After all of the flying bricks, fanatical protests and frenzied tea parties, the controversial health care reform bill passed. It has been 12 days since the bill passed, and I have yet to see any hammers and sickles or murals of Obama in military garb painted on City Hall downtown. I’m actually very interested to see all of the prophetic words spoken during the creation of the bill challenged by the results of the new programs implemented by the health care reform bill.
Indeed, I have heard so much about what this bill might create in the distant future that I lost sight of what the programs and reforms actually were. Not surprisingly, I discovered that the reforms are not as radical as I was made to fear. Hasn’t that always been the case in the history of the United States? We tend to fear more than we should.
Beginning in six months, health insurance companies will no longer be able to deny children insurance based on pre-existing conditions, nor can they drop people from coverage when they get sick; in 2014, health insurance companies will no longer be able to deny any person insurance based on pre-existing conditions. Also, insurance companies must allow parents to keep their children on their insurance until the child turns 26. This will directly affect a significant portion of the Cal Poly campus.
There are other reforms that are more controversial, of course. If an employee of a large business buys into the federal insurance exchange, the bill then requires large businesses to offer employees health coverage or face a fine of $2,000 per employer. However, the bill also provides tax incentives to all employers, making the offer of coverage affordable.
There is also an individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase health insurance, whether from the government or from a private provider. However, a person is free to keep their private insurance, or they may choose to buy into the exchange at a significantly reduced cost.
The portion of the health care reform bill that will affect you and me the most, perhaps, has nothing to do with health care reform. In a move hailed as the most significant federal reform to education since No Child Left Behind, Democratic legislators also added college aid reform to the health care reform bill, which provides significant relief and protection to us starving college students.
As a result of the reform bill, private lenders (formerly the primary loan providers) will be eliminated from the process. The simple elimination of the private sector in this process will eliminate $36 billion in waste. President Obama and Democratic legislators have chosen to redirect the $36 billion savings into new Pell Grant funding, which secures the necessary future of the Pell Grant.
They have also reformed the way we repay our student loans. Beginning in 2014, those of us who had to take out loans to attend college will only be required to devote 10 percent of our monthly income to loan payments, and after making payments on our loans faithfully for 20 years, the debt will be forgiven.
See how much Obama cares?
The health care bill is probably one of the most destructive things to happen to the United States in recent history. People like Stephanie only see what they want to see: Americans given the opportunity to have affordable health care, persons with pre-existing conditions no longer being denied health care, and 26-year olds being allowed to stay under the protective wing of their parents.
What is failed to be seen is all the direct as well as indirect consequences. First of all, there is nothing more sacred to this country than our Constitution and this health care reform is a clever raping of our governmental framework. Nowhere does the constitution grant the federal government the authority to implement to regulation this bill creates. And if anybody responds with “hey ever heard of the general welfare clause?” or by trying to excuse it with the interstate commerce clause…you have no idea what you’re talking about and you truly have no respect for your constitution.
The bill now tells insurance companies no denying those with pre-existing conditions. As Utopian as that sounds, it negates the fact that insurance companies are private entities, with private money, and nobody has a right to just take from that money as they wish. There are plenty of things crucial to life, not just health care; food, water, shelter, self-fulfillment, sex, etc. And arguing that health care is a right, and therefore it’s okay to steal money from those who have in order to give it to all opens a very dangerous door. Nobody has a natural right to take from others for themselves. Since socialized health care does just, it cannot be a right.
Also, the bill does nothing to address the affordability of health care. Basically, it takes 26 million people who were previous uninsured and dumps them on every existing doctor. A shift to increase demand CAUSES PRICES TO RISE. There will be a shortage of doctors. There is now less incentive to become a doctor. There is less incentive to start an insurance company. The governmental will invent “competition” by using stolen taxpayer dollars to artificially reduce to the costs of insurance coverage, eliminate competition, and cause a shortage in supply of insurance…again, rising prices.
I don’t even have time to explain how perverted it is fine tax-paying producers for not purchasing social health care. It’s beyond un-American and I may have a heart attack if I write any more on this.
And finally, I have to ask one question for all supporters of the government taking control over everything: what makes you trust the government any more than business? Do you really believe that politicians are any less corrupt than businessmen? Think about it.
Mike,
I never hear those who are against health care reform admit the following fact in their arguments against it: 45,000 people DIE every year because they don’t have health insurance. I think the Republican argument, which you parroted here, is both austere and severe. It leaves out the supreme necessity of providing health insurance to people who would die without it.
