Posted by: bridget | 18 October 2007

Part II: SCHIP Expansion, HillaryCare, and Other Attempts to Undermine the Free Market

The House failed to override President Bush’s veto of the new SCHIP legislation.  Yay!

The SCHIP legislation has been promoted as something that would provide health insurance to 10 million poor children.  Anyone who opposes it is seen as a heartless child-hater.   As Harry Reid said,

“Each Republican who voted to uphold President Bush’s heartless veto should be embarrassed that he chose to stand in the way of improving the lives of millions of America’s poorest children,” Mr. Reid said.

Ashamed?  This elephant is proud of them.  Some background:

SCHIP is funded by the states and the federal government; the feds contribute at least half the cost.  It provides health insurance for children whose parents earn up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, or 150% of the state’s Medicaid income cut-off, whichever is higher.  The FPL for a family of four is $20,650/year.  Therefore, children whose parents earn up to about $40k/year are eligible for subsidised health insurance.   The funding for this original programme ended on 01 October.

I. Proposed Expansion

Apparently, this benefit was not generous enough.  John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe wanted to expand the programme to cover all children whose parents earn up to 300% of the FPL (or about $62,000/year for a family of four). (The $83,000/year element, for readers who have heard about it, is addressed below.)  The median income in America is $48,000/year (here); $62,00/year marks the top 38% of earners.  It would also cover mental health and dental care, pregnant women, and the children of documented immigrants.  (See, here.) 

II.  Policy Concerns:

This legislation is problematic for several reasons:

  1. The Democrats proposed to pay the $50 billion cost through an increase in cigarette taxes or by decreasing reimbursements paid into Medicare Advantage plans.  If taxes on cigarettes increase, people will smoke less, and revenue will go down: the tax becomes its own variable when calculating revenue.  Second, removing money from Medicare isn’t necessarily the greatest of ideas, either.  Somehow, though, no one has called out Democrats for hating on the elderly.
  2. There will be significant crowd-out.  The SCHIP expansion would cover middle-class children whose parents receive health insurance through their employers.  Although employers subsidise the plans, there is still a small cost to having a child on one (co-payments, deductibles, and premiums).  SCHIP would be cheaper, so parents would enroll their child in that instead.  This would do nothing to ensure that the poorest of children are covered but would do a good job of helping the soccer moms of the world have more latte money.
  3. Covering middle-income children will not increase the largest problem with SCHIP: 2/3ds of uninsured children are eligible for care under the old standards (here).  Instead of putting middle-class children into the programme (who presumably have more access to physicians anyway, either through out-of-pocket payments or parental health insurance), it would make sense for states to be required to enroll a certain percentage of low-income children (say, 90%) before covering middle-class children.  As children are required to be in school, by law, states could mandate that low-income children either provide proof of insurance or enroll in SCHIP. 

III. Federalist Concerns: 

President Bush stated that SCHIP would be expanded to cover families who earn up to $83,000/year.  New York sought a waiver of the 300% of FPL rule, due to its high cost of living (here).  Note that the FPL guidelines have separate levels for Alaska and Hawaii; New York could also lobby for its own guidelines.  Furthermore, only 26% of Americans earn more than $82,500/year (here).

As previously blogged, New York has extraordinarily expensive health insurance.  Our federalist system allows states to design their own regulations; presumably, they can be tailored to local conditions.  States are also “laboratories of experimentation:” that which works in one state may be emulated by others, and that which does not work can be confined to the dust bin of history (or one nutty state). 

New York’s waiver undermines the efficiency of this system.  Instead of figuring out why a family of four in NYC cannot get health insurance for less than $30,000/year (roughly ten times the cost in other states), it is seeking funding (indirectly, from other states) to offset those expenses.  In effect, NY is trying to transfer its inefficiency from itself to the rest of the country. 

Upcoming: Part III and the socialist underpinnings of the proposed expansion.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Good comments. This was the first detail I’d seen on what the program was about.

