Fancy-Shmancy RNC Video Comes With a Little Truth…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864kh6hJlyg[/youtube]
Aside from having more stock photography and a fancier veneer than you’d think the RNC could muster, this video actually comes with a little truth.
Where most people take issue with the idea of health care and health insurance reform is wherever it might limit their ability to choose for themselves. Proponents of the reform are well aware of this, and have done much to try to assuage these fears. “… let’s give you choices, let’s give you options,” says Barack Obama, “That’s been my proposal.”
In reality, though, what kind of options will we be left with? The video points out that, aside from other taxes, legislators have proposed a tax on anyone who deliberately chooses not to participate – the vast majority of those uninsured millions in the US.
The reform debate is a hugely important debate whose outcome will have some major far-reaching impacts on the future of our country, which is why I say, let’s not mince words and let’s not try to fool each other. Good or bad, whatever you believe, the proposed reform may make some options more accessible to some, but it will definitely limit your freedom to choose.
Leave a Reply
Sep 30th 2009 • 14:09
by Morty
I applaud the Greekness in George Stephanopoulos for asking those tough questions to our President and for upholding the traditions of his forefathers like logic which was first given to our country by Socrates Stephanopoulos.
Sep 30th 2009 • 16:09
by craig41
can’t view the video at work, so i’ll have to come back when i get home. but aren’t we taking away that freedom in the benefit of others. since we all see increased health care costs as a result of the uninsured (even those who choose not to purchase it). limiting someone’s freedom in order to protect others is something we do in a great deal of laws already.
Oct 1st 2009 • 08:10
by MichaelR
- “but aren’t we taking away that freedom in the benefit of others.”
There’s never a benefit from the loss of personal freedom. There are lots of ways to take care of people’s needs without forcing people to contribute who don’t want to, and just about all of them would be more worthwhile than any government service.
– “since we all see increased health care costs as a result of the uninsured (even those who choose not to purchase it).”
Much, much more of that increased cost is rooted in unnecessary government involvement: http://mises.org/story/3727
– “limiting someone’s freedom in order to protect others is something we do in a great deal of laws already.”
A lot of horrible things happen all over the world every day. None of them justifies the next horrible thing.
Oct 1st 2009 • 20:10
by Richard Okelberry
So much of the health care debate seems to be focused around this idea that the uninsured cost everyone else in the form of higher medical costs. Isn’t that because hospitals are required by law to treat all emergencies regardless of a person’s ability to pay?
So I want to throw out the question just for conversation sake; should we simply stop providing this free medical service to those who refuse to obtain insurance?
So, is it unethical to simply let them die in the emergency room? I know this sounds cruel, but I want to honestly propose that removing this legal requirement for hospitals might do more to motivate people to purchase their own coverage. Before we had this requirement, such individuals would have to rely on the charity of others, hence the existence of many of our charitable hospitals most of which are run by various religions. Which is better? What are the arguments for and against? Would people actually fall through the cracks and die in emergency rooms in alarming numbers? Or would those with compassion and a charitable heart fill in those gaps without any need for government?
Oct 1st 2009 • 21:10
by Jason Williams
The problem with your suggestion, Rich, is that it implies those without insurance are without insurance because they choose not to have it.
In my “private” life outside the show, I work closely with small businesses all over northern Utah, and I can assure you, the majority of those business owners who do not provide insurance for themselves or their employees do not do so by choice, they do so because they cannot afford to do so.
So would you also support telling these business owners that they will no longer have the choice to pursue their self-employment dreams (or in the case of older individuals who still ranch or farm throughout the state) that they must give up everything they know and find a job where insurance is supplied by the employer?
I agree with Michael here, any route taken would involve the loss of choice, but that is always the case. What we should be concentrating on is the best choice. The idea that someone who has farmed their whole life should have to beg for charity, go without care overall, or give up the work they know to get insurance if they fall ill just so that we can maintain an unrealistic ideologically defined (and vague) notion of “liberty” as defined by a few is preposterous.
