Wednesday, September 9, 2009

More Speeches?

First kids in school. Now grownups eating dinner. Thankfully I had class tonight so I was only able to catch the end of the President’s speech. I did hear him say something though that really confused me though. He said that in order to keep things fair, if someone was able to afford insurance he would be obligated BY LAW to purchase a plan. He said that this was because otherwise it would make us all suffer because we would then have to cover his emergency room bills. That is absurd. It is like scratching your right ear with your left hand.

The correct way to deal with the problem the President mentioned is not by forcing all to purchase insurance; it is by removing the emergency room laws that require all emergency rooms to be open to all. These rules end up costing the hospitals and us millions of dollars a year, and do play a big part in the high costs of healthcare today. So if the President is concerned about the high costs of the emergency room, why not remove those laws? Why address it by forcing others to spend money? Those people might never even go to the E.R., but now they would have to spend money on insurance anyway. The problem would be solved by removing the E.R. laws just the same, without forcing people to spend money.

He also made a point to mention that there would be stricter rules forcing companies to provide health insurance for their employees. He said that those companies who did not would have an unfair advantage over those who do. I ask how? By making their company less desirable to work for? Obviously he means by saving on the extra cost of providing coverage for their employees. This would of course mean that they would have more money to spend which could lead to more people hired. Something you would think the President would want to see with the unemployment number where it is now.

I addressed this a few months ago. I said that if people, who otherwise did not want to, would be forced to buy insurance they will for sure go for the public option as it will be cheaper. This will force more people into the system and hence make the segue into a single-payer system easier. Same thing with the companies that did not plan on providing the coverage. If they are forced to, they would go for the cheapest thing they can, the public option. Ironically, the President cited the creation of a public option as a proof that the government is not really trying to take over the system. I would love for him to try to explain that one. Uh uh uh uh uh.

This is just another example of a government that has become so large and overpowering. If George Washington would see this government he would be very confused. Abraham Lincoln would be in shock. Americans being obligated by law to purchase health insurance? Obama compared it to the requirement to have auto insurance. Not a good comparison though, because the requirement of the auto insurance is that it covers the party you damaged. The comparison he could have made would be obligating all to purchase home owners insurance. That would not have worked though, as it is not (and rightfully so) the case.

Each time the President speaks about healthcare the polls turn more against him. It is clear why. The more he says, the more people realize that they do not want this. That while our system may not be perfect, no system is, and at least ours is the best.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "I prefer a thief to a Congressman. A thief will take your money and be on his way, but a Congressman will stand there and bore you with the reasons why he took it." -Dr. Williams

PTP: Why would Obama want to be able to control the internet? Could it have anything to do with how well the citizens in Iran used it while their government was making some changes that they did not like?


  1. I'm pretty sure the current plan that talks about health insurance being required by law also does away with a "public" option and rather makes a number of other changes making private insurance affordable and less evil (dropping me because I got sick)

  2. As far as I know, they are not able to drop you because you got sick, unless it was in connection with a condition you had when you signed up, but kept it hidden from them.
    But regardless, the fact that it includes an obligation to purchase insurance is enough to make it something we can not accept.

  3. They somehow connected it to being caused by an ailment I had when I was younger so they would not cover the care.

    The ideas being tossed are not perfect, but nothing will be. But it does need to be better than it is now, even Republicans do acknowledge that.

    When people talk about corrupted medicare, if you speak to people in the field it is the for profit companies that are the abusers and corupters, not the government. There are 5 for profit ambulance services in the city I live in. Each and every one of them has rules saying certain instruments must be written on the run report as being used even if they weren't so they can get additional money from the government.

    Conservatives talk about big government and how bad they are, but it's usually big business who is trying to take advantage of the government and the people.

    Now I am no socialist, but there does need to be a balance between socialist and free market ideas in play. I don't like the idea of huge government telling me how to live my life, but I do think Government plays a big role in keeping a large community of people living and working with each other in a civilized way.

    - Religion does it with fear
    - Government does it with rules and laws, and unfortunately at times with fear.

    One of those do not exclude large parts of the community and should be the ruling force when it comes to the community. If you accept religion telling you how to live your life, whats wrong with a group of representatives selected by us and open to our ideas making laws and guidlines to help the community live together?

  4. An ambulance company has the right to provide their care however they choose. If however they are taking steps to get extra money for providing less care, then they should be repremanded.
    And as you said no system is perfect, but so far ours is the best, and I would hope it stays that way.

    And what you describe about letting the people we elect make laws about our communities, that is exactly what we have. However, that should only be limited to things that have to do with the community as a whole, and protecting peoples' natural rights. What I have been talking about is that the rules they have been making have been overstepping those boundaries and entering into controling our private lives.

    And in regards to comparing it to religion, there is nothing to talk about. Someone's religion is a private thing. It is not something established by an elected body that imposes rules on people that do not wish to abide. (Unless you are living in a religion controlled country, but that is not where we live. Thank G-d.)