    I posted a link to your blog in another blog I frequent. See http://www.leftofohio.com/ for his comments. I will warn you, he’s as far to the left as you are to the right. I read his blog frequently to get a different viewpoint.

    Well…. maybe he’s not that far to the left….

  2. Bush’s Medicaid perscription fiasco cost at least $400 billion over 10 years (you do the legwork and check it out – I don’t help conservatives with research), and some projections have it as high as $850 billion! Talk about peace time spending!

    By the way, does that fit your definition of socialized medicine? Maybe not because ‘Dubya’ gave away the government’s money for healthcare instead of Hillary? I guess we can discuss that another time.

    We know Bush has spent more than any peacetime president and I know that must bother a clearly well informed conservative like yourself, so allow me amuse myself and lead you through some alternatives if i may…

    Ideas to Pay for th Program…

    How about we stop welfare for the rich?

    How about we stop giving tax breaks to American corporations that relocate offshore?

    How about we end this unwinnable conflict in Iraq (Can’t define it as a war because it simply does not fit the definition)?

    How about we enact a common sense trade policy that doesn’t involve getting anal raped by China and start feducing this titanic trade and budget deficit?

    As far as the income threshold is concerned, a family of four barely gets by on $40,000 per year. You parade this number as if it were the high water mark of the American dream. You and the rest of the conservatives are out of touch with middle class reality. Break $40,000 down. That is $769.00 gross per week roughly and about $615.00 take home after taxes. Lets keep figures rounded and say $2400.00 per month.

    Let’s assume only the earner has healthcare…nothing for mommy or two kiddies.

    Start deducting monthly expenses…

    House or apartment $550.00 – $850.00
    Car $275.00
    Insurance $100.00
    Utilities $200.00
    Fuel $160.00
    Groceries $600.00
    Misc. Expenses $300.00
    Retirement $200.00

    Quick addition $2385.00 per month in expenses and that’s if there is no unforeseen stuff like the dryer blew up or the transmission went in the one car we own.

    Where does healthcare for children fit into these numbers exactly?

    Enough already. Coservatives are simply pro corporation and they do not want anything invading for profit healthcare as it is one of the few pillars holding up this debt driven economy that will crumble if things do not change. More some other time.

    Bush doesn’t get it and neither do you evidently.

  3. Matthew,

    While I always welcome visitors to my blog, please refer to my comment policy.

    I do not tolerate mandates for me to do your research (you introduce a point, you do the research); nor do I tolerate ad hominem attacks or attacks completely unrelated to the issue.

    I will not defend, in this comment section, the policies of President Bush, the current Congress, past Congresses, or anything else. I shall restrict myself to the current SCHIP legislation. I do not think that one area of overspending justifies the same in other areas.

    Have I made myself clear?

    I will not respond to your post. I don’t respond to ridiculous personal attacks out of nowhere.

  4. You’re lecturing me on ‘appropriate comment protocol’? By slapping the label “HillaryCare” in your post title, I believe you politicized and attacked her – therefore I defend.

    Your position is contradictory because the facts unfortunately do not fit neatly into your argument regarding SCHIP.

    If your desire is to avoid political mugslinging, don’t throw the first glob. By using the Republican Presidential candidate constructed ‘HillaryCare’ tagline in your title, you have forfeited any right you claim to intellectual debate based solely on the issue. You can’t pretend to be a scholar – I can see through it.

    You won’t respond to my comments because my facts are correct and you know in your heart…you can’t.

    Good day.

  5. Not sure why don’t want children to have health insurance….

    Yes almost all government programs have problems but would think the ends maybe justifies the means in this case? Worried about the $50 Billion? That is only like 7 days of spending in Iraq. We could borrow it from China like we did for the war. At least the Democrats what to pay as we go.

    If we wait for the free market to insure our children we will wait a long time.

    You have to understand even people with insurance go into financial ruin when bad things like cancer happen. Most middle class people just can’t cover all their medical insurance needs.