Oct 1st 2009 • 23:10
by Joe
it’s all a balancing act. the argument here isn’t affordability, it’s freedom. you call it vague because some people you ask cannot answer. or because everybody has a different idea of freedom.
some say it would be better freedom if health costs were zero. we would be free.
others say it would be better freedom if those who spent the time, energy, and money in education set their own price, and treated who they want to treat.
my freedom to swing my arm stops at another persons nose.
so as a doctor i’m required to help? is not helping swinging my arm?
a doctor spends a good deal of life learning. this makes doctors our slaves? they’re compelled to help us?
so what freedoms are we willing to give up? this is the balancing act. every favor the government does for us, is a freedom taken away. i don’t know how someone can dispute that. so which freedoms are disposable to us? here are some examples of lost freedom so far:
1. protecting us from rabies, the freedom to simply own a dog is affected
2. protecting wildlife, the freedom to hunt for our own meat is affected
3. protecting air and water, our freedom to create a small business is affected
4. protecting us from being poor and old at the same time, our income is affected
5. protecting us from others, our driving is affected
the list could go on
proposed protections:
1. protect us from slumlords. they will take our income
2. protect us from ourselves, and illness. they will take what?
so, you can see, not all these are bad. but they all do cost us in taxes. and take away a piece of freedom. to get these protections we have to ask:”do we want to be protected from that?” and if it’s yes “do we want to pay the price for protection?”
next question is “who is “we”" (like the double quotes?) who will carry the burden?
if you can’t tell, i’m addressing this quote specifically: “so that we can maintain an unrealistic ideologically defined (and vague) notion of “liberty” as defined by a few is preposterous.”
so… who is “we”? the nation seems to be divided consistently almost in half on all subjects. any law made has to be made responsibly, with that in mind.
you say “a few” you’re really talking about about half the country. if you were talking about only a “few” the notion of liberty would be defined. especially if you were talking to an educated few.
well, to get back on track. what i really think the argument is, is this: we (again, around half the country) are sick of “big government” telling us what to do, and how. we want liberty, liberty being: less rules. i know that’s vague to you. it’s vague to a few people. but if anyone gets specific, everyone can get specific.
so you say “what’s liberty to you?” i say, name a subject.
healthcare? liberty to me in healthcare is choice. personal choice. no government mandated anything. let a doctor choose who he wants. what he wants and for how much he wants. uninsured don’t have to beg for charity, they can to go a trusted family doctor, who knows these people, and knows they’re good for it. set up a payment plan.
emergency situation? cancer? the answer to these questions are simple ethics.
liberty where? ask what liberty is when we’re talking about animals? the government doesn’t mandate anything. i can kill what i need for my family, when they need it.
i’m afraid i’ve rattled on. and now everyone thinks i’m ignorant i’m sure because of it.
Oct 2nd 2009 • 07:10
by Richard Okelberry
@Jason Williams
Your response surprises me. If I were posed with that question about cutting people off at emergency rooms for being unwilling to pay, I likely would have responded with a fabric of society argument and illustrated that it is necessary for the government to intercede in extreme cases to reinforce the very fabric which holds our society together and allows our government to exist.
Much like our welfare system acts as an insurance policy against revolt, because those that cannot feed their children are most likely to revolt historically, we as a nation need to recognize that failing to protect people in dire need ultimately causes a huge loss of faith in the very structure of our society. Just as we would not turn the fire trucks away from the home of a person who failed to pay their property taxes, there is an underlying obligation for society to act as a safety net for even free-loaders in our medical system. While, I believe that there are serious problems which the structure of that safety net, I also believe that the underlying philosophy behind it is sound.
Your response on the other hand seems to actually incorporate one of the arguments being made by the right; that small businesses simply cannot afford to provide medical coverage to all their employees as would be mandated by the Democrat plan. Also, instead of making an argument about moral obligation, as I expected, you seem to be proposing that it is the obligation of society to protect the “dreams” of our citizens. So does everyone have this right to have their dream about self employment subsidized by everyone else? That would be a very strange argument to make.
To make the moral argument Obama has even gone so far as to misinterpret Biblical scripture when he said in a conference call with several religious organizations,
While the majority of mainstream Christian theologians will tell you that a Christian’s obligation to be their “Brother’s Keeper” and be compassionate and caring for your fellowman, does not mean that such compassion should be instituted through the government but given freely by individuals without government compulsion, Obama’s message that he sees health care as a moral obligation is clear.
Of course, this beckons another question. I have long held that as custodians of freedom and human rights, Americans have an obligation to extend those protections to others around the world as is possible. If providing health care to those who cannot afford it is a moral obligation and health care is the new civil right, do we as Americans and stewards of freedom and human rights have an obligation to use our great wealth to ensure that everyone around the entire world has access to free and equal quality health care?
What makes a poor person living in the ghetto on the South side of Chicago more deserving of health care than someone living in small tribe in the center of Africa?
Oct 2nd 2009 • 12:10
by MichaelR
Nobody has a right to health care. “Health care” is a way of describing the prescription and administration of medical services, each of which have to be performed by a person. How could anyone possibly claim the labor of another person as their right? Not only is such a claim so ludicrously self-centered as to be beyond any moral value, but there is no person with the legitimate authority to claim another person’s labor (or the fruits thereof, for that matter) as their own without consent. To suggest that health care is a right is to uphold a worldwide violation of human rights.
