So Bill can have a Seizure: Healthcare Bill Summary

[Bill Glasheen]

Interesting thread. Truthfully, I don't think many people really understand this new health insurance and/or how we are going to be affected by the changes.

Word. And that explains why the polls can be so fickle on the subject.

but, I do understand that Bill feels we shouldn't have to buy insurance and cited auto insurance as an example of a good law. . . "you don't drive - you don't need insurance".

Well - If he got his way, does this mean "you don't plan to get hospital/doctor care, you don't need insurance"?

While I realize one's thoughts can get tripped up here, it's a bit simpler than you're making it out to be.

The federal government can force citizens to buy some kinds of insurance because of its power to regulate interstate commerce. Buy a car? You're involved in interstate commerce. Don't buy a car? You're not.

Buy health insurance? You're involved in interstate commerce. Just being alive? That's not interstate commerce. So while a Nanny Government can have good intentions when it forces everyone to pony up and buy health insurance, it has overreached its constitutional authority.

Meanwhile... Believe it or not, a good chunk of the population that HAS insurance (around 20 percent) doesn't use any health services in a year. There was a time in my life where I was young, healthy, and working as a dishwasher at Howard Johnson's. As long as I didn't do anything stupid, I didn't need to see a doctor or go to a hospital. Was it a risk? Sure. Was it a gamble worth taking? You be the judge. But FWIW, all First Americans and early settlers managed to carry on without either insurance or modern medicine. Some folks died, but... a nation was built. Fast forward to the 1970s... I couldn't afford insurance then and wasn't offered it. So I was happy to get my meals at Hojos and live an otherwise uncomplicated life. That was for about 3 months. It kept me alive until I got a job as a chemist. Then I got health insurance as a benefit, and purchased a motorcycle. Yeehaw!!

Hmmm, but it doesn't work that way! Whether you have insurance or not, right now you get medical care. . . and those of us who have insurance end up paying for those who can't or won't buy insurance.

Not true.

A couple of times I did go see a doctor. And I paid for it by myself.

A friend of mine has a nasty chronic illness, and had no health insurance for a year. She hasn't declared medical bankruptcy yet. And out of charity, I've paid a few of her bills. She in turn does some chores for me when she can. It works... And nobody who doesn't want to needs to pay her bills.

Some people DO declare bankruptcy and/or walk away from debt. And WE ALL pay for the cost of ALL their unpaid bills. Medical bills, mortgages, credit card bills, furniture stores, etc., etc.

Here's a good one. An illegal alien can walk into any ER and get medical care for free. Do we want that? As distasteful as that sounds, the answer is yes. These folks can carry diseases which can dramatically affect public health. It's best to bite the bullet and pay. And we do. Today. And tomorrow. Look ma - no insurance mandate!

I don't see any big changes in the way the system works. But I bet many of us will be paying a lot more for their coverage and those companies/individuals who don't wish to or can't buy insurance will still get taken care of.

One thing is certain - your health care premiums WILL go up. Don't listen to the propaganda. A simple rule of life is that you don't get something for nothing.

• With the government picking up the tab for health insurance for the 30 percent who don't have it and/or don't want it and otherwise can't afford it, that's money out of your pocket.
• Then when these people get inexpensive-to-free access to quality care, utilization will skyrocket. Premiums for these folks WILL go up. And your taxes WILL go up.
• When people who otherwise didn't have care start bitching about the need for care for a rare and/or expensive illness, then there will be more government mandates. Government can't help itself here. And that means... MORE taxes down the road.
• Same thing for when a new (but expensive) therapy comes on the market to treat a previously untreatable illness. (Example would be $3K a month drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis.) More health care need due to supply-induced demand. More taxes.

Several government health care systems (Medicare and Medicaid) are already heading to bankruptcy status. The only way to fix that is with more government revenue. Or... We can decide that you don't get Medicare at 65 any more if you are able-bodied - even though you've already paid for it fair and square with a lifetime of work taxes. Suks... But we can't get enough of that good medical care for granny, and so we're all gonna pay. And when the boomers retire in numbers, the workers will be paying BIG!

At the end of the day, there is no free lunch. So what rules will you operate by? What disincentives will there be to keep the unproductive from leeching off the productive?

What is the role of The Constitution in deciding what's to be done? A principled approach often works best. Our Founding Fathers (and mothers) weren't as stupid as they looked.