    Lets make government do what is is supposed to do and help people and leave politics out of it.

    But what do I know? Just another person without health care…

  6. Lets make government do what is is supposed to do and help people and leave politics out of it. That’s contradictory isn’t it. SCHIP money in RI actually covers a number of adults. That’s wrong ! Subsidizing the lack of priorities for the middle class was never the purpose of SCHIP. I’ll concede that SCHIP as created serves a purpose. I just can’t tolerate cowardly acts of holding children out as a reason to create socialized medicine. I think insurance companies can do the right thing in a free market economy and so can’t consumers. The insurance most people carry is the type that is useless. Let me explain. Most models are meant for standard care. It isn’t insurance against the train wrecks and cancer. SCHIP was never going to improve that. BTW for all the lefties. SCHIP is still in effect as it was meant so stop playing games.

  7. “Your position is contradictory because the facts unfortunately do not fit neatly into your argument regarding SCHIP.”

    Care to state how so?

    “You can’t pretend to be a scholar – I can see through it.”

    You can pretend to not be a horses ass, but I still see the distinctive tail.

    “You won’t respond to my comments because my facts are correct and you know in your heart…you can’t.”

    Which facts exactly? Your comment contained only your statement that you disagreed with what she called the program, and that you were oh so much smarter than her. Geesh. You fight actual numbers with name calling, and then claim the moral high ground over the particular title she chose for the program.

  8. You can pretend to not be a horses ass, but I still see the distinctive tail.

    TotalTransformation,

    Dahlin, I love you. Thank you for schooling the trolls. Somehow, this week is Troll Week at H,aP.

    Trolls one and all,

    My blog, my comment policy. Don’t like it? That’s why you, too, can get your very own blog and comment away.

    My titles are meant to be amusing. I find it entirely amusing that, on my “No, it’s not your imagination” thread, I was criticised for reading too much import into a title (which, arguably, actually MEANS something – read the Torah, people), while here, the title is supposed to mean that my slew of facts, tables, and statistics are meaningless.

    I urge you to read my previous blog posting on the subject. Also, click on my Excel spreadsheet (uploaded via Word) which illustrates the massive disparities between states with regards to the cost of health care.

    In2theFray,

    I just can’t tolerate cowardly acts of holding children out as a reason to create socialized medicine.

    As usual, you say it better in a sentence than I do in a whole blog post. Thank you! :)

  9. “Dahlin, I love you. Thank you for schooling the trolls. Somehow, this week is Troll Week at H,aP.”

    I meant to congratulate you on getting your very own trolls. I sorely miss my white supremacist holocaust denier and his crazy language about the “jooos” (I assumed they were the same as the Jews) and the left-wing loon who used to rag on me for calling the sky blue- because indeed it isn’t always blue, sometimes it is gray and other times it is light blue.

  10. TotalTransformation,

    Do they sell Troll-Off? Would you like them?

  11. I doubt they would latch on to me, since I don’t do politics. But just for you I will lure them with my political blog.

    Here trolley, trolley, trolley,

    http://jjkaiser.blogspot.com

    I’ve only had one troll on my political blog thus far and he tucked tail and ran away when I posted something special just for him. And he wasn’t even really a troll, just a guy with no sense of humor or appreciation for the sophomoric.

  12. Here trolley, trolley, trolley,

    ROTFLMAO.

    No sense of humour or appreciation for the sophomoric? Sheesh… there’s too many people like that in the world.

  13. Not sure why don’t want children to have health insurance….

    Then purchase it out of your own pocket! Parents need to be responsible and stop insisting that I foot the bill for their children’s health insurance. I do not work my butt off daily so that I can pay for the health insurance for all the kids in the nation. What’s next? Global health insurance for all the kids?

  14. But what do I know? Just another person without health care…

    Believe it or not, but you can see a doctor even without health insurance. There’s this funny little thing we call currency. Give it a whirl.

  15. Tammi, I love you. :)

    Well, one caveat:

    What’s next? Global health insurance for all the kids?

