Health Care Reform Yes or No?
Real Estate Investor · brighton, MI · Member since 2009 · 56 posts · 12 votes
Should we refom health care? Do we leave thing the way they are? Do we pay $800 co-pay per month and then bail out banks? Are we listening to our president or do we disagree just to disagree? Please share how you feel.
"...When there was a fire, all private insurance companies would send their fire crews to see if it was their customer and those that were other companies fire crews would have to get out of the way of the company who was the fire crew for that customer..."
Well, thanks for the history lesson. Actually, in some towns if you hadn't paid a seperate "fire tax" they wouldn't show up at all. In any event, you can continue to hold on to your ideological trappings while the system burns (sorry, couldn't help myself) or, you can join the rest of the civilized world in the 21st century in acknowledging that government involvment is REQUIRED in making health care benefits available to most of us. The notion that you can leave the care of the sick in the hands of for profit health care insurance companies is just, well, nuts. It's a bit like the Medieval notion that the world was flat. You can say it, you can believe it, you can pray that it is so, but the Earth will still NOT be flat.
I confess, I like most services I get from my government. They're not perfect, but who is? I took a shower this morning and made my coffee with water treated by the government and piped to my front door. I didn't worry about drinking it either. I flushed the toilet and they are processing that, as we work. Here in Chicago where I live, if I get sick the city will send an ambulance and EMT's to take me to the hospital (and they have). If the house is on fire, they'll send firefighters. If one of our local freaks tries to break in, the police will come and not inquire as to my home owner's insurance. At the federal level, our soldiers, sailors and Marines are protecting me and, I think, do a pretty good job for a bunch of federal employees. I know most conservatives might think they'd be better off with a .45 and a posse, but I like the military.
So, do nothing, hold on to your values. It won't belong before the system totally implodes. Then the politicians of both parties can all look around and wonder what happened. Naturally, one will blame the other, but there'll be plenty of blame to go around. In the meantime, they'll continue to enjoy tax payer funded government health care. Why America is afraid of tackling this issue is both sad and disconcerting. But, in the near term this will all come home to roost.
While you're on that, consider the book of Matthew Chapter 10 verse 14, "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." So not only don't help them, but remove every dust of them from yourself and leave them.
Just to chime in here for a sec. , according to Scripture ( since this is where some of this conversation has landed) the woman you use in your example should be helped. But nowhere in Scripture was anyone helped financially or through miracles where they were not also exposed to the Scripture and its principles.
There are verses, and chapters even, of Scripture that would support Jawsettes stance. However, regardless of whether she should be helped or not if it is done for the wrong reasons it may as well not be done.
As far as places in the Scripture where Jesus refused to help anyone, there is only one that comes to mind. It was conditional ( as all of His miracles were) on the woman showing faith. That is in Matt: 15:21-28.
As for the full answer to that question, it was hit upon in an earlier post. According to 2 Tim 3:16, all of Scripture is inspired by God. According to John 1: 1-5 & 14, Jesus and God are one in the same. Both were here at the creation of the universe. So everything the Bible says is from Jesus, including 2 Thes 3:10 where it is commanded that those that do not work do not eat.
But one of the greatest lessons taught by Jesus was through the fulfillment of the law in 2 ways. Not only had He never broken a commandment and was without sin, he fulfilled the spirit of the law. He didn't do things because He had to, but He did them in the spirit of love and charity and obedience. To do the right thing with the wrong intentions is still wrong.
This help is fine, but you will notice that the erring son had to come home, and was not given any help while still in the foreing county and still doing those foolish things.
He was not given more money to continue that which he was doing, he had to change and come home.
Jesus has always required you to come to him to recieve that which he has and is freely given to all who will accept him. And Jesus does not ever forgive anything that is not asked for. What he has is religious in nature and not financial as you can not buy it in any way.
As for the governmental side of things it is power and financial based and Jesus would never condone taking that which one person has by force and giving it to another. He did condone that person who has willingly giving it to the poor or someone else, but never condoned stealing anything from anyone that which they have.
He was not given more money to continue that which he was doing
The above statement is what you are apparently missing, since you are misquoting me so many times here recently. It is not "dont help them" it is do not help anyone who is just going to continue to do that which put them in the position to need that help
That's all I'm trying to understand...
i think we absolutely need health care reform-- or more specifically, health care insurance reform. Our system is seriously flawed, but the current health care reform bill is a joke.
What we need to do is break down the barriers that prevent a truly free market for health care insurance. Then, we need to make some elementary-leven of health insurance mandatory (like liability auto insurance). Of course, you can only do this after a truly free marketplace for health care insurance exists. That way we can get some competition going. We all know anything the government touches is not efficient.
