I’d like to hear a rational argument against healthcare reform
Posted by kc98 on March 30, 2010
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past week or so you are surely aware of the passage of the vaunted healthcare bill. Equally prominent in this debate is the response from conservatives, fueled by such “amazing leaders” as Sarah Palin. Throngs of angry tea-partiers recently flocked to tiny Searchlight, Nevada, home of Senate Majority leader Harry Ried in an act of protest. My question for them is, what are they protesting against?
What these protestors don’t seem to realize is that this bill does not hurt them in the slightest. All it does, in effect, is take some of the power away from the insurance companies so they can’t drop you once you get sick or deny you coverage for a preexisting condition. What these protestors are speaking out against is a bill that is a shadow of its former self. America has the most inefficient healthcare system on the planet, and this bill won’t fix it, but it is a step in he right direction.
What we should be working towards is a system like Canada‘s, a government run plan. However, change that productive will be precluded by so much political red tape that it won’t get passed in the foreseeable future. But at least we got something….
TharpSter said
A rational argument against healthcare reform?
I can give you several, but the ultimate argument is that it lacks constitutionality.
kc98 said
How is it unconstitutional? Because it “interferes with the private sector”? Nowhere in the constitution is it written that government can’t dictate the private sector. In fact, that’s been one of government’s main jobs since the inception of corporations back in the 1800′s and 1900′s. Child labor laws are the main example.
Is this bill socialism? Hardly. Its a step in the right direction to fixing a broken system.
Sonic Charmer said
Nowhere in the constitution is it written that government can’t dictate the private sector.
Amendment V: “..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Perhaps it depends on what you mean by “dictat[ing] the private sector”.
More generally, I should also point out you’re arguing backwards. You seem to think that if something is not prohibited by the Constitution, then it’s ok for the government to do it. Wrong. The Constitution is not primarily (and certainly wasn’t intended to be) a list of things the government can’t do. It’s primarily a list of things the government can do. If the government isn’t actually given the power to do X in the Constitution, then the government doing X is unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn’t have to specifically forbid the government from doing X.
Is this bill socialism? Hardly. Its a step in the right direction to fixing a broken system.
You may think it’s “a step in the right direction” (according to some argument you haven’t shared with us). But that doesn’t mean it’s not socialism. Maybe that’s just the direction you favor. Sure sounds like it.
Sonic Charmer said
I wouldn’t argue against ‘health care reform’ as a concept. This bill, however, is another story. Just because it’s a bill about health care doesn’t mean it’s good reform.
You say it ‘does not hurt [opponents] in the slightest’. It will raise my taxes – taking money out of my pocket, opportunities away from my children. How does that not hurt me? You praise forbidding companies from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions (which is another way of saying ‘forbidding companies from charging market rates’). But this will just mean the rest of us will pay (much) higher premiums to compensate. How does that not hurt me?
You say you’d like to hear a rational argument against it. I’d like to hear a rational argument for it. Actually, I’d just settle for someone arguing for the bill to demonstrate that they actually know what’s in the bill they’re in favor of. Or even that they understand basic economics. Virtually none of its supporters do.
kc98 said
The idea is that everyone must be covered, and you can’t drop people once they are sick. If everyone gets it, then the companies are getting more business and more money. The hope is that companies won’t raise premiums because they are actually making more money with more people signed on. Will it raise taxes? That’s unclear at this point, but the Congressional Budget Office has predicted that taxes will actually fall! It depends on who you are. If you are a young person who didn’t previously have insurance or a rich person, then you will probably pay more. If you are a middle aged person who did previously have insurance, then you probably won’t pay any more. You say that you don’t argue against heathcare reform as a concept. What else do you suggest?
Sonic Charmer said
The idea is that everyone must be covered,
‘everyone must be covered’ is a nicey-polite way of saying ‘private individuals are going to be forced to pay for other people’. Yes, I agree that’s ‘the idea’. I oppose it. It will hurt me and my family directly. Let me say that again: this idea you’re all in favor of and applaud, will hurt me and my family directly. Know that.
If the problem we’re trying to solve consists of the truly destitute and downtrodden, then why not just bolster the safety-net. We already have one. It’s called Medicaid. Focus on the people who actually need help.
That has nothing to do with forcing insurance companies (private companies) to ‘cover’ (i.e. pay out far, far more than they receive) this or that individual. I don’t understand how a rational, reasonable person could possibly sincerely support such a thing. (Forcing private companies to sign contracts guaranteed to lose them money)
If everyone gets it, then the companies are getting more business and more money.