    These nutjobs will take that as a suggestion. Yes, it is next. Yes, you’ll link to that comment and recall the good ole days when such was just a joke.

    I’ve been without health insurance. It was easier when I moved to a state that allowed me to purchase it for less than $300/month. I still, incidentally, went to the doctor’s office and just paid out of pocket.

    Tammi, you make a good point about working to insure your family. You contribute to the economic engine of America in exchange for security. Both win. With universal health insurance, only the leeches win. Why institute a system that penalises what we want to encourage?

  16. tt and bromo,

    I had a few when I was blogging 24 hours a day… unfortunately school got in the way. Ahh… I long for those days…

    oh, well… I’ll just blast them on everybody else’s blogs.

    You know… the problems really would be solved if we did away with health insurance altogether, got rid of inflated prices on everything, and went back to the days when people were actually responsible enough to pay for stuff. Alas, I ask the impossible.

  17. Washed and Forgiven,

    Maybe you ought to meander over to M’s site and talk to him about how Christians are nasty, violent, and short:
    http://shadowdemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/ann-coulter-proving-once-again-conservative-christians-are-racists

    …because I’m not up to the task.

  18. Hi Bridget,

    Yes, we have been without health insurance too. We happen to be blessed with relatively good health. Also, we are not the type to run to the doctor every we get the flu or a cold. No offense to those who do that, I just think it’s a waste of money.

    I just found out the other day that my health insurance will cover Tieki Rae until she reaches 25 if she’s still in school. :) That’s good news for her! Who knows, she might be swept away by Prince Charming by then? ;)

  19. If I may complain for a moment. My wifes schools drastically improve their test scores this year and as an incentive they get a $1500 bonus. However, once the federal government finished with it the bonus was worth less than $900 dollars (I am not even counting state taxes). We make less than $40,000 a year and end up paying 23% of her bonus as taxes.

  20. Boy,

    I’ve never seen so many neo-con knuckle-heads engaging in political masturbating in my life! I see the obbromophile called out the hounds once embarassed on this blog and mine. What a joke.
    That’s okay, the way things are going for the Republicans we should be rid of you mental midgets for at least four years.

  21. “I’ve never seen so many neo-con knuckle-heads engaging in political masturbating in my life!”

    Indeed, your cliche reference to knuckle dragging and your vulgar and tiredly unoriginal allusion to self-satisfaction go far toward proving your intellectual superiority.

    “I see the obbromophile called out the hounds once embarassed on this blog and mine. What a joke.”

    The only one to “embarass”[sic] themselves on this blog is you. In case you didn’t notice, you hurled insults at Bridget without bothering to frame a single argument that went beyond opinions or simple ad hominem attacks. Sheer brilliance on your part- or at least as close as we should expect from you.

    Please kindly point us to a single substantive comment on this blog that derived from your agitated keyboard.

    “That’s okay, the way things are going for the Republicans we should be rid of you mental midgets for at least four years.”

    Anyone creative enough to call others “mental midgets” is indeed an intellectual colossus. Perhaps we could arrange some kind of system where we could bow down to your greatness five times a day. Do you happen to live in the direction of Mecca?

    Also good sir, I for one am offended, since any good contemporary liberal knows that the term midget is reason enough for opprobrium. The term is “little people.” Now please kindly apologize to the height challenged.

    Bridget, I’ve had some fun with your trolls, now I am off to put together a review of Hofstadter’s _American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made it_. His cynicism and sarcasm will be either entirely refreshing or drain my infinitesimal patience for Marxist historians.

  22. […] Bridget (A.K.A. Helvidius Pachyderm). Here posts are always intelligent and well-researched, he comments witty and enjoyable, and her affect amiable yet strong-willed. She is the first name on this list because in quality her blog is tops, in quantity her posts consistent, and in personality she is exemplary of the kind of warm-hearted atheist who makes Capitalists look like a positive force in this world. And maybe it warm her atheist heart to know I hope God blessed her so abundantly she can’t help but reconsider her position on his existence. […]

  23. See, I talked about you today. Feel special! HA!

  24. My brother recently made an interesting comment.

    He says the best way to solve the health care crisis is to abolish health insurance.