However, I'm not for the idea that government should be COMPLETELY removed from health care. There needs to be some basic, minor level of regulation (to keep the free market machine running smoothly). That's why we have good capitalism here in America vice the bad capitalism in a country like Albania.
Kyle -
I agree with you...
And apparently so does Glenn Beck (at least he did last year):
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation
Not to mention, if Glenn Beck thinks his own private healthcare sucks -- and he's probably got the best there is -- what does that say about everyone else's healthcare?
There is a fundamentally divide in the country with regard to approaching the issue form the aspects mentioned above. It is a double edge sword. If we want to keep the technological advance that we enjoy which keep people alive longer, we need the entrepreneurship and the free market that comes with it, The flip side of it is that it comes with costs that fewer and fewer people can afford enjoying those advances.
Keeping a cancer patient alive today, can cost between $1,500-$2,500 a week for the duration of the illness. When money is a driving force for every decision, the patient's interest is not the most important part, whether it is private or government-run insurance. T
here far too many interests that are pulling in different directions. Pharmaceutical companies want more people to take more medicines, doctors want more visits and procedures, insurance companies want to pay as little as possible for those products and services. Who suffer the most? The patient.
If the government would promote healthier living. If the medical industries would work more on cure rather then "manage care", if the food industries would take the lead in producing healthier and yet tasty food, and if we all would "drop the chalupa" and have a healthier life, then we all going to win. Will it happen? I don't know. Right now I'm looking at hell and it doesn't seems to start freezing over...
I am with Glenn Beck on this one. Beck January 2008 that is :)
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation
You seemed to take such an interest in my analysis of this parable, and then when I explained it and asked you for your feedback on my question, you ignored me.
Since you clearly would have taken the opportunity to show off your vast biblical knowledge had I been wrong, and since you clearly would have argued with me had I not been right in my argument against Jawsette, I guess I can take your silence as a compliment and agreement.
Thank you.
Nah, just waiting.
I guess you need to do some serious fabricating on this one, huh?
Take your time...in the meantime, I'll just continue to take it as a compliment and agreement.
So, again, for the time being...thank you.
(and remember, you don't have to make up contrived arguments just because you feel the need to disagree with me. there's nothing wrong with me getting lucky and being right every once in a while.)
This has been a great read! Just thought I would throw in my humble opinion. The majority of this topic has nothing to do with health care reform. The arguments being made are all about who should be helped, everyone or only those who deserve it. I won't even bother stating my opinion on this because it really doesn't matter. I have one opinion on our healthcare system and I believe Jawsette said it perfectly.
[As for the governmental side of things it is power and financial based and Jesus would never condone taking that which one person has by force and giving it to another. He did condone that person who has willingly giving it to the poor or someone else, but never condoned stealing anything from anyone that which they have.]
If I want to give to everyone or only people who I think deserve it, and also the amount I give is my business, but I sure as hell don't want to be forced to give it to the gov't. In my opinion that is straight theft.
All I know is that the closer we get to gov't run healthcare the closer it will be to the healthcare I received during my time with the military, and if thats the case, many people will dye waiting in lines because there paperwork got lost for the 8th time, and I just can't see how that would be good!
"If not a liberal at 30, then a man has no heart ....
If not a conservative at 40, then a man has no mind."
I wish I could track down the author.
To me a lot of the debate on health care reform can be divide by one word RESPONSIBILITY.
I feel for those that are less fortunate either through their own decisions of because they ended up in the wrong end of the gene pool. If I choose to have those feelings result in action by reaching out to those that I meet who have a need, that is my choice. My feelings and my action however in no way require a projection of responsibility (financial or otherwise) on anyone else to help that person.
Similarly, I am responsible for my own health.
Weeding through all the rhetoric and sound bites that I hear only reinforce my opinion that the current debate is not about improving Health Care or even improving access to health care and only mildly about reducing the costs of health care. The reform measures in Congress is about redividing the dollar-denominated pie.
IMHO the first step should be going after the waste in the current system that supposedly costs Billions. After that, go after tort reform.
But, I've also heard it this way:
"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."
It's often attributed to Winston Churchill, but I think there's question he originated it.
Thanks Debbie.
It sounds like a Churchill quote. I quoted it as a coworker often stated.
If you look on BraineyQuote.com, the actor Kevin Spacey has a similar quote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4
Perhaps it was Bob Hope?
Funny how I don't hear people screaming that those things are socialized and should be done away with...
What I have failed to see in this discussion is any mention of the constitution. The responsibilities and rights that are awarded to the federal government are outlined rather specifically, and that is being trampled upon. The truth of the matter is, this nation is not a democracy but a constitutional republic. If it were a democracy, only what the majority of voters wanted would happen and there would be no need for an electoral college.