You do not understand how insurance works, statistics, or economics in general. If companies are forced to sign money-losing contracts, they can’t somehow make it up in volume…
The hope is that companies won’t raise premiums because they are actually making more money with more people signed on.
That is a puerile, ignorant hope right up there with hoping the Easter Bunny visits your backyard tomorrow.
Will it raise taxes? That’s unclear at this point,
Not to me. Anyway, if you think it’s ‘unclear’, then you acknowledge the possibility. But in your original post you stated matter-of-factly that the bill ‘does not hurt’ (its opponents) ‘in the slightest’. Clearly you had no basis for saying this, and have tacitly acknowledged as much now.
but the Congressional Budget Office has predicted that taxes will actually fall! It depends on who you are.
Well if it ‘depends who you are’ then you can’t and shouldn’t go around making sweeping, blanket, absurd statements about how it won’t hurt anyone in the slightest. Clearly, it will hurt some people. As you yourself say, it ‘depends who you are’.
If you are a young person who didn’t previously have insurance or a rich person, then you will probably pay more. If you are a middle aged person who did previously have insurance, then you probably won’t pay any more.
So, for example, one dimension to this bill is that the government is forcing young people to garnish their salaries to support middle-aged people who may/may not even be in actual need.
Not exactly a civil rights victory.
You say that you don’t argue against heathcare reform as a concept. What else do you suggest?
Glad you asked. I suggest, among other things,
-eliminate the employer tax credit for insurance (so that your insurance is not linked/enslaved to your job. Why does the one thing have anything to do with the other anyway? The food you buy isn’t linked to your job, instead you get this thing called ‘money’ which you can use to buy any food you want..)
-some reasonable tort reform to limit lawsuit excesses and reduce costs
-deregulate insurance i.e. across state lines so people can shop around if they wish
-similarly, eliminate minimal-coverage rules, i.e. states declaring that all ‘insurance’ must cover such-and-such. People should be able to buy catastrophe-only insurance if they want. (Why should ‘insurance’ defray regular, normal, doctor visits? That’s not ‘insurance’ folks, that’s a payment-plan.)
-deregulate the medical profession a bit to encourage local clinics and more casual, day to day medical services. (Why do you need 10 years of medical school/intern/residency to see folks with strep throat or give flu shots..). This will reduce costs and encourage ongoing care.
-to the extent that indigent folks need coverage and overtax the system through ER misuse, provide aid through Medicaid (and bolster Medicaid if needed) in a focused way – i.e. on the people actually in need
I could list more but those would be the major ideas. If these things were done, what significant problems do you think would remain, exactly? For that matter, what problems do you think exist now that are solved by the recently-passed bill?
Jake Thunder said
There are a few things I see wrong about this bill. #1 ITS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION! The government does not have the right to tell private sector what to do. As much as I think not being able to deny someone coverage is a good thing, we shouldn’t have to go against our most core values to do it. FIND ANOTHER WAY! #2 Our system isn’t the worst in the world. The facts are, its the best. WE have the best doctors. WE have the best equipment. Why do you think people come down from Canada all the time to the border states to have their operations taken care of here instead of up there where their healthcare is “sooooo much better”. This is just another one of those things that is steadily becoming socialized in America. What makes us believe we can do it any better than any of the other countries? This isn’t some brand new idea. IT has crippled all the other countries that have and are using it. Furthermore, the states don’t have the kind of money to support this bill.
kc98 said
Wrong, wrong, wrong. In terms of cost-effectivness, we have the worst healthcare system. That isn’t opinion, its irrefutalbe fact. We spend by far the most on healthcare, and our public health isn’t the best, its not even close. Please enlighten me, where in the constitution does it say that the government can’t tell the private sector what to do? One of the main functions of the government is to protect the public from the tyranny of the corporations. Where do you think child labor laws came from? Without government regulations, we’d have a country of, by, and for the corporate cronies. And how has universal heathcare crippled any countires? How is spending less of your GNP on vastly better overall care crippling? Yes, you can get good care in certain cases in the USA, but on the whole, the system is in shambles. My friend, don’t allow yourself to be brainwashed by scare tactics and conservative dogma. Our heathcare system is BROKEN and this is a step in the right direction to fixing it.