    I go to a Christian Dr. who is not affiliated with any insurance company. He will file claims, but he is not anybody’s preferred provider. He has his own lab, X-ray equipment, etc. He charges about half the price of other Doctors for an office call. Lab work and X-rays are also about half.. If there is a problem X-rays still have to be sent to a radiologist.

    He accepts credit cards and checks as well as cash.

    My health care decisions are made by the Dr. and myself and I want to keep it that way.

  25. Not ignoring any commenters – just had a busy weekend and must head out of town today. Look for responses tonight.

  26. As far as the income threshold is concerned, a family of four barely gets by on $40,000 per year. You parade this number as if it were the high water mark of the American dream. You and the rest of the conservatives are out of touch with middle class reality. Break $40,000 down. That is $769.00 gross per week roughly and about $615.00 take home after taxes. Lets keep figures rounded and say $2400.00 per month.

    Sure, let’s break it down. First of all, why round downwards, especially when some months have five payday weeks? So, first of all, let’s go up to 2500.00/month.

    The average American drives 12,000 miles/year, or 1,000 miles per month. $3.00/gallon for gasoline, about 30 mpg car -> $100/month in gas.

    My car insurance is $45/month. For older people, it will be even less. I carry very high deductibles, although I drive an old car.

    So car expenses are up to $145/month. What else – repairs? $100/month in maintenance and repairs sound about right? Okay, rounding even more, we’re at $250/month.

    Food – for $600/month, what are these people buying? And why is it more important than insuring your kids? How about $400/month, which is more than enough. (FYI: I’ve lived on $20/week in food – and I don’t have the luxury of buying in bulk.)

    Utilities – cell + heat + electricity is about $100/month, maybe $150. Now, I don’t know where your $200/month comes – after all, why is cable TV more important than your kid’s health insurance?

    What are these “miscellaneous expenses,” pray tell? I don’t let $75/week go down the drain without a second thought.

    Now that I’ve found where you’ve overstated your budget by a few hundred dollars per month, can you start to see where someone could insure three kids for $60/month each with that cash? Yeah, that’s about it – $60/month to insure kids in some states. If you can’t find that money earning $40k/year, work another job.

    Note: if health insurance could be paid for out of pre-tax dollars, it would be even easier. That, however, smacks of the free market and a lack of government intervention, so the Leftists oppose it.

  27. Sunday School Teacher,

    The one caveat I will add to your proposal is this: we should have catastrophic coverage. It is extremely expensive to have doctors go through the nonsense of getting payments from insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid (note that those two alone create a tremendous amount of work for the office staff), which is why it’s cheaper for them to forgo it entirely. They don’t have to hire someone on for the sole purpose of filing forms.

    Nevertheless, there are some things Americans go through that are very, very expensive – premature birth, cancer, etc. Best way to do this would be to have everyone pay certain things out of pocket (ultrasounds, doctor’s visits, etc), cost-share in some of the more expensive things (such as getting a broken bone set), and have insurance cover the bulk of things like liver transplants. Catastrophic coverage is really, really cheap – you can get it for like $10/month and it will cover everything over $50,000/year. Other plans start around $10,000 for deductibles and cost about $20/month. It’s a great way to go, especially if hospitals were willing to work out payment plans for the first ten grand.

  28. I just found out the other day that my health insurance will cover Tieki Rae until she reaches 25 if she’s still in school. :) That’s good news for her! Who knows, she might be swept away by Prince Charming by then? ;)

    Nice! Does she have to be in school continuously? (One good reason to go straight into law or grad school. :) )

    Yeah, let’s hope she meets Prince Charming by then. After all, we can’t all meet him at age 15. ;)

  29. See, I talked about you today. Feel special! HA!

    I feel special, warm, and fuzzy. Thank you! :) ::Hugs::

  30. I’ve never seen so many neo-con knuckle-heads engaging in political masturbating in my life! I see the obbromophile called out the hounds once embarassed on this blog and mine. What a joke.
    That’s okay, the way things are going for the Republicans we should be rid of you mental midgets for at least four years.