And I always tune out when people parrot the Republican statement that the government steals money from those who have it to spread the wealth around. Let’s be intellectually honest, here: Paying taxes is not analogous to the government stealing from you. While it is an onerous task both to file taxes and to pay them out of your pocket, paying taxes is a duty that a person has as a result of the privilege it is to live in the US. For people who are so spread-eagle in their patriotism, conservative cry and complain more about taxes than any other group in the US.
With regard to your question about whether I trust government to do a better job than private industry: Absolutely! The reason is that the private industry is here to make a buck–that’s their bottom line. Ask someone who lost their health insurance because they got diabetes or cancer or who was denied COBRA because they got sick if they trust the private businesses to do a good job providing health insurance. I bet their answer will be an emphatic no! In this case, private industry failed us. Just like the banking industry failed us in the housing market collapse. Just like it failed us in the 1920s because it was unregulated.
Bottom line, for me: What kind of society are we developing? One which cherishes their money above all else or one which cherishes human beings? I think it really comes down to a dichotomous argument in this case. And I’ve decided that I don’t want to live in the kind of society that conservatives wish to develop–one which turns a blind eye to preventable suffering, death, and poverty.
But as I continue to write in my columns, we have fundamental ideological disagreements. And while I can outline my argument and you may respond with yours, I don’t think that these disagreements will ever be resolved. Right now, Democrats have the power in Washington. Soon, Republicans will have the power to undo the progressive policies Democrats have implemented. I see governmental power as a pendulum. Soon, it will swing to the right and you will have your chance to implement conservative policies and see society develop as a result of them. I will be in Canada or the UK by then. 😉
Stephanie,
I don’t consider taxes to be stealing. The purpose of any government is to provide a framework with rules and avenues to allow society to develop. In order to provide that, taxes are necessary to pay for politicians, courtrooms, roads, lawyers, etc.
I used the term “stealing” very selectively because the penalty for not using socialized health care is indeed thievery. It is not a tax (because it is not a result of activity, but inactivity) and is therefore something else. I call it stealing because I do not believe it has any legal or moral merit. Obviously what I deem moral and what you deem moral are opposites; you believe it is immoral to not help the uninsured, while I believe it is immoral to rob people of their earned property and give it to others. I do, however, support taking care of those who mentally and physically incapable of finding a way to provide for themselves. There are systems already in place for this.
And again, while the ideas you have stated are not inherently bad, this bill does so much damage to our nations view of the individual and the constitution and does nothing to address the costs of health care.
“I used the term “stealing” very selectively because the penalty for not using socialized health care is indeed thievery. It is not a tax (because it is not a result of activity, but inactivity) and is therefore something else.”
Mike,
I have some great news for you! First, you can keep the private health insurance you already have! Second, the individual mandate requires a person to buy health insurance some way. If you want to purchase health insurance from a private company, that’s fine! If you want to purchase health insurance through the exchange program, that’s great too. You just have to have some sort of health insurance. Thus, this isn’t socialized medicine. Socialized medicine would be where private industry is eliminated, and the government takes over every single hospital in the United States. So that’s another great piece of news for you: It’s not socialized medicine.
Also, let me just explain another concern of yours regarding the individual mandate. The reason there has to be an individual mandate is so that everyone’s health insurance costs go down. Right now, the risk pool is full of sick people. That forces the insurance companies to pay for their medical costs, which drives everyone’s premiums up. Once the health care reform bill goes into effect and everyone starts purchasing health insurance, it will drive health insurance costs down. People like you and me–college students–are relatively healthy (excepting our livers). We don’t buy health insurance because it’s expensive and we don’t need it. We’re healthy. Once we buy health insurance and we don’t have emergency care or hospitalizations, it will drive EVERYONE’s costs down–those who currently have health insurance and those who are just buying it for the first time.
I hope that makes your day! 🙂
I hope that makes your day!
Stephanie,
The ability to keep my existing health care provider does not come as good news, because it should never even be a question in this country whether or not a private entity is allowed to provide me with health insurance. Socialized medicine would be beyond unconstitutional. Again, the concept of socialized medicine in the United States should not even be a part of your reality.
The CBO concluded that this piece of legislation will drive up the cost of premiums. But in classic, dirty political fashion, they are providing subsidies to certain qualified individuals to help reduce the costs of these premiums. People seem to forget that subsidies are real dollars, just taken from other individuals that produce and contribute to the nation’s wealth. There are plenty of studies that show when you don’t allow for variation in premiums that take into account all factors of risk, premiums rise. And by the way, the accounting done to project the cost balancing of this bill is so blatantly deceptive, that alone should cause you to question the integrity of the bill as well as the integrity of the people you are putting your faith into.
