other than cutting taxes and punting all our other problems to the next guy down the line (Afterall, government is always the problem so why try to fix anything right?). In short, all the things that will get her political base warm and fuzzy while producing no real progress.

    Maybe I’m wrong. But I’ll bet you I’m not. I’m telling you we’ve seen this show before.

  25. Then don’t vote for her when the time comes. She still has a right to run if that’s what she’s planning.

  26. I don’t recall anyone saying she didn’t have that right.