    Dahlin, while I lack TotalTransformation’s gift for snark, I will add a few things.

    1. What the hack is an obbromophile?

    2. Embarrassed on your blog? What, when I pulled out more statistics than everyone else put together? You seem to not be able to grasp the fact that what you say is not automatically true. You are not God, who may breathe a word and have it become reality; you’re a half-rate schmuck that can’t hold his own.

    3. Masturbation? You’re just jealous because conservatives are the best at satisfying women.

  31. You are right on the cat. coverage, and as it happens I do have health insurance. Theyjust don’t like my Doctor because he won’t play ball with them.

    A couple of concerns with SCHIP.

    If this were available, would employers stop furnishing health care for dependents? What if your child developed a problem and became uninsurable, you could be prevented from getting a better job because you could not get insurance.

    On the other hand why would you want a better job, just let the government take care of you.

    What happens with people with variable incomes, if you have one good year when you income goes over the limit but it goes back down next year.

  32. SST,

    I’ve heard of the doctors who just flat-out refuse health insurance. One of my doctors did that – so instead of a $20 co-pay and insurance hassles, it was $46.

    I agree regarding crowd-out (where there is a disincentive to insure oneself and one’s children).

    Good question regarding variable income. I can imagine it would also be an issue for people on commission who are hovering right around that line. They wouldn’t know until the end of the year, by which time, in theory, there wasn’t enough money to pay for the health care.

  33. Meh.
    I love the way some of y’all are so terribly paranoid about socialised medicine – as though it were such a great evil to see that everyone gets to live without undue suffering! How very Christian of you.
    (err, those of you who actually believe. Or – erm; never mind :-)

    In any case, I’m always bemused that people are so against collectively organising for mutual health, but never consider the same principle for mutual defence, pollution control, food quality standards…
    “What’s so wrong with socialised medicine?”

  34. What’s wrong with socialised medicine?

    1. It doesn’t work.
    2. It removes existing rights: https://helvidiuspachyderm.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-loss-of-negative-rights-part-ii/
    3. It is not a proper government function, unlike military protection.

    As for #1: look at England, Canada, and the like. They ration health care. Those who can afford it go HERE to get it. Their technology is worse than ours.

    Oh, yeah, let’s add in a little tiny fact: med school costs about $70,000/year. So are you going to ask a doctor who is, after interest, almost a half-million in debt to work for the peanuts that the government currently pays for Medicare and Medicaid? All of a sudden, our doctors aren’t going to be the best and brightest in the US; they are going to be the people who can’t do anything else.

    Look at how well the government runs school systems, the DMV, and other agencies. Do you want them in charge of your health care?

    It’s not about wanting to deny people basic care. To be blunt: you’re a moron. If I were trying to deny people human dignity, I would be advocating for laws that would prevent people from accessing health care. Since I’m not doing that, we can safely assume that I want people to have health care – I just don’t think it’s my job to pay for it.

    FYI: what’s so hard about going to the hospital? We already require hospitals to give care to people in emergency situations. We already give health care to people who are old, disabled, pregnant, children, or have breast cancer.

    The people who are most likely to be uninsured are: people in their late teens and early twenties, and illegal immigrants. Frankly, I’m not sure why the government owes either party health care. Should we remove one of our greatest incentives for young people to educate and further themselves: the promise of having it better?

    As a humanitarian, I do not owe people government funding for anything. There is a fundamental difference between lack of government interference and government grants. The job of the government is to ensure that we can live together without acting like savages. It enforces the fundamental duty of non-aggression (internally, through a criminal and civil code; externally, though its military). The military and the courts of law are the primary (and, indeed, almost sole) functions of government.