I have seen the argument a few times about other govt. agencies and how they are funded by via the fed via tax revenue. It is true that Medicaid and Medicare as well as the VA provide health benefits through this means. What is also clear is that although the quality of care via the VA is considered by most to be sufficient, the beauracracy and lengthy wait times to see anyone other than a general physician is mind blowing. As for Medicaid and Medicare, both of these systems are nearly bankrupt. When they completely go under, the financial system we have in place now will do well to survive. Alot of the reason for this is the abuses that take place by patients as well as physicians and the fear in almost every politician to bring up the need for reform. Basically, we are standing back waiting for the trainwreck to happen.
Make no mistake however, Medicaid and Medicare are socialistic systems. And they provide the evidence of where that leads. Without limiting care, raising taxes, assisting in (or forcing) the euthenasia of seniors, or actually forcing individuals to use the system as a temporary last resort (and thereby alienating voters) it is destined to fail. It has proven to us within our own borders that entitlement programs do not improve the drive and motivation of citizens, it kills it.
As for govt regulation, it is already in place. Regulations, laws and restrictions have led to many of the problems in the healthcare industry. Just as in real estate, whenever the govt takes a very active role things tumble soon thereafter. Insurance agencies claim that fraud and physician fees are what costs them the most. We know that fraud can be investigated, and it is when economically feasible. With the fees doctors/providers/hospitals charge, there is only so much that can be done and still keep the quality of physicians we have. The 2 doctors I know on a personal level both spend upwards of $32K per year in malpractice insurance. Between this cost, taxes, equipment/upkeep/maintanance, and employee costs, any doctor would have to charge very high fees just to make a modest living.
We all know that noone can be refused care. As Eddie pointed out, they already get care and we already fooot the bill for that. So the argument that this is the reason for healthcare reform is bogus. It is simply to provide more entitlement that will destroy the ingenuity and drive that built this nation to dominance in the first place.
As for the FBI, police depts, fire dept, etc. I have never seen a national fire dept. The national forest ranger service does have within itself a fire dept to fight blazes at any of the national forests, or to assist when forest fires are threatening to cause major property damage or casualties on any forest land. Police dept.s are funded by the local citizens. Every state also has a state police (highway patrol) that has jurisdiction on the roadways that encompasses the state. They are not limited to county or city boundaries as are local police. They also have some form or another of an SBI. This is the police wing of the state that gets involved in local matters only on a limited basis. These policing units are supposed to be funded by the state.
As for the FBI, they get involved when crimes either cross state lines (causing jurisdiction issues), threats of national security that exist within the borders of the nation, and in state matters upon request when the issues a local municipality are facing are beyond their capabilities to control or maintain. The national security aspect of the FBI as well as the jurisdiction during crimes that cross state lines are justified by the constitution.
When I say they are justified by the constitution, I need to clarify and state that the constitution gives those rights to the fed govt. Not that a judge interpreted it that way. The right to healthcare does not exist. It is not a right! Local police and fire dept.s are there to assist in the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The costs associated with providing protection ( police) and support (fire dept.) cannot even remotely be compared to the costs of a govt run health plan.
The less fortunate have been brought up quite a bit also. It is usually treaded on softly as to how they ended up that way. While it is true some have started off with less than others, and we all can admit that some are in that position because of choices they have made, the truth is that many would rather live 'securely' with a job or succession of jobs during their lifetime than take the risks that are needed to actually become successful.
From what I have seen, everything that has been proposed by the govt during the past 18 months (at least that long) is equivalent to a new investor coming on this board; telling us how hard it is to be a real estate investor; it didnt work for them even though they tried everything that was suggested by the ones on here with experience; so therefore, all of those who have been successful through the risks they have taken need to pay that investor that didnt succeed ( with the most successful paying the most) the average amount earned by those that are successful. This would have to be based on the word of the investor-who-couldnt, because to question what they did or did not do would not only be detrimental to their self esteem but may also be racist/sexist/cold hearted/discriminatory by other means.
Guess who can not be sued in a civil medical malpractice suit?
Now, I have nothing against the VA. In fact I think it should get better funding. Veterans are different than standard citizens and in my humble opinion, no person in the US should get better health care for free for their entire life than veterans (I would extend this to active duty, non desk jockey, law enforcement as well). When cleaning out a rental I found a letter written from a veteran to one of his buddies stateside and he wrote about his VA evaluation and what had happened to his health while in a non-combat situation. The training had trashed his joints and the close proximity to the massive war machine engines trashed his eardrums and lungs - all from an 8 year tour of duty and none of his injuries were related to combat. These guys deserve the best and frankly I have a hard time imagining the government treating us any better than those who put their lives on the line in service.