The whole concept behind health insurance reform is that there are people in this country who suffer from afflictions that they are too poor to pay for the high cost of treatment of, and that we aught to do something about it. With this concept I can agree. Trouble is, nobody seems to be capable of more than one empathetic feeling at once – either they’re so worried about the afflicted poor that they would openly support the idea of surrendering other people’s rights or they are so concerned with their rights that they ignore the fact that there are people out there who need help.
The question that I would ask anyone who is in support of this type of health insurance reform is this: Why, why, why is it necessary to get the federal government involved in it?
Oct 2nd 2009 • 18:10
by Tom M
Remember FDR’s proposed “Second Bill of Rights?” This is serously for real.
It all sounded just wonderful, until you realized that it really just gave govt all the rights and took all of your rights away. It simply gave govt the right to manage all of your rights and provide you with and manage everything for you, cradle to grave.
O proposes the same thing. This is also serously for real.
Oct 3rd 2009 • 13:10
by Josiah Maughan
michael. this is an answer for you.
the bill of rights are god given, and untakeawayable (inalienable) right? well, that’s just according to the constitution. robert heinlein questions “what right has a man to life, who is stranded in the sea?”
there is not “rights” except what a person can get away with. really, it’s my right to do anything i want, as long as i can deal with the consequences. so, government agreeing isn’t necessary for me to have the right to defend myself. it’s my right, because i can do it.
so, that collides with this what thomas paine wrote.
basically the idea of what government is, i’ll try to paraphrase.
lets say, a group of people land on an island, this represents any civilization starting ever. the first thing they need to think about, is survival. so they work as a group toward that, because as a group they can survive, whereas individually, they might die if even a little bad luck hits them. so they build houses, and gather food. once they can survive, they can gather excess, once they do that, they can sin (leo tolstoy, the imp and the crust. sin meaning, they can act out. so they group has to get together, and determine laws (called “rules” or anthing they want it to be called) they might meet together under a tree, or at someones house, and make up these laws. eventually, the civilization gets large enough, that not all can attend, so they just choose one person per group, to act as they would.
now there is a government.
from the basics of a government, from the beginnings of the civilization, a group of people need each other to survive. we’ve come to a time, where it’s so populous, that it’s almost like that first step. where a little misfortune can sink a ship. can bankrupt a person. so we, as a group of people are have been making laws, and helping each other for hundreds of years. we’ve come to a time where an individual can make it without a group of people, to the extent, where it’s almost the opposite. one person can do a thing and another another thing. so that some people are useless, because everything is taken care of. we’ve come to a point, that is viewable only in those very basic idea’s of civilization, and government. where we, as a group may or may not determine how to help people when it comes to medicine, and health.
so the first paragraph, about robert heinlien and this one about thomas paine collide, do you see it?
do you see why the federal government may become involved?
don’t misinterperate what i’ve typed here, it didn’t say my opinion on who should do what under our current system, it was simply to educate you to another point of view so you can understand your own argument better.
Oct 4th 2009 • 15:10
by MichaelR
I can see that, what I would like to know is why (or wether) anyone would see it as “necessary”.
Oct 4th 2009 • 20:10
by Josiah Maughan
well, to answer that simply, very simply. people have become too dependent one people other than themselves. thats why someone would.
it’s the age of the printed book for heavens sake. websites pop up everywhere. if anyone wants to know the basics, or even in depth of thermo dynamics, all the have to do is type it in. all knowledge at the fingertips. but we can’t even figure out how to pop a dislocated joint back in place, and that costs about a grand for the emergency room to do. a simple massage, and movement, costs a thousand dollars.
so, in a society, where we can know almost anything… but don’t, why wouldn’t it be necessary for someone else to take care of us?
no, i don’t know everything, but you get the point right?
well, what i want to know, is not why the federal government should step in, but why can’t a doctor set up shop, for these simple little things, and simply charge less.
diagnoses of the flu? 10 bucks.
broken toe? why xray? nothing they can do… 20 bucks
mysterious rash? well, if it’s a simple diagnoses, 10 bucks.
why not? why hasn’t capitalism taken over on this one?
Oct 5th 2009 • 13:10
by MichaelR
Because it hasn’t been allowed to, except in very limited places. Look at lasik eye surgery, for example – very little regulation, and the procedure gets safer and safer while also getting cheaper and cheaper.