    Recap: military = one part of the primary function of government. Socialism = far beyond the primary function of government, and actually reduces people’s freedoms.

    I must say, I love how socialists tell people that Christians have to believe certain things, else they are hypocrites. Where in the Bible does it say that people must vote for higher taxes for government-subsidised health care? I’m sorry, I haven’t come across that passage. (I have, however, come across quite a few which mandate that we take care of our families; that we not be debtors to our neighbours, and the like. Socialised medicine contravenes those passages… but that’s not convenient for the people who want to find God in government, now is it?)

    Apropos of that, have you ever read the Federalist, No. 51?

    If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

    I think I’m done. I’ll let TotalTransformation take over the rest. In the meantime, I suggest you click on the “health care” tab and read what I’ve written already – no desire to repeat myself.

  35. Hi Bridget,
    I don’t keep very good track of where I’ve been commenting. Oh well!

    Not sure on if Tieki Rae would have to be in school continuously or not. However, that’s the current plan. Unless, of course, a Prince Charming would mix things up a bit.

    Yes, you are right … we can’t all choose our Prince Charmings out of a high school yearbook at age 15. ;)

  36. Hi Tammi,

    Eh, happens to the best of us. No worries.

    I have more hope for Tieki Rae finding a Prince Charming if she weren’t in the northeast; heck, I have more hope for anyone. Up there, it’s manly to screw around; down in the South, real men get married and get responsible.

  37. So in effect your argument is – because the available health care is finite, and the need for it is finite (but greater than the supply), so either – some people miss out altogether, and some get great care… or everyone gets some lesser degree of care, shared around.
    Gee, I think I know which ol’ JC would go for…
    See- you’re right about one thing – I DO believe all Christians should hold some beliefs in common. Not least of which is – compassion and care for all men. Even the prostitues, the lepers, and those earning under $30,000 a year.
    So sue me – I think being Christian isn’t just about a name, or barracking for a sporting team: it’s about love for your fellow man.

    [Removed for violation of comment policy – ed]

    [Inappropriate comments removed – ed.]

  38. MordWa,

    So in effect your argument is – because the available health care is finite, and the need for it is finite (but greater than the supply), so either – some people miss out altogether, and some get great care… or everyone gets some lesser degree of care, shared around.

    Dahlin, I STRONGLY suggest that you read the link I provided. (I can tell if/when people click on links, so I’m certain you have not done so.) It explains, in much greater detail, why your assertion about my beliefs is utter b.s.

    How does “compassion” equate to universal health care? Again, read what I’ve written on the subject. Frankly, I have zero desire to repeat myself to justify my political views to an intellectually and spiritually lazy person who cannot even be bothered to be educated.

    So sue me – I think being Christian isn’t just about a name, or barracking for a sporting team: it’s about love for your fellow man.

    Colour me confused. Who calls themselves Christian but does nothing but cheer for sports teams? Frankly, I don’t know anyone who fits that description.

  39. MordWa you have a smugness that is unwarranted. First think of all the Christian founded/run healthcare facilities and that is the better example of Christians in action. I’d also argue that when humans dance around the “WWJD” tree they’re actually just justifying what the want. Think more about what Jesus DID then you can play the religion card.On the Christian bender let’s think before we type. Jesus wasn’t big on government. Socialism isn’t big on Jesus. Figure out where you stand then continue.
    I also have to say that your belief that socialized medicine works is wrong. It’s your comment though so you have the right to be wrong. If on no other level (rationing,waiting lists etc.etc.etc.) “socialized medicine” only works due to the non-socialized players providing the most drive in advances etc. It’s two edged sword.

  40. Good points, In2theFray.

    I should have mentioned that a lot of care to the indigent is given out by Christians and Christian charities. Heck, if you are poor and pregnant, the Christians are the people who will pay all of your expenses and even provide you with a place to live, if you need it.

    Yes, a lot of the technology used in socialised medicine countries comes from the US. Yes, our health care is expensive, but it’s the best in the world. We are the loss leaders for everyone else.