- Bill

[IJ]

Justin:

1) Who can't give up a kid for adoption?
2) Why does it matter whether the fetus can survive on its own or not? Some kids can live on their own at 13-14 or a lot younger throughout the world... but we have to take care of them till they're 18 or emancipated just the same. Why would the lease on a uterus depend on this issue?
3) WRT plastic surgery, because that's not what insurance or taxes is for. You want to have a right to plastic surgery? Then by all means, invest in insurance that covers it, and you can wager that with costs in the many thousands, and utilization sure to shoot up, that such insurance would cost you many many tens of thousands extra over a lifetime. Go buy that; don't you ever ask me to pay for your vanity.
4) You've recognized that people form powerful attachments to fetuses, which was my point. There may be an occasional person who is a bit happy when they miscarry because they didn't want the child, but there is something else worth pointing out about those people: they horrify or at least disturb many of the people around them. Generally, this is recognized as mixed news at best even when we're sympathetic to the situation.
5) Did you just say that a fetus doesn't have moral standing. Huh? It's not entirely up to you. We're agreed that the meaning of a fetus changes over time to the point hat at birth, we all recognize it's a full human life (even then I'd grieve a 5 year old more than a newborn, due to all the shared memories, hopes and plans that had accrued since birth, also the personality that had developed). Some at least SAY it's a full life from conception (few if any act like it). But of course there is moral standing there. From full backwards, you know there is no clear dividing line, and so you can't say they've reached a point of zero moral standing.

It's worth pointing out that weeks 3-8 involve the formation of organs, and from then on things just grow. That's all that babies do once they're born, too... grow and refine structures that already exist. If you wanted we could use the development of neural function. But there needs to be something that pushes the timing of abortion as far back as possible and more importantly limits the total amount as much as possible.

Want to continue a civil discussion on Tough Issues or in a new thread?

[Valkenar]

Want to continue a civil discussion on Tough Issues or in a new thread?

Sure.

Tough Issues could use the action, but conversely it is also a bit of a private discussion booth at this point. If you haven't beaten me to the punch I'll start a thread here or there in a little bit.

[mhosea]

Tough Issues could use the action, but conversely it is also a bit of a private discussion booth at this point.

It's only private because I was viscerally repulsed, then I realized that you didn't have any moral standing as a human and so weren't worth talking to, so I felt better.

[Bill Glasheen]

I don't mind seeing the discussion continue here. But it's up to you folks.

I'd have to bow out and play moderator. That's easy enough to do. All views seem well represented.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

It's only private because I was viscerally repulsed, then I realized that you didn't have any moral standing as a human and so weren't worth talking to, so I felt better.

Well I was talking about the inactivity of the Tough Issues forum, not the lack of input from other people on this thread. There are many things I considered saying in response to this, but I think I'll just let your vitriol speak for itself.

Anyway, I think this particular tangent is too distracting to an otherwise quality thread about healthcare reform. Yesterday I was a bit busy, but maybe I'll get around to starting a new one today.

[Bill Glasheen]

The comment was a bit over the top, Mike. However your good reputation precedes you. We'll chalk it up to being human. God do *I* know what that's like...

I'm confident that Mike, Justin, and Ian can carry on a perfectly informative thread.

To be honest, it's my friend Ian who has surprised me the most. Learn something new every day. I just never knew about the contents in this corner of his brain. But the fact that he doesn't wear it on his sleeve speaks volumes.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

WRT plastic surgery, because that's not what insurance or taxes is for. You want to have a right to plastic surgery? Then by all means, invest in insurance that covers it, and you can wager that with costs in the many thousands, and utilization sure to shoot up, that such insurance would cost you many many tens of thousands extra over a lifetime. Go buy that; don't you ever ask me to pay for your vanity.

Let me ask you something: Do you think general psychological counseling should be covered? That is, should we pay for counseling for emotional issues that do not involve a clinical diagnosis of abnormal pathology or medication?

If you do, my argument is that MAYBE there are cases in which you can get the same level of improvement in quality of life by providing plastic surgeries, and at a lower cost than the counseling. While I totally agree that subsidizing what looks like pure vanity is incredibly distasteful, I wonder whether I really want to cut off my nose to spite my face? If my wall gets a hole in it, I will probably spackle over it rather than redo the whole room. Is it impossible that spackling over someone's neurosis-inducing nose will be a more effective, cheaper, treatment than trying to get them to stop being so vain?

Also I went ahead and started a new thread on the abortion stuff.

[mhosea]

The comment was a bit over the top, Mike. However your good reputation precedes you. We'll chalk it up to being human. God do *I* know what that's like...

Apparently my reputation wasn't quite sufficient! Wasn't it you who brought up Swift earlier? Can't remember. Anyway, it was satire. I obviously don't believe that, nor do I believe for a moment that a fetus doesn't have moral standing as a human. My point was that this notion of deciding whether a human has "moral standing" is a very dangerous place to be. You don't want to convince people that they can make such determinations. It's been the basis of genocide, for Pete's sake! The only safe place to play intellectually is giving the benefit of the doubt on that score and making some other argument, like a conflict of rights argument. I sort of understand that.

Now having said that, I do think there is a rational basis for musing about a line between "tissue" and "person". Although the RCC affirms that human life should be defended from conception to natural death, a zygote sure seems, well, like a single cell, and nature seems to allow a relatively large percentage of failures at this stage. If you pressed me to say where I'd draw the metaphysical line, I guess it would be when there are functioning neurons in a central nervous system. Not sure when that happens, but I don't think it's very far along. It's not really important what I think about that, just saying that I'm not an extremist who is unable to discuss such issues.