Jake Thunder said
I agree, the system has been broken… BUT IT IS STILL THE BEST! It cripples the other countries because they spend all this money on healthcare. Which, if taken care of by the private sector could be spent on other things! Such as the military or scientific discovery! Since when has big business become a “tyranny” by the way. I hear all this stuff about “Big Business” being evil and bad. Where did the big business’s come from? How did they first start out? AS SMALL BUSINESSES! “As a reward for bringing your company up from being a small local business to an international and worldwide business, we will criticize and yell at you for coming up with a new idea/good product. We hope you enjoy your new reward!” Now how is that going to encourage ANYONE to come up with anything new? Certainly doesn’t turn me on to the path of grand discovery. Also, there are no really good medical advancements being made in the other countries that have a socialized healthcare systems. Those countries don’t have the drive or competition to make anything better as fast as it could be progressing, but here we are making medical advances everyday! In terms of cost-effectiveness on government we have the best health care system. Why? THE GOVERNMENT HAD NO SAY IN IT! They don’t have to deal with it until people turn 65 which would make there jobs money wise a whole lot easier. They wouldn’t need to cut all these programs to try and find the money to pay for the health care. My friend, don’t allow yourself to be brainwashed by unrealistic-utopian-ideology and democratic dogma
TharpSter said
An argument could be made that the new law will prohibit the exercise or practice of certain religions, such as faith healing.
http://tharpster.org/2009/07/26/obamacare-and-the-first-amendment/
I could also bring up that pesky bit about the fact that Congress has no right to force us to purchase a product like health insurance. Since that glaring issue has been done to death and will hopefully be the downfall of the law, I’ll stick with the 1st Amendment issue as the icing on the cake.
Fadackdum ali alikankar said
No one understands that with this bill THEY WILL BENEFIT TOO!!! No one will know when they will have any form of ailment. When they do (it’s inevitable that you will have some sickness) they can’t be turned down. And also, the money from medicare will be taken away to compensate for this new bill and also taxes raised FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE THAN $250,000 PER YEAR. Also this bill originally included government loans for college students but in the fixes bill, that amount became reduced, so you won’t have to worry about paying too much for students.
Actually, I believe that this bill will raise our economy. Medical doctors and hospitals are going to benefit a lot for it. Now that citizens cannot be rejected by their health insurer, they won’t have to worry about being checked for any illnesses or suspected mutations in their DNA. And anyway, if people weren’t being fined for not having health insurance, then when they do get sick, they can just merely go to a health insurer, get coverage, and withdraw form their health insurance. So this is another factor of how it can raise our economy. And also the chastice taxes aren’t going to be put in place till 2014. Those taxes also show that IT’S BY NO MEANS SOCIALISM!!! Also the fact that almost every country in Europe has free health insurance and they’re doing much better than the United States is. I mean look at the value of the Euro. It’s at a higher value than the U.S. dollar. Also look at the Canadian dollar. About ten years ago, we had a higher value and now it’s different. Also, now with this bill, people who get public health insurance can keep their money that they would normally use for paying premiums and spend it on other luxuries or necessaties, thus producing a slow impetus into our economy. Also the Ninth amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT NOT A PRIVELEGE!!!!!
Jake Thunder said
It depends on how you look at the “benefit” and I’ll just leave it at that to try not and beat the issue to a pulp. I’m pretty sure people are still going to be checked for illnesses or mutations in DNA though because THAT IS WHAT DOCTORS DO! Also people ARE going to be fined if they don’t have health insurance so your entire “what if” scenario above shouldn’t even be mentioned. The reason that the Euro is higher is mostly due to the market crash of ’08 and everything that went along with that and health care didn’t have a major role in that endeavor as far as I am aware. Instead of paying premiums our taxes will just go up so it will be exactly like paying a premium but with a different name attached to it. Health Care is NOT a right as so many people try and make it out to be. People in the United States are not denied medical treatment or at least are not supposed to be denied medical treatment if they have a medical problem. They will get the treatment that they need but how they will pay for it then becomes a different issue.
Sonic Charmer said
No one understands that with this bill THEY WILL BENEFIT TOO!!!
No, what some of us are saying is that we don’t believe we will benefit. If you believe we will benefit, you need to make an actual argument for this. But clearly, whether or not I’d ‘benefit’ depends on various details about myself – that you couldn’t possibly have. So you are in no position whatsoever to just declare ‘I’d benefit from this’. You couldn’t possibly know that. Whereas, I could.