    Just as a data point: for every 500 drugs that a pharmaceutical company designs, only one will make it to market. Most don’t even make it to clinical trials; many that make it that far aren’t good enough or don’t pass. That is why it costs about $800 million to make a new drug. Yes, $800 million – and if only a half-million people need it every year, think of how much it costs, just to recoup development costs. That doesn’t even include distribution and manufacture – development alone is almost a billion per drug.

    So, pray tell, why socialise? The medicine that was available in 1965 was cheap, but, sadly, everyone wants 2007 medicine at 1965 prices, and thinks they have a fundamental human right to it. Not true, and, even if so, why should the government be the ones to distribute medicine?

    If you care so much about helping the poor, don’t tax me or anyone else (who can barely afford her own health care). Donate your money to charities that provide health care to indigents. As Will Rogers said, “I can remember the day when a liberal was the one generous with his own money.”

    Jesus wasn’t big on government. Socialism isn’t big on Jesus.

    YES!

  41. Hi Bridget,
    Maybe this explains why the Tiekster wants to attend law school in the south. ;)

    Oh, back to the thread … The poor that the Bible refers to are always the widows, orphans, and disabled. After reading the Bible through numerous times, I’m having difficulty recalling any verses that demand I pay for some other family’s health insurance because they choose to take on a bigger mortgage than they can afford, or else they want to drive a fancy vehicle with $500 plus payments. Oh, that’s right, parents are instructed to take care of their own families!

    Now, the left wants to kill innocent children just because they haven’t had the privilege of escaping their mothers’ womb, and they also believe it’s fine and dandy to euthanize the disabled. But all of a sudden, I’m supposed to believe they care about others? Give me a friggin break!

    90% of the people who are supported on today’s welfare system are not the poor that the Bible speaks of. The welfare system primarily is supporting the lazy, the whores, liars, and cheats. Big difference from what the Bible is talking about!

    Now, back to cheering on my sports teams … Go Colts! Go Giants! (Who both won today) :)

  42. So sue me – I think being Christian isn’t just about a name, or barracking for a sporting team: it’s about love for your fellow man.

    If I love Peyton Manning, then I’m okay, right?

  43. YAY SOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Okay, now that I’m done with my Boston love, let’s talk about the Bible.

    I read a verse (the lovely Queen of Swords sent me one of her Bibles a few weeks ago… as a side note, she addressed it to Theo “Bam Bam” Bromophile) the other day about how parents must take care of their children, and children, their parents; even widows must help their children. It is only those who have no family and no means of support who can ask their neighbours for assistance.

    The Bible very much supports the idea of the “worthy poor:” those who are impoverished because of illness or death of family members, not laziness. If one is able to work (whether or not one may find work, or earn the lifestyle he desires), then he must work and cannot ask others to support his family.

    I find the entire concept of socialism to be an exercise in ignoring reality. I’m suffering away in law school (and I suffered away in engineering school) so that I can, ideally, help provide for my family. There are kids who will need college tuition, maybe nieces and nephews who might need a hand growing up. I was up until 3 am , working like a dog, while my liberal arts friends partied away during undergrad; over summer vacations, I interned and put in long hours while they toured Europe. I didn’t do that so we could end up in the same place; I did it so I couuld have the best possible life for myself. If that incentive is gone, I can tell you that none of my engineering friends would have gone that route. We did it for the money – and that’s okay. Without “the money” or the health insurance, or the car, or the home, or the kids’ education as a motivator, what will it be? We have to allow people to have motivations for their work so that everyone ends up better off – the individual who gets a higher paycheck or benefits, and society who reaps the rewards of a hard, educated worker.

    Rant over.

  44. […] know an elephant that posts on the vileness of universal health care. This particular elephant professes to be an atheist (though I will always hold out for that to […]

  45. […] know an elephant that posts on the vileness of universal health care. This particular elephant professes to be an atheist (though I will always hold out for that to […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: