7 responses to “Obama and Legislating Morality in Health Care”

1. 

   yoyo

   August 25, 2009

   Selwyn, i think you have set up a whole passel of strawmwne here but let’s take a simple biblical moral. The sins of the father shpuld not be visitied on the son. By my reading, just because the parents are indigent or between jobs or disciminated against based on “pre exisitng conditions” the child should not die because they have an untreated infected tooth or a chronic asthma condition etc. The “morality” of healthcare is similar to jesus’ saying “what you do to my smallest member you do to me”. No matter how you skate around it, it is immoral in the broadest term of the word for a rich country to allow children to die for lack of care. Big government, small government or government made of balloons, there has to be a way to reduce the number of people dying from preventable illnesses due to lack of insurance.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Walt

   August 25, 2009

   Agreed…to a point. Even the death of one child is not an acceptable statistic. The quandary is why would one die. You and BHO say lack of insurance. Such blame is the perfect means to their ends. However, even in the hospital Michelle Obama had rule, their horrid record of patient dumping was not of children. Hospitals do not turn away sick children, admittedly they do not give an MRI to everyone with a sniffle and might miss a case of TB, but I do not see how Obamacare could make an improvement. To the contrary, government intervention and take overs have never been successful.
   Question-Why is the cost of care so high?
   Answer- Primarily due to the cost of defensive medicine. Secondly, America bears the brunt of the cost of technological advancement in care and pharma.
   Question-Why don’t some people have insurance.
   Answer-1) Young people choose to take the risk (bullet proof). 2) Confused priorities. Many people justify new cars, multiple TVs, monthly cable expense, boats and vacations amongst other luxuries, as well as classic avoidance towards vice such as alcohol, tobacco, and drug use. Additionally, people spend way too much money eating out and eating ready to eat meals from the store. 3) Financial ruin, some people lack coverage due to hardship. These people don’t go without treatment in America but they do go deep into a hole. Many low/no cost clinics have been established to aid these folks. I suppose I wouldn’t mind a government run Cobra type (temporary or bridge insurance) insurance on these folks. However, drug, alcohol and tobacco testing is a must. Additionally, strict wellness and nutritional requirements should be mandatory. Anyone taking government insurance should not be allowed certain luxuries such as cable TV. Any program like this should be not so fun to be on, but the Constitution does not guarantee fun. Anytime the government gives you something, expect to loose freedom.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   yoyo

   August 25, 2009

   I am biased by coming from a country with universal and generally first class healthcare. I pay 1% of my taxable income as a contribution. Yes the cost of healthcare is increasing due to a number of factors, primarily the aging of the population and the increased number of interventions we can and do perform. I know that in most western countries fully 70% of your lifetime health care cost is spent on your last year of life be that at age 40 with a terminal cancer or 90 with the range of conditions most old people have. I admit I dont understand all the complexities of your system but there appear to be two real problems with it. 1.Pre-existing conditions, so many people i have spoken to or read accounts from cannot get coverage (if they loose it for any reason) and therefore cannot get treatment for chronic conditions. This includes children. Secondly, you worry about defensive medicine, I worry about where the $ are coming from to pay the layers of fund managers, salespeople, claims arbiters, lawyers and shareholders in a for profit health insurance company.
   Finally, the comment about america bearing the cost of pharma and tech development is a furphy and one i keep hearing from the right. Even leaving aside that the majority of pharmalogical companies are multinationals, the eurpoean based drug companies develop just as many for market innovations in healthcare, slightly more if you divide it by population. drug companies are not in it for the sake of society they are businesses, that’s why most of the drugs indevelopment are minor tweaks on pre-existing drugs for conditions with large markets eg:non-steroidal anti inflamatories, ulcer medications etc and why there is virtually no development of new anti malerials.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Walt

   August 26, 2009

   Yoyo,
   I assure you if this plan goes into effect the cost to the average person will be far more than 1% of taxable income. The point in my post, which I think you got was that there are so many obvious areas to reform that have been avoided at all costs by those in power. They have become addicted to the lobby money.
   As far as big pharma. I really have to bite my lip defending those guys but in America there are laws that allow a newly discovered drug to remain proprietary for a time as to allow a company to recover its research and development costs. Eventually most meds go generic and the costs drop exponentially. This window of non-competition and the profits that are made in that time is what drives innovation. Without that dynamic the world would probably be in debate over which type of leech is best for blood letting. I think there is certainly a problem with the doctor/pharma/insurance company relationship. Pharma, pays off doc to prescribe his meds and Mr. Insurance Company pays the ransom. I know it is not in vogue to defend the insurance companies, but I could give a rip. The problem is not about them. They are in competition with many other companies and this competition rules the profit/loss. They take a risk based upon historical data, for a price, and make a profit or loss. They are much regulated like insurance in any industry. I know Hillary and her band of merry dim wits would like the dull knives of this country to believe it is all about insurance companies because they are an easy target and because they are usually the ones in the crosshairs of the trial lawyers (which she has taken much money from) but the problem is not theirs for the most part.
   It looks for now this bill is struggling (yippee), but as it goes protean and new propaganda strategies are formed to manipulate the laggard, we must not loose sight of the truth behind the matter. In the best case this proposed program is unaffordable and strips freedom from the people. In the worst case we are bankrupt and a tyrant lords our lives.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Adrienne

   August 27, 2009

   Great synopsis Walt…. You have summed it up perfectly.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Sel Nguyen Duc

   September 7, 2009

   The right wing opposing single payer health care is simply an extension of their basic Nazi survival of the fittest ethic. Nothing more – Nothing less – The rest is public relations and salesmanship.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   buy soma online

   October 5, 2009

   As the past years of Health Care system in our country continuously burning down to a level of being a wealth care system and our president is trying his best to change this rule of health care system.

   LikeLike

   Reply