As for the individual mandate, of course it’s not going to help reduce costs. Current risk pools are not full of sick people; they’re full of whoever is approved for the insurance by the provider. Now that people can’t be denied for pre-existing conditions, providers will be forced to accept all the sick people in the country into the risk pool. The bill allows every single person in our country to pay for premium health care at sub-market prices. Current health providers will be unable to support the massively increased demand with current prices and will need to either A)ration services at current prices or B)increase prices to meet the increased demand.
It’s sort of a vicious cycle; you take tax dollars from producers because they have and the leechers need, but if the producers had more money then they could turn leechers into producers by hiring them and injecting wealth into the economy. At some point you cannot take any more money or it ruins the equilibrium of our economy as well as the general attitude of our citizens.
Finally, think of all the government projects, services, wars, etc. that have come out as efficiently as they sold it to the public, or if they came out higher or lower than the costs they claimed. Ask yourself if you think this bill is any different.
Anyway, thanks for being responsive.
Stephanie,
I applaud you for answering to the people commenting on here. This kind of discourse is great and the fact that you didn’t resort to a fictitious name is also commendable.
In regards to your question of what kind of society are we developing? -one that cherishes money or one that cherishes human beings….my response is that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Here are some questions for you: Do you have the right to spend the money I earned? Do you have the right to prohibit me from entering into a relationship with a member of my own sex?
Brian,
I think your issue with paying taxes does not rest in the act of paying taxes itself, but in where your tax money is directed. I can’t argue with you about your opinion that tax dollars should not be directed toward social programs, because I think it’s an issue of a person’s heart. Either a person is socially conscious and cares that 45,000 people die every year because they don’t have health insurance, or a person simply does not care about those things. Some Christians and most liberals like myself believe that the burden of the death, starvation, state of destitution, and suffocation of the poor due to a lack of social mobility that would result in a world without social programs is simply too great to ignore. Private industry and NPOs, while they do their best, simply don’t have the resources or manpower to affect every area of the United States. Thus, it is necessary for the government to intervene as well. I have yet to hear a conservative argument that persuades me against my opinions on this issue. I see the conservative and libertarian view as inward-thinking, and, frankly, self-absorbed. I think the conservative ideology, by placing the onus on NPOs to perform on behalf of the poor, turns a blind eye to the real problems of poverty and the increasing gap between the rich and the poor.
As far as your question regarding whether I believe I have thr right to prohibit a person from entering into a relationship with someone from the same sex: No, I do not believe I have that right. Nor do I believe the government should be able to restrict a person’s right to choose who they want to marry. I think that the government should operate under the liberal harm principle, in this case. As long as a person is not harming ANY other person in ANY way, the government should remain silent with regard to their life choices. As a Christian, I hold Biblical views with regard to sexual morality and homosexuality, but I do not see any place in scripture that tells me to legislate my moral views, or to restrict homosexuals in society. Christians are commanded to love homosexuals the way that Jesus loves them–without malice and without reservations. I don’t see how Christians can honestly love those we are commanded to love if we are consumed with an absurd fear of what their lifestyle will do to an already corrupted society.
In case this is where your question was headed: I do not see my opinion on homosexual rights as related in any way to my beliefs about fiscal policies.
Mike I have no respect for the Republican interpretation of the Constitution. Or your weird interpretation of what you think America stands for and we heard your absurd points day after day after mundane day on the tele by Republican talking heads everyone predicting doom and gloom. At this point time will tell and when you are proven wrong will you be man enough and come back to this column and apologize for your profound ignorance? I doubt it. Move on Mike or go to Mexico. Canada would laugh you out of their country as would Hawaii. They have similar healthcare as Obamacare and the majority of the folk in those countries love it. SEEYA!
Hawaii is a country?
Jason,
Nowhere did I mention the Republican party.
If you want to mention state-run health care systems as some sort of beacon of light, do me a favor and read the opinion piece by the Massachusetts treasurer in the Wall Street Journal about his own state’s system:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144372942933394.html
Jason,
There are clearly problems with this piece of legislation and even you can agree that the method in which it was past is very suspect.
If the Canadian healthcare system is so great then why did the Premier Danny Williams come here for heart surgery?
There are definitely things that could be fixed within our system, but this legislation will just be added to the list of medicare, medicaid, and social security as government programs that are unsustainable.
Stephanie,
I applaud you for answering to the people commenting on here. This kind of discourse is great and the fact that you didn’t resort to a fictitious name is also commendable.
In regards to your question of what kind of society are we developing? -one that cherishes money or one that cherishes human beings….my response is that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Here are some questions for you: Do you have the right to spend the money I earned? Do you have the right to prohibit me from entering into a relationship with a member of my own sex?