No one will know when they will have any form of ailment. When they do (it’s inevitable that you will have some sickness) they can’t be turned down.
This doesn’t apply to me. I have insurance right now. I already wasn’t ‘turned down’ for it. So if I get an ailment, the insurance will kick in.
But let’s say I didn’t have insurance. Or, (as maybe you’re suggesting) that my insurance company would find some way to drop me if I got an ‘ailment’. It’s true that then I would be in a worse situation than now. Like maybe I’d have to pay for my health care out of my own pocket.
But so what? Does taxing me a lot more now and limiting my choices represent an improvement over that hypothetical situation for me, and what are the odds of that hypothetical situation, and are they outweighed by the supposed benefit to me of this ‘can’t be turned down’ thing? Again: you couldn’t possibly know that.
And also, the money from medicare will be taken away to compensate for this new bill and also taxes raised FOR PEOPLE WHO MAKE MORE THAN $250,000 PER YEAR.
Why do you think there’s a $250k cutoff. Where is that in the bill?
Also, you just claimed earlier that ‘they will benefit too’. But I guess that doesn’t include people who make over $250k. Because they don’t count as people in your eyes?
Also this bill originally included government loans for college students but in the fixes bill, that amount became reduced, so you won’t have to worry about paying too much for students.
This is daft. We ‘won’t have to worry about’ paying for students because the bill raises our taxes to throw loans at them? But that just means we’re still….paying for students. Which is better and why? At least try to do the math there before attempting such an argument.
Actually, I believe that this bill will raise our economy.
Well that’s nice. But some of us don’t, hence our opinion about it. Get it now?
Medical doctors and hospitals are going to benefit a lot for it.
Even if true (not sure why you would think this, as you give no argument), why would that necessarily ‘help the economy’. Are medical doctors underpaid currently? Actually I thought the big problem with health care that required ‘reform’ was that we were ‘spending too much money on it’. So why is it a good thing to ‘benefit’ doctors are hospitals then? Aren’t we supposed to try to squeeze ‘em? Can’t ‘reform’ advocates at least keep their story straight?
And also the chastice taxes aren’t going to be put in place till 2014.
Oh, then they don’t count. 2014 taxes don’t count. This is economically brilliant.
Those taxes also show that IT’S BY NO MEANS SOCIALISM!!!
They do not show that at all. Why do you think they show that.
Also the fact that almost every country in Europe has free health insurance and they’re doing much better than the United States is.
Define ‘doing much better’.
I mean look at the value of the Euro. It’s at a higher value than the U.S. dollar.
That is a completely stupid way to define ‘doing much better’. Also, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the Euro has been tanking over the last few months. Have you heard of the Greece sovereign debt crisis. At all.
Also look at the Canadian dollar. About ten years ago, we had a higher value and now it’s different.
You seem to think that whether a country is ‘doing well’ or not can be gauged just by looking at the value of its currency relative to other currencies. I disagree. And since I disagree, your argument carries zero weight with me.
Also, now with this bill, people who get public health insurance can keep their money that they would normally use for paying premiums and spend it on other luxuries or necessaties, thus producing a slow impetus into our economy.
Hey why don’t we just give each person 1.5 billion dollars. Then they’d also have a lot of money to spend on other luxuries or necessities.
This is cartoony, puerile economic thinking.
Also the Ninth amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
HEALTH CARE IS A RIGHT NOT A PRIVELEGE!!!!!
If health care is a right retained by “the people”, what does that have to do with the federal government doing stuff about it? This bill wasn’t passed by “the people” and it’s not an instance of “the people” exercising a right, it’s an instance of the federal government arrogating to themselves a bunch of powers – powers that are not given to them anywhere in the Constitution. Anyway, people already did and do have the right to health care – they have the right to enter contracts and agreements to obtain health care from other willing people, just as they have the right to pursue any other good or service. At least, for now (unless the government forbids it – as is done in Canada).
But this is at least an interesting attempted argument. Okay, so I guess you’re saying that one can’t say “Health care isn’t stated as a right in the Constitution, therefore it’s not a right.” Actually, I agree with that. The fact that health care isn’t guaranteed to be a right in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a right. It’s not a right, but for other reasons and arguments.
For example if health care is a “right” then doctors, and anyone who works in any connection with the medical profession, are slaves of the rest of us (right? because apparently we have the “right” to their labor and efforts…). So can there be a “right” which enslaves other people? Um….no.