Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
I believe we should collectively pay for it just like we pay for defense. Some of us more so than others (progressive tax). If you want to make the argument that young adults should have a choice in whether they want participate or not I can also make similar argument with respect to whether or not I want to contribute to defense spending. This matter should not be open to choice IMO because man is inherently selfish and will always do what is best for him. Also, when this young man doesn't have 30K for a broken foot surgery who will pay for it?.
You're right, this bill should take more than 30 days but our politics is so adversarial that one must get their punches in before the round is over. If anyone truly believed Republicans would be interested in exploring the possibility of a universal heathcare solution I truly believe they would have taken their time. The Republican and lobbyist game is delay, and the Democrats game is get it passed ASAP. Personally, I would have commissioned a one year study whose goal is to do full analysis on how to best implement universal healthcare and put out a plain english and public proposal.
|
I am a Republican. I am not in favor of delay for the sake of delay or (as I believe you have intimated elsewhere) for retaining wealth out of greed. I am interested in gaining and retaining wealth so that (in part) I can obtain high quality care for my wife and children. While willing to make sacrifices to my personal lifestyle so that others may receive basic needs, I will not sacrifice
anything I provide to my family other than outright luxuries (of which I provide few)
unless it is required to address the dire, life threatening needs of those
who cannot help themselves. I do not believe this position to be "selfish" - you may disagree.
While I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a
perfect analogy, I agree that, similar to defense spending, a universal health care system can "protect" the entire society. The difference, IMO, being that spending on the armed forces bears a much more direct relationship to the constitutional requirement that the Federal government "provide for the common defense" than the funding of a UHC bears to the constitutional requirement that the Feds "promote the general welfare". I say that b/c w/out a national armed force there simply is no "common defense" whereas it is debatable that a federally funded UHC will actually improve
in any signicant way the "general welfare" of society. [Yes.- We can debate the amount to spend on defense and how it is used, but under the express intent of the Constitution, the Feds
must provide "defense" funding. This is simply not true of UHC.]
If a federally created UHC directly
increases the welfare of ~5 - 10% of the population by providing HC coverage for those who desire it but cannot afford it BUT
decreases the welfare of ~50% by increasing their costs and decreasing their quality of coverage, does it actually "promote the general welfare"?? [the 50% is a number pulled from my ass to represent people like me who can afford good coverage and pay for it but any cost increase, even minimal, will require me to choose between less good coverage or changes to my most assuredly not luxurious lifestyle]??
Clearly, you say yes it does promote the general welfare. Many others say it does not. I would suggest each has a valid, reasonable argument.
Contrary to your continual "you folk" references, I would also assert that those who disagree with your position are not
necessarily acting out of personal selfishness or even direct self-interest. As one example: "It is better for society,
as a whole, if the vast majority have very good health coverage even if a some 'fall between the cracks', then to lower the quality of care for all but a small minority." I don't personally ascribe to this reasoning but I understand it and can accept it as a view held by reasonable people.
[BTW -Your
constant insinuation that those who don't agree with your guiding principles are all fools, acting out of selfishness, or are driven by something less than your morally pure motives is incredible (and unwarranted) intellectual and moral arrogance. To me, it appears that you have no capability for real spiritual or moral self-doubt and thus no capacity for real self-examination (Yes - on a rare occasion, you will acknowledge differing intellectual proofs or admit factaul errors. Not quite the same thing, though, as questioning your beliefs). It is why I believe you to be one of the most insufferably self-righteous individuals with whom I have ever dealt. -- Rant Over]
Further, when determining if creating a UHC system will "promote the general welfare", I would also suggest
many many of all but the "truly uninsured" would say it really depends on what the actual facts are as to the numbers: Is the number of "true" uninsured 5% of the population or 10%? What impact, if any, will cost increases have on lifestyle -- (What real sacrifices will I have to make? Can I still provide for my kids supplemental education/ recreation needs? Will I have to take a long weekend at the beach instead a full week rental for my annual vacation? Can I take a vacationat all? etc.)? Is a decrease in quality of care inevitable? If inevitable, how much of decline? What will the relationship between increased costs, decreases in quality of care be and the amount of "true" uninsured be -- High cost with significant decrease in care with an extension of coverage to a small population of "true uninsureds"?
OR Low cost, minimal affect to care, and an extension of coverage to a large population of "true uninsureds".
Simply put - a lot of people are willing to make sacrifices to provide for others, but, before they do, they want to make sure it is a sacrifice they can bear and that the sacrifice required bears some rationale relationship to the good being provided. Again, IMHO, this is a perfectly reasonable expectation.
And just so we are clear, I absolutely agree with you on one point:
If we are going to provide UHC within the current multiple insurer framework,
then mandatory participation is a must. The only way to even begin to offset the cost of insuring the "truly uninsured" is by making the "uninsured by choice" pay for the societal benefit they reap from insuring the "truly uninsured" (To me, the market benefits to having no uninsureds are similar and analogous to those resulting from the alleviation of mass poverty. A healthy society is a productive society thus benefitting all).