TMI Brian and is this your way of coming out of the closet? As far as taxes yes the gov’t has a right to collect your taxes and spend them as it pleases. Obama was elected by a public fully knowing what he was going to do so the majority of Americans are behind him in what he does. So you can move to the country of Mexico or the STATE of Hawaii but I doubt you’d be happy at either. And I’d bet you had better get ready for the Democratic Congress raising taxes on the wealthy for the next decade. YES! But Brian your taxes will not be raised, rather lowered. Obama has kept his promise. HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!!
If you believe government has the right to impose taxes and spend as it wishes (which it doesn’t) then would you be ok with the government only taxing the poor and minorities since they are the ones that are using the vast majority of social services?
The people are not behind Obama anymore, the RCP average has him less than 50% with an even smaller percentage supporting government in general.
You can put all your faith in the government that it knows what is best for you and can spend your money more efficiently than you can, but I believe in freedom. I believe that if you are willing to allow the government to tell you what to do with your money you must also accept government telling you what to do with your life. You are heading down a scary path my friend…one of dependence on a nebulous blob of bureaucrats.
Jason,
If you believe government has the right to impose taxes and spend as it wishes (which it doesn’t) then would you be ok with the government only taxing the poor and minorities since they are the ones that are using the vast majority of social services?
The people are not behind Obama anymore, the RCP average has him less than 50% with an even smaller percentage supporting government in general.
You can put all your faith in the government that it knows what is best for you and can spend your money more efficiently than you can, but I believe in freedom. I believe that if you are willing to allow the government to tell you what to do with your money you must also accept government telling you what to do with your life. You are heading down a scary path my friend…one of dependence on a nebulous blob of bureaucrats.
Stephanie, The health care bill is helping to rip apart the United States and it’s ideals. The government is becoming socialist as about 1/5 of the United States economy has just been turned over to the government. The quality of health care will become even worse as good doctors decide to leave practice and future doctors turn to other careers. Rationing will aslo occur. Also, the bill will still leave millions of people without health care. By 2019, 9 years after the bill was signed, there will be roughly 22 million people still without health care according to the CBO. Thanks for all the change Obama.
No I wouldn’t Brian because that is what the Republican gov’t does is tax the poor and middle class. Obama cut taxes for the middle class, Bush and the Republicans cut taxes for the wealthy with absolutely no imperical evidence it stimulates the economy at all! In fact all the rich did with that stupid Bush tax cut was send it to tax havens so they wouldn’t have to pay taxes on it depriving the rest of America of its benefit. Its just the rich looking out for the rich and to hell with the poor and middle class. So Republicans have done absolutely nothing for regular America but destroy the economy with their silly ideology of trickledown economics. Reagan suffered the effects of demential LONG before he lost the ability to govern the last couple years of his presidency.
Jason,
Once again you fail to understand facts. The Bush tax cuts applied to everyone who paid taxes. Did the rich benefit more than people at the bottom of the tax brackets…..yes, bc the rich pay a lot more while the bottom pays practically nothing.
“the rich did with that stupid Bush tax cut was send it to tax havens so they wouldn’t have to pay taxes on it”
-So the rich took the money they did not have to pay in taxes and move it off shore so they wouldn’t have to pay taxes on it? That sounds moronic even for you.
Jason don’t you see that my issue is that I don’t want the government taking from me what I earned and giving it to people that didn’t earn it. That violates my freedom just as much as the government would be if it forced you to participate at a Christian church once a week bc its the “right thing to do.”
Brian,
I know it’s kind of humorous to engage Jason in a point-for-point debate, but believe me you are wasting your time. In fact, I’m not even sure he’s an actual human being but really more like a state of mind. Actually, he’s kind of like Agent Smith from the Matrix.
Mike,
Why do we have to dehumanize others because of their views? I definitely don’t agree with Jason’s comment against Brian above, but I think perpetuating the attacks and dehumanizing people doesn’t lessen the increasing enmity between those of differing political parties. I think this enmity is a greater threat to ruin this country than socialized medicine or billion dollar social programs ever would be–because it’s not policy, it’s cultural. Once hatred for others and fear of others’ views based on political affiliation pervades culture, it can’t be undone like a reversal of policy due to shifts in political power.
I think that I should clear up that I was referring to Jason’s comment, “TMI Brian and is this your way of coming out of the closet?” when I wrote that I disagreed with him. I do agree with his statements about the recent history of American fiscal policies and the treatment of the poor as a result of conservative fiscal policies.